Sexual Assault Scandals 3- the Fempire Strikes Back

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, Gorn said:

 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?

Just quoting to say I'm 100% here for this whole comment and love it. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It's easy to say- I'd be interested to see how many people would hold to that if it was them, a family member or a close friend accused.

I think you can still believe and support the accuser without instantly condemning the accused. When people have told me about being attacked, I've never questioned their account, asked them about the circumstances, etc. I've taken their word for it. But when my friend was accused of rape, I didn't condemn him, I waited to see the result of the police investigation.

If only life was so simple.

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment as well. This isn't easy, and as you say, it becomes harder the more personal or close to home it gets.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I completely understand where you're going with this (I have some minor nits to pick with the way she framed her reaction to the pic) but I think Kal's point trumps here.

We have to believe the victim. That's the rule, and it's the rule for a very good reason. We can't bend or break the rule to suit our narrative. Full stop. We believe the victim. 

So yeah, that does serve to cut off the conversation, but that is the rule.

This whole thing got started because another poster brought up Ms. Tweeden’s affiliation with Fox News, Hannity or whatever. And then he said Ms. Tweeden was a birther.

You responded to that post, and I responded to your’s basically saying I don’t really care what Ms. Tweeden’s political beliefs are as I don’t find that relevant to her basic honesty over these matters. I did however say that promoting birther conspiracy theories would be somewhat damaging to her credibility, but then concluded that I believed the original poster had got Ms. Morgan mixed up with Ms. Tweeden.

Another poster, then posted a link for Media Matters where Ms. Tweeden apparently dabbled with birther nonsense.

Some post then followed, that seemed to indicate that Ms. Tweeden’s dabbling with birtherism wasn’t particularly relevant. I don’t hold that view. I think there is just a tad bit of dishonesty in promoting that sort of thing.

Now, from what I read of that transcript, I do not believe it’s enough to overturn the very strong presumption that Ms. Tweeden should be believed.  

Now, I think it’s important that an accuser be given a very strong presumption that they are telling the truth. I don’t believe that presumption should hold in all cases, depending of course, in part, on the accusers history of being truthful. Now as far as I know, Ms. Morgan has started accusing Franken too. Now at this time, I don’t know what exactly to make of Ms. Morgan’s claims. But, it would seem Ms. Morgan has had past incidences of stretching the truth. And it would seem to me, that would be a bit relevant in determining whether she be believed or not.

[mankytoes]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment as well. This isn't easy, and as you say, it becomes harder the more personal or close to home it gets.

I think this thread illustrates that well. If you ask people "should political affiliation matter when a woman makes a sexual assault accusation?" they would say no. But then what if that political affiliation was neo-Nazism?

[Darth Richard II]

Nazi's aren't people.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

This whole thing got started because another poster brought up Ms. Tweeden’s affiliation with Fox News, Hannity or whatever. And then he said Ms. Tweeden was a birther.

You responded to that post, and I responded to your’s basically saying I don’t really care what Ms. Tweeden’s political beliefs are as I don’t find that relevant to her basic honesty over these matters. I did however say that promoting birther conspiracy theories would be somewhat damaging to her credibility, but then concluded that I believed the original poster had got Ms. Morgan mixed up with Ms. Tweeden.

Another poster, then posted a link for Media Matters where Ms. Tweeden apparently dabbled with birther nonsense.

Some post then followed, that seemed to indicate that Ms. Tweeden’s dabbling with birtherism wasn’t particularly relevant. I don’t hold that view. I think there is just a tad bit of dishonesty in promoting that sort of thing.

Now, from what I read of that transcript, I do not believe it’s enough to overturn the very strong presumption that Ms. Tweeden should be believed.  

