Flacusian
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,511
- Like
- 7,688
By now I would assume that everyone on this board knows the basic facts which are available to the general public regarding the situation with Bernie. I'm surprised that this question has not been asked. "Why was no action taken by Bernie on the 2 prior occasions when he was accused by Davis." If someone were to make that type of accusation of me and it was patently false I would respond by filing suit for defamation of character and seek compensatory damages. If we assume that Bernie had no guilt whatsoever with respect to the allegations why would he not initiate litigation against the person who is attempting to slander him? Why would you allow the allegations to lie fallow with the chance of resurfacing at a later date? To me, it just stands to reason that someone would be proactive in going after someone who has made claims of some type of reprehensible and henious behavior. Letting it go unchecked creates the appearance of "letting sleeping dogs lie". This is a disturbing aspect of the case as far as I'm concerned. Making the argument that back when the allegations first surfaced Bernie perhaps didn't want anymore exposure with respect to the situation since even having the allegations out there is damaging in and of itself doesn't hold water in my opinion. It's because of this fact that I have a very uneasy feeling that the claims made by Davis contain some element of truth or there is some facet of the claims that are inherently damaging to Bernie. Ask yourself, " if someone were to accuse me of a crime that is perhaps among the most vile crimes in the perception of the general public and they were completely untrue and they could end my career, ruin my reputation for the balance of my life while also damaging the program which I have devoted most of my adult life for, would I feel compelled to go after the person or persons who made these horrific allegations?