AOC responds to Lauren Boebert's "sexually lewd" theater "show"
www.newsweek.com
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.”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    342·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        122·
        9 months ago

        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.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
            81·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • Restaldt@lemmy.world
              4·
              9 months ago

              You think the list of GOP champion sex offenders is small enough that adding boeberts name will make any difference?

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                41·
                9 months ago

                Probably not, which is why it’s the petty side and not the more reasonable side that this tickles, lol.