Now, I think it’s important that an accuser be given a very strong presumption that they are telling the truth. I don’t believe that presumption should hold in all cases, depending of course, in part, on the accusers history of being truthful. Now as far as I know, Ms. Morgan has started accusing Franken too. Now at this time, I don’t know what exactly to make of Ms. Morgan’s claims. But, it would seem Ms. Morgan has had past incidences of stretching the truth. And it would seem to me, that would be a bit relevant in determining whether she be believed or not.

Yeah, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement regarding the first bit. I think it's fair to say that her belief in Birther bullshit strains her credibility in a general sense, but not specifically when it comes to her allegations against Franken.

The Morgan stuff isn't even relevant to this topic. She claims that Franken verbally harassed her regarding a point of argument that occurred on the Bill Maher show. There is no sexual component to it at all.

[The guy from the Vale]

3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Nazi's aren't people.

I wish they weren't... but they are. The dynamics that made fascism so terrifying are hidden in many, probably even most, of us. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The Morgan stuff isn't even relevant to this topic. She claims that Franken verbally harassed her regarding a point of argument that occurred on the Bill Maher show. There is no sexual component to it at all.

Okay, I didn't know that. Last I heard I was under the impression she was going to make claims similar to Tweeden and hadn't done so yet or just started with them.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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

 

The confusion is yours - although I can see why that article caused it.  Both of the examples provided in the article (William Roach and William Langer) pertain to precedents that establish intra-chamber norms for the Senate on expulsion.  Such precedents may have been important once upon a time, but not these days - and they're entirely irrelevant to the Senate's legal authority to expel members as confirmed by SCOTUS.

[OldGimletEye]

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

Then why bring it up in response to my points? If you want to talk about generalities, do so. Otherwise it's very disingenuous. 

Because in responding to your post, I wasn’t sure whether you were taking about this specific case only or speaking more generally.

But, if we are talking about these cases, generally, of which there will be many, its important to get to the actual crime or crimes committed. Its possible that one crime was committed where another was not and the evidence that tends to prove each crime might be different. And where the evidence of one crime is largely testimony it is certainly relevant to inquire into past statements of the accuser.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

 

I think it's bad form in this case, which is what we were talking about, yes.  

I think it’s bad form not to analyze these cases correctly. Saying something is simply not relevant when it is isn’t quite right. I mean certainly Ms. Tweeden engaging in birther nonsense is relevant in my opinion, and should be regarded so, even if it ultimately doesn’t change the presumption that she is being truthful.
 

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

Again, criminal law vs societal norms. If you want to do this in a court of law with legal representation, cool beans. 

And no, I don't think that her political viewpoints and beliefs are particularly relevant to her ability to tell the truth. There are a whole lot of people who genuinely believe in the birther thing because other people told them it was valid; that doesn't make them lack credibility. 

I truly get this is not a criminal court and where not going to use the same well defined procedures you find in a criminal court of law. And nor should we in these sort of cases.

But, I don’t think we should should just assume because one accusation is true that every other one is. And dividing up what is specifically alleged and what the evidence is for each allegation is a useful exercise and I’m not talking about this Franken case specifically. As I said, I find Tweeden’s claims credible despite her dabbling in birtherism. But if this were another case, and one of the allegations rested primarily on the testimony of the accuser and the accuser had a history of making false claims, I might think differently.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

Not particularly, because it's incredibly common. I believe something like 40% of all Republicans STILL believe it. 

Well it seems to me that a rather large number of Republicans were willing to believe in a rather dishonest delusion. And certainly somebody willing to go out and repeatedly push that falsehood would have to take some hit to their credibility.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

Except you brought it up as relevant.

Except I didn’t, unless your saying that the birther issue I raised counts here.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

 

And I don't believe you, based on your prior behavior of saying that things like prior political opinions and viewpoints are reasonable things to bring into the fore. Why not prior occupations? Why not prior modes of dress? 

 

This is complete horeseshit. I have really no idea where you are getting this. At what point did I say prior political opinions or viewpoints are relevant in this sort of case. I did not do such a thing. And at no point have I every indicated that a persons mode of dress or occupation is remotely relevant in this sort of case.

