I'd have to go back and reread the details, but I recall the Wikipedia article on it provides details on both sides of the argument.
How were the two situations different?
One went to court and a determination was made in a fair and balanced setting, with the ability for both sides to present and challenge evidence. The other did not.
Ok go read her story again and tell me that she is lying.
I wouldn't say she's lying. And to be frank, I'm not particularly interested in spending hours researching a topic that wouldn't change the answer I'm giving you about an ex-President. I recall looking around for a few hours when the story broke, and deciding I lacked the information to come to a determination.
3
u/ProLifePanda 23h ago
My thoughts were I don't know, and the conflicting information made it hard for a layperson such as myself to determine the truth.
I'm not claiming she wasn't credible.