Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 2065 times)

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #100 on: November 13, 2017, 03:05:54 PM »
How does the interaction of influence of politics impact the credibility of claims (Roy Moore). It seems like to me it is pretty clear that he used to date teenagers while he was in his 30's*. So is everyone running out to beat him into a coma or heading out to vote for him?

*The age of consent at the time in Alabama was 16 so only one of the claims would have been criminal in the state at the time. But it is still inappropriate even if it wasn't illegal.

Luther Strange write in campaign time? This certainly makes for a closer Alabama senate race than expected.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #101 on: November 13, 2017, 03:30:07 PM »
What I've been asking myself lately is whether I should begin to wholesale refuse to watch films or TV starring people who have perpetuated a culture of sexual assault or rape in Hollywood. Take Kevin Spacey for instance. Can one realistically watch House of Cards any more and not think of what he did? I'm not quite sure how to proceed on this, especially since an ensemble show can include one bad seed but otherwise have a cast of good people. In the case of House of Cards it's more blatantly the Kevin Spacey show so that one is more clear-cut. I, for one, have always found it difficult to watch Woody Allen films for this reason; his creepiness seeps into everything he writes and I always found it strange that people didn't seem to mind. For pieces that whose content is divorced from what the artist has personally done there's more facility to forget what the person has done and enjoy the character, but I don't know if that's even a desirable goal.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #102 on: November 13, 2017, 05:09:05 PM »
Or use Uber. Or not eat Subway. Or <insert most companies here>. Or Hobby Lobby. Or use a Keurig? :)

I don't think a boycott of art or products is particularly effective statement. It doesn't really punish the actor/producer/etc very much, and there's a lot of potential collateral damage. I understand why Netflix killed production, but it left a lot of people scrambling for jobs.

I'm guessing Shakespeare probably groped a few teens in his day, but I'm still going to watch performances of Hamlet and Macbeth.

Voting/Donating to a politician is much more highly targeted. Particularly given the impact they can potentially have on society. It might affect a couple of political operatives, but most of those people just bounce to a new gig.

As to the personal taste of it, I guess that's up to the individual. If you find recent news events upsetting enough that you are unable to suspend disbelief or immerse yourself in the show, I guess you pretty much have no point in watching it.

Now what will really be interesting is if we see a CGI Kevin Spacey getting beaten to death in a coda to the show. Then you've really got a conundrum - see him get his virtual comeuppance (perhaps at the hands of a white house page?), but know that you might be directing revenue to the guys that likely knew all about his behavior.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #103 on: November 13, 2017, 05:24:24 PM »
How does the interaction of influence of politics impact the credibility of claims (Roy Moore). It seems like to me it is pretty clear that he used to date teenagers while he was in his 30's*. So is everyone running out to beat him into a coma or heading out to vote for him?

*The age of consent at the time in Alabama was 16 so only one of the claims would have been criminal in the state at the time. But it is still inappropriate even if it wasn't illegal.

Luther Strange write in campaign time? This certainly makes for a closer Alabama senate race than expected.

This is a strange and potentially alarming development in the political system. You say it's clear to you but Moore strongly denies it all in no uncertain terms. He is going to sue to the Washington Post (a very strong liberal bias there) which published these accusations just a day (maybe 2?) after endorsing Moore's opponent.  The deep state opposes Moore and both the GOP and Democrats ran candidates against Moore. The accusations allege events that occurred in the 1970's and early 80's, 35-40 years ago. There are, as far as I know right now, no recent accusations which is a stark contrast to Weinstein and all the others that have come out lately. All this dropping at a time calculated to deliver maximum impact, quite the coincidental timing. There is not any proof to support these allegations, not yet. It's he said/she said. The political elite hammering Moore supports Menendez, even testifying on his behalf and Menendez did a lot worse (underage prostitution along with all the other corruption). It's not like Moore was unheard of all the decades yet never an accusation until now (is that right? I don't follow AL politics). Until today, all of the accusations were consensual, nobody was forced to do anything they didn't want to do (contrasting to politicians like Bill Clinton, a serial rapist). Now, in another perfect timing that had to be calculated, we get someone that says Moore attempted to assault her in 1979.

Given all this, I've no idea what to think about these accusations. There is an overwhelmingly strong appearance of fake news and political hit job. Given Moore's unqualified denial and aggressive defense (again contrasting other accused), I'm inclined to say we should wait for proof of the accusation before making decisions based on them. I know, why wait for even a shred of proof, that's crazy talk in the modern political arena - it's the seriousness of the charge that counts!  In today's climate, getting these kinds of accusers to come out at the perfect time with unproven and largely unprovable accusations is becoming SOP. I don't think that's a good thing.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #104 on: November 13, 2017, 05:36:15 PM »
Quote
why wait for even a shred of proof
Do you mean a shred of evidence?  If so, that's just what the WAPO provided - statements from the 4 witnesses and corroborating evidence from roughly 25 other people.

Or were you asking for other corroborating evidence not already included in the evidence  provided by the 30 people referenced in the article?

