Not much actually, just commenting about the time period and his long time job.
It’s clear that you believe you’ve got a really juicy “gotcha” here. But you’re wrong about that, too.
The “significant amounts of time” you’re claiming–with the implication that so much time had gone by as to render the disclosures useless as corroboration that Moore had abused them–fall within the parameters I discussed in post #588 in this thread: “days or weeks”. (Link below.)
So, no: you don’t have a “gotcha.” Some of Moore’s victims did mention the incidents to others well before–in most cases, decades before–coming forward to make their stories public.
As a contrast with Leeann Tweeden’s accusation of Franken: she’s mentioned that she discussed the ‘photo grope’ with her husband as soon as she learned about it. But as far as I can learn from news accounts, she has yet to reveal when she first disclosed the ‘un-agreed-to tongue’ incident. It’s possible that the first time she ever mentioned it to anyone was two days ago, when her accusations first became news.
And again, that doesn’t mean that her story should be dismissed. On the contrary (as I’ve been saying all along), her story deserves a full and comprehensive investigation.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20609207#post20609207
Been wondering lately if his eagerness for a full investigation might reflect a desire to see her testify under oath. Main problem with that is that its too smart for a Democrat. And when it comes to cold and calculated cunning, Minnesota ranks just below Canada.
Funny about that literary reference: in recent days as we learn more and more about the world the current Administration is working to build–a world in which elephants and other endangered animals are extinct, in which pipelines spew oil into the aquifers, in which giant corporations are enabled to dump their waste into rivers and into the air, and in which those who oppose such destruction (such as Mr. Franken) will be brought down by any means necessary–it’s tough to avoid picturing David Lynch’s shocking visuals of the world Vladimir Harkonnen created on Giedi Prime.
ETA: Oh, yes, I believe that Franken would like to see his accuser get the opportunity to flesh out her story more fully (including answering questions under oath). Since she’s stated that her reason for coming forward was to encourage others to speak out, she should be happy to get that chance, one would think.
It’s not so much a juicy gotcha as you made a claim that conflicted with my understanding of events. I asked you for a cite, you’ve declined to provide one, so I guess I’ll go back to believing the information that I have and that you were, in fact, quite wrong about your claim.
My clarification of the facts of the matter isn’t intended as some endorsement of Moore or to cast aspersions on his accusers for their delay in sharing their stories of abuse. I’m with most of the rest of the board on this one, that delays in sharing the incident appear to be quite common and shouldn’t be used to undermine the credibility of the accusations.
You seem to have the facts just bass-ackwards though. Tweeden told her husband within weeks, while Moore’s accusers appear to have waited years to share their stories of abuse with friends or relatives.
This appears like you’ve made another factual error or a strange misreading of the story in the OP:
It would be a bizarre version of “everything that happened” that didn’t include the kiss.
…as has been pointed out to both you and to everybody else in this thread: when she chose to “reveal this” has absolutely zero bearing on her credibility. Kater Gordon told nobody for a year that Matthew Weiner sexually harassed her. Does that affect her credibility? You can’t pick and choose who you apply this standard too.
It is completely normal in cases of historical sexual harassment and abuse for people to say nothing to anyone. It is also completely normal for some people to say something to someone. It is quite possible that the first time she ever mentioned it to anyone was two days ago when her accusations first became news. But that doesn’t make her story any less credible than Kater Gordon’s. If you apply this standard here then you apply it to every other person who didn’t come forward immediately. Is that something you are willing to do?
I am curious as to how you know that there are a bunch of red state democratic senators who have sexually harassed women. If you know something, then you should come forward, or encourage those who have been harassed to come forward.
Otherwise, are you assuming that people will make it up and cast false accusations for partisan reasons? I think better of those living in red states, but then I don’t know them as well as you.
That’s an interesting opinion. But it doesn’t constitute evidence that she told her husband about the kiss.
It would appear that you’re not even reading the posts to which you reply:
And another example of your apparent failure to read the posts to which you reply:
and
It’s odd that you would wasting your time by “telling me” things I’ve already posted, such as that not all women report or discuss their experiences (though such reports are helpful in establishing credibility). And as I’ve said several times now: whether they did reveal those experiences or not, they deserve a full hearing and thorough investigation of their claims.
I don’t “know” this, nor have I claimed to. You’re putting words in my mouth again. My last sentence included the word “probably”. That’s a sign of uncertainty, not perfect knowledge.
You’re wandered out past left field on this one, but I’m done wasting my time to show you the obvious errors of your ways.
…don’t accuse me of something that isn’t true.
I read all of that.
And that.
If you believed that stuff you wrote: then you wouldn’t have written this.
Bolded mine. You don’t get to escape the consequences of your words by adding a few disingenuous disclaimers. You can’t write paragraph-after-paragraph attacking her credibility based on “not talking” and then think that by adding “well maybe it did happen like she said, but I doubt it” redeems you.
