LA Slimes: 3 More Women Allege Misconduct

LA Slimes ^ | 10-4-03 | LA Slimes

[ambrose]

3 More Women Allege Misconduct

In all, 11 women have said Schwarzenegger touched them without their consent. His aides refuse to comment.

By Tracy Weber, Sue Fox and Megan Garvey

Times Staff Writers

11:25 PM PDT, October 3, 2003

Three more women said Friday that Arnold Schwarzenegger had grabbed or groped them.

The new allegations against the Republican front-runner in the race to replace Gov. Gray Davis came as his campaign said he would have nothing further to say about the issue beyond his blanket apology this week for "behaving badly" in the past.

The women who spoke Friday are:

An assistant director on the 1988 film "Twins," who said the actor regularly undressed in front of her in his trailer. Once, she said, he pulled her down on a bed while he was wearing only underpants. His behavior on the set, said Linnea Harwell, who has since left the entertainment industry, prompted her to warn women who came to her with concerns never to be alone with Schwarzenegger.

[litany_of_lies]

You're rewriting history, RM.

Sure, there were plenty of people upset over Clinton for a lot of "extracurricular" reasons, so let's take them in order of severity:
- Clinton probably did his fair share of groping and feel-ups, but I don't EVER recall a FReeper using that as a reason BY ITSELF to impeach him. Of course it IS a possible reason not to re-elect him if his opponent has strong character (which Dole did).
- Clinton imposed himself on women (excluding Juanita, which I will get to), including Paula Jones and many others.
- Clinton had affairs with several women, and at least one (Flowers) was very long-term. Another "oral affair" (Monica) lasted well over a year, if not two.
- At the extreme, Clinton most likely raped Juanita Broadderick.

IN EVERY CASE, the Clintonian response was to deny, intimidate the women and people associated with them, and manipulate events to take attention away from the sexual issues (bombing aspirin factories, for example). The most extreme denial came in the form of PERJURY, which is when the whole thing rose to the level of impeachment. There were even better non-sex reasons to impeach (transfer of missile technology, use of miliitary force where none was called for, and others)

EVERY item above except Juanita was or should have been known by the public in 1996. The actions themselves didn't constitute reasons not to re-elect him, but his RESPONSES did (especially when considering his straight-arrow opponent). I daresay that this was, and still is, the position of the vast majority of FReepers.

Now let's compare to Arnold:
- No rapes.
- No gross sexual impositions in private with the goal of having some form of sex (nothing to compare to Paula Jones).
- No female of witness intimidation.
- Instead, a guy who gets rowdy while movies are being made and in the process, offends some people who inexlicably don't tell him it offends them but instead wait and go public with it when it matters in a political sense (or when sought out by an unethical opponent in the press)
- Against an opponent who has a long history of serial office violence against people who happen to be in his presence. See
http://kfi640.com/gumbyviolence.html for the story.

I'm sorry you can't (or don't want to) tell the difference. Open your eyes, RM.

[turk99]

They will be crawling out from under rocks to accuse him now. The left is getting desparate.

[Reagan Man]

I don't know what you're talking about.

You haven't disproved anything I said in my original remarks. If anything, you've reinforced what I said. Thanks.

Bottom line, bad behavior is, bad behavior.

[McGavin999]

I've been on FR since April 1998, posted every single day. There were the types (like you McClintock types) who could only focus on sex, but most of the rest of us were more concerned with his breaking the law. Don't judge everyone by your shallow standards.

[litany_of_lies]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Obviously.

You're unable to make meaningful distinctions between threatening and illegal behavior vs. merely inappropriate behavior.. People who do the former shouldn't be elected or re-elected, EVER. For people who only do the latter, it's a judgment call based on the entire set of facts and circumstances.

In this case, I have my share of reservations about Arnold, but considering the alternatives, I pull the lever for him if I'm in CA. The best scenario is that he paves the way for McClintock 3, 7, or 11 years from now.

Oh, and as to the latest stuff on Drudge (alleging threatening behavior on the part of Arnold), I just refuse to believe it. The timing is too easy and it's all behind a veil of anonymity, neither of which was true with Clinton's seemingly endless list of threatening and intimidation.

[Reagan Man]

>>>There were the types (like you McClintock types) who could only focus on sex, but most of the rest of us were more concerned with his breaking the law.

I don't know what your problem is, but this has nothing to do with being a McClintock supporter. This has everything to do with Arnold behaving in an inappropriate fashion towards women and my responses to it. The facts are clear. Many FReepers have given Arnie a free ride on this issue, along with more important issues. When it came to Clinton, I never focused just on his sexual escapades. That's something you just made up. I suggest you don't paint with such a broad brush and if you don't like to hear what I think about the reports of Arnold's sexual harassment charges, then stay away from my posts.

I've never had any run in's with you in the past, but your misreading of my remarks and your trash comments are not appreciated.

[Reagan Man]

You've got yourself bent out of shape because I dared to compare Arnold's bad behavior with some of Clinton's bad behavior. Well too bad. That's the way many people see it, not just myself.

You also haven't read anything I posted on this thread or on other threads for that matter. If you had, you wouldn't be making such foolish remarks. It's a shame I have to waste my time pointing the truth out to you.

You said:You're unable to make meaningful distinctions between threatening and illegal behavior vs. merely inappropriate behavior..

Several women are on record saying Clinton groped them and touched them in an inappropriate fashion. That's why I differenciated between Arnie's sexual harassment charges and Clinton's sexual escapades. Now, there's no evidence that Arnie committed adultery, but his overall behavior should not be given a pass by FReepers.
98 posted on 10/04/2003 11:31 AM MDT by Reagan Man

There's also no evidence that Arnold broke the law. In my book, that's a given. If you still have a problem, I can't help you. Just knock off the misquotes. Okay.