My own position is that, in the Facebook age, there is too often a rush to condemn and shame.  That being said, disregarding the WAPO article and characterizing it as not being "even a shred of proof" is just silly.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2017, 05:47:01 PM »
TheDrake,

I'm not really suggesting a boycott, more like "should I be celebrating someone who does these things." It's not like business or even other art in that it's not just that we're witnessing something the person created, some object d'art that isn't identical with their own person. When it comes to acting and performance art what you are celebrating is the physical and mental presence of that person, not some facsimile or distanced product they contribute to. The guy in House of Cards is literally the mind and person who committed various acts. By smiling at his performance you're smiling at the man behind the performance, because that man is the entire source of the performance, not a placeholder for it. That is the entire reason that there is celebrity in the first place: those specific human beings have something about them that lets them bring life to the work, and that 'something' is the combination of all their life experiences and knowledge. The one directly fuels and supports the other. In a very strict sense I could argue that sexual assault is part of the material producing the work you see on screen, and just as I don't want to (for instance) eat meat created by torturing animals likewise I don't want to consume art created by acts of dehumanization. The analogy surely isn't direct but in any case I don't see how you can divorce the man from the work when the man IS the work.

My question on the subject is more a personal musing than a rallying cry for a boycott. It comes down to "should I really be admiring someone like this?" At the end of the day I can't help but admire great work, and although there's nothing wrong with separating what one admires about a person versus what one doesn't without shoving everything under a simplistic category, at the same time there seems to me an ick factor that I wonder if I can shake. In Woody Allen films the ick factor is so thick it's not just something to shake but tends to be the actual substance of the film, so that's a no-brainer, I avoid those. For other works I guess it would be easier to dissociate the work from the actor, but I'm still not sure whether I want to.


NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2017, 06:08:36 PM »
This is a strange and potentially alarming development in the political system. You say it's clear to you but Moore strongly denies it all in no uncertain terms. He is going to sue to the Washington Post (a very strong liberal bias there) which published these accusations just a day (maybe 2?) after endorsing Moore's opponent.  The deep state opposes Moore and both the GOP and Democrats ran candidates against Moore. The accusations allege events that occurred in the 1970's and early 80's, 35-40 years ago. There are, as far as I know right now, no recent accusations which is a stark contrast to Weinstein and all the others that have come out lately. All this dropping at a time calculated to deliver maximum impact, quite the coincidental timing. There is not any proof to support these allegations, not yet. It's he said/she said. The political elite hammering Moore supports Menendez, even testifying on his behalf and Menendez did a lot worse (underage prostitution along with all the other corruption). It's not like Moore was unheard of all the decades yet never an accusation until now (is that right? I don't follow AL politics). Until today, all of the accusations were consensual, nobody was forced to do anything they didn't want to do (contrasting to politicians like Bill Clinton, a serial rapist). Now, in another perfect timing that had to be calculated, we get someone that says Moore attempted to assault her in 1979.

Given all this, I've no idea what to think about these accusations. There is an overwhelmingly strong appearance of fake news and political hit job. Given Moore's unqualified denial and aggressive defense (again contrasting other accused), I'm inclined to say we should wait for proof of the accusation before making decisions based on them. I know, why wait for even a shred of proof, that's crazy talk in the modern political arena - it's the seriousness of the charge that counts!  In today's climate, getting these kinds of accusers to come out at the perfect time with unproven and largely unprovable accusations is becoming SOP. I don't think that's a good thing.
What you're missing regarding the timing is there's no reason to have believed before now that the accusations would do anything. Hell, even after a string of high-profile accusations being taken seriously, the accusations aren't doing much. But that people are dismissing the accusations because the victims waited too long are part of the reason why the victims didn't come forward sooner.

The simplest explanation is that they came forward now because they thought they might be believed and taken seriously. Unfortunately, large numbers of republicans apparently have more problems with democrats than with people who sexually assault 14-year-old girls. You know, the ones that say even if the accusations are true, they still believe Moore should be in the Senate.

This is almost literally live boy/dead girl in action.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2017, 06:20:38 PM »
I'm with you, fen, thanks for the explanation.

With regard to Ol Roy, and the timing of the information. WaPo almost certainly devoted their resources to their investigation because of the timing. He was newsworthy for a while, and warranted the effort. Accusers would be more likely to accuse him at this time for a few reasons. First, Weinstein et al has put encouragement at being believed at an all time high (not withstanding Moore supporters). Second, WaPo and others might use his potential Senate win to convince them now is the time to come forward.

I can't imagine that the diligence demonstrated by WaPo so far leaves this story in a position where nothing at all happened. Most of the facts can be pretty easy to check, at least circumstantially. Did he give underage girls rides in his car? These don't make him guilty of everything, but its not exactly nothing.

I would also challenge anyone defending Moore or skeptical of his accusers to ask themselves "If I just heard this information about Doug Jones, how would I be reacting?" Would the same people (Breitbart) be saying the same things? Or would Breitbart headlines lead with "Democrat revealed as serial offender"?

If this was "one person came forward, and then we had several on deep background", I might see your point Crunch. But what is your conspiracy alternative? WaPo hunted down several people who knew Moore at the time they were teengers. They convince these women to accuse Moore, though he had never done them any wrong. Is that it?

Some times things just break. Cosby wasn't politically motivated, as far as I know. Nor was Weinstein. But they broke similarly and attracted more accusers. By the way, Weinstein was deeply connected to the librul establishment, but I note it was the infamously liberal NYT that broke his story.

