Al Gore has done a lot of good during his long career in public service. His work on global warming, for example, has been exemplary. His work as Clinton’s vice president to streamline government and make it run more efficiently was outstanding. And it’s hard to argue that America would not have been better off with President Gore than President Bush Jr.
And so it’s tempting, when allegations are raised that Gore sexually assaulted a masseuse in 2006, to dismiss them. To argue that they’re clearly politically motivated. To assume the best, not the worst, of a politician who one has agreed with over the years.
This is a temptation that must be resisted.
I do not know whether Gore committed sexual assault in a Portland, Oregon hotel room three years ago. Indeed, only two people do: Gore himself, and the complainant. But as Hanna Rosin notes, the woman’s very detailed statement rings true. And Emily Bazelon cites the complainant’s own words explaining why she didn’t immediately seek out the authorities:
I did not immediately call the police as I deeply fear being made into a public spectacle and my work reputation being destroyed. I was not sure what to tell them and was concerned my story would not be believed since there was no DNA evidence from a completed act for rape. I did not even know what to call what happened to me. I did not know if the police would even want to take a report on this.
That seems completely rational; how would you react if you were the victim of a difficult-to-prove criminal case against Dick Cheney, or Dan Quayle, or Fritz Mondale? Probably by realizing that a rich former vice president would have enough power not just to avoid prosecution, but to make your life a living nightmare.
This does not mean Gore is guilty, either legally or morally. It is possible that this has been fabricated, that Gore is the completely innocent victim of someone with a vivid imagination. It’s possible.
But having read the complaint, I have to say that my gut tells me that it’s more likely Gore is guilty of sexual assault than not guilty. He may not be convicted. Indeed, he likely won’t be charged. But my gut tells me that Al Gore did something illegal and immoral in a Portland hotel room in 2006, and that is something that should not be taken lightly, and should not be minimized.
Humans are rarely all evil or all good. Al Gore’s actions in Portland in 2006 don’t eliminate the good he’s done on global warming. But the good he’s done on global warming doesn’t eliminate his actions in Portland in 2006. I will never look at Al Gore the same way again. And if his actions lead to civil or criminal penalties against him, he has nobody to blame but himself.
Innocent until proven guilty, be it Al Gore, George Bush, or the crazy guy on the corner who keeps yelling at every passing woman, but…yeah, the complaint sounds plausible. As do her reasons for not coming forward sooner.
Sorry, but I too have the read the complaint, and as both a survivor of a very brutal sexual assault and a law student (who reads about fabricated complaints way too much,) and I disagree strongly that it rings true — actually, the level of detail is exactly what put me off. There was no way in the middle of my assault that I was ever going to remember such details — I was worried about surviving, not whether a drink was brandy or scotch. It was too contrived, too “perfect” — it scratched at all the Gore scabs just enough that it was hard not to believe. But I think it was meant to do exactly that. No, it doesn’t change all that Gore has done — but it is meant for us to care a little less about him, and thus, to care a little less about his causes, whether they’re ours or not.
The complaint sounded very weird to me too, and not because it’s about Al Gore. Regardless it should be completely and fully investigated.
MB Williams, I haven’t read the complaint; what about it struck you as false or hard to believe? The type of liquor involved doesn’t matter one way or the other.
I’m willing to admit this accuser might have been a liar–but over the years I have found it a good policy to start out by believing claims of sexual assault. The large majority of them are true. A different standard applies to criminal prosecutions: but knowing the likelihood of truth and falsity, enlightened people should credit an accusation and give the accused person a chance to defend himself. Let Gore say what happened and didn’t happen in that hotel room. If he really didn’t do anything wrong, it’s a shame to put him through this ordeal, but odds are that he DID.
Why would a woman lie about rape?
Women DON’T lie about rape, so I wonder what the push is here to excuse him.
