Sexual Assault Scandals 3- the Fempire Strikes Back

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

She has shitty judgment as to Pres. Obama's citizenship.  How is pulling this out different from calling the integrity of Roy Moore's accusers into question?  What does this have to do with what Sen. Franken did?

Yeah, I don't want to go down that road. I'm fine with taking her at face value. I think it's fair to note that there is an obvious political motivation behind this though. And it needs to be recognized that the seriousness of Tweeden's allegations are not comparable to the allegations against Moore

[Fragile Bird]

I went out for a long walk after my last post (exercise + Pokémon ) and thought about everything I saw and heard yesterday in light of the fact Tweeden is a birther, and have decided, yes, my sympathy for her has still dropped considerably.

I am certainly not an ugly or plain woman, I would describe myself as an attractive woman who had a very nice figure when younger (age, alas!). I was not by any stretch of the imagination as beautiful as Tweeden is. Franken was being mocked yesterday for being inappropriate when he said he did a USO tour with a beautiful woman. She is a very lovely woman, and I bet she was lovelier 11 years ago.

When I heard her interview with Jake Tapper I heard an honest account of hurt about the way she has been treated. What I now doubt is that hurt was all caused by Al Franken. She has a website called The Patriot where she brags about being on 16 USO tours, something she can brag about, without a doubt. But without a doubt, there have been many occasions when men have tried to take advantage of her. She talked about trying to turn her face away from Franken's kiss, because like me and many other women, I'm sure she's had lots of experience of trying to turn away from a boor's kiss. Probably more experience than most, because men like to think they have the right to reach and take pretty things. When I think of the pain and hurt she expressed yesterday, I think about her summarizing her feelings about the many indignities she has suffered.

On top of all that, she's been on Fox for years, and we all know what a cesspool Fox is. 

I'd like to hear Tweeden name a few other men who've violated her person, but I doubt she will, because in the end the essentially dishonest element of her story is that I believe she came out with it solely for political purposes. Did she take that picture on the cd and complain to the USO tour organizers about Franken? I bet it was a passing annoyance, a disgusting picture, yes, but she's been with 16 USO shows. I'd like to see the rest of those pictures. I expect, now that my mind has been affected by the news that she's a birther, that her description of a slimy kiss and how she wished she could wash her mouth out is a description of a combination of unwanted kisses.

So, do I believe her pain and anguish over the way she has been treated by men? Absolutely, her story rings true. Do I believe all of that can be placed at Franken's door? Bull.

As for being a birther, she was on Hannity's show the day after Trump was on Oprah and demanded Obama show his birth certificate. Hannity gleefully showed the segment and she jumped right on the bandwagon FROM DAY ONE. Has she apologized to Obama? Has she made an abject apology about how important it is not to li and mislead the public?

"But television personality and self-described “patriot” Leeann Tweeden jumped on the birther bandwagon. “Right, exactly. I think he should just show it. If there is nothing to hide, why not. It would shut everybody up… You know, I think Donald Trump is brilliant... Who knows how far he could go?” Way to show your love for America, Leeann - by raising bogus questions about our president!" From one of the links below.

Her Patriot website is full of pictures of her dressed in the American flag, disgusting enough in itself, and doing a full body press on a 4 star general, Tommy Frank, who has a bedazzled holy-shit-is-my-hard-on-hidden gleeful look on his face.

http://www.leeanntweeden.com/files/TOMMY_FRANKS.jpg

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/03/24/hannity_plays_the_birther_card_.php

http://www.leeanntweeden.com/PATRIOT.html

 

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yes we do.  Moore can most certainly be legally removed by the Senate.  From a CRS report published just last year:

 

And yet there's still some confusion about this, as per the article I linked earlier:

Quote

 

Such an effort would not be a sure thing, even setting aside the two-thirds vote count. Because these proceedings are rare, most seem to get mired in questions about the boundaries of the Senate’s authority. That, and several particular examples that mirror Moore’s situation, might suggest that Gardner’s plan would be more difficult than it seems.

Consider William Roach, about whom questions were raised in 1893. The allegation against Roach was that he had embezzled money when serving as a bank teller before being elected to the Senate. The Senate declined to investigate.

“After extensive deliberation,” the Senate historian wrote, “the Senate took no action, assuring that it lacked jurisdiction over members’ behavior before their election to the Senate. The alleged embezzlement had occurred 13 years earlier.” (The historian had no dates for Roach’s or Burton Wheeler’s allegations.)

