Hell they don't even test rape kits

Though I get your point.

categorically deny it. she is a right wing plant by Hannity ET AL and based on additional evidence a liar.

was part of a skit.

victims describes struggling in the car to get away and I flashbacked...my experience was just as she described it....I was babysitting for this man and his wife's kids...I was 15...oldest kid and very sheltered. It happened in his car when he drove me home. He said no one would believe me and he would say I came on to him...and his 'friends' would say I did it to them too. I never told my parents or anyone until my second husband years later. I was so ashamed. Even now I get teary thinking about this.

The second time I was living in a West Virginia summer cabin full time with my then husband and baby ( the husband drank and did drugs too) He was often gone and one night 6 or 7 guys showed up to 'party'. That time I had guns...so I let go with the shotgun, and they left...pretty sure one of them was injured as there was some blood, but no one died. I had no phone so I couldn't call for help.

I swore when it happened the first time no one would ever put their hands on me unless I wanted them to again. I call the later story an assault because they said what they would do and I was scared ,but they didn't get near me or my child. After I fought back, my thinking changed; a few months later I found the courage to walk out with my two years in my arms and a back pack of what I could carry and left what had become an abusive relationship. I called my Mom and Dad and told them the truth...and went home. Like many middle class kids, I got a second chance. I went back to school got a degree and met my husband some years later.

I get very angry when women like Tweeden pretend that what she describes is assault because it isn't. And the reason women like me were not believed for years is in part because of the lies from women like her...and it is political which I find doubly sickening.

I can't express how much I admire your courage, strength, and resilience. I am tearing up reading your story. Thank you for sharing this here. I hope that thousands of people read your post, and I hope that those who need inspiration and strength receive it, and those who need enlightenment receive it.

I share your anger about the way that Tweeden has used her story to attempt to distract from the evil, criminal behavior of Roy Moore and others.

I am now open about what happened to me...and I have gone to women's shelters and told them my story. I refuse to be embarrassed or ashamed. I have a real problem with women like Tweeden who I believe is lying...she makes it so women like me are not believed.

Not all inappropriate behavior is illegal. No prosecutor would bring a case based on the facts in evidence. I am just really disappointed we have to deal with this mess. My raison d'etre is taking our nation back from the Deplorables . Anything that interferes with that goal irks me.


I have the DSB rule. Don't do anything to a woman you wouldn't want done to your mom, wife, sister, or girlfriend.

Easy peasy.

Whether we like it or believe it or not the Deplorables have used the Franken incident to muddy the waters. Comparing Al Franken to Pedo Moore is like comparing a shoplifter to an armed robber but here we are.

We are not even talking about a recent incident with Franken, for crying out loud.

And you are one hundred percent right. If moral perfection is the standard they won't be able to get quorums in the House and Senate.

Child trafficking at a pizza restaurant, for example.

Or being born in Kenya instead of the US.

5-10 Years, and he has to resign as Senator.

But under Minnesota's criminal statutes he would not be guilty of any degree of criminal sexual contact because all of those offenses require contact with a person's "intimate parts." It doesn't fall within any of the definitions of assault, either, even misdemeanor assault, which requires an intent to cause fear of bodily harm. Actually, this whole discussion is ridiculous.

Not a violation of criminal code. But, depending on circumstances, sexual harassment is a violation of civil law.

I can't imagine an attorney on the planet who would have taken a case with circumstances as described.

Here's my take (from something I posted to another thread):

Who has jurisdiction the pentagon? Afghans? Taliban? Russia?

...would have standing to bring a federal civil case, but I'm not sure which district court. If the nature of harassment constitutes a violation of federal civil law, procedure would necessarily need to support a person's ability to bring a case (otherwise, why have a law?). The USO is an entity that would fall under US jurisdiction. I would assume people employed by USO would be subject to federal law too.

in re: civil offenses committed overseas by an entity that fails within US jurisdiction (e.g., entities like a multinational company, and I assume the USO), I know people can bring a case for discrimination in federal court, but it is my understanding that the law requires they attempt to settle through an administrative process by filing complaint with EEOC first. Not sure about suits against persons employee by a US company or multinational company who commit civil offenses overseas. If it occurred on the "watch" of USO, I imagine a complaint against them could be brought for fostering a culture of harassment or something. If it went to court, perhaps the perpetrator(s) could be named as a Defendant too.

