Blow Job Bill, serial rapist, and former President says he was a victim of Monica Lewinsky and therefore does not have to apologize.

Talk about point-counterpoint. In her latest column, Ann Coulter points out that she considers Weinstein’s problems as an indication that time of the Clintons has passed. It is no longer necessary to shield Blow Job Bill, the Serial Rapist and by extension, his fellow travelers. She claims the left and feminists have protected left-wing sexual predators in the name of political expediency. 

Germaine Greer rears her ugly head to take a shot at the Weinstein accusers for making accusations that cannot be supported or after agreeing to a non-disclosure agreement.

Ann Coulter HARVEY WEINSTEIN AND THE CLINTON PROTECTION RACKET

As Bob Herbert wrote in The New York Times, the reaction of the feminists to Clinton’s predatory behavior “can most charitably be described as restrained.” (This was when the Times was still an occasionally serious newspaper.)

Not one Senate Democrat voted to remove Clinton from office for various felonies related to his sexual assaults.

The message was clear. Liberal men got a pass for any sexual misconduct, even rape. But woe be to those who accused them. (Even last year, NBC News was still following the old rule: It fired Ronan Farrow rather than publish his Weinstein expose.

Germaine-Greer-tells-Hay-literary-festival-rape-just-bad-sex

Allegations ‘wreck lives’: ‘The amount of legal muscle that will be used to defend these people is massive and I’m concerned for damage limitation rather than maximasation. ‘Rather than wrecking people’s lives, so they become career rapees.’

Non-disclosure agreements: ‘Some [alleged victims] have been paid six figure sums in the form of non-disclosure agreements. ‘That’s a dishonorable thing to accept and it’s not something you should boast about.’

#MeToo doesn’t work: ‘I don’t actually think it’s gone too far, I don’t think its got anywhere at all. ‘What we need is to sort out the law regarding rape and to sort out our concept of what it is.’

Historic allegations ‘pointless’: ‘It’s pointless now bringing up this stuff when most of it no action can be taken. ‘Why wait 20 years?’ What she would have done: ‘I wouldn’t have been sitting around being quiet and keeping a secret.’

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that a non-disclosure agreement has to be specific enough to prevent the release of the information one is trying to suppress. If it is specific enough to meet those criteria, then it would seem the Harvey Weinstein’s, his attorneys and the victim are all conspiring to cover up a felony. This is called misprision of a felony; having knowledge of a felony and failing to report it.

I don’t have a problem with specific allegations regarding the acceptance of a non-disclosure agreement or indications of “buyers remorse” but a generalized statement without a factual basis is unacceptable. It is helpful to remember that the purpose of the MSM is to sell tampons and toilet paper. In a court of law, after the evidence has been presented, testimony was taken, and a jury verdict rendered is where the truth lies.