WOW. I had no idea (I don’t do Facebook.) Here I had been taking the claim about the Facebook post as genuine evidence–and I bet I’m not the only one.
This deserves to be more widely known.
Can you also change the dates on the comments to the original post?
All I’m saying is that the degree to which this action is described as ‘sexual harassment’ is belied by the fact that no one objected or reacted immediately. Note ‘degree’, not that it wasn’t unwelcome. Just saying, the women didn’t react then, and only react now after the tsunami is washing in and out on the news.
There are multiple reports of serious sexual harassment out there involving many prominent men. I happen to believe that Franken’s misdeeds were hardly worth mentioning, by comparison. Lots of women today are taking the extreme attitude, though, that all men are potential sex criminals and will stop at nothing to harass them unless they are stripped of all political and economic status.
So to be clear, you are saying that deliberate ass-grabbing in a photo shoot is “hardly worth mentioning”, even if true?
We are given to understand that the bland and unremarkable picture offered in evidence is a picture of a woman shocked and dismayed. According to her, Sen Franken’s intrusive hand rests in grabbous configuration on her butt, at that moment. I know people who could control their emotions so that no hint appears on their face. But not when surprised.
Well, yeah, that part.
Where are we given to understand that? We are given to understand that the photo is proof the woman had her picture taken with Franken. She says the ass grabbing happened “as her husband took the picture”. As I’m sure you know, the actual taking of a picture happens in a split second, so the ass grabbing happened right before or right after the picture was snapped. If it was the latter (and we don’t know which it was), the photo would show no evidence of it.
That is not say the above is proof that the ass grabbing happened. It is only to say that your argument that it is unlikely to have happened isn’t particularly strong.
She’s is the one who worded as she did, not I! She says “as her husband took the picture”, hence, in the same moment. If it were afterwards, she would have worded it differently.
Whatzamatta, you don’t believe women? (I’ll just cover this with leaves and steal away…)
That’s a fair question.
I genuinely don’t know the specifics of each Trump accusation, so let me see if I can get a refresher via Politifact or other non-biased source.
Okay, right, I remember the Jeffrey Epstein/Trump rape lawsuit, which involved a woman who was 13 at the time of the alleged incident. The case was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff due to ‘threats.’ That’s a toughie. Honestly, if I’m judging this on the same standards as the Franken accusers, sure, this could’ve easily have been a false accusation. The timing was, to put it mildly, suspicious. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, but it’s hard to judge. If false, I’d assume the reason was poltical or financial.
Ivana was deposed, and under oath claimed Trump raped her. Then she “walked that back” and said she didn’t mean it legally or criminally. (No, I have no frickin’ idea what she could’ve meant by that.) But someone in a contentious divorce case is not unbiased. Still a tough call.
Oh yeah, the Jill Harth incident at Mar-a-Lago. Lawsuit from 1997. That rules out politics, though not necessarily financial gain as a motive. Still, it was under oath…
Which, in fact… you know, what’s interesting thus far is that each of the above accusers actually testified under oath regarding their allegations. For me, that provides some evidentiary weight. Someone who puts skin=in-the-game and risks perjury if s/he lies has earned more serious consideration than someone else talking to BuzzFeed, TMZ or even the Washington Post. (Not that people haven’t lied under oath before. I’m just talking about how much weight I’ll give the respective allegations.)
There’ve been several others but I don’t want to litigate each one. I’m gonna say everything above is enough to consider Trump’s alleged behavior more seriously than Franken’s. Plus there’s his character to consider.
Unfortunately for him (and for all of us who had to hear it, heh), Trump’s literally on the record regarding how he treats women, so he’s kinda screwed himself right out of the gate. Not just with the “grab 'em by the pussy” or “they let you do it” from the Billy Bush tape, but his gleeful tale of the joys of hosting a Miss Universe and getting to walk in on the contestants’ dressing rooms (as told to Howard Stern). Of course, both could be pure braggadocio–consider the context and the people to whom he was speaking. These are not Algonquin Round Table candidates; they’re sexist asshats themselves.
And yet, even if those boasts of being a sexual predator were mere manly bragging, that still makes him pretty damn repulsive, because… ew. (Do I need a better reason?)
More character evidence: there’s the on-record history of his treating women with disrespect. Insulting, shallow, prejudiced tweets aimed at women from that Miss Universe contestant to the Gold Star mother (whom he belittled for not being able to speak at the DNC, claiming it was because she was a Muslim and thus not “allowed” to speak). Couple this with a massive sense of entitlement, inability to restrain his impulses, lack of empathy and extraordinary narcissism, and I think we have a man who fits the profile for sexual predator.
If they’re false allegations, the fact that they’re still easy to believe is due solely to his own wretched personality.
Now let’s turn to Moore.
