[jsalcedo]

LA Times: Schwarzenegger Groped Hollywood Women

Oct. 2 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six women who met Arnold Schwarzenegger on movie sets and other places over the last three decades say he groped them, the Los Angeles Times said on Thursday.
In interviews with the Times, three of the women described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. A fourth said he reached under her skirt and gripped her buttocks.

A fifth woman said Schwarzenegger groped her and tried to remove her bathing suit in a hotel elevator, while a sixth said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her.

Schwarzenegger is the leading Republican candidate in California's recall election for governor.

"Did he rape me? No," said one woman, who described a 1980 encounter in which she said Schwarzenegger touched her breast. "Did he humiliate me? You bet he did."

According to the newspaper, none of the women who discussed their encounters with the former body builder said they filed any legal action against him.

Schwarzenegger's campaign spokesman, Sean Walsh, said the candidate has not engaged in improper conduct toward women, and that such allegations are part of an escalating political attack on Schwarzenegger as the recall election approaches.

"We believe Democrats and others are using this to try to hurt Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign," Walsh said. "We believe that this is coming so close before the election, something that discourages good, hard-working, decent people from running for office."

The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race, and none of the women approached the newspaper on her own. Reporters contacted them in the course of a six-week examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and off the movie set.

The Times said Schwarzenegger's attitudes about women have been an issue during the campaign, with critics accusing him of being misogynistic, based on past statements he has made to various publications.

Schwarzenegger has said he respects women and that many of his comments were made in jest or simply meant to be provocative.

[SaintofKillers]

WHY IS IT EVERY TIME SOMEONE IS RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE THIS KIND OF BS APPEARS???? BUT IT DOESNT COME OUT UNTIL OVER 20 YEARS LATER. WHO CARES????

[DaveB]

Is it BS?

Do you think that the gropees think it's BS?

Do you have a daughter? A Wife? A Mother? What if it was one of them?

Is it OK for famous people to get a pass on sexual assault allegations, or should they be investigated?

db

[agricola]

this was mentioned in a thread debating whether or not he would run a while back, and the Democrats did say they had good material on him, and at least one of the incidents has a large number of witnesses and was reported at the time on British news.

[Werewolf]

Demonrats are such hypocrites! How many of them expressed an equivalent level of outrage when Clinton was caught with his pants down, his manhood in the mouth of an intern and a cigar in places best not mentioned (I wonder if he smoked it afterwards)?

[DaveB]

caught with his pants down

Oh, please.

Not defending BC, but some of you should read up on the difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. They are not the same.

db

[mtnbkr]

Not defending BC, but some of you should read up on the difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. They are not the same.

Juanita Broderick and others come to mind. BC is just as guilty as AS, but got a pass from the Left.

Chris

[tiberius]

So it turns out that he is not another Reagon, but IS another Clinton :)


Seriously though, most of the women are "un-named sources". I don't put much stock in anything said by someone who hides behind anonymity – especially in the political arena. It May be true, but if they won’t identify themselves, I assume that it is made up.

[tiberius]

caught with his pants down

Oh, please.

Not defending BC, but some of you should read up on the difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. They are not the same.

db


Ever heard of Paula Jones?

[Joe Demko]

Amazing. Is there any topic you guys can't turn into a "Bill Clinton is evil" thread?
Arnold earned a reputation back in the 70's and 80's, before he remade himself from bodybuilder into moviestar, for treating women rather...coarsely. Why should there be surprise or disbelief when some of those women surface?

[BenW]

Is it OK for famous people to get a pass on sexual assault allegations, or should they be investigated?
I don't condone Arnold's behavior at all, but it's interesting to note that Gray Davis sticking his tongue down an under-aged girl's throat gets a pass by the mainstream media. Oh wait, they did report on it -- Davis is "a good kisser." :rolleyes:

[cuchulainn]

...Not to mention that with Clinton, the left used the sex as a cover for lying under oath. How many Americans believe the impeachment was over sex? Carville, Begala, et al. worked very hard to blur and confuse two points:

1) Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a sexual assault case with Paula Jones.

