The big ? Why haven't they ARRESTED Arnold?

[oxycontinrush]

I'm serious. Grab him right off the podium, cuff him, and book him for sexual misconduct.

There are several documented claims in the LA Times that are well within the statute of limitations. What more do you need to estableish probable cause to get a warrent. There's more than enough evidence here to meet the requirements of arraignment and/or a preliminary hearing. All it would take to get a conviction is to have half of them show up and terstify at the trial.

[not systems]

1. I think the film...

of him being served the charges at a "Join Arnold"
rally will be priceless. I real hope this happens
Sunday but Monday will be ok also I guess.

[spooky3]

2. welcome, oxy--and I suppose there is a statute of limitations

problem with some of the cases.

[Peace_2_Everyone]

3. The BIG answer is,

because Arnold is a member of the Grand Old Partisans which translates into Good Ol’Boys network. The California law enforcement community has a GREAT opportunity to prove this country truly stands for “justices for all” by doing just what you recommend.

It should be obvious that W is not a mushroom; the corruption that put him in office has deep roots in American society. The prosecutors who are ignoring Arnold’s drug use and these stories of sexual misconduct are just as sleazy as W’s WH bunch.


better days are a coming!

[spooky3]

4. I can't imagine what his poor children must be thinking at this point.

I wonder if it even occurred to him to protect them by not running.

[not systems]

5. They are safe at the Eagles Nest...

don't worry about them.

[lebkuchen]

14. LOL!

Good one.

[karlschneider]

6. I suppose that no formal complaint has been made to the police.

Of course I don't know whether it has or not been. The statute of limitations may be a factor, and of course the district attorneys in whichever venues are affected have discretion as well. We shall see.

Edit: fix typo

[alfredo]

7. I think the most recent one was

three years ago. Another shoe may drop Monday.

I had a bad feeling that he would be chewed up and spit out if he got involved in Politics. I knew he was a bad boy, and have known it since the 70's. There was no way his past would not come out. It was stupid of him, and the ones who pushed him to run. Plain Stupid. He may still win, but he has lost much more than he gained.

PCP was the drug of choice for the body building crowd during the 70's. They'd lace their pot with the stuff. When I saw him toking during 'Pumping Iron" I wondered if it was straight pot or a 'bomb.'

[Hippo_Tron]

8. I find it kind of funny...

That the accusations come out 25 years later when he happens to be running for governor. I'm not defending him but I just think the charges are BS.

[not systems]

11. You are wrong.

The charges are new from the year 2000.

The charges are not BS he admited as much Friday.

Are you a CA voter?

Who do you plan to vote for?

I suggest No recall Yes Bustamante No 54

You?

[lebkuchen]

15. It's not as if this has been a lengthy campaign--there hasn't been time

to learn much about the candidates, a condition the GOP sees as its greatest strength in going w/Arnie: he's famous and has a famous wife, neither whom have had a zit in their entire lives. Voters are forced to respond to the wrapping paper, not the "gift" ("poison" in German) inside.

The assault stories have come out so close to the election because the recall process itself was so short, a literal "Wham, bam thank you ma'am" political hijacking in order to ramrod a felon into the governorship before anybody has a chance to know who he really is. That stunt is clearly not working.

You should be proud of these women coming forward when they had so little time to consider their options. They are helping to save CA, if not the country.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

16. Which explains why Arnold didn't debate

The GOP wanted to keep voters focused on surface issues, like unwrinkled epidermis.

[DoNotRefill]

9. There'd be a real credibility problem....

with a person, years after the fact, going to the police to file charges. There would be no physical proof, and the person couldn't credibly claim "I didn't know who he was." Without some kind of timely report, it's normally a dead issue.

Also, please note that "sexual harassment" is narrowly defined by statute. What we generally consider sexual harassment to be isn't generally what the statute says it is, because there generally has to be some kind of business relationship involved....boss to employee, or employees against employees. Is that general enough? ;-)

Please note: I'm not suggesting that I don't believe most of the women, I do. I'm pointing out that if somebody filed charges now, it would appear to be politically motivated, and not a bona fide criminal complaint.

[juajen]

12. Gee, they have film of the incident in Britain, and,

someone here posted a picture of him harrassing this same woman on her set. They were going to make sure the picture got around. Have none of ya'll seen it?

[DoNotRefill]

13. Does the video...

show her rebuffing him?

[Loyal]

10. Because he's a Republican

Republicans aren't held responsible for anything they do.