The question I have is - why be more willing to believe in an outlandish conspiracy than in the idea that people finally came forward, possibly people who took a lot of convincing and who wanted the strength in numbers of having others come forward with them to be believed, at a time when that accusation could prevent an alleged pedophile from taking up a position in the US government?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #108 on: November 13, 2017, 06:27:28 PM »
And then there's this:

Quote
Theresa Jones used to work as a deputy district attorney in the same courthouse as Moore, and she told CNN on Saturday that "everyone we knew thought it was weird" that Moore dated girls significantly younger than he was.
"We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall, but you really wouldn't say anything to someone like that," she added.

Now, the strongest thing in his defense would be the lack of any accusers from anyone more recent. After all, most of our understanding of such predatory behavior is that you don't normally grow out of it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #109 on: November 13, 2017, 06:32:41 PM »
Quote
The simplest explanation is that they came forward now because they thought they might be believed and taken seriously
From what I've read, this is backwards: according to the WaPo, Moore's background was being delved into specifically because he had become the Republican candidate.  During the investigation, a number of people made statements suggesting there was something potentially newsworthy to be investigated.  After further investigation, 4 women were identified as having had relationships with the then 30-odd year old Moore while they were in their teens.  The WaPo was then eventually able to convince these women to speak on the record. Also from what I've read, they needed to be convinced to go on the record.

Stating that these women "came forward", if the WaPo is to be believed, is not accurate.  Which is actually important, because there are different motivations that could be inferred in the two different narratives.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #110 on: November 13, 2017, 06:37:26 PM »
Quote
why wait for even a shred of proof
Do you mean a shred of evidence?  If so, that's just what the WAPO provided - statements from the 4 witnesses and corroborating evidence from roughly 25 other people.

Or were you asking for other corroborating evidence not already included in the evidence  provided by the 30 people referenced in the article?

My own position is that, in the Facebook age, there is too often a rush to condemn and shame.  That being said, disregarding the WAPO article and characterizing it as not being "even a shred of proof" is just silly.

Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #111 on: November 13, 2017, 06:43:57 PM »
Assuming you are using "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms, your statement still makes no sense.  Maybe you disbelieve the evidence, as is your prerogative, but your disbelief does not somehow make the evidence disappear.  Like it or not, there are at least 30 "shreds" of evidence; whether you accept their veracity is another question.

Now, if you meant "proof" to mean, "proven" then using the term "not a shred of" is also silly - something is either proven, or not; one doesn't say there isn't a shred of "proveness"

At any rate, I don't see anyone here claiming that his alleged actions have been proven.  But speculating on the evidence and what it means does not somehow equate to having proved his guilt, nor even to "condemning the guy".
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 06:46:24 PM by DonaldD »

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #112 on: November 13, 2017, 08:44:35 PM »
And then there's this:

Quote
Theresa Jones used to work as a deputy district attorney in the same courthouse as Moore, and she told CNN on Saturday that "everyone we knew thought it was weird" that Moore dated girls significantly younger than he was.
"We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall, but you really wouldn't say anything to someone like that," she added.

Now, the strongest thing in his defense would be the lack of any accusers from anyone more recent. After all, most of our understanding of such predatory behavior is that you don't normally grow out of it.

Possibly, possibly not. Most of the women he has been exposed as dating would likely have been "sexually" mature (16-18) but not yet adults. Also all of the encounters (expect for the most recent) seem not to have been coerced. That puts him as kind of an edge case for a true predator vs extreme creep. In the 80's he married his wife (he was in his 40's she was 23 at the time of their marriage). So this could of been a phase of super creep he did eventually grow out of. It also may put him mark him as a type of sociopath who engages in the risky behavior on how likely he feels he is to be caught in the act. In his early 30's he felt like he could get away with high school girls maybe in his late 30's he moved on to college girls. Then his marriage in his 40's to a 22 year old finally settled him down. We'll see if more allegations surface in the coming days.

Either way there is sufficient evidence for me to believe his accusers, he didn't even deny having some kind of relationship with several of the 16-18 year old girls.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #113 on: November 13, 2017, 08:55:58 PM »
Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Rolling Stone was a single anonymous source. The Duke lacrosse case had enough credibility (initially) that charges were filed. It's tough for the media to get it right when the DA is lying about the amount of evidence he has. Neither story had the multiple claims and corroborating statements the WaPo story on Moore had. The closest level of proof I can think of is the evidence against Clinton being a serial philanderer and harasser, which you seem to have no trouble accepting.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #114 on: November 13, 2017, 11:36:07 PM »
Quote
She claimed Mr Moore, a 30-year-old deputy district attorney at the time, offered to sign her high school yearbook and wrote: "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas."
He signed it "Love, Roy Moore, DA", according to a copy of the yearbook page provided to reporters by her attorney, Gloria Allred.

Is it evidence of a heinous crime? No. Is it more than a little creepy? Yes. The only people signing my yearbook were peers and teachers.

When coupled with the statement from the high school kid that he came on to her aggressively (at best) is it enough to be concerned? I'd say so.

If this same evidence had come out about his Democratic challenger, would any Moore supporters hesitate to vilify him? Doubt it, given the number of people who swallowed Pizza gate with far less evidence.