2) The lie was about consensual sex with Monica.Amazing. Is there any topic you guys can't turn into a "Bill Clinton is evil" thread? Comparisons with BC are appropriate here, including the polar opposite reactions of both sides in either case.

[Sean Smith]

Seems an awful lot like last-minute Democrat desperation... funny how this only comes out AFTER Arnold gets a more decisive-looking lead in the polls. I'm not even a Schwarzenegger supporter, but this sure is convenient. "Unnamed sources said something bad about somebody in a political campaign? Surely you jest! This is California we are talking about here!"

:rolleyes:

And I'd like to take this opportunity to tell the ladies who grabbed my butt without permission: I won't narc on you to the LA times should you decide to run for political office. You're welcome.

:evil:

[agricola]

these reports are a lot more recent than the turn of the 80's:

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_825032.html?menu=entertainment.latestheadlines

[Intune]

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. The timing seems a little "convenient" in my estimation but that may be my own cynical imagination. I was going to tell everyone (especially the authorities, duh) about what happened to me one night in '93 while traveling through Hope, Arkansas. I was pulled over by state troopers for no apparent reason and they blindfolded me & took me to a field where Hillary & a coven of witches raped me for hours (told you it was years ago.) My utter shame kept me from telling anyone but I think my resolve will kick in when she decides to run. If I can spare just one person from the horrors I experienced that awful night… Sniffle...

Like I said, convenient!


Disclaimer: The above imagined scenario was so difficult to even contemplate that I must add this… :barf:

[BrokenPaw]

Is it BS?
Do you think that the gropees think it's BS?
Do you have a daughter? A Wife? A Mother? What if it was one of them? I have one of each, so I can respond to this: If it happened 20 years ago, and it was not enough of an issue to bring up at the time, and she chose to wait until the guy who did it was in a position where the revelation could cause political damage, I would question her motive, even if it was my own daughter[0] or wife or mother.

Would I be upset that the incident occured? Yes. Would I support her decision to say nothing at the time of the incident, and wait for a politically-fortuitous time to make the announcement? Nope.

If he behaved inappropriately, it should have been revealed at the time. If it was not, why not? There are several motives one could acribe, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

It's amazing how many people come out of the woodwork to accuse someone prominent of something "humiliating" that happened decades ago. If, 20 years (or even 3) after the fact, it's still upsetting them, it must have been pretty bad right when it happened. On the other paw, if it wasn't a big enough deal to report at the time, why is it an issue now? Golly, could it be because they're just seeking their 15 minutes in the spotlight? Nah, couldn't be. :rolleyes:

-BP

[0] notwithstanding that she's a kid, so my thoughts on this matter have been translated to "if she were an adult when the alleged groping occured".

[longeyes]

California has well-groped by Davis and his cohorts in the CA
legislature. Put Bustamecha in there and the rape will be consummated.

[DaveB]

the rape will be consummated

Well, then, lie back and enjoy it.

db

[pittspilot]

Originally posted by tiberius


Ever heard of Paula Jones?

Or Kathleen Wiley?

[DaveB]

*** is wrong with you guys? Because BC did it, does that make it OK for Ahnold?

Who cares what BC did? He's gone. Move on.

Find some other way to rationalize your own group's screwups.

db

[tiberius]

I don't see anyone defending AS. Its just that many of us saw the inacuracy of your statement:

caught with his pants down

Oh, please.

Not defending BC, but some of you should read up on the difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. They are not the same.

db


and have pointed it out.

__________________

[mtnbkr]

Because BC did it, does that make it OK for Ahnold?

Nope, never said it did. In fact, I think he's a dirtbag and shouldn't be running. He should move aside for a more freedom oriented candidate. But, it's not my state, so my opinion doesn't count.

Find some other way to rationalize your own group's screwups

I, for one, am not trying to rationalize RINO Schwarzenegger's screwups at all. All I want is an honest answer explaining why it was ok for Clinton but not for anyone else (at least according to the left, by action if not by word).