This is sad-I respected him for having a change of heart after his rejection of the Koyoto plan in the 90s:
http://www.distantocean.com/2006/06/an_inconvenient.html
Outside a court of law, “innocent until proven guilty” means nothing. If you do something terrible to another person, you are guilty the moment you do it. You know you’re guilty, your victim knows you’re guilty, any witnesses know it, the people you brag to know it, the people who trust your victim know it. The government must assume you’re innocent, however, in order for you to receive a fair trial. But the trial process has jack shit to do with whether a person is guilty of a terrible act. And since I’m not a government, I have the right and the responsibility to speak warnings against people who prey on others, whether they are convicted in a court of law or not.
As I am sure plenty of people have unfortunately experienced, trusting someone is not a guarantee that they’re always truthful. So saying that anyone but the perpetrator, victim or witnesses know is stretching the definition of knowing.
And whether one has a right to speak warnings against people who you “know” prey on others depends greatly on where you live as it may open you to defamation or libel lawsuits. If you’re from the US four categories of slander is actionable per se: (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct.
And quite frankly I think that when one is so far removed from both the accuser, the defendant and the investigating authorities as I would believe most people here are one should let one’s own gut feeling stay in the gut as it’s as likely as not just the stuff your gut produces as its normal job.
Portia:
To destroy the reputation of the person they’re accusing. Or because they have anger issues and are not acting rationally. Ask the woman who accused the Duke lacrosse players of sexual abuse. She can probably help you with this.
Yes. We should definitely take a very rare occurrence and assume that is always the case.
Jake Squid, that very rare occurrence is enough to invalidate the statement “Women DON’T lie about rape”. The statement “Women SELDOM lie about rape” may be true. I personally believe it is.
I know that people lie for profit and revenge. I also know that nothing prevents a random person to parrot, word for word, the statements of a someone who really was victimized in a similar situation. Thus, I honestly hope that no person is ever convicted of any crime based SOLELY on the testimony of a single witness, especially if there is no evidence that a crime took place, and if the witness stands to profit from the conviction.
This is not to say that I think that Gore is guilty or innocent. I am sure that I would be quite happy if that robe shows his DNA, because it would validate my opinion on the worth of all professional politicians. But my gut feeling or desires are irrelevant. I hope they never have to decide someone’s fate.
Of course, you are perfectly free to despise a person based on the words of a woman who happened to be alone, in the same room with him, and said what a victim would say. And of course, I believe I am perfectly free to despise people for any reason, as well.
Oh gods, not the Duke case again. Look, that woman was very likely sexually assaulted by somebody. It’s just that the prosecutor was such a bungling bunglefuck he couldn’t bother to do a proper investigation in order to finger the right guys. This case is different. This woman believes she has DNA evidence that implicates a specific person, and if she turns out to be right, it’s going to be very difficult for Gore to state that the assailant was someone else instead of him. All he can do is claim that “she wanted it, too,” which will probably work, just as it does in nearly all rape cases that don’t involve a 12-year-old blonde virgin cheerleader as the victim.
Also, the “she just wants his money” trope just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, unless she’s independently wealthy and can afford at least one long, dragged-out trial (and very likely more than one) against the best defense attorneys money can buy, not to mention the extra security she’s going to need for herself and pretty much her entire family, even long after the court case is over. Not to mention that said trial will involve her mental health, her sex life, and her wardrobe being put on trial as though she was the criminal. He doesn’t have to pay her off to shut her up; a man of his resources can destroy her life long before it ever comes to that.
Perhaps some earlier comments have been deleted, but as far as I can see only you have brought up the Duke case here. I’m not sure if that’s because you think that’s the only case where it’s been proven that a women falsely accused someone of rape. If so, I can assure you there are other cases. That’s a fact – not an opion. It happens – and denying that it happens, for instance by saying that “Women don’t lie about rape” makes one seem out of touch with reality.
Well, she wants someone’s money: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/al_masseuse_eyes_to_talk_YejuVpDXmNn2d9qF9u0ATN
However, that fact doesn’t make the accusation more or less likely to be true as it’s just as possible to be a greedy victim as a greedy false accuser.
