Republican Representative Joe Barton...come on down!!!
- Thread starter chemmie
- Start date
Right now, it's not even sexual harassment, much less not sexual extortion or sexual assault for that matter. In fact, someone else released the photo without his permission, which is a violation of his privacy.
Under the 2015 Texas Law, this may end up being "revenge porn" as facts come out, and the person who leaked it could be guilty of a crime.
Now if a subordinate comes forward, and says she received the photos without asking and was otherwise offended, that'll change things. But right now, he's claiming these were all consensual relationships post-separation, and the photo was shared in private with those individuals.
Pretty weak chemmie, but that's par-for-the-course in the US media, and the sheep (like chemmie) that cannot turn on their brain to understand civics and law. So, for now, the left will just misrepresent facts from the get-go, and hope they come true. We'll see, but it is just another situation that strains the credibility of the Progressives.
Related Article: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/1...-how-respond-after-graphic-photo-circulates-/
Moore and Trump make it "2", but not Barton at this time. In fact, as the facts (very limited) stand right now, Barton is actually the "victim" here.
Umm, it's not a "threat" if someone you had a consensual relationship with tells you not to share private photos.
- http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/politics/joe-barton-image-revenge-porn/index.html
Even worse? She admits she used him for political gain. Sigh ... it never ceases to amaze me how many women undermine other women, and are oblivious to what they are doing.
I'll reserve further judgement until more facts are known, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Washington Post hasn't shared more because they realize she may have committed multiple crimes.
We'll see.
- http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/politics/joe-barton-image-revenge-porn/index.html
Even worse? She admits she used him for political gain. Sigh ... it never ceases to amaze me how many women undermine other women, and are oblivious to what they are doing.
I'll reserve further judgement until more facts are known, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Washington Post hasn't shared more because they realize she may have committed multiple crimes.
We'll see.
It's very sad how she seems to go out of her way to say she did it for political gain than liking him, almost thinking that somehow says she didn't want to have a 'real' relationship with him ... possibly saying that even constitutes "non-consensal" and "harrassment/extortion/assault" towards her, and even "threatened" her by pointing that out?
Do some women literally not understand why that undermines other women?
The "threat" she was complaining about is also suspect. It's not a "threat" for someone to point out something is illegal, both civil
and, very likely in this case with the explicit Texas law, crimial.
It's like this woman is "washing her hands," and saying, "Oh, I gave them to someone else, not my fault. He threatened me over it too. I don't understand why he isn't in trouble."
Flip the gender here ...
Guy gives another guy pics of a female poitician he dated, said he "only used her," and that he didn't do anything wrong by giving away her private, nude pics to another guy who then posted then in the Internet, and the US media calls her a slut as a result, and reported she "threatened" him, hence why "he had to" give away the pics.
Pretty much 100% explains why Progressives are not just hated by Conservatives and Moderates these days, but why true, critically thinking Liberals know they have lost control of their own party and the mainstream media engine that pisses everyone off.
The assumptions of those who started this thread even confirm it.
Looks like the federal law has bi-partisan support.
- http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article186853463.html
It'll be interesting to see what charges are filed in the end on this, at least in Texas where a state law already exists. In addition to the nude photo, there was also a video posted to Twitter, which has since been taken down.
To this point, and I've found noting to counter, it seems he lawmaker has broken no rules, was in a consensual relationship, not with a wife at the time and only threatened a woman with the media that he would report her to the police under any state law if she posted that media without permission (well within his right).
It's sad that someone who merely just let himself be filmed privately is being seen as the same as real 'sexual abusers.' Still waiting for Progressives like @chemmie to admit he 'so got it wrong' on this one.
- http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article186853463.html
It'll be interesting to see what charges are filed in the end on this, at least in Texas where a state law already exists. In addition to the nude photo, there was also a video posted to Twitter, which has since been taken down.
To this point, and I've found noting to counter, it seems he lawmaker has broken no rules, was in a consensual relationship, not with a wife at the time and only threatened a woman with the media that he would report her to the police under any state law if she posted that media without permission (well within his right).
It's sad that someone who merely just let himself be filmed privately is being seen as the same as real 'sexual abusers.' Still waiting for Progressives like @chemmie to admit he 'so got it wrong' on this one.
There is a lot of chatter that she didn't leak it, but she merely shared it to others years ago. Now those people are the ones posting it.
Texas law enforcement is investigating, likely from help from the FBI and others. We'll see.
Now I do think she was stupid to tell the Washington Post that he 'threatened her' about releasing the photos. They reported she came out about the photos and talked to them because he called her and told her he would turn her into the police if she did.
Given she did this, to whomever parties, in 2015+, after the law was in effect, I see that more as a 'courtesy warning' than a 'threat.' Even the Washington Post didn't report anything that looked like it was a threat, even if she thought it was.
Again, if you reverse the sex on this, everyone would be defending the female Congresswoman.