Chris

[Mute]

Because BC did it, does that make it OK for Ahnold?

No. Not IF he did it. That remains to be seen.

[tiberius]

I'm not sticking up for anyone but I have to say that it refreshing to me for a politician to address an issue like this so straight forward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32971-2003Oct2?language=printer

excerpt:

Schwarzenegger said: "Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful but now I recognize that I offended people."

"Those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that and I apologize because that's not what I'm trying to do," he said.

[Destructo6]

This is SOP for Davis. It was expected that in the last week the mud would be slung at an alarming rate.

[C.R.Sam]

Who cares what BC did? He's gone. Move on. Not gone.
I think he is still a clear and present danger.

Sam

[Nightfall]

Solution: Put McClintock in office instead!

[bogie]

Campers...

If _I_ was Ahnold, and likely at the time had women crawling all over me, I'd darn sure enjoy it to my fullest extent.

[Quartus]

Who cares what BC did? He's gone. Move on.



Patriots care when traitors escape justice. And he's not gone - he's still out there running his mouth and influencing politics. I'll count him gone when he assumes room temperature.


And his legacy will plague us for many years after THAT point.

[Smoke]

Schwarzenegger is not the savior for Kalifornia. I don't know that Kalifornia can be saved. I'm glad I don't live there.

Best wishes to those that do.

Smoke

[TheeBadOne]

OMG! You mean this stuff happens in Hollywood? :rolleyes:

[MeekandMild]

Is it OK for famous people to get a pass on sexual assault allegations, or should they be investigated? I think that we should investigate all allegations to the point where commerce, education and other business all stop. :rolleyes:

I wonder if someone may have heard allegations that you tried to kiss that little blonde back in the second grade, you know, the one you allegedly caught alone under the fire escape? Maybe there was a woman last week in the elevator and alleged suspicions you saw a flach of nipple when she leaned over to press the 16th floor button? Maybe allegations that you liked it? :neener:

Maybe we should have mandatory injections of female hormones until men are safely married, then only give them a short acting antidote for the hour it takes to conceive a child? :what:

[Edward429451]

If the woman had been traumatized by the incident, she would've called the police back then. The only reason its an issue now is cuz he's running for office, which makes it BS. So what.

Who was it that said "Whether they give or refuse, women are always glad to have been asked"?

If she'da grabbed his butt and he turned her down, then it'd be much worse for him! (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...!)

:rolleyes:

[bountyhunter]

At least he gropes a hotter looking class of babes than Clinton did. Clinton's collection could have been mistaken for a class photo from the local SPCA.

[bountyhunter]

If the woman had been traumatized by the incident, she would've called the police back then.

Of course..... women never decline to pursue such cases to avoid the embarrassment.

And rape victims never keep quiet because they are afraid nobody would believe them if they accused a celebrity and then they would be put on trial in the press....

Anybody else heard of the Kobe Bryant case? I think the news ran a story on it some time back.

[bountyhunter]

1) Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a sexual assault case with Paula Jones.

Speaking of confusing an issue... FYI, Clinton was never impeached. A bill of charges was not brought forth by the senate and he was not tried before the house. he may have felt threatened with impeachment, he was not impeached.

BTW: if Clinton had actually been impeached (charges brought) the trial would have been mandatory. The last pres to be impeached was Nixon. A set of charges were brought and carried into an indictment, but he worked out a deal to run in exchange for no trial. If he had stayed, there would have been a trial. The only president to be both impeached and tried was Andrew Johnson, and he missed being convicted at his impeachment trial by a single vote.

To clear up a common misconception:

the word "impeach" is latin and translates literally to "I accuse".

Impeach means that an actual accusatory bill of charges is approved and brought against the president. The following trial is what detrmines if he will be removed from office. So, bouncing a pres is a two-step process: impeach, then trial.

