But giving your wife a couple of glasses of wine isn't quite the same as giving her a glass of wine with three half benadryl pills, which in turn isn't the same as luring teenagers into a beer-van. I can see both sides of an argument here. Sure, the fact that he did it to women with their knowledge does not necessarily mean he did it to women without their knowledge. Taken in the context of the larger allegations, I think it is important to note that he didn't testify that he hadn't given the pills to any women without their knowledge, he simply refused to cooperate when presented with that question.
But giving your wife a couple of glasses of wine isn't quite the same as giving her a glass of wine with three half benadryl pills, which in turn isn't the same as luring teenagers into a beer-van.
Which is precisely my point. Giving a consenting and willing adult drugs does not "establish a procilivity" in any meaningful way towards using drugs on unsuspecting women to take sexual advantage of them. They are not "the same."
But you're not being accused of drugging and raping several women over a period of many years. I'd argue that while in most cases, a history of giving women drugged drinks when the women are consenting and aware of the drugs is a non-issue (EDIT - or a different issue, at least), but in the context of someone accused of doing this exact thing to women that weren't aware of it...that seems like it could be a potentially compelling argument.
But giving your wife a couple of glasses of wine isn't quite the same as giving her a glass of wine with three half benadryl pills, which in turn isn't the same as luring teenagers into a beer-van. I can see both sides of an argument here. Sure, the fact that he did it to women with their knowledge does not necessarily mean he did it to women without their knowledge. Taken in the context of the larger allegations, I think it is important to note that he didn't testify that he hadn't given the pills to any women without their knowledge, he simply refused to cooperate when presented with that question.
Which is precisely my point. Giving a consenting and willing adult drugs does not "establish a procilivity" in any meaningful way towards using drugs on unsuspecting women to take sexual advantage of them. They are not "the same."
But you're not being accused of drugging and raping several women over a period of many years. I'd argue that while in most cases, a history of giving women drugged drinks when the women are consenting and aware of the drugs is a non-issue (EDIT - or a different issue, at least), but in the context of someone accused of doing this exact thing to women that weren't aware of it...that seems like it could be a potentially compelling argument.
Or so you assume... :) Although, for the record, I'm not. To the best of my knowledge.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)