Consider, too, William Langer. Langer was accused of corruption in 1941, with residents of his state seeking to block him from taking office. The Senate historian describes the fierce debate over the charges.

[Senators] were particularly concerned about the danger of establishing the precedent that the Senate could be used by a member’s political opponents to overturn the will of a state’s citizens as expressed at the polls. Referring to the majority report, the authors of the minority report, Ellison D. Smith (D-SC) and Abe Murdock (D-UT), warned the Senate, “We cannot think of a better illustration of the danger of being swept away by a barrage of slander.” Tom Connally (D-TX) concurred in the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant expelling or excluding Langer.

A majority of the Senate voted to allow Langer to hold his seat. (He’d already been sworn in as the debate raged.)

 

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

When I heard her interview with Jake Tapper I heard an honest account of hurt about the way she has been treated. What I now doubt is that hurt was all caused by Al Franken. She has a website called The Patriot where she brags about being on 16 USO tours, something she can brag about, without a doubt. But without a doubt, there have been many occasions when men have tried to take advantage of her. She talked about trying to turn her face away from Franken's kiss, because like me and many other women, I'm sure she's had lots of experience of trying to turn away from a boor's kiss. Probably more experience than most, because men like to think they have the right to reach and take pretty things. When I think of the pain and hurt she expressed yesterday, I think about her summarizing her feelings about the many indignities she has suffered.

....So, do I believe her pain and anguish over the way she has been treated by men? Absolutely, her story rings true.

...because in the end the essentially dishonest element of her story is that I believe she came out with it solely for political purposes.

 

I'm sorry, but you say her story is true, but you are not going to feel as sorry for her because of what you believe to be her motives?

As long as the story told is the truth, I don't give a fig about the motives behind telling.  They do not take away from the facts at hand.

Lots of people never told their story before, and some of the people telling now likely do have political motives, or maybe other motives we aren't aware of.  Do you really think that not one of Moore's accusers had a political motive?

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I don't want to go down that road. I'm fine with taking her at face value. I think it's fair to note that there is an obvious political motivation behind this though. And it needs to be recognized that the seriousness of Tweeden's allegations are not comparable to the allegations against Moore

Well for me, her political leanings are irrelevant, unless she is known to be willing to tell and or promote blatant falsehoods.

Her comments per media matters are kind of a grey area, so I don't think I'd let that make me not believe her. Still it's a bit troubling she was willing to give credence to a blatant falsehood.

Now with regard to comparing to the Moore allegations. As far as I know there is nothing to question any of those women's credibility. And there seems to be a ton of corroborating evidence in that case. So, I don't think the comparison works.

[Gorn]

14 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, Re: Franken, I think announcing retirement is an appropriate solution in principle, but yes, the politics do still matter.  If the extent of his misconduct is that photo and Tweeden's account of the french kiss, I guarantee there is a large (large) swathe of MCs with more egregious behavior.  So, this would set a precedent that Democratic MCs retire.  That'd be fine if ignoring the fact everybody knows GOP members would in no way follow the same standard.  if you think gerrymandering's iniquity is disproportionate... 

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Seriously, Franken needs to resign, or if he refuses to, he needs to be quietly pushed to do so by Schumer. I have zero patience for old lechers who abuse their power in the workplace, regardless of their politics. Purge the fuckers. No ifs, buts, and whataboutism.

If, as a result, the left ends up dominated by younger women instead of old men in positions of leadership, then at least something good can come from this whole mess. Doubt we'll lose any good ones - can anyone imagine similar credulous accusations against, say, Obama?

[Kalbear]

Seriously, there's photographic evidence. The accused admitted fault and apologized.

STOP TRYING THE ACCUSER. Just stop it. This is by far the biggest reason that people DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. DON'T DO THAT.

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the hour that Bill Clinton needs a reckoning. And should have resigned in 1998. 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agree with that sentiment. The timing doesn't really matter.

That said, I'm not sure that this story does much damage back in 2008. As Kalbear has expounded in the politics thread, this probably doesn't get taken seriously 9 years ago. 

It wouldn't have done any damage a year ago.  Remember, Trump was elected after admitted sexually assaulting women and people were still identifying Clinton's behavior as a private marital affair.  It probably wouldn't have even done damage six months ago.  I think Gretchen Wilson going after Roger Ailes changed everything.  It opened the door for Weinstein and everyone else followed.  

15 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I'm sorry, but you say her story is true, but you are not going to feel as sorry for her because of what you believe to be her motives?

As long as the story told is the truth, I don't give a fig about the motives behind telling.  They do not take away from the facts at hand.