[yy]

to the deliberately offensive DaveB

*** back to you too. I find your words offensive. so there!

It was a shame that Clinton was threatened with impeachment because the raucus was politically motivated. I did not like Clinton but I recognized such political manouvering was imappropriate.

and now my state has double shame. First the incompetent Davis failed to fight the recall _by asking for forgiveness from the voters_, and second the mud-slining going on to try to hurt the ex-bodybuilder.

Finally, the appropriatel response to a groping hand is a backhand to the face right then and there. Or some harsh words if the backhand is too much to contemplate. eitherway, sexual mis-steps by Clinton, Davis, Sch... should NEVER be slung over discussions on leadership.

Here's why: whoever slung the mud, or dug up the past, intends only to influence a voter's decision with emotions. BUT the intelligent voter is supposed to make a Rational Decision. That casts suspicion on the motivation of the people doing the digging AND the stuff they find.

---To all: I only intended the foul language at DaveB whose first use of it offended me. No offense to all other readers.

[4v50 Gary]

Let Davis sling his mud. I voted for the recall and for a pro-gun candidate.

[Quartus]

FYI, Clinton was never impeached. A bill of charges was not brought forth by the senate

<sigh>

The bill of charges which is brought by the HOUSE IS IMPEACHMENT.


After a President is impeached by the House, the Senate is required to conduct a trial and make a finding of guilty or not guilty. If the verdict is guilty, the President is removed from office.

But whether the Senate finds guilty or not, once the House votes to bring charges, the President has been impeached.


High school civics. Or just read the Constitution. (http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/constitution.htm)


:rolleyes:



im·peach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.



For a complete discussion of the meaning of the word, including the common error of thinking that impeachment is removal from office, see Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach)

Merriam-Webster online, following their long tradition of catering to the ignorant, includes the incorrect definition as a third definition.

[tyme]

bounty, you've got that backwards.

[deleted, quartus said it while I was digging for urls]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/238784.stm

Clinton was impeached. The Senate did not convict him. Here's the vote: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/

[F4GIB]

So what. It's Hollywood. Only the most nieve could be surprised.

I'm sure he did more than grope. It's part of the Californai movie industry culture.

[Quartus]

tyme, I think it could be argued that the Senate never held a trial. The kangaroo court that whazisname arranged certainly didn't resemble any attempt to find the truth.


But that's another thread, I suppose. :D


Oh, and bountyhunter? Nixon was never impeached. He likely would have been, but he ducked out before it got that far. There have been two Presidents impeached: Johnson and Clinton. (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/nbk/side/impeach.html) Neither was convicted.


Johnson was one vote short of conviction.

[Intune]

Someone implied that they did drugs at those Hollyweird parties and kept hopping on this "casting couch." That can't be good for the furniture. :o

[Edward429451]

Of course..... women never decline to pursue such cases to avoid the embarrassment.

But if there's money involved then it's less embarassing?

Aw, who knows what the real score was on that. He admitted it tonight on the news. I know some women keep quiet when it was real abuse, but others use situations where it wasn't abuse jus to make gain in some way. All women aren't victims, some are victimizers. I don't lack sympathy or willingness to protect women, I'd nail a rapist against the wall in a second. The point is though that these women waited until now to come forth with this, coincidently when the politico's big money is flowing? Kinda discredits their credibility right off the bat in my mind.

[tiberius]

Now he's being painted as a Nazi sympathizer because of some supposed quotes (they were transcripted) from almost 30 years ago.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Politics/arnold031002_past.html


I can't wait to hear what tomorrows revelation is gonna be. I'm betting ether past cannabilism or he really is a cyborg. :rolleyes:

[PrudentGT]

I'd like to see some new poll numbers now that this story has broken, but in my fantasy world Arnold will bow out and all 40% of his support will switch to McClintock, giving us 58% McClintock. A boy can dream, I guess...

[Wiley]

I'd like to hear Arnold tell how many times he's been groped by women (and more than likely men) over the past 30 years. The media won't report that 'cause everybody knows only men are pigs.

