Will Rahm Emanuel be investigated for sexual assault?
by tdaxp ~ March 8th, 2010
I don’t mind that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is bi/curious, but I do mind if he is sexually assaulting political underlings:
Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: “I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me.”
Will Attorney General Holder investigate Rahm Emanuel for this sexual assault, or will Rahm get a free pass like the CEOs of AIG, Frannie Mae, and Freddie Mac?
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
March 9th, 2010 at 6:28 am
Assault? I don’t get it. You haven’t been in a locker room? You’re too smart to be posting sensational garbage like this.
For what it’s worth, language like “naked as a jaybird” and “tush” don’t exactly suggest this was a traumatic memory for Massa. In fact, they suggest the contrary.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:49 am
I’ve often used this blog to highlight the crimes of sexual assault, which are too often laughed off, especially when the victim is male.
If we believe that Rahm’s behavior is appropriate in a power-based relationship, we live in one society. if we choose to enforce our laws, we live in another.
I take it from your last paragraph that “the bitch enjoyed it” is a defense for the crime of rape?
March 9th, 2010 at 8:22 am
tdaxp,
Rahm’s behavior is certainly inappropriate, but I see nothing from Massa’s statement you provided that would categorize this as a “sexual assault”.
You’re being sensational – in this post and your assumptive reaction to my response. Crimes of sexual assault are serious. This post, and your political reaction to Massa’s description, isn’t serious at all.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Yeah, I have to back Tim up on this one. The only thing that makes you suggest that this is a sexual based assault is that both individuals were naked and there was physical contact between them.
Some people, especially active people that frequently shower with the same sex just don’t care if they are naked. And unless the subordinate were forced to disrobe, I’d have to say that both men willingly put themselves into a situation where nudity was accepted, or even mandatory.
Assault maybe, bullying definitely, but sexual, no.
March 9th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Backing Tim up, also.
Seems that Massa may be fairly insecure, as well. But then hell, who doesn’t remember the first time he had to shower in a locker room?
Guys walking around as if nakedness is no big deal — in a commonly shared locker room, where it’s not a big deal — is not uncommon.
Rahm is certainly aggressive though. Call him a bully, not a sexual predator, or you diminish all those real cases of sexual assault.
March 9th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Sometimes a poke is just a poke.
March 9th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It’s not even sexual harassment. Rahm Emanuel is in a different branch of the government, so there is no superior authority behind the poking finger, no inferior to be harassed.
Breach of privacy: I suppose this would cover it. Or not? It was, after all, a publicly owned location rather than a privately owned/operated establishment.
There could be a case for simple assault, however. (Not to mention breaches of protocol, etiquette, etc.)
But on the whole, Massa comes across as a weakling whiner. This is who the people of the 29th Congressional District of New York wanted as their representative? If he can’t handle a little heat from one Rahm Emanuel, I don’t think I’d want him involved in defending this country or governing whatsoever.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I don’t think it is sexual assault. But it is tortious assault and battery. Rahm should keep his hands to himself.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I don’t understand Rahm Emanuel? During the first Gulf War he volunteered (and served) in the Israeli defense forces. Why didn’t he join the US military? He joins the Israeli forces but then goes on and serves in the American goverment? And his jobs in goverment are always staff jobs? I don’t get?
March 12th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I have read that Rahm Emanuel had a finger partially amputated. That’s the finger I would use to poke a naked man to put him on tilt.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
As far as Rahm Emanuel and the IDF, he was just a civilian. What did the news say during the election? He washed IDF trucks for a few weeks or something like that.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I think the general consensus is that there is a clear case for assault. I assume Eric Holder’s odds of prosecuting Rahm is the same as prosecuting Osama — none. [1]
I am not familiar with the particular federal and DC codes against sexual assault, so a further discussion on that area must excuse my ignorance!
[1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jg37IDZBvL02KR4ekOfiz6SKBjIAD9EFVM100
March 16th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
What consensus would that be?