It's probably not helpful to be reaching with speculation like this, but it is an interesting question.

On Edit:
Just to be clear, my answer to the question did Franken do anything criminally or civilly unlawful is an unequivocal NO. I'm just speculating about recourse a person might have if they actually were the victim of harassment that was a violation of civil law.

He just put a bit of ass in asset. I'm with Al.

In case it wasn't clear, I think it is insane that this story has any "legs" at all. The RW noise-makers twisting themselves into pretzels to draw parallels with the actual crimes of DT and Moore look ridiculous. I think people across the board see it. (At least those who aren't being pretzels themselves.) Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I'm seeing signs that their attempts are backfiring. Hope that proves to be the case.

Your explanation is far more eloquent than anything I could say.

Thanks

If you're a Republican, of course he did something illegal, unethical, immoral and rude.

On the other hand, if Senator Frank happened to be a Republican, then it was simply a youthful indiscretion.

See how easy that is?

Joking about sexually violating someone is a violation on all of us because rape culture should not be minimized or turned into a joke. Our standards should be high enough that it takes a prosecutable action to acknowledge that it is a problem to objectify and dehumanize people.

I was thinking about Trump and Moore and the fact that they are both being accused of violations that would put them in jail if the the statute of limitations hadn't run out and if they were tried and found guilty. Actually, there might not be a statute of limitations for the minor girls. I know there are special considerations for sexual assault of a child in some states.

So I was just trying to figure out what laws were broken with Franken's behavior.

Forcibly putting any of your body on or in someone else is assault, if not sexual assault. In any jurisdiction unlike what other posters have stated.

An unwanted touching regardless of the toucher's intent can constitute the tort of assault, for which there could be civil liability. The crime of assault requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the assaulter intended to inflict bodily harm.

But it is a criminal assault in any jurisdiction -- if the woman's account is accurate as I stated.

I cited the applicable Minnesota statutes in my post above (only because that's the jurisdiction I'm familiar with from my own law practice). Even the least serious form of assault, fifth-degree misdemeanor assault, applies only if the assaulter intended to inflict bodily harm or create fear of bodily harm or death, and there's no evidence of that. See Minnesota Statutes 609.224, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.224 You said "all" jurisdictions would call this act criminal assault. Please cite at least one.

720 ILCS 5/Art. 12, Subdiv. 5 heading)
SUBDIVISION 5. ASSAULT AND BATTERY
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11.)

(720 ILCS 5/12-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-1)
Sec. 12-1. Assault.
(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he or she knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

720 ILCS 5/12-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-3)
Sec. 12-3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

It is a crime in Minnesota also. I am not going to bother to research it. The idea that someone in MN could go around and stick their tongue down peoples' throats and they would just be told to sue is a joke.

It is not a crime in Minnesota.

609.224
Subdivision 1.Misdemeanor. Whoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.

You said it was a crime in all jurisdictions, and it isn't.

and stick my tongue down their throat and there is no crime. Interesting state....

But whatever happened did not happen in MN. It happened on a military base and a military aircraft. Article 128 of the UCMJ would apply:

(1) Simple assault.

(a) Definition of assault. An “assault” is an attempt or offer with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated. It must be done without legal justification or excuse and without the lawful consent of the person affected. “Bodily harm” means any offensive touching of another, however slight.

And yes a civilian can be prosecuted under the UCMJ although given the circumstances it would be highly unlikely no matter what happened. But that is not the question posted by the OP.

and they wouldn't even press charges on the rape ...not enough evidence...anyone who brought such charges for a kiss during a skit on a USO show would be laughed out of the courtroom. How interesting the Pedo Moore faces less criticism here than Franken.