Will the yearbook get challenged as a careful forgery? Probably.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #115 on: November 13, 2017, 11:39:07 PM »
Moore's reply:

Quote
Roy Moore moments ago called Beverly Young Nelson's accusation that he assaulted her when she was 16 “absolutely false," saying, "I don’t even know the woman."

If the yearbook exists, that's not a good sign of either his credibility

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #116 on: November 14, 2017, 02:36:13 PM »
Quote
On Tuesday, a House committee held a hearing to examine the chamber's sexual harassment policies, and the Senate last week passed a resolution making sexual harassment training mandatory for senators, staff and interns -- two clear acknowledgments of the need for reform.

Huh? Seriously this is just happening now? I can't remember the last time I had a job where such training wasn't mandatory.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #117 on: November 14, 2017, 04:59:23 PM »
Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Rolling Stone was a single anonymous source. The Duke lacrosse case had enough credibility (initially) that charges were filed. It's tough for the media to get it right when the DA is lying about the amount of evidence he has. Neither story had the multiple claims and corroborating statements the WaPo story on Moore had. The closest level of proof I can think of is the evidence against Clinton being a serial philanderer and harasser, which you seem to have no trouble accepting.

Those were two examples, we could easily find others with a google search. Rationalizing away these two examples is fairly weak justification for Moore’s accusations. I find Clinton’s case believable because he continued to do it, even while president. Clinton established the pattern (one of those open secrets) and was a predator his entire life and, at least in Lewinsky’s case, it’s been proven.

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #118 on: November 15, 2017, 04:55:33 PM »

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.

I find it very unlikely the Washington post found 4 women Moore knew as teenagers who were willing to lie. Also the fifth woman who came forward had her yearbook that was signed by Moore. With the recent confirmed allegations against Weinstein et. al the timing isn’t all that suspicious. Women feel empowered to speak and running for senate puts him in the spotlight.

To further support the stories it has been reported that during the time in question Moore was blackballed from the local mall for aggressively flirting with young women. The stories are credible, even republican leaders have said so.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #119 on: November 15, 2017, 06:18:54 PM »

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.

I find it very unlikely the Washington post found 4 women Moore knew as teenagers who were willing to lie. Also the fifth woman who came forward had her yearbook that was signed by Moore. With the recent confirmed allegations against Weinstein et. al the timing isn’t all that suspicious. Women feel empowered to speak and running for senate puts him in the spotlight.

To further support the stories it has been reported that during the time in question Moore was blackballed from the local mall for aggressively flirting with young women. The stories are credible, even republican leaders have said so.

OK, so the allegations are credible. What are they exactly? For all but one, nothing illegal happened. In fact, Joe Biden has been doing a lot worse and doing it on camera for years. When it comes to creepy behavior with underage kids and women, Biden is out there (watch Sessions slap Biden's hand away from his kid). No problem for anyone on that, certainly not on this forum or in the media. Why are you accepting of Biden's extreme creepery with very young kids and Moore is so horrifying? As for the yearbook, I've signed yearbooks for my kid's friends (several spent time at our house as we had a pool). That's been a few years, if you asked my I'd say I don't know them as I don't recall their names or even what they looked like. In another 20 years, I probably won't recall even signing those things. None of this is proof of anything. It's just not.

The women alleging assault is a problem. Moore needs to address this and I'm guessing he will. Again, this happened 40 years ago. What are we supposed to do with that? You've taken the position of guilty until proven innocent and proving innocence from 40 years ago is damn near impossible. It's not like Biden where we have him on film doing it or Clinton admitting it. All we have a accusations and rumor that are hotly denied. If that's enough to end careers, well, then everyone and anyone is guilty and all we're lacking is the accusation - and I'm sure we can find one for everyone.

Moore's opponents in the primary put a lot of effort into trying to source and substantiate these allegations. They found nothing. Moore has been a contentious figure in AL for decades with multiple heated election cycles, nobody could find anything. Yet, miraculously, at a point when it hurts the most to his senate campaign, WaPo, staunchly and openly supporting Moore's opponent, finds it and publishes it.

Moore may be a creeper, maybe even assaulting someone, but are we really going to make the accusation itself the proof? If we are, why are some not subject to this and others are?

kidv

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #120 on: November 16, 2017, 01:19:45 AM »


OK, so the allegations are credible. What are they exactly? For all but one, nothing illegal happened. In fact, Joe Biden has been doing a lot worse and doing it on camera for years.


"She remembers that Moore kissed her, that he took off her pants and shirt, and that he touched her through her bra and underpants. She says that he guided her hand to his underwear and that she yanked her hand back.

"I wasn't ready for that - I had never put my hand on a man's penis, much less an erect one," Corfman says.

She remembers thinking, "I don't want to do this" and "I need to get out of here." She says that she got dressed and asked Moore to take her home, and that he did.

The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.


The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_accused_of_sexual_mi.html al.com quoting the Washington Post

Declaring that Biden has been doing much worse than this on video seems to interfere with a rational discussion of the creepiness of Roy Moore.  And it drives back at the stupidity of elevating party over morality.

Being that this is a thread on Weinstein where the discussion has turned to Roy Moore, it seems a critical mass has developed where (society?) has determined that harassment / sexual powerplays have got to be declared unacceptable and simply stopped, and a ball is rolling.  So maybe that will lead to a discussion of Joe Biden, and society will hear if he's ever taken private action against someone, or he acts creepy in photoshoots.

