# Trump, the Clintons, and sexual harrasment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780 "2017-11-16T16:58:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/41 "2017-11-18T18:09:01Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I thought it was the Harvey Weinstein scandal that really opened the floodgates, not Trump winning the election? Were there any prominent sexual harassment scandals/accusations between last year’s election and the Weinstein scandal breaking in early October? As was pointed out, Susan Fowler coming forward about Uber. Sexual harassment is something that simmers, comes to a boil, boils over, then we forget about it again. Tailhook anyone? Mitsubishi? Every time it does get a little better, but anyone who thinks this is going to fix it probably also thinks that we can reach a point in the next ten years where we don’t profile black men as criminals…these things are deeply imbued in our culture. Not that it isn’t worth fighting the good fight, but we need to set SMART goals here. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/42 "2017-11-18T18:18:50Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Clinton is definitely more smooth and less crass than Trump. As are many alcoholic Tourette Syndrome victims living in homeless shelters. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/43 "2017-11-18T20:11:54Z")
> [@Ukulele\_Ike](#): > > What about that lecher Warren G. Harding, screwing his mistress in the Oval Office broom closet? Why does the Oval Office have a broom closet? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/44 "2017-11-18T20:36:29Z")
> [@Ukulele\_Ike](#): > > According to this, the Dems ARE doing the right thing. > > [Senate Dems Leave No Room For Ambiguity In Denouncing Al Franken | HuffPost Latest News](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-senators-al-franken-allegations_us_5a0dc761e4b0c0b2f2f89dfc?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009) > > And I can safely predict the the Repubs will continue to do the WRONG thing. Is that a joke? It seems like a joke. It starts off sounding great: “ **Senate Dems Leave No Room For Ambiguity In Denouncing Al Franken** ” and then it continues: “Democratic senators were unequivocal on Thursday in their calls …” that all sounds great so far, exactly the sort of strong response you’d like to see from the party that will give no quarter to sexual abuse. But then it all kind of falls apart: “… for an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Sen. Al Franken” An investigation? Really? That’s the Senate Dems version of “Leave No Room for Ambiguity In Denouncing” and “unequivocal”. ‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’. Well, alrighty then. Would you feel better if the Republicans agreed to censure a theoretical Senator Moore? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/45 "2017-11-18T20:42:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is that a joke? It seems like a joke. It starts off sounding great: “ **Senate Dems Leave No Room For Ambiguity In Denouncing Al Franken** ” and then it continues: “Democratic senators were unequivocal on Thursday in their calls …” that all sounds great so far, exactly the sort of strong response you’d like to see from the party that will give no quarter to sexual abuse. But then it all kind of falls apart: “… for an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Sen. Al Franken” An investigation? Really? That’s the Senate Dems version of “Leave No Room for Ambiguity In Denouncing” and “unequivocal”. ‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’. Well, alrighty then. Would you feel better if the Republicans agreed to censure a theoretical Senator Moore? I read, “The Senate should immediately begin an ethics investigation into Senator Franken’s conduct." What I didn’t read was, \*“‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’.” \* Would you kindly provide a link? Thanks ever so much. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/46 "2017-11-18T20:49:05Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I read, “The Senate should immediately begin an ethics investigation into Senator Franken’s conduct." What I didn’t read was, \*“‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’.” > \* > > Would you kindly provide a link? Thanks ever so much. It was a mocking paraphrase, in case that wasn’t clear. I try to use double quotes (") to denote actual quotes and single quotes (') to denote paraphrases. I said this in another thread: > [@Now, Al Franken](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/371): > > I took his call for an ethics investigation to be a slow-rolling of any consequences so that he can stave them off until flaring tempers have cooled and thus hang onto his Senate seat. The alternative being proposed is for him to resign more-or-less immediately. In other words, it’s precisely an attempt to avoid any real consequences for his behavior, not accepting them. I thought everyone understood that. > [@](#): > > “Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and it should not occur anywhere,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said. “This story is extremely troubling and the behavior is unacceptable. I will support an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee.” > > Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said she was glad Franken “immediately apologized,” but added that “this kind of behavior isn’t OK whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat and I support an Ethics Committee investigation.” I’m quite confident Senators Harris and Baldwin understand that, but apparently not everyone else does. