AOC Responds to Lauren Boebert's 'Sexually Lewd' Theater 'Show'
AOC Responds to Lauren Boebert's 'Sexually Lewd' Theater 'Show'
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit out at Lauren Boebert over "sexually lewd acts" allegedly performed with a male companion at a Denver theatre.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as "sexually lewd acts" in a Colorado theater on September 10.
Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and "causing a disturbance" during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.
Surveillance footage from inside the theater appeared to show Boebert's male accomplice groping her breasts, and then being groped in turn by the Republican firebrand. In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed "fell short of my values," but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the controversy in a one-minute video posted to her 323,000 TikTok followers on Thursday, in response to a viewer's question.
She commented: "All I gotta say is I can't go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it's wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.”
"I danced to Phoenix once in college and it was like all over the place. But putting on a whole show of their own at Beetlejuice and there's nothing? I'm just saying be consistent. That's all I'm asking for. Equal treatment. I don't expect it, but come on."
You're viewing a single thread.
Do they really have to say alleged sex acts? I mean, there's video. Are they suggesting that maybe the groping and fondling wasn't sexual in nature?
You’re right, the uh “activity” was definitely getting her boobs groped and flashed about- and giving a handy in return (both of which looked incredibly uncomfortable, just saying.)
That said, what the video shows is a crime, and there’s fairly strict ways they can write about potential criminals which more or less mandate tacking on qualifiers- like “allegedly”, at least until they can tack on the “convicted” qualifier.
You’re correct. As annoying as it is allegations are just that. Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.
actually, it's a mere presumption. as a matter of due process, you're guilty whether or not your found so in a court. the decisions by a jury are irrelevant to the fact of any acts you may or may not have committed- or the reasons behind them. Which is why we have innocent people that have been locked away on charges they didn't commit, and people who get off on charges we all know they did. Jury trials are a shitty way to find justice- the other ways are universally worse, mind, but that doesn't mean its great.
Back to the matter at hand, we've all seen the video. We all know what was happening. I was able to find this document providing a brief overview of CO's sex offenses. the two that apply are on page 19.
Public Indecency:
-
Performing in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, an act of sexual intercourse; a lewd exposure of an intimate part of the body, not including the genitals, with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person; a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301, C.R.S.)
-
A subsequent conviction of a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301 (2)(b), C.R.S.)
and:
Indecent Exposure
-
Knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person; knowingly performing an act of masturbation in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (1), C.R.S.)
-
Third or subsequent incident of knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (4), C.R.S.)
(emphasis mine)
The first is a shoe in. we all know that she was wanking him off. proving it might be a different matter, but we all know it. Ergo, it's completely legitimate to say she's a sexual offender. Worse, not that I know if it matters legally, kids were exposed to this. All that to say: yes she should get due process in court. No. that presumption doesn't change the fact that she's a sex offender.
deleted by creator
even if it was a felony, yeah. Don't you know who she is!?!
I'm far more interested in seeing her registered on the sex offender's registry than jail time or fines. "Party of Family Values" being championed by a registered sex offender appeals to my incredibly petty side.
You think the list of GOP champion sex offenders is small enough that adding boeberts name will make any difference?
Probably not, which is why it's the petty side and not the more reasonable side that this tickles, lol.
-
A journalistic org will always say alleged until someone is convicted, even if the crime is "obvious"
Permanently Deleted
Thats a good point. She already apologized for getting caught as well. I think at this point its "verified exhibitionist sex acts"
Maybe she lost a popcorn down in her titties and he was helping get it out. And to thank him she... gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin'.
gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin'.
The kids are now referring to that as a Boebert.
How about a Qbert, or a Qubie?
I thought that was a handie with a rubix cube
Ouch!
Maybe she was vigorously trying to get a stain
inoff his pants...She was trying to get something off
In America yes. Unless someone has literally been convicted of something in court, you're better off just saying allegedly and not leaving yourself open to lawsuits.
I'm America, yes.
So America is a false god? Or a farcical one at best?
That checks out.
I did fix my mistake, but I'm enjoying your interpretation. Thanks.
Nope, they REALLY don't have to. In fact, it's tantamount to gaslighting to claim that there's anything "alleged" about something that has been publicly shown to definitely be the case.
If they didn't have much bigger fish to fry, media ethics watchdogs should really clamp down on this kind of bullshit.
Probably avoiding the possibility of a libel case.
That's not necessary. As they say, the truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases. You can't convict someone of malicously lying when there's no lie.
You can bankrupt them proving that though. The idea isn't just to avoid the final judgement, but to avoid being taken to court in the first place.
Pretty sure Newsweek can afford a trial, especially one where they get a lot of free publicity and readers for standing up against a hypocrite sex offender who was already despised by most of the population trying to stifle the freedom of the press to publish the obvious truth 🤷
Point.
Considering how litigious the US is: yeah, they do.