[DaveB]

deliberately offensive DaveB

Let me see if I understand.

I used a fairly common phrase that contains a bad word, and I'm offensive.

Others here use words such as traitor, stupid, sheep, idiot, scum, moron, etc to describe people with whom they have political disagreements, and discuss their own joyful anticipation of their deaths, and those are not offensive?

At least my BS detector is still working.

db

[Quartus]

If you are referring to my comment about Clinton being a traitor, well, I guess that just shows your own willful ignorance. There is more than enough evidence of his treason to convince any reasonable person, just on the public record.

Of course, maybe you don't consider it treason to transfer secret military technology to a country that has stated its intention to engage us in war and defeat us.


That would be a typical liberal viewpoint.

[DaveB]

My comments were directed to the poster who took me to task for using a bad word. Quartus, I don't really disagree with your use of the word.

If BC was a traitor (in the legal, not political, sense), then he's a traitor.

When the word traitor is used carelessly or recklessly, then I consider that useage to be offensive. Specifically, the people who oppose W and his unconstitutional and illegal actions are "the opposition".

They are not "traitors" - at least not until W can get hisself crowned.

db

[rock jock]

Hey DaveB, in response to your tagline:

Dear Bill Clinton/Democratic Party,
Thanks for all the help
Wouldn't have been possible without you
Sincerely, Osama bin Laden

[DaveB]

Please explain how BC and the Democrats are responsible for OBL.

db

[Augustwest]

Uh, I have no love for the Clinton Administration, but IMO the Reagan and Bush I Admins are at least as culpable for the rise of OBL.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein as well.

[bountyhunter]

Uh, I have no love for the Clinton Administration, but IMO the Reagan and Bush I Admins are at least as culpable for the rise of OBL.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein as well.

Not only are you correct on that point, Oliver North (who was working the arms for hostage thing at the time with Iran) was so terrified by Bin Laden (his politics and his following) he told the Reagan administration he considered Bin Laden to be the most dangerous man in the world (seriously). North was right, and he was exactly right on what he thought would happen... an Islamic fundamentalist uprising. Gotta give the man credit.

As for hussein: you are correct again. The Reagan adminstration glued on his fangs. They used him to get revenge on Iran for kidnapping our hostages. This was accomplished by giving Iraq 100% free buying access to US arms and Iran was tagged as a "no sale" country. that shifted the war (which Iraq had been losing) and allowed the US to get a measure of revenge without using our own forces. That actually was a pretty slick move.

Problem was, Hussein got off his leash. Iraq was bankrupt after the war because of the debts for arms and could only raise money by selling oil. Hussein commanded the other Arab countries cut oil output so the price would rise, and they (as they always do)went every man for himself.

Hussein decided to intimidate the rest of the Arabs by beating on one of them: he chose Kuwait because it was close (short commute) sits on 15% of the world's oil, and has a seaport. Hussein also believed Bush would not commit troops to defend it, although he knew we would defend the Saudis. Hussein miscalculated about Bush defending Kuwait, and the rest is history.

[bountyhunter]

The bill of charges which is brought by the HOUSE IS IMPEACHMENT.

OK, I forgot they voted on one of Bills charges (old age).

I still think Nixon was actually impeached because I remember the committee voting to carry the charges so the indictment was brought. Ergo, Nixon was also impeached, although he was never tried for those charges which were brought.

[Sean Smith]

bountyhunter sez:
Not only are you correct on that point, Oliver North (who was working the arms for hostage thing at the time with Iran) was so terrified by Bin Laden (his politics and his following) he told the Reagan administration he considered Bin Laden to be the most dangerous man in the world (seriously)

Urban legend. North actually said that stuff about Abu Nidal. In fact, Ollie refuted the claim that he said that stuff about OBL himself.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

Quoting North:

AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT.