I count many lawyers as friends, most of whom cut their teeth in the D.A.'s office. I doubt a prosecutor would bring a case with this fact pattern. I am not saying it's right but if Franken wasn't a political figure he would argue the kiss was part of a rehearsal and he never actually touched her in the infamous photo and it was a sight gag. That defense would easily create reasonable doubt. That's an empirical observation and not a normative one. Whatever he did or didn't do Leeann Tweeden felt violated.

Maybe she could have sued him.

emotionally distressed at all...Dems should not pile on when the GOP invents these sort of lies.

Here's the take from Richard Bey's Facebook feed - bolding is mine.

Why I find the Tweeden-Franken scandal fishy:

1. Tweeden was not groped. Period.
2. Whether he forcefully kissed her during a rehearsal for a raunchy sketch SHE HAD AGREED TO with a kiss SHE HAD AGREED TO is a point of contention. She agreed to the kiss in the skit but secretly was going to do something different during the performance. I've acted in 100's of plays and skits, what do you think would happen if I suddenly changed my mind about an integral point of business during the performance?
3. There is a reason you don't see Roy Moore's accusers on every news show. They have nothing to gain from exposure. There is a reason why Tweeden seems to be omnipresent everywhere in the media.
4. In her statement she refers to her father a Vietnam Veteran and her husband a NG pilot. What does that have to do with the incident? Its an appeal to establish credibility with her base...as so many hide behind the military to establish credibility.
5. Referring to her as news anchor, ignoring the fact that she was clearly working for an aggressive partisan group also only tells a small part of who she is. Leaving out how she marketed herself as a sexual object for a decade and during this time is as disingenuous as leaving out how Franken used to make his living.
6. Sure, she was inspired by Representative Spier, a Democrat and strong advocate for women's rights. Yeah, right. We will expect Tweeden's endorsement for her in 2018 against a Republican.
7. As seen in the Stern tape, Tweeden enjoyed being part of juvenile, raunchy humor, talking about feeling up her breasts and laughingly showing off her 'butt crack' when asked. But that was not a violation. Right.
8. Will Tweeden be apologizing for contributing to and profiting from the sexual objectification of all women for a decade?
9. It appears that every raunchy or dark joke Franken ever spoke, from college to SNL, in a lifetime as a comedian, is now ready for publication. The oppo research was ready for a dump.
8. The only other accuser is ANOTHER right-wing radio host. The headlines call it 'harassment'...implying that it was sexual harassment, but it has to do with politics and nothing sexual.

Questions:
1. The skit was performed AFTER the rehearsal obviously. And assumedly many, many times since they were on tour. What happened when the kiss came up during those ensuing performances?
2. Tweeden said many people told her at the time to keep quiet because Franken (a radio host at Air America) was such a show business force he could destroy her career. Who were these people? Can we expect to hear from them and have them named?
3. Who took this picture? What were the circumstances? Who else was there?
4. If it was truly seen as a sexual assault why was she given a copy of it?
5. Who alerted Roger Stone the night before that this was coming?
6. It appears Tweeden was a support of birtherism in relationship to President Obama? Will she also speak out for the 16 women who accuse Trump of actual sexual assault, actually touching them inappropriately? If not, why not?
7. If this is a question of character and not a one off puerility...where are the other accusers? In EVERY case, from Louis CK to Harvey Weinstein to Trump to Moore to Spacey there are MANY accusers to build a case suggesting the nefarious sexual character of the men. A description of character involves PATTERNS of behavior. Where are they?

Feel free to add any that I have left out. Or refute it or disagree I've been warned by some friends to be silent...because this might not shine a good light on me. And most Democrats seem to have caved almost immediately but IMO, this whole thing smells very fishy.

The photo doesn't show his hands actually touching her.

There is no way to confirm that she told him she didn't want to rehearse the kiss. (Even her written statement doesn't say that.)

She didn't produce any witnesses confirming that she told them about the incident in the 11 years since it happened.

The OP asked if this would be a crime. If the facts were accurate it would be a crime. Whether it could be proven is another matter.

Her account states that she agreed to rehearse the kiss. Inside her head, not communicated to Franken, she intended to turn her head at the last minute. She was unable to pull off this maneuver, but that doesn't mean she didn't give consent.