Anyway, the other 3 women who were under 18 allege that he gave them alcohol, which is also a crime even though their relationship didn't progress past kissing.

Now more women (with signed yearbooks) have emerged who allege more unwanted sexual activity.

So I guess it would still be one thing if Roy Moore acknowledged that while he was in his 30s he tried to date and kiss many girls in high school, but it was legal so that was ok.  And a couple 14 year olds slipped through the cracks.  But he's denying that that it was a common thing for him to pursue 16 and 17 year olds, and doing a pretty poor job of it, so it makes the 30+ people who all corroborate that that was his "thing" sound a lot more credible.

So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?


He ends up looking like a perfect example of hypocrisy, and christian ideals deserve a better self-proclaimed representative.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #121 on: November 16, 2017, 09:13:23 AM »
Quote
So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?
That’s a false dilemma, and a pretty badly done one at that.

People are hung up on the yearbook. It seems pretty bad but Moore denies it in no uncertain terms and yet there’s his signature.  Or is it?

Beverly Nelson has that yearbook.  She says after the assault she never had any further contact with Moore. That’s not true. When Nelson got divorced in 1999, Moore was the presiding judge. 

The signature in the yearbook has the initials “D.A.” after Moore’s name. Moore was not the district attorney in 1977. However, Moore's assistant in the late 90s had the initials 'D.A.' and would sign his initials alongside legal documents he would stamp with Moore's signature. 

Moore’s team has demanded that the yearbook be released for handwriting and ink analysis so they can prove it’s a forgery. Nelson’s attorney, Gloria Allred, refused until senate hearings can be convened - you know, after the election.

So we have Nelson caught in a lie, a very reasonable explanation of how it actually could be a forged signature, and the accuser refusing to allow examination of the evidence until it’s too late. Like I’ve said, Moore may be all they say he is but gven all this I just can’t jump on the bandwagon with you and blindly condemn the guy either.


kidv

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #122 on: November 16, 2017, 10:52:31 AM »
Quote
So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?
That’s a false dilemma, and a pretty badly done one at that.

 . . .

So we have Nelson caught in a lie, a very reasonable explanation of how it actually could be a forged signature, and the accuser refusing to allow examination of the evidence until it’s too late. Like I’ve said, Moore may be all they say he is but gven all this I just can’t jump on the bandwagon with you and blindly condemn the guy either.


I'm not trying to jump forward to Nelson and the additional people that are coming out now.   I'd hold them as additional tranches of complaints that are of a different character than the original 5 reported by the Washington Post.

The first 5 all align with what Moore has himself acknowledged, asking out and dating (14)-17 year olds as a 30 - 32 year old man.  This is corroborated by 30 people, including the girls' friends and relations and Moore's coworkers.  He politely dated all of them doing what they wanted, stopping when they said no, and taking them to restaurants and buying them alcohol.  He kissed them and they declined to have a further relationship.  Corfman happened to be 14.  She seems to be wilder than the others, and specifically snuck out to be with Moore, meeting him at his car on a street corner.  She went to his house.  It's interesting that she doesn't allege he raped her or even saw her naked, but that he took both of them down to their underwear.  He put her hand on his erect penis over his underwear, and she said stop, and he stopped.  She said take me home and he took her home.  So even this aligns with Moore overall and the other stories, that one time (or more) he happened to try to get a 14 year old, where he was usually dating or asking out 16 or 17 year olds.   Corfman told her mom about this, told her friends about this, and her mom was on the court docket on a day when Corfman was 14 years old and Moore was in the courthouse as a 32 year old ADA.

That group is consistent, it doesn't go overboard, it's supported by 30 people, and by Moore himself.  So that group includes several non-illegal but creepy "dating minors above the age of consent but less than 18," a couple cases of illegal contributing to the delinquency of minors by buying them booze, and one bad case of 2nd degree sexual assault (a misdemeanor) and a felony because he brought her to his house to touch her and his private parts, because he happened to chance upon a 14 year old. He respected the girl's wishes and seemed very polite, but it's statutory.  This is the risk you run when date 16 year olds.

That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy? Yes, he is the unique case of setting his own judgment on religious matters above all the courts of the land.  So, no, it's reasonable for Mitch McConnell (and me) to say I believe the girls.  And I would say that I don't want that sort of "religious guy," who makes a pattern of dating 16 year olds in his 30's while politely plying the girls with alcohol and polite requests for semi clothed sexual events, to be held up as an example of the perfect Christian.  And in the current age of Weinstein, what the Republican party doesn't want to hold up as their representative.

--

At this exact moment in time, I think it's fair to wonder about the new sets of allegations, because they're of a different character, direct sexual assault and nonconsensual activity which seems a whole new level of bad.  I'm not even talking about that, just who Moore seems to acknowledge about himself, which fits right down the line of those first five.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #123 on: November 16, 2017, 11:37:42 AM »
That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy?
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

Frankly, it's bizarre that you bemoan the hypocrisy of Moore while giving Biden a free pass as he visibly gropes little girls - and you're far from alone in that. The ideological litmus test being applied to these types of accusations and "convictions" is a problem. If all we need is a few people to make accusations and that's all the proof we need we might as well drop the court system and embrace anarchy.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #124 on: November 16, 2017, 12:06:43 PM »
That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy?
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #125 on: November 16, 2017, 12:44:27 PM »
Ok, then Al Franken must be immediately expelled from the Senate. There is also a photo of Franken groping a sleeping woman, she is horrified.  It’s not only creepy but it’s criminal. What does everyone think, will the senate leadership call for immediately invalidating Franken’s election and refuse to seat him as they say they’ll do with Moore? After all, he’s crossed the line where we “want to keep them out of the public sphere”.

