WaPo reported that Racicot texted Platner that she needed a glute massage to which he understood as an invitation and replied that he would come over. She later changed her mind and told him not to come over. Politico never included this detail in their article and since they were the first to break the story, most people were not aware of this detail.
I want to know where the phone records went? Is that woman being paid? How and by whom? The timing is so coincidental. The first accuser turned out to be a Republican operative. When that didn’t work up popped this woman, with the most amazing timing. If I was a billionaire paying to undermine Platner, this is just how I’d do it. And I’d also pay an influence operation to flame anyone asking questions about her story in a public forum and accuse them of being misogynists. How are they always the top comments?
To be fair, there’s no good time to be accused of being a gross fucking rapist.
The best option is not to be a gross fucking rapist.
This is shit evidence for an accusation of that scope. Five years ago, he can’t defend himself. The text messages are gone, no security cameras. How would you like to have your life ruined on evidence like that?
Stop pushing that there is no evidence.
Because there isn’t. We’re not even getting the whole story. Well, we’re getting more of it now. The timing, the circumstance, no phone records, no one did a financial background to see if she’s being paid. The first accuser was a Republican operative. Come on, none of the weird coincidences make you question this even a little? Or maybe this is why Democrats are losers and will remain losers.
This woman doesn’t owe you any of this and you don’t know that phone records and financial backgrounds don’t exist. You’re pushing misinformation because you’re pissy that your guy got found out as a rapist and lost his chance at winning.
What do you mean there is no evidence?
First of all, this is not a criminal proceeding. There is no admissibility standard or reasonable doubt standard.
Second, based on the description of the evidence, most of it would definitely be admissible and probative. Of course, sexual violence hardly gets investigated so it’s a moot point.
In other words, you have no idea what you are taking about.
And you don’t support your argument with facts. That’s just one step below name calling. This whole thing stinks and this is exactly how the billionaires win.
What facts? That testimony corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence is admissible? I was hoping you could figure that one out completely on under your own power given the context of the discussion. But I see now that I have severely overestimated you.
And yes, that’s name calling. And you deserved it.
Just because you don’t recognize factual statements like “sexual violence hardly gets investigated” and “based on the description of evidence, most of it would be admissible and probative” doesn’t make them false.