- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
David Vitter dodges tearful rape victim at townhall meeting
Confronted by an impassioned rape survivor at a town hall Saturday night, Sen. David Vitter tried everything from sympathizing to deflecting blame onto the Obama administration for his decision to vote against an anti-rape amendment.
Finally, amid shouts from protesters, the Louisiana Republican simply walked away.
Vitter was one of 30 Republican senators who voted against Sen. Al Franken's amendment, passed in the Senate last month, that would de-fund government contractors who prevent employees from seeking justice when they have been raped.
The inspiration for the amendment was Jamie Leigh Jones, who was allegedly gang-raped by co-workers at Halliburton subsidiary KBR while on assignment in Baghdad, and was then prevented from pursuing the matter in courts.
At the town hall meeting Saturday, a woman identifying herself as a "rape survivor" confronted Vitter and asked him why he voted against the amendment.
"I'm a rape survivor, and it meant everything to me to put [away] the person who attacked me," she told Vitter.
Vitter responded, "I'm absolutely supportive of any case like that, that they are prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law."
"But there are rape victims that are being silenced," the unnamed woman responded. "How can you support a company that tells a rape victim that she does not have a right to defend herself?"
"Do you realize President Obama was against that amendment, and his administration was against that amendment?" Vitter asked.
"But I'm not asking Obama, I'm asking you, senator," the woman said.
At that point, Vitter walked briskly away from the woman and out of the town hall.
"What if it was your daughter that was raped, would you tell her to be quiet?" the woman shouted as Vitter walked away. "Would you tell your daughter to be silent?"
Vitter's assertion that the Obama administration opposed the amendment is only partly correct. The Pentagon opposed the amendment because it argued it would be virtually impossible to enforce. The White House stated that it supported "the intent of the amendment," but wanted to see it re-worked "to make sure it is enforceable."
Liveleak requires flash. If you see this message, make sure you have the latest flash player installed. To install the latest version, click HERE
Note: This item contains 2 connected files (see top right)
Added: Nov 3 2009 In: news_politics,other
Recorded on: Oct 31 2009By: marsatomic
- Tags:
- Sen David Vitter,
- rape victim,
- KBR,
- Obama,
- pentagon,
- Al Franken
- Views: 627 |
- Votes: 2 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 9
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
He answered the question; the woman was hysterical.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Night_Owl49" (R)
Owned his ass. So much for re-election
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "thetruthhurts" (R)
wasn't that amendment added to a 1000 page appropretions bill that had nothing to do with rape?
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "Rob8729" (R)
I thought that but after re-reading the Halliburton rape story, I have to agree with her, this is a travesty of justice. Evidently women have no recourse being raped by co-workers in Iraq. What a ridiculous perversion of justice. She's right to be upset.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "DarioInfini" (R)
Any rape victim has obviously undergone a horrible experience, but that rape amendment had nothing to do with a woman being able to see her attacker behind bars. The law is the law, and that woman can seek to press charges in any state in the country.
What that amendment was about is corporate liability for an employee's actions, which really only becomes relevant in a civil action seeking monetary damages. An attacker will be charged and, if convicted, put in jail regardless. The question is whether or not the attacker's employer bears some responsibility. That's what Vitter voted against.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "buzzardist" (R)
Funny how this doesnt suprise me. This is the republiCANTS reaction to everything including health care. COLD MOTHER FU*KING HEARTED BASTARDS! You sons of *****es. Good luck with your re-election. Oh yeah, blame Obama.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "Iron_Ballz" (R)
What that amendment was about is corporate liability for an employee's actions, which really only becomes relevant in a civil action seeking monetary damages. An attacker will be charged and, if convicted, put in jail regardless. The question is whether or not the attacker's employer bears some responsibility. That's what Vitter voted against.
The real question is whether the pentagon should do business with companies that make employs sign a document in which they sign away the rights to prosecute the company for the rape.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "KraghZyl" (R)
politicians are scum and we allow them to run our countries, ridiculous lol.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "bazeret2" (R)
Republicans.....LOL.
Posted Nov-4-2009 by "joeslummer" (R)