Come on, there’s multiple accusations and photographic evidence. Or is Franken like Biden, free to grope and assault?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #126 on: November 16, 2017, 12:50:02 PM »
What do you mean about invalidating the election?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #127 on: November 16, 2017, 01:04:24 PM »
Could you clarify one thing, Crunch?  Are you calling for the punishment of all creepy guys like Moore, Biden and Franken?  Or are you saying we should ignore all such creepiness from guys like Moore, Biden and Franken, and such behavior should be considered acceptable?

That's the problem with the "Whatabout" defense--it's hard to know if someone is defending the actions or just trying to widen the circle of those who should be subject to censure. :(

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #128 on: November 16, 2017, 01:08:15 PM »
BTW, Al Franken is asking for a Senate investigation on the matter.

Do you think Roy Moore will do so, too, if he is elected? ;)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #129 on: November 16, 2017, 01:10:08 PM »
Quote
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

Is "not breaking the law" the only standard really? I hold leaders and would-be leaders to a much higher standard than just managing to stay within the law. And so do most people. Consensual legal relations with a 16 year old when you're in your 30s is super creepy, and I'm probably not going to go to your fundraiser and clap for your speech.

Being under a cloud of suspicion would be sufficient for me to not hire somebody, as an example. Someone accused of embezzling who got acquitted might become my accountant, but not without a whole lot of reasons why I shouldn't go elsewhere. These things don't normally crop up out of nowhere.

Now, if he were my "dream candidate" like he is to some people, am I going to have a different view? If I'm honest, yes I might still vote for him. I'm still not going to pretend that nothing is going on, its all fabrications that should be ignored, and that its just the usual people out to get him. Even if people were out to get him, there are reasons why they picked him and not one of hundreds of other equally reviled politicians. That's enough to give me pause. The fact that he may not have been vetted deeply enough by his party is another concern.



TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #130 on: November 16, 2017, 01:17:35 PM »
Quote
Ok, then Al Franken must be immediately expelled from the Senate. There is also a photo of Franken groping a sleeping woman, she is horrified.  It’s not only creepy but it’s criminal.

As for the photo, do you actually think it is possible to assault someone through a flak jacket? It is designed to stop bullets and fragments. Inappropriate, yes. Childish, yes. Worthy of scorn, yes. Criminal? Not seeing it.

The other incident she describes is serious, and yes I would expect he should be called to account for it just as much as Louis CK. Falls into this category of, "ha, I bullied you into giving consent", which might be a get out of jail free card, but is certainly unacceptable behaviour.

I'll join hands and support the ostracism of both these men, if you feel like a kumbaya moment.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #131 on: November 16, 2017, 01:24:52 PM »
Crunch,

regarding the 'groping' by Al Franken - his is pantoming it for a cameraman doing a stupid and crude joke, not actually groping her.  Legally he did nothing inappropriate.  He has juvenile taste in humor.

Regarding the kiss - I personally feel he did something wrong, but lawfully it is more murky.  It was written into the skit script, she consented to practice the skit.  So legally (for purposes of criminal liability of misdemeanor battery) he probably is in the clear (well is fully in the clear, but I mean if it had been pursued within the statute of limitations). Morally he took advantage.  Civilly, again beyond the statute of limitations, but if it had been pursued at the time - she might have won a civil case.  Also it wouldn't fall under sexual harrassment either - he had no authority over her, and she had no reasonable anticipation that he would use it to influence her career.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 01:28:32 PM by LetterRip »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #132 on: November 16, 2017, 01:54:41 PM »
I doubt we've heard the end of Franken stories. You're talking about a childish stand-up comic who probably had pretty loose boundaries as to what he thought was appropriate at that time. Of course, people digging this stuff up also have political motivations, but that really doesn't change what happened any more than it does in other cases.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #133 on: November 16, 2017, 02:15:56 PM »
What do you mean about invalidating the election?
The GOP leadership says they will not seat Moore if he's elected, essentially invalidating if Moore won.

Could you clarify one thing, Crunch?  Are you calling for the punishment of all creepy guys like Moore, Biden and Franken?  Or are you saying we should ignore all such creepiness from guys like Moore, Biden and Franken, and such behavior should be considered acceptable?
I'm pointing out the double standard based on political ideology and affiliation.

BTW, Al Franken is asking for a Senate investigation on the matter.

Do you think Roy Moore will do so, too, if he is elected? ;)
If Moore is elected, the GOP says they will not seat him. Why do you think it's reasonable for a investigation into Franken, where photographic evidence proves his guilt beyond a shadow of doubt and Franken admits it but Moore does not get anything approaching a similar benefit? All about the D after the name ain't it?