@Tamen
RonF brought up the Duke case.
I’m not going to say that false accusations never happen – never say never. However, when anybody has “she must have lied” as their first reaction to news of a sexual assault, then they’re fooling themselves because of their respect for the accused. Or they’re just misogynists.
Look at it – why would a random RMT have a reason to accuse Al Gore unfoundedly? She isn’t blackmailing him. She doesn’t seem to be cashing in on it. Why would she want to?
Either way, I would think that this kind of harassment would be a common thing as a massage therapist – I’m sure a lot of men depend on rub-and-tug shops for sex, and can make the wrong assumptions about the services that a trained therapist is willing to provide. If he’s going to his massage after having a few drinks and getting “excited” for the prospect, I could see him making a very bad decision very easily.
I kind of figured they dealt with problem customers like that daily.
My apologies to Meowser. RonF’s reference to the Duke case slipped me by.
If you see the link I provided it seems like she’s at least trying to cash in on it so saying that she doesn’t seem to cash in is not true. Again, in my opinion that is no yardstick to estimate the truth of her claim.
Interestingly you brought up the perceived lack of cashing in as an argument for her accusation being true. That would seemingly imply that you in light of information showing that she indeed tries to cash in, thinks it’s more likely now than before that her accusation is untrue.
My beef certainly was not with anyone who’s not saying that false accusations never happens. How many are false – 0-2% or 70% percent which are the extremes of what I’ve heard claim is of no matter in the individual case. It can happen and therefore the possibility should be ruled out or confirmed (as well as one can) by the police investigation.
If you do something terrible to another person, you are guilty the moment you do it. You know you’re guilty, your victim knows you’re guilty, any witnesses know it, the people you brag to know it, the people who trust your victim know it.
I’d argue about how certainly some of those people know the truth about what happened, but it’s irrelevant. I am neither Gore nor the woman accusing him. I don’t know any party personally*. All I’ve got to go on is what was reported here and elsewhere and it’s not enough to make a reasonably certain conclusion. My feeling is the bulk of the evidence favors Gore being guilty but I can’t make any definitie judgement on it based on what I know.
*I suppose it’s technically possible that I know the accuser since she hasn’t been named but if I do she has not confided in me.
There is no reason to presume one knows anything about this case. Our only obligation is to respect the rights of both accused and accuser — and avoid falling into standard misogynist stereotypes about women who claim to have been raped or about men as rapists. I tend to agree with Jeff, but again, we really know jack about this case. Hence the need for a proper investigation — admittedly, no guarantee that we’ll arrive at the truth, but it’s the best we have.
Jake @ 9
Seems rather nonsensical to me. Why would you do that?
Kevin @ 16:
True. People make false accusations about everything, and its a mistake to think that people are completely rational when they do. People also make false claims of innocence, and the rationality standard (or lack thereof) also applies there. All I’m saying is that this applies to accusations of rape. The particular societial issues surrounding rape may – I emphasize may – make is somewhat less likely. But to say that women never lie about rape is absurd.
Guys, Portia’s an antifeminist troll who’s been posting on other feminist blog as well. He’s not genuinely arguing that women lie about rape, but he sure did get people to fall all over themselves to reassure him that, indeed, sometimes the bitches will make shit up!
The accuser considered a civil lawsuit when she first went to the police; according to her lawyer they amicably ‘parted ways’ with nothing having been filed. We don’t know (and won’t, at least from her former attorney) know if this was because she was intimidated, or because it was a frivolous case, or because it was a reasonable case but for some reason she or her attorney did not decide to go forward. (For example, if there were evidentiary issues, or ‘dirt’ that might get dug up at trial that would have been highly embarrassing to the accuser, or the projected damages and risk didn’t make it worth the lawyer’s while, or she just didn’t want to deal with the hassle.)