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/47 "2017-11-18T21:00:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It was a mocking paraphrase, in case that wasn’t clear. I try to use double quotes (") to denote actual quotes and single quotes (') to denote paraphrases. I said this in another thread: And we’re supposed to remember your non-standard use? [Source](http://www.mesacc.edu/~jerol76351/102mwf/lectures/how.html) > [@](#): > > There sometimes is confusion between “double quotes” and ‘single quotes.’ Britain and Commonwealth countries use single quotes (called inverted commas) instead of double, but when you borrow material from such authors, you should convert single quotes to double. In America, single quotes are only used to indicate internal quotes (or quotes within quotes). A paraphrase is based on a quote but altered in voice, not in meaning. (Same source as above) > [@](#): > > Paraphrase at first takes time, but it gets easier with practice. The trick is to approach it in steps: > > Start with the original sentence or phrase. > Substitute synonyms for as many words and phrases as you can. > Try to change the syntax; think about the meaning and put it into your own words. > Compare your version with the original and make sure you have retained all nuances of meaning. > Finally, remember to cite the source. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/48 "2017-11-18T21:03:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It was a mocking paraphrase, in case that wasn’t clear. I try to use double quotes (") to denote actual quotes and single quotes (') to denote paraphrases. I said this in another thread: Oh, the mocking was loud and clear, but entirely unsupported by what was reported in that article. Also, ‘Something I posted before is my cite’, is not exculpatory. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m quite confident Senators Harris and Baldwin understand that, but apparently not everyone else does. Who doesn’t understand it? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/49 "2017-11-18T21:07:56Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > And we’re supposed to remember your non-standard use? [Source](http://www.mesacc.edu/~jerol76351/102mwf/lectures/how.html) > > A paraphrase is based on a quote but altered in voice, not in meaning. (Same source as above) I’ll be here to remind you in case you forget. In the meantime, here’s an interesting article on the evolving usage of quotation marks: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon\_valley/2014/10/21/single\_quotes\_or\_double\_quotes\_it\_s\_really\_quite\_simple.html](http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/10/21/single_quotes_or_double_quotes_it_s_really_quite_simple.html) > [@](#): > > … Yet the answers given have their own logic. “Single quotes are used if you voice the person’s thoughts,” one writes. “Double are used for them speaking.” > > … > > Many people cite a justification from Wikipedia: “To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech.” … > > I asked Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of California–Berkeley, about how people could develop this new rule. He explained a long-standing linguistic principle: “People just make shit up.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/50 "2017-11-18T21:11:10Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > … Who doesn’t understand it? You seemed to be the one having trouble with the concept. ‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’ is, I still think, a pretty good summary of Senate Dems response so far. Now, maybe his actions were trivial enough that Franken only deserves a slap on the wrist, but writing an article lionizing Senate Dems for their response is, well, laughable. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/51 "2017-11-18T21:18:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You seemed to be the one having trouble with the concept. > > ‘We unequivocally agree he should get a slap on the wrist’ is, I still think, a pretty good summary of Senate Dems response so far. Now, maybe his actions were trivial enough that Franken only deserves a slap on the wrist, but writing an article lionizing Senate Dems for their response is, well, laughable. I’m having trouble with the concept because every single person quoted in that article is supporting an ethics inquiry into Franken’s conduct. Everything else I’ve read recently suggests that Senate Dems support the ethics investigation. Franken said he welcomes the investigation. So you show me where a Senate Dems say, Franken deserves ‘a slap on the wrist’. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/52 "2017-11-18T21:25:55Z")