Crunch,

regarding the 'groping' by Al Franken - his is pantoming it for a cameraman doing a stupid and crude joke, not actually groping her.  Legally he did nothing inappropriate.  He has juvenile taste in humor.
Oh, there it is.  It's just a joke! That's all. Everybody find humor in sexually assaulting unconscious women! That's pretty disgusting.

Regarding the kiss - I personally feel he did something wrong, but lawfully it is more murky.  It was written into the skit script, she consented to practice the skit.  So legally (for purposes of criminal liability of misdemeanor battery) he probably is in the clear (well is fully in the clear, but I mean if it had been pursued within the statute of limitations). Morally he took advantage.  Civilly, again beyond the statute of limitations, but if it had been pursued at the time - she might have won a civil case.  Also it wouldn't fall under sexual harrassment either - he had no authority over her, and she had no reasonable anticipation that he would use it to influence her career.
So see, if you write it out as a comedu skit before hand, why, you can do anything you want to women! Great defense there. Just great.

You know, my point about Moore is that we should be able to review the evidence and not simply convict him based on accusations alone. Your defense of Franken, when there is no doubt whatsoever, is it's perfectly fine to grope women if you call it a joke or write it up first. That some pretty serious bull*censored* there. You should be ashamed.




Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #134 on: November 16, 2017, 02:17:31 PM »
I doubt we've heard the end of Franken stories. You're talking about a childish stand-up comic who probably had pretty loose boundaries as to what he thought was appropriate at that time. Of course, people digging this stuff up also have political motivations, but that really doesn't change what happened any more than it does in other cases.
Others are already coming out of the woodwork, like you said Franken is ripe for this. When you see the justification for it from Wayward Son and others, it really demonstrated my point about this being a witch hunt targeting Moore and not about protecting women.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #135 on: November 16, 2017, 02:37:07 PM »
There's also a difference between being an idiot on a few occasions and doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do, versus being someone with a pattern of actively wanting the inappropriate thing and seeking it out whenever possible. It's not creepy to have an inappropriate - even sexist - sense of humor, even though it may be worthy of criticism. Comparing that to a history of serial relations with borderline underage people is really silly.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #136 on: November 16, 2017, 02:48:16 PM »
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #137 on: November 16, 2017, 02:53:58 PM »
Quote
The GOP leadership says they will not seat Moore if he's elected, essentially invalidating if Moore won.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume this is because it’s too late to change the ballot.  Otherwise they’d just be replacing him or running another candidate to oppose him (other than the Democrat on the ticket).  I was questioning why you felt there was any need to bring this up as a comparison that some other sitting elected official would have their win invalidated.  It’s not the charge that they’re citing as grounds, it’s the locked in ballot; yes?

Quote
I'm pointing out the double standard based on political ideology and affiliation.
You're suggesting one exists, not pointing it out.  FYI

That said...  I feel there IS a double standard.  The left (or really just people in general) delight in seeing hypocrites brought low.  The right just happen to be more likely to make morality a cornerstone of their campaigns and public persona.  So yes, their moral failings get a disproportionate response.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 02:57:27 PM by D.W. »

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #138 on: November 16, 2017, 03:07:36 PM »
Crunch,

Quote
Oh, there it is.  It's just a joke! That's all. Everybody find humor in sexually assaulting unconscious women! That's pretty disgusting.

it was 'just a joke'.   On the level of drawing dicks on peoples faces while they are sleeping.  Pretending to grope boobs as an attempt at humor wasn't that uncommon ten years ago when the incident happened.  'Pranks' regarding unwanted sexual behavior (quick google search shows a sleeping guy with a bananna being held looking like oral sex) were common.

I've never found such behavior funny, but large swaths of the population used to find such things hilarious.  See the film 'Superbad' that gives an idea of how popular and viewed as funny the 'draw dicks on face' thing was in 2007, the year after the above incident occurred.

Quote
So see, if you write it out as a comedu skit before hand, why, you can do anything you want to women!

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.  Consent to a kiss as part of a skit, is consent to kissing. even if you didn't really want to kiss the person.  I wasn't defending his behavior, I was pointing out that legally she likely consented.

Quote
You know, my point about Moore is that we should be able to review the evidence and not simply convict him based on accusations alone.

We have an enormous amount of evidence, we also have evidence that Moore lied multiple times.

Quote
Your defense of Franken, when there is no doubt whatsoever, is it's perfectly fine to grope women if you call it a joke or write it up first. That some pretty serious bull*censored* there. You should be ashamed.

You must have the reading comprehension abilities of a two year old.  There was no groping, there was a pantomime of a groping.  Just as shadow puppets of a groping isn't a groping.  Only groping is groping.  I can feel his behavior is wrong and inappropriate and should be subject to censorship and something he owes an apology for and should never have done, and yet also acknowledge that he has done nothing illegal.  I think that Franken was a boorish *censored*, just not a criminally boorish *censored*.

If Moore's behavior are accurately described, then he is a pedophile attempted rapist, and engaged in criminal sexual assault and battery of minors.