But it's a stupid discussion anyhow.

would prosecute a fake-grope and a questionable kiss in a rehearsal.

They can't be proven either. People really change their opinions based on the politics involved.

who attested to the fact that the women had confided in them about the assaults years before. And the multiple women established a pattern. And there were children involved.

All we have from Tweeden is her say-so and a photo that doesn't show what she says it does.

To our knowledge there were no witnesses to any of events Moore was a part of. Law enforcement was never notified for whatever reason. The people told did not report it to anyone. I can tell a friend someone struck me and that friend can not testify as to whether it was true or not. So it becomes something unproveable especially decades later.

in a sexual assault case.

However, trials often include testimony of people who alleged victims previously confided in. These witnesses can vouch for the victim's state of mind and their testimony adds weight to the victims.

There are some exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is called an "outcry witness."

Democrats which helps the GOP win...seems to be the calling of some here.

In which case I'd say no. Even if it happened exactly as said, I'd still say probably not since it was still a kiss rehearsal for a skit involving a kiss.

Unless he was considered her boss. Was he considered her boss? Otherwise it could be chalked up to a misunderstanding as co-workers performing.

The evidence:

a photo of a "grope" with shadows that don't show actual contact

a claim that a woman was "forced" to rehearse a scripted kiss that she wanted to avoid, and turned out to involve tongue.

It has a duty of care.

I don't know enough about the legal jurisdiction they were under while on tour. I assume it would have been military, so it depends what offenses and thresholds applied and how these matters were dealt with at the time. I suspect it would have been considered minor.

but a peck on the cheek is not a typical USO skit where sexual innuendo is the norm and expected
to get laughs. They were rehearsing an adult bit.

We don't know for sure whether they were alone during the rehearsal, whose memory's more reliable, a whole scad of details. So I've been trying not to focus on that.

I've made two OPs about the whole thing: one to correct the misconception that "the photographer" on the plane had come forward and made a statement when that simply isn't as yet true, the other to ask if folks can stop accusing each other of being "Russian trolls" at the drop of a hat.

I've also upped my post count by arguing the toss with people who've been trying to claim that a woman who's been known to take some (or indeed all of her) clothes off for photos etc. at some point in her life is somehow automatically unreliable or unworthy of making a complaint about unwelcome attention or a "slut", and similarly, that her political allegiance automatically means she must be lying. Hell, Trump could try to pull that one, and probably has/will.

I've also consistently said I think it best to let Franken handle this in his own way, because he's damn smart, and in the end it's his seat that's on the line if his voters take against him because of any of this. As it happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the way he's handled it makes his stock rise beyond those who'd never have voted for him in a million years anyway.

His reaction seemed genuine, but it's also canny, as it's the best way to try to let it all die down as quickly as possible (until the ethics hearing, which may never happen anyway, and if it does, could be interesting for all sorts of reasons). People poring over photos and metadata and speculating about this and that endlessly isn't letting it die down. There's probably been more written about it on DU in the last day or two than in most of the rest of the media!

If people are saying it's not that big a deal - which is what I think (wrong at the time, but not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, not least because of Franken's response, and Tweeden herself seems to now agree) - then filling GD with posts about it is a funny way to prove that!

I can understand a sense of anger and injustice about a perceived fit-up and the comparisons with what Trump and Moore have done etc., but sometimes you have to step back and fight smart rather than lashing out - not least at those on your side about more things than not.

so please post a link to their backing Franken up. It will help those who want to defend him.

The USO's released a brief statement:

righty bullshit have at it...as for me I won't help the GOP.

If you believe and propagate unsubstantiated claims from social media by random people, then you're the one that's going to be helping the GOP. It would end up making you the same sort of liar you're branding Tweeden as, since you claim the people she told about this at the time "don't exist". They may well not exist, but it takes more proof than just saying it if you're going to make it that big a deal.

This whole thing doesn't have to be a big deal if handled the way Franken's chosen and the water's not muddied any more than it is already.

Maybe you should ask him whether making up and spreading claims in his "defense" is something he would welcome or find helpful.

for one am not providing links that are easily attainable...no doubt you would find fault with all of them because you want to believe what you want to believe.

