For those that Ha ha'd

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you do.  You automatically assume every woman who alleges sexual assault is a liar until her story is proven in court.

When I am not sitting on a jury I try to take a neutral position.  I don't assume either party is lying until I see some evidence.  But you don't believe in that.  You believe that the accuser should be assumed to be a liar without looking at any evidence.

Now in this case we have the proven fact that she had her spokesperson lie about the coat. We also have the fact that it is absurd for her to claim she wore controversial clothes to keep people from talking about her clothes. So based on those pieces of evidence I don't believe a thing she tries to say about it now. 

Done being Big already? 

I do not assume anyone is a liar, I just give the accused the benefit of the doubt. She never said she wore the jacket to keep people from talking about what she wore; she knew haters would do that. If she had worn a dress, diamond, and pearls haters would have said what she wore was inappropriate. She simply said she wished folks would focus on what she did other that what she wore and you are exhibit A to prove her claim.