An ethics inquiry IS a slap on the wrist. A real consequence would be resignation. Here, RTFirefly said it better than me: > [@Now, Al Franken](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/465): > > This is the conundrum, isn’t it? > > I agree that proportionality is important, and that we ought to sanction people in a way that’s not out of proportion to their offense. > > The problem is, AFAICT it’s really all or nothing. The Senate could censure Franken, but that doesn’t really _mean_ anything. They could strip Franken of his committee assignments, but that is a punishment to the people of Minnesota that Franken represents, in addition to punishing Franken. > > I just don’t see a meaningful condition to “he stays in the Senate, on the condition that…” > > If someone can come up with one that makes sense, I’d like to hear it. But if the choices are “Franken resigns” or “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” I’m still on the “resign” side. > > (BTW, Spice Weasel, I’m quoting your comment not so much because I disagree with you (even though I reach a different conclusion) but because I think you’ve nailed the dilemma. There needs to be accountability, and there needs to be proportionality. But is there a way of having both? And which do we choose if we can only have one?) Senate Dems are on the “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” side. ETA: scratch that, they’re actually on the ‘let’s investigate a bit first and decide whether we should sanction him in a meaningless way or not’ side. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/53 "2017-11-18T21:26:07Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m having trouble with the concept because every single person quoted in that article is supporting an ethics inquiry into Franken’s conduct. Everything else I’ve read recently suggests that Senate Dems support the ethics investigation. Franken said he welcomes the investigation. So you show me where a Senate Dems say, Franken deserves ‘a slap on the wrist’. He’s paraphrasing. According to the rules he made up. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/54 "2017-11-18T21:37:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > An ethics inquiry IS a slap on the wrist. A real consequence would be resignation. Here, RTFirefly said it better than me: > > Senate Dems are on the “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” side. > > ETA: scratch that, they’re actually on the ‘let’s investigate a bit first and decide whether we should sanction him in a meaningless way or not’ side. I see. So you’re an advocate for the zero tolerance policy when it comes to charges of sexual harassment by elected officials? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/55 "2017-11-18T21:51:59Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I see. So you’re an advocate for the zero tolerance policy when it comes to charges of sexual harassment by elected officials? I don’t believe I’ve taken a zero-tolerance position in any of these ongoing discussions about sexual harassment. I actually thought RTFirefly’s suggestion would be an elegant resolution for Franken: > [@Now, Al Franken](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/488): > > Here’s a suggestion. > > If Franken resigns, his appointed replacement would only serve until November 2018, when an election would be held for his replacement. > > So here’s the suggestion: let the people of Minnesota decide. Franken resigns, with the understanding that (a) he won’t be appointed for the vacancy created by his resignation, but (b) if the people of Minnesota vote him back in next November, it’s no harm, no foul. > > A year on the sidelines seems to me to be a reasonable consequence for his actions. And if the people of Minnesota decide next year to extend that period, that should be their choice. In the post that started this discussion, I wasn’t so much urging a zero-tolerance policy as poking fun at the idea that “[the Dems ARE doing the right thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20607226#post20607226)” by calling for an investigation by the ethics committee. They’re not, or at least, they’re not taking any sort of a tough stance against sexual abusers by doing it. They know, and you probably know, that the Senate ethics investigations is a dead end. It would amount to a slap on the wrist for Franken at most. [**USA Today: Senate ethics panel has issued no punishments in 9 years**](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/04/senate-ethics-panel-has-issued-no-punishments-9-years/79704196/) > [@](#): > > The Senate Ethics Committee released its annual report this week declaring that for the ninth straight year, it imposed no disciplinary sanctions against anyone in 2015. Since 2007, the committee has received 613 allegations of wrongdoing and has summarily dismissed more than 90% of them. Only 75 have had even a preliminary investigation. > > The total of the committee’s discipline during the nine-year period is a half-dozen letters the committee has written to senators saying, basically, “you should not have done that.” … > > These results raise “all kinds of red flags,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center. “It begs credulity that there have been no ethics violations worthy of disciplinary sanction since 2007 in the entire Senate. The fact is the Senate Ethics Committee has become the ‘dead letter’ office.” > > … > > “Senate Ethics has a reputation of being a black hole for allegations,” said Jordan Libowitz of the left-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Information tends to go into the committee and nothing comes out of it.” > > … ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/56 "2017-11-18T23:14:39Z")
