Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gjolund | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

gjolund

Allegedly assaulted women.

View on HN

Can you say "allegedly" when he himself admits to it?

He didn't admit to it.

Then why hasn't he been indicted?

Well, I'm not saying this is why, but it's not like he hasn't quite visibly paid off prosecutors when charges were being considered against his organizations, so it's not implausible he'd do the same thing when he was in personal jeopardy.

Because no one has pressed charges? I don't see how that's relevant. People can be guilty of things they haven't been proven to do in a court of law. I'm not saying he should be thrown in jail without due process, I'm pointing out that he himself has admitted to committing sexual assault, so it seems wrong to have a caveat of "allegedly".

If he were guilty, and if Clinton were the champion of feminism that she says she is, then why wouldn't they press charges?

What at all does Clinton have to do with these women pressing charges or not?

As for why a woman might not press charges after a sexual assault, there are a multitude of reasons that have been discussed in plenty of related literature, I urge you to seek them out.

Hillary paints herself as the savior of all women, yet she can't convince a group of women who could literally win her the election to press charges?

Smells like bullshit to me.

You want her to insert herself into these women's personal choices? Can you imagine the outrage from the right if she tried to convince these women of anything? You're not making any sense, it just sounds like you're looking for an excuse to put down Clinton over a situation she has zero involvement in.

I don't want her to do anything.

She is already playing dirty, why stop at convincing a group of women to lie some more for the cause?

So, you're angry at her for not doing something you don't want her to do, but you feel like she would do it, even though she's not doing it. And you're throwing in random accusations of lying. You're reinforcing my thought that you are just trying to find an excuse to be angry.

I'm not angry at anything.

I have just seen what happens when unfounded claims of sexual assault get taken seriously.

Then what does Clinton have to do with that?

For one thing, statutes of limitations would be a factor in many cases.

Insofar as the offenses are criminal rather than civil then, even if they aren't barred by statute of limitations, it's not their decision but that of a public prosecutor.

And, in some cases, they can't file civil charges because they sued in the past and already reached settlements.

...well, because the statute of limitations has run out on a lot of the things we know he's done? I mean, among about a billion other reasons why women don't report sexual assault by powerful men who can ruin their lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com