That doesn't matter. It's politics. All that matters is how it makes him look now.

He would have to apologize to her face, do some form of community service (like talking to other guys about not objectifying and taking advantage of women) and that sort of thing.

No, that’s not the point though. No one mistakenly said trump was running for president at the time of that video.

If resigning results in a special election or something where a republican gets a shot of taking his seat, the moral decision is to not resign and then to not seek reelection when the time comes.

Uh she consented to a kiss and he air groped her? This is weird. She mentions Weinstein and Moore and is laughing and nervous. Ok so yeah. Well she will get some new paychecks for sure which is what she wants.

Again, the circulation of the picture rather than the act itself would be the bigger problem, but now you mention it they could probably hit you with conduct prejudicial, yes.

Good thing he didn't draw a dick on her face, they would have shot him!

misread fatkid's post so deleted that part

Seems pretty damn believable to me. Why would she lie? Because Hannity has apparently been asking around for dirt on democrats? So that means she'll just make **** up? More likely the kissing stuff actually happened like she says and she didn't want to come out with it but felt pressured by repubs. If dems actually stand by all the 'believe the woman' stuff they've/we've been spouting then Franklin should be done

Yeah I don't quite believe that groping and sexual harassment as bad as they are quite warrant a lifetime disqualification from public office (especially when not committed in office), though sexual assault probably does.

There certainly has to be at least an acknowledgement and punishment though, which starts with stepping down.

Another post making it questionable if the "believe women" norm is really sinking in on the left or not

It’s a hit job. She backs off when they talk about the investigation. It’s a ****ing air grope. She said she consented to the kiss. This is not credible.

She didn't back off talks about investigations. She said it was up to McConnell and Franken. She also said she felt taken advantage and didn't want to do the kiss thing, but felt coerced.

Your take and Simplictus take are bad.

Did she feel coerced each time they performed the skit? Did Franken take it too far ever again?

How about, "Beleive the woman, except when they have a clearly defined agenda, have orchestrated their accusations with known partisans/dirty tricksters, will receive additional compensation and media attention as a result of the accusations, downplay calls for an investigation, and fully accept the "apology". Surely this does not excessively narrow the general principle.

Perhaps you should watch the interview. Those questions are answered.

The context is different when it's within the skit versus 'rehearsing'. It's perfectly understandable that she didn't want to rehearse something like that but would be ok with it during the actual skit.

-haven't watched the interview yet

Could she have said that she was uncomfortable with the kiss in the skit, or was the writer/director complicit and she had no choice? Would they fire her if she did not kiss former SNL personality, Al Franken?

90% of me is with you and the other 10% is scared of when Laura Loomer and Tomi Lahren find out about this rule.

I may regret this, but I think there is reasonable doubt here. For christ sake, she came to the conclusion he groped her from a photo were he clearly is not groping her.

Is this the Sylvester Stallone thread?

Or you could answer the question, but whatever no reason a birther would exaggerate a story to make a prominent Democrat look bad, better take her word over his.

You mean the prominent Democrat who admitted to wrong doing. You asked questions you can find answers to in her interview instead of trying to throw shade.

Seems plausible it would just be a political hit job if not for Franken's ****up of a response.

I support things like rape shield laws and even the prohibition of evidence regarding a victim's prior sexual conduct. However, I am afraid that, in most contexts, we generally find it useful to subject people to painful and embarrassing investigations into allegations they make. The phrase is "due process."

Here's the relevant Federal Rule of Evidence (which, again, I support), that is intended to shield victims from "painful and embarrassing investigations." I do not support the "believe the victim" rule of evidence, because it's a bad rule.

Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim
(a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:

(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or

(2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.

(b) Exceptions.

(1) Criminal Cases. The court may admit the following evidence in a criminal case:

(A) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior, if offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;

(B) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct, if offered by the defendant to prove consent or if offered by the prosecutor; and

(C) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.

(2) Civil Cases. In a civil case, the court may admit evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. The court may admit evidence of a victim’s reputation only if the victim has placed it in controversy.

(c) Procedure to Determine Admissibility.

(1) Motion. If a party intends to offer evidence under Rule 412(b), the party must:

(A) file a motion that specifically describes the evidence and states the purpose for which it is to be offered;

(B) do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time;

(C) serve the motion on all parties; and

(D) notify the victim or, when appropriate, the victim’s guardian or representative.

(2) Hearing. Before admitting evidence under this rule, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials, and the record of the hearing must be and remain sealed.

(d) Definition of “Victim.” In this rule, “victim” includes an alleged victim.

Here's the rule regarding suspects, which I also support.

Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.

(b) Disclosure to the Defendant. If the prosecutor intends to offer this evidence, the prosecutor must disclose it to the defendant, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The prosecutor must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.

(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.

(d) Definition of “Sexual Assault.” In this rule and Rule 415, “sexual assault” means a crime under federal law or under state law (as “state” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 513) involving:

(1) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A;

(2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant’s body — or an object — and another person’s genitals or anus;

(3) contact, without consent, between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of another person’s body;

(4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from inflicting death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or

(5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in subparagraphs (1)–(4).

Or women should be given the benefit of the doubt, and not have to face attacks and criticisms, but there should still be some fact finding into accusations with no current corroborating witnesses.