What were Senate sanctions like in the past? Has a Senator ever been sanctioned for something that took place before he or she was elected? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/57 "2017-11-19T15:23:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > An ethics inquiry IS a slap on the wrist. A real consequence would be resignation. Here, RTFirefly said it better than me: > > Senate Dems are on the “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” side. > > ETA: scratch that, they’re actually on the ‘let’s investigate a bit first and decide whether we should sanction him in a meaningless way or not’ side. It’s not at all clear to me that the decision is entirely up to Senate Dems. Don’t Senate GOP have a say? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t believe I’ve taken a zero-tolerance position in any of these ongoing discussions about sexual harassment. I actually thought RTFirefly’s suggestion would be an elegant resolution for Franken: > > In the post that started this discussion, I wasn’t so much urging a zero-tolerance policy as poking fun at the idea that “[the Dems ARE doing the right thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20607226#post20607226)” by calling for an investigation by the ethics committee. They’re not, or at least, they’re not taking any sort of a tough stance against sexual abusers by doing it. They know, and you probably know, that the Senate ethics investigations is a dead end. It would amount to a slap on the wrist for Franken at most. > > [**USA Today: Senate ethics panel has issued no punishments in 9 years**](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/04/senate-ethics-panel-has-issued-no-punishments-9-years/79704196/) I don’t see RTFirefly’s suggestion as consistent. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to punish Minnesota voters by forcing censure on Franken to limit his role in the senate, while on the other RTFirefly argues that suspension for a year would be appropriate until the voters make a decision in the 2018 election. That aside, I’m trying to reconcile the logic which suggests that resignation would be the right course of action for Franken while anything short of that is, in your words, ‘a slap on the wrist’, with, your claim that you are not taking a zero tolerance position. So if Franken does not resign, per your wish, then a benching suspension imposed by the senate would be the next best thing. But that punishes the voters and you (per RTFirefly) would not want to do that. So, what’s left is, ‘a slap on the wrist’, which you don’t support either. So your position is either self imposed resignation or some other outcome you would not be happy with. How is that not zero tolerance? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/58 "2017-11-19T16:12:46Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I’m not sure what your argument is. It’s not an argument; it’s a rant that represents a bad attempt at false equivalency. I would agree that, in retrospect, the Democratic party and Bill Clinton’s supporters probably went too far in defending him. It’s fairly clear to me that there was at least some pattern of sexual misconduct that went beyond consensual extra-marital sex. That pattern does, at minimum, suggest that Bill Clinton had a tendency, on occasion, to use his supervisory and political authority to make unwanted sexual advances. I would at least acknowledge that much. However, when it comes to Juanita Broadderick’s rape charges, there just isn’t enough evidence to substantiate it. I’m not saying she’s lying, only that there’s not enough evidence to support her claim. And unlike Trump’s and Moore’s accusers, nobody else has stepped forward to claim that Clinton committed rape. It’s possible that Clinton did it this one time, but without reliable witnesses and/or incriminating statements from Clinton himself, there’s no evidence and no real corroboration. On that note, Clinton did pay to settle his lawsuits. He paid a political price in terms of the damage sustained to his reputation, and his spouse also sustained damage to her own reputation for trying to defend him. But beyond that, the Clintons, the Democrats, and progressives generally have never claimed a position of moral purity or superiority – that’s what Republicans and conservatives do. They dishonestly use character smears to turn elections that should be objective evaluations of political candidates and turn them into subjective purity tests. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/59 "2017-11-19T16:17:03Z")
I’m probably not up-to-date on all the charges against Moore, but how many women are claiming he raped them? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780/60 "2017-11-19T16:21:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m probably not up-to-date on all the charges against Moore, but how many women are claiming he raped them? None, AFAIK. One is claiming he attempted to physically force her to give him oral sex in his car. Another claims he felt her up through her bra and panties. I believe both were minors at the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-the-clintons-and-sexual-harrasment/801780.md?page=4)