From what I gather, the then-teeenagers’ accusations were told to others contemporaneously and corroborated. There’s the odd yearbook inscription from 1977, although I’m not 100% sold on that until it’s entered as evidence and someone with good credentials can testify as to its authenticity. Daming, too, is the security guard who says Moore was banned from a mall for behaving inappropriately with young girls.
The sheer number of accusations is daunting, and the ages of the alleged victims is scary. I really don’t know enough about Moore to be able to judge (pun!) whether these allegations mesh with his personality, his history, his behavior, or anything.
Overall, I find people more believable when they go on record (and even more believable when they testify under oath). Thus far, there are several named women, though no testimony as of yet. Plus, as I said, there’s the very odd fact regarding his being banned from the mall–a detail so bizarre that I almost have to believe it, because it’s hard to fathom some average schmo making it up out of whole cloth. (Geeze, and I’m a fiction writer!)
The case is still very new (as opposed to the Trump accusations), so I don’t think there’s been time for any legal proceedings that might help me judge the veracity of the claims.
So… I don’t know where I stand here. To be utterly honest about myself, I fully admit that I’m more inclined to believe the accusers because I dislike Moore so much. That acknowledgement of my partisanship makes me human, but I know it must also lessen me as a worthwhile contributor in your eyes. Can’t help it. I yam what I yam.
In the end, I look at it this way:
If Moore’s allegations are true, he’s a horrific predator and should be locked up.
If Trump’s accusations are true, he’s a horrific predator and should be locked up.
If Franken’s accusations are true, he’s sleazy, stupid, opportunistic, and either a hypocrite or woefully blind to the log in his own eye. He should be censured (for any acts committed in office, not the dumbass pseudogrope/kissing thing). I don’t see anything illegal, so he doesn’t have to be locked up. Might be locked out of his house for a while, though, and I wouldn’t blame Frannie (his wife) one bit!
It’d be my first pitting, so I guess that’s a distinction of sorts for someone who’s a board nonentity.
I know, right?! I knew about it awhile ago but hadn’t really considered how it could be used for “mischief” until I heard Franken’s accusers were using FB conversations as proof of contemporaneous complaints. That’s when I tried the experiment and, yep. Fucked up, huh?
Here’s what it looks like in my now altered timeline. (Link is to an image hosting service, not my own Facebook. You think I’m nuts?! Also, apologies in advance for blatant lefty comments that may offend right-tinged folks of a certain stripe, though I was aiming at a subset.)
As you can see, the dates of the comments seem innocuous because they don’t include the year. But this might change once we hit 2018. I suspect the year will be added, which will make things odd but not necessarily ruinous to the hoax: a hypothetical scammer could claim that the recent comments were only made because s/he linked to the old post.
This article (and poll) pretty much confirms what I’ve felt. The democrats will insist on purifying their party to their own detriment. As I said, Republicans do not give a shit about morality; they just want to win - period. That’s what matters to Republicans. They want to win, and they want to impose their worldview on everyone else. It doesn’t matter a bit that the people they elect contradict that worldview; they just want their oppressive policies passed. It’s democrats who will end up voting themselves out of power by trying to establish a consistency between their public sense of virtue and private behavior. There’s a reason why Bill Clinton told Republicans to go to hell back in the 1990s and as much as progressives have sworn him and his wife off, they’d be wise to revisit the reasons he did so. Clinton, for all of his faults, saw through their hypocrisy. He wasn’t naive enough to fall for their horse shit and today’s progressives would be wise to follow that lead.
If what you say is correct, she most likely would not have had time to react until after the picture was taken. So, hang your argument on such a silly interpretation if you like, but it does not support your argument. It undermines it.
choie: Tweeden made allegations and demanded an apology. She got one from Franken, which she accepted. She did not call for Franken’s resignation, but reserved her right to if more women came forward. That was a good stance in my view.
Menz’s groping allegation was disturbing but in my view didn’t quite establish a pattern of behavior. Reasonable people can differ on that point I think.
But the next two allegations of groping did establish a pattern though, IMHO. One which leads me to interpret the previous stories with less charity towards Franken. The link was upthread, but here it is again:
It’s a Huffpo article, but one of the authors, Zachary Roth, is formerly of MSNBC: he’s a real reporter. One of the victims told him of the incident years ago, but didn’t want it reported back then.
If you scan back far enough, the comments on a post will actually include the year. Where the year is omitted, it means the comment was made in the present year.
What makes my interpretation “silly”, outside of your declaration that it is so? I got a picture and her testimony, what you got? How long would it take you to react to an unexpected and unwelcome grope?* How long to change the expression on your face?
And when she says she informed her husband “right away”, that means, so far as you know, that very instant? Or shortly thereafter? I put it to you that the most common understanding of the phrase is “shortly thereafter” rather than “in the very instant”. YMMV, but that doesn’t make me “silly”.
