re: #209 lawhawk

That’s true, but here we’ve got a pattern of events that are suggesting that there was a reason that the severance was as high as it was - and that more than one woman was harassed in some fashion.

If there was just a solitary accuser and a single event, I might be inclined to lean towards saying that they paid to make it go away as a nuisance fee, but with multiple incidents, and multiple accusers? That’s straining credulity.

Two isn’t a pattern, but even if it is, it might just as well be a pattern of false accusations. You don’t know anything about the accusations, or circumstances.