Its clear what you said. I’m well aware you believe they deserve a full hearing and thorough investigation of their claims. It is also crystal clear you think Tweeden is not credible based on the fact she didn’t immediately tell somebody about the kiss.
It looks to me that Sherrerd is saying something more akin to, “If you believe that Moore’s most serious accusers aren’t very credible because they didn’t tell others immediately then you likely have to believe the same thing about Tweeden.” I.e., I don’t see Sherrerd as challenging her credibility as much as challenging the idea that she has more credibility than Moore’s accusers.
Maybe Sherrerd can clarify which reading of his/her posts is more correct?
I gather from my reading that the idea of talking to others about the incident is only relevant to a question of timing. In that is evidence that she didn’t just brew this up yesterday. It answers one of many possible questions, but just one. Not affirmative evidence as in proof, but that one possible objection is mooted,
Ok, to summarize Tweeden characterizes a photo, recently discovered, as groping which it isn’t. The photo however is in poor taste and reflects a juvenile stunt.
Tweeden also says she was kissed without her consent, which she wasn’t. There are claims that stage kisses don’t involve tongue, but those are nonsense: it’s a comedy sketch. And the obvious joke is that unattractive guy slobbers over a beautiful woman.
So did Franken do nothing wrong? Hell no. As said earlier, this crap deserves investigation and raising the bar is a good thing. Immediate calls for his resignation are wrongheaded though IHMO.
One more instance of non-professional behavior. Franken wanted to rehearse the kiss ahead of time. Tweeden said that wasn’t necessary. “I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd.”
No problem, but you rehearse that shit ahead of time. You don’t spring it live onstage. Better to work out misunderstandings behind closed doors. And also plot out the physical mechanics.
So who’s in the wrong on these smaller issues? Franken. Because he’s the pro and she’s the amateur, relatively speaking.
On Twitter Mary Provost cast aspersions on Tweeden, which I believe are unfair: [INDENT][INDENT] 1. Howard to Leann: 'Look at the boobs on you. I’d like to check you 4 breast cancer. It must feel so good when a man joins with you! What do you do? Cucumbers? Vibrators? Use your fingers.? Can we see your ass crack again?" Leann laughed & laughed. And showed off her ass crack.
https://twitter.com/CrimeDefense/status/931360037208854528 [/INDENT][/INDENT] The accusation is that Tweeden is lying when she said she was outraged by the rehearsed kiss. I think that’s unproven. Whatever Howard Stern did, it didn’t involve touching. Furthermore, Tweeden spent a large share of her career as a non-nude glamour model, which is somewhat unusual and implies that she has certain boundaries she doesn’t like to cross. Franken crossed them. He’s a pro: he should have been able to navigate himself with a less experienced actress, though admittedly Tweeden had been on a number of USO tours before 2006.
ETA: 2004 USO performance https://twitter.com/EZPZEEH/status/932038743472484352
…consent doesn’t work that way. Even back in 2006. Even in a comedy sketch. You don’t get free licence to stick your tongue into somebody else’s mouth just because its a comedy sketch.
This is standard advice you will see repeated all over the net and in acting classes all over the world. There aren’t exceptions because it was a “comedy sketch.” She consented to being kissed. She claims she did not consent to a kiss with tongue. That isn’t normal, that isn’t expected, that isn’t appropriate.
He’s implying that powerful people abusing their power for sex is a partisan issue, when in fact it’s not related to politics at all.
Support of such behaviour is partisan, however, and it’s his party that’s bending over backwards to pretend Moore is anything other than the lowest lump of whale blubber in the ocean depths. But he’s ignoring that. Weinstein donated to the Democrats, this is what’s important.
Your reading is quite accurate (and thanks). I entered this thread with the suggestion that those who call for Franken to resign while continuing to support Trump and Moore, are being something very much less than fair-minded, given the facts established so far in each case. Further facts need to be brought out through thorough investigation–in all three cases. That’s been my message throughout all my posts.
If a reader is determined to believe that my message is otherwise, then they haven’t been reading carefully, or fairly.
…when you post multiple things in a thread you are delivering multiple messages. You can both suggest that “that those who call for Franken to resign while continuing to support Trump and Moore, are being something very much less than fair-minded” and send the message that by not telling anyone immediately Tweeden looses credibility. The plain text of what you have written sends both messages. I’m not reading anything into what you wrote. What you wrote is clear.
That was a useful corrective, which underlines the advantages of investigation and review by a fact finding committee. Also a good link, which pushes common sense notions of discussion, consent, choreography, and the inadvisability of surprises onstage.
To clarify, my point though wasn’t that comedy gives anybody carte blanche. My point was directed to those who say that tongues are never involved in stage kissing. That’s not the case.