I do not believe that a person mode of dress, general political affiliation, or occupation has any relevance to their credibility. Knowingly spewing false bullshit does however.

And finally, I really don't give damn if you believe me or not.
 

On 11/17/2017 at 3:48 PM, Kalbear said:

 Again, when you're bringing it up as a counterargument to one specific case it really doesn't help. 

Well, again, it wasn’t clear to me whether you were talking about this one specific case or more generally.

Secondly, it’s not ridiculous to point out that promoting birtherism (or any other big whopper) is relevant.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

The confusion is yours - although I can see why that article caused it.  Both of the examples provided in the article (William Roach and William Langer) pertain to precedents that establish intra-chamber norms for the Senate on expulsion.  Such precedents may have been important once upon a time, but not these days - and they're entirely irrelevant to the Senate's legal authority to expel members as confirmed by SCOTUS.

If you say so; the most recent examples are much more relevant than the 1862 case. And in the case of things like impeachment and expulsion, norms and prior precedent are just as legally binding as anything else, sadly. Sorry, but I'll believe the congressional legal scholars over you. 

 

[Kelli Fury]

3 hours 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.

It was just over 300 votes in the end. I’m absolutely certain if that photo dropped then 300 people at least would stay home or flip their vote- because I was a Franken voter who absolutely wouldn’t have been with that photo. I alone, .3% of his winning margin.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because in responding to your post, I wasn’t sure whether you were taking about this specific case only or speaking more generally.

Perhaps instead of writing a big ass post you should ask first? This isn't the first thing you've gotten wrong in this thread. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, if we are talking about these cases, generally, of which there will be many, its important to get to the actual crime or crimes committed. Its possible that one crime was committed where another was not and the evidence that tends to prove each crime might be different. And where the evidence of one crime is largely testimony it is certainly relevant to inquire into past statements of the accuser.

Don't care, not talking about things in general. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think it’s bad form not to analyze these cases correctly. Saying something is simply not relevant when it is isn’t quite right. I mean certainly Ms. Tweeden engaging in birther nonsense is relevant in my opinion, and should be regarded so, even if it ultimately doesn’t change the presumption that she is being truthful.

Why? And why is this relevant when, say, being an evangelical is not?

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I truly get this is not a criminal court and where not going to use the same well defined procedures you find in a criminal court of law. And nor should we in these sort of cases.

I doubt this.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, I don’t think we should should just assume because one accusation is true that every other one is. And dividing up what is specifically alleged and what the evidence is for each allegation is a useful exercise and I’m not talking about this Franken case specifically. As I said, I find Tweeden’s claims credible despite her dabbling in birtherism. But if this were another case, and one of the allegations rested primarily on the testimony of the accuser and the accuser had a history of making false claims, I might think differently.

Maybe don't reply to me about general cases when I'm talking about specific ones, then.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well it seems to me that a rather large number of Republicans were willing to believe in a rather dishonest delusion. And certainly somebody willing to go out and repeatedly push that falsehood would have to take some hit to their credibility.

Why? They still don't believe they're deluded.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except I didn’t, unless your saying that the birther issue I raised counts here.

It does.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

This is complete horeseshit. I have really no idea where you are getting this. At what point did I say prior political opinions or viewpoints are relevant in this sort of case. I did not do such a thing. And at no point have I every indicated that a persons mode of dress or occupation is remotely relevant in this sort of case.

Birtherism is a political viewpoint. Obviously you said that.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I do not believe that a person mode of dress, general political affiliation, or occupation has any relevance to their credibility. Knowingly spewing false bullshit does however.

Birtherism is a political viewpoint. What your view of 'knowingly spewing false bullshit' is is an entirely subjective viewpoint. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And finally, I really don't give damn if you believe me or not.

