This could be a HUGE problem for Arnold it he gets elected....

[dutchdemocrat]

Davis talks tough on claims about Arnold
By Jill Tucker, STAFF WRITER

OAKLAND -- If true, Arnold Schwarzenegger's reported boorish behavior against women constitutes criminal acts, Gov. Gray Davis said at an Oakland campaign stop Saturday.
Mincing no words just days before Tuesday's recall election, Davis said the allegations against Schwarzenegger -- as recounted in media reports -- are instances of sexual battery.

The implications of such criminal accusations, Davis said, could ultimately "saddle the state with a whole other set of problems" if Schwarzenegger is elected.

Combined with a reported boyhood admiration of Adolf Hitler, the stories raise questions about Schwarzenegger's ability to govern, Davis said at a women's forum, the second of two Oakland stops.

"Taken together, I believe those stories do raise serious questions about his ability to lead this state," Davis said, adding that it's up to the authorities to decide whether to investigate or prosecute the sexualmisconduct allegations.

<SNIP>

------------------------

Certainly this Freeper who posted on freerepublic is scared shitless.



"This message has been delivered more and more by Davis, Bustamante, and their supporters over the last few days. We need to ask why, and ponder the implications.

Davis and Bustamante are planting not-too-subtle suggestions for one, or more, of the eleven women to step forward and file a criminal complaint against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Everybody had better start asking why? It may have nothing to do with keeping Arnold from being elected. Grab your copy of the state constitution and read on.

Presume Arnold is elected on Tuesday, and the following day, one or more of these women does file a criminal complaint. Under Article V; Section 10, the California State Supreme Court has full, uncontested authority to rule if such criminal complaint would deem Arnold to a position of disability pending the outcome of court proceedings. Such proceedings could easily take a year or longer to complete. In the meantime, Bustamante would be the acting governor. This is very different from state impeachment proceedings which the legislature has control of.

Scary scenario folks, but the writing is on the wall, by way of suggestion. What are the chances none of these women would file a complaint to keep Arnold from being governor?

I am absolutely certain of my analysis. Yesterday, on a stop in Fresno, Davis refused an opportunity to discuss the recall with reporters. Why? Why would any political figure, especially one facing defeat, refuse an opportunity to talk with reporters? Because the potential of criminal action is seen as an opportunity to have Bustamante become the defacto governor.

I hope no one gets angry with me for posting this. I see something developing, and don't like what I see."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/995631/posts

[diplomats]

1. Wow

I think that poster could be on to something. We'll have to see.

[bahrbearian]

2. Very Nice Post !!!

[Mari333]

3. Yeah they are stumbling all over themselves

THIS one is making his case to vote for AHNULD by using the Bible...HUH???? whacked out over there, totally

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/995648/posts

[ComerPerro]

6. So what this psycho is saying

Is that you can pick and choose what in the Bible you want to obey. But anyone else who does that is morally wrong.

[Ediacara]

12. of course

That's what the freeps have been saying all along :-)

[neuvocat]

4. That first freeper may just be correct.

Let's add to that point further:

Davis will not be gone for at perhaps another month afterwards due to vote count and certification, among other things. That would be enough time to bring up criminal charges.

As for Davis not speaking about the recall, that's something else entirely. The question should be why Swarzenegger didn't accept the invite to the debates. Maybe he was afraid this would get out.

[tsipple]

5. What's the Statute of Limitations?

There was an alleged offense in the year 2000, only about three years ago. Anyone know what California's statute of limitations is for sexual battery?

[dutchdemocrat]

8. Rape is now ten years...

7/30/02: “The Los Angeles Police Department accidentally destroyed biological evidence in at least 1,100 sexual assault cases since 1995.” Detectives destroyed the evidence because they were “unaware” that the statute of limitations for rape had been lengthened from 6 years to 10 years. (Los Angeles Times, 7/30/02).

Note there are a lot of women making claims. Not all are 20 years ago.

On edit... not sure if this applies to sexual battery.

[dutchdemocrat]

14. California Statue of Limitations...

At the time, the statute of limitations for sexual assault and similar charges expired after six years. The law has since been modified, giving authorities as long as a decade to file charges, according to a previous interview with Detective Gregory Stone of the Los Angeles Police Department Rape Special Section.

If physiological evidence such as DNA is gathered in such a case, there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in California.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Apr-25-Thu-2002/news/18604700.html

[tsipple]

15. That's Sexual Assault, But...

...What about sexual battery? Are you saying that's the same (ten years, up from six)?

Either way, we're talking about at least one event in the year 2000.

[number6]

7. if Arr-nulled gets in there, I don't think things will

go well for him, a recall drive may start from
his first day he's in office ...

[Nlighten1]

9. Sexual assault and statutory rape...

are what charges I see Arnold being charged with. Can you imagine this? Getting elected and then immediately getting hit will a landslide of lawsuits...

[E_Zapata]

10. Pretty astute for a freeper - for an 'anyone'

I like it. I like it a lot.

Oh, let us FOIL these arrogant puke bastards. Just once in my lifetime, let us foil them. Beat them at their own game. Beat them with the reality of what and who they are.

yyyyyyyyeeeeeeesssssssssssssss!

[Capn Sunshine]

11. FREEPER make sense! What are the odds?

I guess like a broken clock even a Freeper is right twice a day....
This goes to the heart of the ACTUAL use of the impeachment proceedings IMO. It gives us, togthere with the "unqualified" and "received less votes thanthe losr" arguments, totally legitimate cause for impeachment.

Thanks, freeper weirdo! Appreciate it!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RecallArnold/
:nuke:

[Ediacara]

13. so.....

The freepers think that this would be a power-grab, but the recall is perfectly legit? LOL

[rocktivity]

16. The stories raise questions about Schwarzenegger's ability to govern...

himself!


rocknation

[Nlighten1]

17. I don't agree with the freeper's logic in this case...

Article V, Section 10 just covers "if there is a vacancy" in the Governor's position. Arnold can still get elected and do his Enron damage while the women have their day in court.

[RobertFrancisK]

18. That's an ingenius plan

Haha, he deserves everything that comes his way.
All I can say is it's a shame that a truly great man like Sargent Shriver has to have a son-in-law like Arnold.