Lots of people never told their story before, and some of the people telling now likely do have political motives, or maybe other motives we aren't aware of.  Do you really think that not one of Moore's accusers had a political motive?

Yes, absolutely this.  Moore's supporters are doing this exact thing to his accusers, citing political motive.  Who cares about motive?  Franken did it, there's photo evidence, he admitted to it, end of story.  Perhaps other men who harassed Tweeden are nobodies so naming them is meaningless.  

[Kalbear]

This is another reason why Franken should resign. It isn't because what he did was so bad - it's that if the Democrats set a zero tolerance policy and indicate that they do believe accusers and will treat it seriously, they set the tone of expectation in the future. At that point anything worse than this automatically goes to 'why shouldn't they ALSO resign'? 

Because the alternative is this continued lack of enforcement of laws, combined with enforcement of norms along only partisan lines. 

[Fragile Bird]

7 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I'm sorry, but you say her story is true, but you are not going to feel as sorry for her because of what you believe to be her motives?

As long as the story told is the truth, I don't give a fig about the motives behind telling.  They do not take away from the facts at hand.

Lots of people never told their story before, and some of the people telling now likely do have political motives, or maybe other motives we aren't aware of.  Do you really think that not one of Moore's accusers had a political motive?

Oh, I still have sympathy for her because I just know she has had to push off all kinds of men in her life. I just have less sympathy than I had yesterday because I know she was willing to lie about Obama. Not lie the way Trump blatantly lied, but to support the lies, to heap coal on the lies and stoke the flames. She spoke about the hurt she has had in her life and she put all of it on Franken, and that was done for political purposes, I have no doubt at all. She has been a supporter of Trump from day one, and Trump has stood up and straight out called every single woman who has made allegations against him a liar. Did she take an opportunity to talk about how men deny the things they do to women? My sympathy for her will go back up when she calls out Trump on Fox tv to come clean about the things he's done. 

And no, I don't think that Moore's accusers have political motives in the way Tweeden did.  They've said they watched the various elections Moore has been in and they never spoke up. Some even said they were Republicans who voted for Trump!. A reporter from the WAPO has managed to convince them their stories should be known.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

A reporter from the WAPO has managed to convince them their stories should be known.

And Moore is spinning precisely this as a political motive. Maybe not them, but they wouldn't have spoken up and it wasn't a big deal until WaPo came in making up a story. 

Again, stop it. Just believe them. That's all it takes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Up next, known heel and crab legs thief Jameis Winston:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/11/17/report-nfl-investigating-jameis-winston-for-allegedly-groping-an-uber-driver/

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It wouldn't have done any damage a year ago.  Remember, Trump was elected after admitted sexually assaulting women and people were still identifying Clinton's behavior as a private marital affair.  It probably wouldn't have even done damage six months ago.  I think Gretchen Wilson going after Roger Ailes changed everything.  It opened the door for Weinstein and everyone else followed.  

Sure, but I do think Kelli has a point in that the Senate election that Franken won was insanely close. This was a statewide vote that I believe he ended up winning by something like a couple of hundred of votes and that was recounted and contested for months afterwards. So in this particular case, this controversy might have swung the election.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agree with that sentiment. The timing doesn't really matter.

That said, I'm not sure that this story does much damage back in 2008. As Kalbear has expounded in the politics thread, this probably doesn't get taken seriously 9 years ago. 

 

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It wouldn't have done any damage a year ago.  Remember, Trump was elected after admitted sexually assaulting women and people were still identifying Clinton's behavior as a private marital affair.  It probably wouldn't have even done damage six months ago.  I think Gretchen Wilson going after Roger Ailes changed everything.  It opened the door for Weinstein and everyone else followed.  

Yes, absolutely this.  Moore's supporters are doing this exact thing to his accusers, citing political motive.  Who cares about motive?  Franken did it, there's photo evidence, he admitted to it, end of story.  Perhaps other men who harassed Tweeden are nobodies so naming them is meaningless.  

Both of you are forgetting how close the 08 MN senate race was. Franken won by just over 300 votes, and one of the major attack lines against him was his crude humor, especially a rape joke. It’s entirely possible that this could have cost him the election.

Also, FB, I see your humble brag. 

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, but I do think Kelli has a point in that the Senate election that Franken won was insanely close. This was a statewide vote that I believe he ended up winning by something like a couple of hundred of votes and that was recounted and contested for months afterwards. So in this particular case, this controversy might have swung the election.