Well, that's good. I'll just say that you sound almost precisely like the random other people who attacked Tweeden based on her prior jobs, or her appearing nude, or hugging other people on camera. And your arbitrary choice on what to make her sound credible or not appear to be just that - arbitrary. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, again, it wasn’t clear to me whether you were talking about this one specific case or more generally.

Again, maybe you should ask first.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Secondly, it’s not ridiculous to point out that promoting birtherism (or any other big whopper) is relevant.

It kind of is the way you did it. Knowingly promoting political opinions that you disagree with (or are based on an apparent falsehood) seems to be an odd decision to make; again, is someone incredible for pushing religious views? For pushing anti-GMO views? Their viewpoints of what they believe in vs. their ability to separate actual witness accounts seems on its face to be ludicrous. 

[Kelli Fury]

4 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. 

Just putting this on this page, too, because we all need to be told again.

[Darth Richard II]

4 minutes ago, Kelli Fury said:

Just putting this on this page, too, because we all need to be told again.

Some of the conversations I have had with friends this week about this make me thinks this needs to printed on i Dunno, a GIANT GLOWING SIGN THE SIZE OF THE MOON AND LAUNCHED INTO OUTER SPACE.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you say so; the most recent examples are much more relevant than the 1862 case. And in the case of things like impeachment and expulsion, norms and prior precedent are just as legally binding as anything else, sadly. Sorry, but I'll believe the congressional legal scholars over you. 

 

The CRS report I cited is - literally - the most credible congressional legal scholarship you can find.  And yes, prior precedent matters, but not precedent that entails the Senate's internal action [edit] because that is not legal precedent.  Read the article you cited again.  It never states that the Senate can't expel Moore, only that there are historical precedents that contradict doing so. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

The CRS report I cited is - literally - the most credible congressional legal scholarship you can find.  And yes, prior precedent matters, but not precedent that entails the Senate's internal action is not legal precedent.  Read the article you cited again.  It never states that the Senate can't expel Moore, only that there are historical precedents that contradict doing so. 

I agree - which is why I said that it's unclear if it could happen. The Senate certainly has the power to do so for basically any reason per the constitution, but it's not clear whether or not they actually can based on their own procedures and norms. 

This is much like saying that the senate can vote something into law without a filibuster-proof majority. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about the filibuster, but that's one of their rules. Same with blue slips. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kelli Fury said:

It was just over 300 votes in the end. I’m absolutely certain if that photo dropped then 300 people at least would stay home or flip their vote- because I was a Franken voter who absolutely wouldn’t have been with that photo. I alone, .3% of his winning margin.

It should also be noted that there was a well respected former Senator in the race who ran as an Independent. He ended up with 15% of the vote and it's entirely possible that people would have voted for him over Franken if this broke at the beginning of November, 2008. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I agree - which is why I said that it's unclear if it could happen. The Senate certainly has the power to do so for basically any reason per the constitution, but it's not clear whether or not they actually can based on their own procedures and norms. 

This is much like saying that the senate can vote something into law without a filibuster-proof majority. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about the filibuster, but that's one of their rules. Same with blue slips. 

No, it's not unclear if it could happen.  It can happen, and hopefully will if he's elected. 

To the bolded, I am aghast at that sentence.  So, the Senate certainly has the power to do so - ok, agreed!  But then, comma, it's not clear if they actually can?  What?  Your example about the filibuster is rather immaterial but I suppose informative.  Yes, the Senate can abolish the filibuster, or blue slips, whenever they desire.  Just as they have the legal authority to expel whomever they want, which was my original point.

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I saw it on your post on Facebook. 

You did not see it on my posts on Facebook. Nor do I remember that the other boarder who I was deep in discussion with said anything about Playboy either. She said she was angry Tweeden was being attacked and dragged through the mud, and I said I had not seen any attacks on her, just strong support. Of course, the only US television I have watched has been CNN, and CNN has been very supportive. And they haven't mentioned Playboy at all. As I said I had no idea Tweeden had ever appeared in Playboy. And after you insulted me, I deleted the post.