*(For myself, my facial expression would change instantly, but I have the reflexes of a cat! I can curl up in a warm spot of sunshine and be asleep in a matter of seconds.)
Did the 13-year-old alleged rape victim really testify under oath somewhere along the way? The question is a sincere one that I don’t know the answer to, but I was vaguely under the impression that she dropped her lawsuit before it progressed to the point of testifying under oath, or even confirmation of her identity.
On the contrary, I think it shows a level of self-awareness that’s somewhat rare among Dopers. Kudos to you.
Uhm, precisely because of the reasons laid out in that post. However, feel free to present us with the facts that back up your claim, and I’ll withdraw the analysis. All you have to do is:
Tell us what the “open shutter” time is for the camera that was used. You know which type of camera her husband was using, right? Let’s call that time T0.
Tell us what the typical human reaction time to perceive the start of the “open shutter” interval is. We’ll call that T1. And let’s not forget that there is some variation in that reaction time, which we will call DT1. (D stands for Delta.) Describe the conditions in the room that allow you to assume that such perception would even be possible (e.g., ambient noise level). Because that might make T1 rather large.
Tell us what the typical human reaction time is to being touched on the butt. We’ll call that T2. And don’t forget to include DT2.
Show us that T0 > T1 + DT1 + T2 + DT2
Do that, and your claim will be elevated from silly to serious. And, mind you, this doesn’t even address the (silly) claim you made that when she said “as my husband was taking the picture” she meant “at the very moment when the ‘shutter’ clicked”.
Note that I put the word “shutter” in quotes, because unlike you, I don’t know exactly what type of camera she was using, so I leave open the possibility that it didn’t have an actual shutter, like the old-timey ones you and I grew up with did have.
Those were anonymous allegations, right?
Handing the Republicans the tool
accusation = conviction = removal from office
would be the most spectacularly stupid thing congressional Democrats have ever done.
More Dems that Pubbies? Dunno, maybe, I guess. Then maybe the only candidates that will pass certain muster would be women. Could be OK with that. Might do better, standards we guys have set aren’t that high.
If it were upheld by both parties, and it was just a matter of us holding all of our statesmen to very high standards, standards where even a dubious accusation is enough for removal, then fine.
I do not think we do any favors to ourselves or to our country to have only a “go high” response to getting stabbed in the gut.
Sexual harassment is a real problem for real people. Real people lose their jobs or their dignity to it every single day. If Franken resigning would fix that, or even be a step in that direction, then I would more strongly advocate for that, but I don’t think it is. I think that that just opens the door to further purging and purification, until only those who are on the party side that do not give one lick about women and their rights are left.
I feel bad for women who are offended, either intentionally or unintentionally, but I do not see how a witch hunt will help the women who are really abused, who really get fired and blacklisted because they complain about their manager grabbing and groping and leering at them. People who’s lives essentially ended when an abuser took interest in them.
You (not you, I think we’re in agreement) tell me how Franken’s resignation or otherwise ouster will prevent the Applebee’s GM from grabbing the 15 year old’s ass at the hostess stand, and I’ll stand with you. Demonstrate that it is only a self policing thing, and that only the men who recognize how their actions have caused offense and apologize for it that are successfully railroaded out, and I’m gonna have to ask to see if this approach is really in the best interests of the country.
I do agree with you, k9bfriender.
In my view, the standard should be the same for all genders. Everyone making an accusation of sexual misconduct:
- should be listened to seriously, and
- should be confident that a full investigation of the accusation will take place.
Now, in some cases, the full investigation would consist of common-sense checks. For example, if Chris in Alaska says “the Pope raped me,” then the full investigation would consist of a check of the Pope’s schedule with corroboration. That is, if the Pope was demonstrably at the Vatican the entire day he’s accused of having raped Chris in Alaska, and this is verifiable to a reasonable standard (via witnesses, video, etc.), then we would consider that the investigation is complete.
Not all allegations are of crimes, as with the butt-grab accusations. Again, the accuser should be listened to seriously, and the accusation should be fully investigated. Factors such as being willing to go on the record, having the corroboration of contemporaneous mentions of the incident, and potential incentives, are all going to be considered. Testimony under oath should be sought. If it is refused, then that is another factor to consider.
Instant removal from office for uninvestigated accusations is not ethical. It abandons the principle of due process–a principle fundamental to our values as Americans.
I believe that the consistent application of the ‘listen to, then investigate’ protocol for all accusers would best serve the needs of justice and would promote a climate unfriendly to sexual abusers. Because, yes: sexual harassment and abuse is a serious problem in our culture.
(And the punitive-to-accusers current Congressional system for making a complaint must be reformed ASAP. The current system clearly protects abusers.)