Okay, according to this ...
- https://www.queerty.com/tape-reveal...ssing-heavily-sexual-affair-pic-leak-20171128
I was wrong (well, "not informed," but now am) about two details.
1) He had sex with her in 2012 and 2014, while he was still married (was he legally separated during one? or both?)
2) He sent her his first pictures in 2011, before they had sexual consent, and she claims it was unsolicited
So he is a hypocrite when it comes to family values. He is an adulterer (I'll put any separation claims to the side, if he even has one), and he may be guilty of sending unsolicited pictures in 2011, which she claims.
However, she may be on shaky ground because she did, indeed, sleep with him, and has admitted she did it for political gain. No one can sit there and claim something is 'unsolicited,' and then turn around and take advantage of it. That burns me up more than anything. You keep totally clean, and get away from that person, for a reason -- if you really didn't want to be engaged in such a way.
And that's what makes Barton's recorded statement very solid, especially since he admits he was married ...
He wasn't 'threatening' her. He was telling her what was going to happen.
In fact, he prefaced those very legally sound statements with this ...
I'm tired of this being called 'threatening' her.
No, he's advising you of what he must do if you do not comply with his wishes. It's one thing if you want to claim he had a sexual relationship and committed adultry, even looks like a hypocrite, and sent you pictures before you were sexually active with him. But you also chose to sleep with him, for your own reasons, and you think you have every right to share his pictures.
Which is what gets to me. We have laws that prevent people -- i.e., guys -- from sharing girlfriend's pictures, and hold them liable if they should break up, via the 'revenge porn' laws, even if they don't post them themselves. So why does this woman get special treatment? The existence of something, especially when shared with others, can be used for extortion ... even if money is not involved.
No, she doesn't get special treatment because she's a woman. In fact, Barton tried to tell her that ... but apparently it's a 'threat'? Sorry, he's an adulterer at best, and possibly a pre-emptive, sexting hypocrite as well (although that's more debatable, given their relationship).
But I do now understand why the Republican party wants him to not run again. He is at least a hypocrite in some ways.
Just tired of the media making it about 'his photo,' when it's really about those details I mentioned ... both his, and hers.
- https://www.queerty.com/tape-reveal...ssing-heavily-sexual-affair-pic-leak-20171128
I was wrong (well, "not informed," but now am) about two details.
1) He had sex with her in 2012 and 2014, while he was still married (was he legally separated during one? or both?)
2) He sent her his first pictures in 2011, before they had sexual consent, and she claims it was unsolicited
So he is a hypocrite when it comes to family values. He is an adulterer (I'll put any separation claims to the side, if he even has one), and he may be guilty of sending unsolicited pictures in 2011, which she claims.
However, she may be on shaky ground because she did, indeed, sleep with him, and has admitted she did it for political gain. No one can sit there and claim something is 'unsolicited,' and then turn around and take advantage of it. That burns me up more than anything. You keep totally clean, and get away from that person, for a reason -- if you really didn't want to be engaged in such a way.
And that's what makes Barton's recorded statement very solid, especially since he admits he was married ...
"I would tell them that I had a three-year undercover relationship with you over the Internet that was heavily sexual and that I had met you twice while married and had sex with you on two different occasions and that I exchanged inappropriate photographs and videos with you that I wouldn’t like to be seen made public, that you still apparently had all of those and were in position to use them in a way that would negatively affect my career. That’s the truth."
He wasn't 'threatening' her. He was telling her what was going to happen.
In fact, he prefaced those very legally sound statements with this ...
“I want your word that this ends,” Barton says. “I am ready if I have to, I don’t want to, but I should take all this crap to the Capitol Hill Police and have them launch an investigation.”
I'm tired of this being called 'threatening' her.
No, he's advising you of what he must do if you do not comply with his wishes. It's one thing if you want to claim he had a sexual relationship and committed adultry, even looks like a hypocrite, and sent you pictures before you were sexually active with him. But you also chose to sleep with him, for your own reasons, and you think you have every right to share his pictures.
Which is what gets to me. We have laws that prevent people -- i.e., guys -- from sharing girlfriend's pictures, and hold them liable if they should break up, via the 'revenge porn' laws, even if they don't post them themselves. So why does this woman get special treatment? The existence of something, especially when shared with others, can be used for extortion ... even if money is not involved.
No, she doesn't get special treatment because she's a woman. In fact, Barton tried to tell her that ... but apparently it's a 'threat'? Sorry, he's an adulterer at best, and possibly a pre-emptive, sexting hypocrite as well (although that's more debatable, given their relationship).
But I do now understand why the Republican party wants him to not run again. He is at least a hypocrite in some ways.
Just tired of the media making it about 'his photo,' when it's really about those details I mentioned ... both his, and hers.
Latest posts
-
Terry Mohajir issues statement in wake of accusatory e-mail- Latest: UCFknights123
-
-
-
-