March 16th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
What would anybody’s chances of winning that suit be? Frivolous us of taxpayer money.
Kill his career, because he was the guy that sued over a finger poking.
Manly.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:42 am
Biz,
I think Massa’s career is pretty much done, anyway!
Tim,
Based on the traditional laws of the United States. You may support a country in which physical violence is used to resolve arguments. I do not. [1,2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)
March 17th, 2010 at 7:36 am
tdaxp,
As I said before, I don’t see anything from Massa’s statements that support your claim – nor am I aware of any “general consensus” that would agree with you. You’re being sensational at the expense of rational logic – which is a detriment to your blog and your many good arguments.
It’s painful to watch you not cede any points to anyone – on anything.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Tim,
Instead of repeating yourself (“As I said before”), make a substantive point, or engage in a monologue on another site.
This blog’s policy on trolling is posted at http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/22/trolls.html.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Tim’s most recent comment was moderated for violating this blog’s policy on trolling.
As Tim correctly pointed out, the purpose of this site is to catch errors in my thinking. This is not accomplished through monologues, insults, or repetition as a form of argument.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Below is what Tim said. And it is not ‘Trolling’ (what a stupid term) if you ask me. I think it is a pretty good point that you don’t appear to be catching errors in your own thinking on this argument, as your blog mantra suggests. For instance, I’m not sure who makes up this ‘general consensus’ that assault occurred. The idea that anyone would be prosecuted for placing a finger on someone’s chest and yelling is asinine. Clearly, you are being a bit of a tyrant here. You took off Tim’s post, which made a good point, because he was ‘trolling’ but if he was, so were you. If you ask me you just got tired of being legitimately challenged.
Here’s a new argument to chew on. Who cares what Massa says about anyone? Having him ‘accuse’ anyone of sexual harassment (and he’s not) is like Shaquille O’Neil being accused of being too tall by Paul Bunyan. How about a topic that might possibly matter… or bring up a substantive issue of some kind?
“I’ve made my point clear – about this post and your behavior. If this blog is intended to “catch errors” in your thinking, you might find it useful to engage the opinions of your audience instead of insisting on your own certainty ad nauseam.
Kicking people off your blog for disagreeing with a sensational post such as this is self-righteous and silly.”
March 18th, 2010 at 5:54 am
Andrew,
Thank you for your comment.
I’m not so much a tyrant, as a property owner.
I think this is your substantive point, amidst your hyperbole:
I’ve thought about this. Certainly the credibility of the accuser should matter. That said, it is dangerous for some individuals to be outside the protection of the law.
Ultimately, prosecutors have discretion, and in this case I doubt any prosecutor will use that discretion to investigate the crime of ‘unlawful touching’ (that is assault), in this case.
Is this because of a lack of concern for the victim, or because of the political power of the perpetrator? In this case, both would seem to be sufficient conditions for not investigating.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Considering the broad usage of laws pertaining to both assault and battery, I doubt anyone can say definitively that Emanuel’s actions, if they occurred as Massa described them, are not assault and battery. I am not a student of the law in any formal sense, but I am a student of law in the common sense: I have often been amazed at the applicability of charges of assault and battery, whenever I have read about such charges in the news. The threshold is not very great; as Dan has said, prosecutors have discretion in these cases.
Andrew,
If you want the deeper and more important implications, try asking why legislators need utilize such tactics while governing (or assisting those who are governing.) Why no solid debate of issues and facts in an open (or at least transparent) forum? Why approach in the shower, finger-poking? These are supposed to be the leaders & representatives of the freest nation on Earth.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:19 am
I agree with Curtis.
This case is similar to Secretary Geithner’s tax fraud, which (a) was committed on purpose to defraud the US government out of collecting taxes that he owed, (b) pretty small beans, in the context of the bureaucratic priorities of the IRS, and (c) a politically suicidal case to investigate for anyone in the Treasury who wishes to have a political job one day (a transition that Geithner himself made).