The fact that you think these are in even remotely the same ballpark is somewhat scary implication about your morality.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 03:14:54 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #139 on: November 16, 2017, 03:27:07 PM »
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. As an aside, I'm 99% sure people are taking this particular quote far out of context.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #140 on: November 16, 2017, 03:27:51 PM »
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. As an aside, I'm 99% sure people are taking this particular quote far out of context.
That's the first time I've heard an "out of context" explanation on that one...  Or did you mean the first quote, not the trump quote?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #141 on: November 16, 2017, 03:30:32 PM »
I was arguing that if one gives Franken a free pass for pantomiming the groping of an unconscious woman, you should almost certainly give Trump a free pass on his crude statement about groping women.

Personally, I hold them both to answer for it.



Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #142 on: November 16, 2017, 03:53:51 PM »
I was arguing that if one gives Franken a free pass for pantomiming the groping of an unconscious woman, you should almost certainly give Trump a free pass on his crude statement about groping women.

Personally, I hold them both to answer for it.

What I meant was that comparing someone who has repeatedly done creepy things (and wants to do them again, presumably) versus someone with bad taste in humor but no inherent desire to do bad things to women is ridiculous. It doesn't mean that either party is absolved of everything, but there are levels. If you want to compare Trump's comment with Franken's joke then go ahead; I have no position on how each should be treated, but I'm sure that neither is in the same category as repeatedly going after high school students.

To D.W., I was referring to Trump's remark, actually. I believe he intended it not to mean that this is how he treats women or wants to, but was rather pointing out how preposterous it is that as a powerful celebrity one could do such things and get away with it (or at least could have at the time). That doesn't mean Trump wouldn't do it; I have no idea. But I'm pretty sure the comment was a sort of ironic boasting rather than a statement of intent or admittance of what he'd done. So it's neither an action, nor even a joke, but strictly speaking an observation (albeit a piggish one).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #143 on: November 16, 2017, 04:09:25 PM »
Quote
An aide for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tells CNN that Gillibrand plans to give back all the money she’s ever received from Franken’s PAC — which they say totals $12,500 — to the group Protect our Defenders.

It’s a group that combats rape and sexual assault in the military.

What a great choice! And it is encouraging to see a politician actually give up money for principle within their own party. Or at least the appearance of principle.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #144 on: November 16, 2017, 06:41:30 PM »
Haha, onion!

Quote
In response to radio personality Leeann Tweeden’s allegations of being inappropriately groped by Al Franken during a 2006 U.S.O. tour, Democratic Party leaders issued calls Thursday for a convincing amount of condemnation for the Minnesota senator. “I urge my fellow Democrats to renounce Senator Franken’s unacceptable behavior in the absolute most plausible way,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, adding that he hadn’t ruled out taking steps to eventually look into the matter. “It’s imperative that we unequivocally go through the motions of rejecting any and all forms of sexual misconduct, and I’m confident that all Democrats will join me in denouncing the senator’s actions in the strongest believable terms.” Schumer also said that party leaders would remain steadfast in their lip service even if additional Democrats were accused of sexual assault.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #145 on: November 17, 2017, 12:34:45 PM »
Quote
She says after the assault she never had any further contact with Moore. That’s not true. When Nelson got divorced in 1999, Moore was the presiding judge.

Turns out that is fake news.

Per Think Progress, when Beverly Nelson filed for divorce in 1999, Roy Moore was supposed to be her judge for the hearing.  But the hearing never took place.  A month before the hearing, she filed a motion to delay the hearing in order to attempt to reconcile with her then-husband, and a month after that filed a motion to dismiss the case.  She did not divorce her husband until five years later, when another judge presided over the case.

The only thing Judge Moore did was sign the dismissal decree, and he admits that a clerk did that for him.

So Beverly Nelson had no opportunity to meet with Judge Moore.  In fact, Judge Moore probably did not even know that it was the same Beverly Nelson he had previously met. 

She did not lie.  Rather, Moore's lawyers misconstrued the facts in an attempt to discredit her.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #146 on: November 17, 2017, 02:33:34 PM »
Can everyone please stop using the term "fake news"?  It has come to mean everything from "things that make me uncomfortable" to "accurate reporting of things that my team lied about" to "accurate reports of what people said" said, to, well, pure propaganda and lies.

In this case, why not just say Moore's lawyer misrepresented the facts, possibly on purpose (there is a term for that, actually).

The term annoys me almost as much as the usage of the verb "to ask" as a noun. (nouning the verb, now?)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #147 on: November 18, 2017, 12:30:28 PM »
The difference between calling it fake news and a lie is the distribution method. If the lawyer said that 20 years ago, some people might read about it in the papers, but more likely the paper would do their investigation on the quote - a bare minimum of context to add to the quote.

Fake news is when somebody sees his statement, blurts A-hA! and tweets it out until it has reached 5 million mouth breathing simians who simply took the lawyers word on its face and conjured up images of the conniving false accuser. Then went to Breitbart and misspelled a bunch of sexist epithets.

Are there legitimate concerns to have about proof and evidence, sure, but that ain't part of it.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #148 on: November 21, 2017, 01:28:56 AM »
There is now a more serious allegation against Franken.  He allegedly put his hand on a woman's ass during a photo at a state fair.

Apparently Minnesota law doesn't view this as a crime (it specifically excludes 'touching of the covered ass' under Minnesota sexual assault and battery law, nor is it covered under their other assault and battery statutes).

Quote
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken "pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear," Menz said. "It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #149 on: November 21, 2017, 09:30:36 AM »
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.