Or it could have easily garnered him more votes because the public would be calling it a nasty smear campaign and that the victim was asking for it or that it was no big deal or whatever we often say about women who come forward.

[Dr. Pepper]

It really needs to be hammered in that until VERY recently, a huge portion of liberals were still staunch defenders of Bill Clinton.  Saying that it would have harmed Franken - a well known comedian - at a time when these things generally did not harm men is rewriting history.  

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Seriously, there's photographic evidence. The accused admitted fault and apologized.

STOP TRYING THE ACCUSER. Just stop it. This is by far the biggest reason that people DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. DON'T DO THAT.

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the hour that Bill Clinton needs a reckoning. And should have resigned in 1998. 

Okay, lets go through this, very slowly.

A guy punches another guy. And another guy hits a guy with a baseball bat. They are both wrong. But most people when crafting a punishment to fit the crime would say using a baseball bat is much worse and deserves a heavier sanction. I mean both are wrong. But, the factual differences matter here when determining what ought to be done to the criminal.

Now in this case there are two acts. One is proven to be true per a picture. The other, which is more egregious, I think relies on a statement from a witness.  Now if you don’t think the witnesses propensity for telling the truth isn’t an issue or should never be, then that’s just not right.

I believe Ms. Tweeden’s claims based on what I know about her. And if all her statements about birtherism was just that transcript, then I don’t think that is enough. And, again, I think her political leanings are irrelevant.

But, when assessing, what ought to be done with people like Franken, you know it’s kind of crucial to get to the bottom of what crimes were committed. And since, I believe Ms. Tweeden , despite her birther commentary,  I believe it’s best for Franken to go.

But, to say, prior statements are not relevant to getting the bottom of things is nonsense.

Fact of the matter is we are probably going to see more Franken’s in the future. And there is going to be a question of what we should do with them. And then is a big question we as society are going to have to answer. And often that is going to turn on the particular facts of the case. And in determining those facts, if were saying, that not considering a witness’s propensity for truthfulness isn’t relevant, then that is not right.

I’m very interested in getting to the bottom of this shit and putting a stop to it. I’m not so much interested in Kangaroo Courts or Soviet Style Show Courts. And if saying that a witnesses propensity to tell the truth can never be implicated, than is exactly what were going to do.

Now it’s my understanding that Melanie Morgan is accusing Franken of harassment. At this time, I really don’t know what to make of her claims. But, I do know that at times Ms. Morgan has taken a few big liberties with the truth. And if your saying that doesn’t matter with regarding the truth or veracity of her claims, that’s just nuts.
 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, the factual differences matter here when determining what ought to be done to the criminal.

And none of that has to do with the motives of the accuser.

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now in this case there are two acts. One is proven to be true per a picture. The other, which is more egregious, I think relies on a statement from a witness.  Now if you don’t think the witnesses propensity for telling the truth isn’t an issue or should never be, then that’s just not right.

I believe Ms. Tweeden’s claims based on what I know about her. And if all her statements about birtherism was just that transcript, then I don’t think that is enough. And, again, I think her political leanings are irrelevant.

But, when assessing, what ought to be done with people like Franken, you know it’s kind of crucial to get to the bottom of what crimes were committed. And since, I believe Ms. Tweeden , despite her birther commentary,  I believe it’s best for Franken to go.

But, to say, prior statements are not relevant to getting the bottom of things is nonsense.

I don't think that prior statements of politics or truthfulness are irrelevant. I think that in this case they are. Especially when we're not talking about a court of law and anyone being under oath; we're talking about an event that has not been refuted by either side with photographic evidence. 

• Her thinking anything about birtherism has nothing to do with her ability to recite events that occurred.
• Her employment with Fox News has nothing to do with her ability to recite events that occurred.
• Her being in Playboy has REALLY NOTHING TO DO with her ability to recite events that occurred.

Now, she has come out and stated an event happened and also has given a picture. Franken has no denied these events happened, only that his recollection of them differs from hers, and the photograph isn't in dispute. Based on that, why is there any particular reason to doubt?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

DP,

In the big picture you’re absolutely correct, but not with Franken’s 08 campaign. Again, he won by 300 votes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Both of you are forgetting how close the 08 MN senate race was. Franken won by just over 300 votes, and one of the major attack lines against him was his crude humor, especially a rape joke. It’s entirely possible that this could have cost him the election.

Also, FB, I see your humble brag. 

If the motive behind this was political why didn't she trot this out during the closing days of that campaign with the photograph to go with it?  As you say it could have changed the outcome of a very close election.