But you've got nothing. That's fine.

and trolled a shopping mall for years trying to pick up high school girls; and Donald Trump assaulted fifteen women that we know of - and we're arguing about whether Al Franken committed a crime? Seriously? This is just stupid.

There are some people trying, or willing, to bring a great senator down over his behavior. I'm trying to understand that so I asked the question. If his was a case of criminal sexual assault I might understand it a little better.

Nobody is going to prosecute him, nor should they.

as an accusation of guilt. On the the contrary. I was hoping that by looking at the legal ramifications it might clarify that Franken's behavior, poor as it was, should not be considered sexual assault. I tried to couch my questions in an unbiased way to get honest responses.

"Nobody is going to prosecute him, nor should they."

get Franken...and I hate to see so many here fall for it.

When push comes to shove .. if that case ever got to court ..
the real evidence would make Franken guilty of .. bad
taste.

That photo shows no criminality whatsoever.

Have any of those people come forward?

in 2008 when Franken was running for the Senate against that snake Norm Coleman. Coleman had been elected in 2002 only because Wellstone was killed just before the election, and Wellstone almost certainly would have been elected. So in 2008 the GOP was determined to hang on to that seat, and they gave a ton of RNC money and PAC money to Coleman, who also was being advised by Karl Rove. Coleman, who has the scruples of a rabid wolverine, conducted a really dirty campaign, mostly consisting of extremely nasty attack ads citing Franken's history of raunchy jokes, trying to make him out as a degenerate. It was the ugliest state campaign I'd ever seen. The result was so close that there were two recounts; when Franken won the second recount Coleman took it to the state supreme court and lost. But throughout the whole thing, with Coleman, the GOP and Karl Rove turning over every single rock to find dirt, the incident with Tweeden never surfaced - nor did any other similar incidents. All they could come up with was some dirty jokes.

This is why I think Franken welcomes an investigation. That's not to say that what he actually did do was OK, but it's likely that it was a one-off descent into drunk frat-boy behavior and there's nothing else out there.

and she will have to name those folks...and she will most likely be under oath...going to be tough on a big liar like her.

Give it up already.

I swear I can see air or space between his hand and her boob, at least the one of he left. And as far as the rehearsal, REHEARSAL, there is now picture showing all the crew around them. The husband of a friend of mine planted a kiss on my lips as my husband and I were leaving a new years ever party. I was surprised but I just shrugged it off. I wasn't going to make a big deal about it. It was a kiss. I survived.

And don't forget. She said consented to the kids.

...the photo is just a vulgar joke. The rehearsal is a misunderstanding. I can't imagine it going anywhere, legally, as it now stands.

That is how I feel.

Forcible Frenching isn't a sex crime.

Grabbing an ass or touching a boob of someone in a state where they are "unaware the sex act is occurring", though, is, whether it's through clothing or not. And they'd still consider that vest "clothing".

Just based on laws here, forcibly kissing someone, or even unwanted tongue, isn't a sex crime. The fact I knew this was why, when someone *had* done more but I was 13 and my father would have killed him if he knew everything, said he "tried" to kiss me as my public reason for wanting him out of my life.

I've wondered since if I made the right decision, but my dad landed himself in jail over getting stabby with a guy over a $20 rock of crack a few years later, even if it could have been considered self-defense (he said the other guy started the fight, it rolled onto a second story porch, and he stabbed once to end the fight thinking they were both going to roll off of it if he didn't --judge didn't buy it, said the fight was mutual, so self defense didn't count). I know it wouldn't have been just one stab, and Dad had just been diagnosed with AIDS right before I turned 13. He'd happily have went to jail in those circumstances.

What is considered "sexual contact" here:

I am far too emotional about this whole issue. I know a lot about sexual assault, personally. IMO, the Franken story, as it is currently understood, should not be considered sexual assault in any way.

Essentially, if you're grabbed out of a crowd and forcibly Frenched, you better hope they grabbed your ass too, or they can't be charged with a sex offense.

Edit to add: no matter how many witnesses and videos exist.