[Destructo6]

I still think Nixon was actually impeached because I remember the committee voting to carry the charges so the indictment was brought. Ergo, Nixon was also impeached, although he was never tried for those charges which were brought.
He resigned before he could be impeached. Therefore, he was not impeached.
Hussein decided to intimidate the rest of the Arabs by beating on one of them: he chose Kuwait because it was close (short commute) sits on 15% of the world's oil, and has a seaport.
He invaded Kuwait, in part, because he owed them lots of money borrowed during the Iran-Iraq War which they would not forgive and he accussed them of stealing his oil. Iraq already had a seaport, Umm Qasr, recently made famous during the invasion.

[BogBabe]

In response to these statements about the women and their motives:

The point is though that these women waited until now to come forth with this, coincidently when the politico's big money is flowing? Kinda discredits their credibility right off the bat in my mind.
Seriously though, most of the women are "un-named sources". I don't put much stock in anything said by someone who hides behind anonymity – especially in the political arena. It May be true, but if they won’t identify themselves, I assume that it is made up.
If it happened 20 years ago, and it was not enough of an issue to bring up at the time, and she chose to wait until the guy who did it was in a position where the revelation could cause political damage, I would question her motive, even if it was my own daughter[0] or wife or mother.

I feel compelled to point out this statement from the article:

none of the women approached the newspaper on her own. Reporters contacted them in the course of a six-week examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and off the movie set.

These women, for their own reasons, let the incidents pass without making a public or legal fuss. Given the climate of the time period in question, they probably wouldn't have been taken seriously anyway. They have only said anything about it now after being contacted by reporters pursuing their story. And frankly, I can't blame them for wanting to remain anonymous. If I had somebody pinch my nipple years ago, I wouldn't want it plastered in headlines across the country with my name attached.

Frankly, I think these women's statements are credible, especially in light of things that Ah-nold himself has said about his behavior in the past.

The motives of the media in pursuing such things -- now, that's a different matter. And their completely inconsistent handling of far worse allegations against Clinton and other favored leftists shows them up for the hypocrites they are. But did the incidents happen? Probably.

Me.... I would not leave my daughter alone with the Ah-nold of twenty years ago. I have the impression his values have evolved considerably over the years, and he's probably a different man today.

[Gary H]

You can bet that there are many more women that want to grope A.S. than the reverse. I just want to know if he gropes guns. The nags at NOW are mad because he didn't grope them... loved that Clinton.. Hope he pulls out of the race. Arnold out and up with Tom. This stuff is a sideshow arranged by the dark master himself..Davis.. All that said, young men would do well to treat women with respect, without taking the fun out of the interchange... The line separating the two is a moving one depending on the individuals and circumstances.

How do the women on this forum view these charges?

[Waitone]

Lemme see here.

We have communists and socialists in congress swearing oath to protect the constitution. . . .

We have presidents who have eyes for women.

We have secty of energy who can't wait to give away nuclear secrets to the Chinese.

We have vice presidents who take campaign money from enemies of the US.

We have Lt governors in certain prominent states who belong to screaming racists organizations and who specifically and repeatedly refuse to distance themselves from said racist groups.

We have states with senators who at some point in their past was an evangelist of the KKK.

So now we have a paper breathlessly reporting a candidate for governor said positive things about a long since dead Nazi? And this candidate is out of step with the electorate????????

Seems a Nazi would spice things up a bit.

[Quartus]

I still think Nixon was actually impeached because I remember the committee voting to carry the charges so the indictment was brought. Ergo, Nixon was also impeached, although he was never tried for those charges which were brought.


The Judicial Committee voted to recommend that charges be brought. That's all the committee had authority to do. Nixon resigned before the House voted on it. He was not impeached.

[Edward429451]

Nixon was not impeached. Don'tcha remember his famous soundbite?

"I will resign the presidency, effective tomorrow..."

(I am not a crook...")

[longeyes]

What the L.A. Times has scrupulously failed to report is the
ample evidence of over-the-top assaultive behavior by his grey
eminence Gov. Gray Davis. Davis has been charged with verbally abusing
staffers and engaging even in physical rough stuff. On all this
the Times is silent. No bias here, uh-uh.