I have to compliment Al Sharpton for his handling of this alleged sexual assault. He’s been caught in the middle between two prominent members of his organization. His logic here is really valid.
It’s a first for me. I’ve always felt Sharpton was more of an opportunist and self promoter than a civil rights leader. But, he’s gradually changed in the past few years. He seems to be more genuine.
The fact that you cut ties with someone the minute he gets very publically accused of some widely loathed crime does not prove that you’re not an “opportunist and self promoter”.
Yes Al has always been pretty astute in doing what is best for Al.
If it was consensual, one wonders if the women of his network were equally outraged at their leader squiring around a girlfriend while still married to his second wife. (Cite.)
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think the OP was saying that being an opportunist and self promoter was like an on-off switch. This time Sharpton was acting more like a civil rights leader than someone seeking to be in the headlines.
On several levels it is a weird quote. If it was rape it was horrendous*. But why mention about it being consensual? If two adults had consensual sex in the privacy of an apartment why would anyone be outraged by that?
*Hard to tell with the information available. Pretty much everything out in public right now is little more than a rumor. Nothing official from the investigators until the physical evidence is examined. But those rumors don’t make it look good for ol’ Sandy.
I was disagreeing with that.
Cutting ties with someone the minute he gets very publically accused of some widely loathed crime is exactly what an opportunist and self-promoter would do, for reasons consistent with opportunism and self-promotion.
There might be people who are not opportunists and self-promoters who would do the same thing for other reasons. So you can’t prove that Sharpton is (still) an opportunist and self-promoter from this incident. But you also can’t prove that this is not just him acting in character as opportunist and self-promoter, since this action is perfectly consistent with that MO.
Yes, to clarify in this case Al is trying to protect his civil rights organization. He recognized that regardless of how this case ends it would be divisive within his organization.
I thought his priorities were correct. His organization does a lot of good work outside of the heavily publicized cases. Al may not be involved in the day to day work. I can’t see him answering the phones or out working in the community. 
The lady hasn’t been identified by name, but they’ve said she was high up in his organization. She would be one of the people that makes sure the day to day community work gets done.
Yes, it was weird, but Al finally got enough corporate contributions to pay the back taxes of his organization. And he is savvy enough to know he better cut this guy loose PDQ if he wants to keep the coffers clinking. So he needed a reason to get rid of him right now, without waiting until the trial.
So he came up with this “the women in my organization find fornication by its officers outrageous” reason. Which leads to my rather obvious counter, which is “but adultery is fine?”
It’s just an excuse, and he’s a hypocrite. Which is news to nobody with an IQ above room temperature.
Regards,
Shodan
Any prominent leader has to be pragmatic in making important decisions. Rubenstein used a event filled with prominent people for his own booty call. That in itself isn’t acceptable. The alleged sexual assault makes it even worse.
I am curious what Sharpton would have done if the lady hadn’t been in his organization. Would he wait until after the grand jury? What if Rubenstein isn’t indicted?
But, its much better that he cut Rubenstein off now. Minimize any damage to Sharpton and his organization. There’s plenty of younger civil rights lawyers that can replace Rubenstein,
If Rubenstein isn’t indicted, or is found Not Guilty, does he then have to fire the woman? If consensual sex between officers is such a disgrace that Rubenstein has to be fired even if he didn’t commit the assault, if it turns out that it was consensual, shouldn’t they both be fired?
Al has talked himself into a corner here - the only way firing Rubenstein and keeping the woman can be justified is if it was rape. If it was consensual, they should both be fired. But if he follows his own logic and fires someone (Rubenstein) for engaging in consensual sex, then he is following the Muslim thing of accusing women of adultery when they are raped.
Not that he either should, or will, act in accordance with his alleged principles. He is just making an excuse for getting rid of a liability ASAP, before any kind of adjudication.
Regards,
Shodan
The victim doesn’t seem to be claiming forcible rape, only that she was too incapacitated to give consent to sex. WHATEVER happens in court, Rubenstein won’t be able to effectively disprove that. At least, not to the point where Sharpton could have egg on his face for his comment.
She was bleeding, which casts some doubt on the ‘consensual’ story.
And she claims she was asleep when what’s his name penetrated her, which sounds pretty rapey to me.
But if we keep on trying
We’ll learn to really care
Eventually the whole facade
Becomes more than a whim
By starting to build on the outside
We’re gonna fill up the walls within
I’m not following you. If she was too drunk to consent, then it was non-consensual.
I don’t see how it is very much better to wait until she passes out vs. holding her down so she can’t get away. I suppose there is a little distance between the two, but not much.
You are probably right, but Al needed a way to say “I need to get rid of this bad PR ASAP” and it seemed a particularly silly reason - given his past zipper problems. No doubt it is a lost cause to expect Rev. Al to be embarassed over anything at this point in his stellar career.
No doubt he has seen the Ray Rice video and read what the NFL is going thru, and wants no part of anything threatening his income stream.
Regards,
Shodan
Sharpton may have acted too quickly. Rubenstein may be the victim of a major injustice. Theres no crime in a consensual booty call. The women don’t appear intoxicated on the video. This case is falling apart.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/sanford-rubenstein-kisses-rape-accuser-pal-video-source-article-1.1970286
This certainly appears consensual to me. IANAL but this surveillance video seems to support this guy’s story.
Well, if Al had plans for her himself, and Sandy beat him to the punch, I can see him being outraged.