Allahpundit:
A Thanksgiving leftover. This was published Wednesday night, as people were tuning out for the holiday, but it shouldn’t be missed. Headline: “Congressman on tape tells woman he would report her to Capitol Police because she could expose his secret sex life.” Hmmm. Trumpeting the fact that he was caught on tape makes what he said seem illicit — a congressman, threatening to sic the police on a poor defenseless woman because she had damaging information on him. It’s intimidation! And it was caught on tape.
“I want your word that this ends,” he said, according to the recording [in 2015], adding: “I will be completely straight with you. I am ready if I have to, I don’t want to, but I should take all this crap to the Capitol Hill Police and have them launch an investigation. And if I do that, that hurts me potentially big time.”
“Why would you even say that to me?” the woman responded. “The Capitol Hill police? And what would you tell them, sir?”
Said Barton: “I would tell them that I had a three-year undercover relationship with you over the Internet that was heavily sexual and that I had met you twice while married and had sex with you on two different occasions and that I exchanged inappropriate photographs and videos with you that I wouldn’t like to be seen made public, that you still apparently had all of those and were in position to use them in a way that would negatively affect my career. That’s the truth.”
The occasion for that call was Barton finding out that the woman, a former lover, was sharing images and texts he’d sent her with other women he’d had relationships with. Barton told WaPo, “When I ended that relationship, she threatened to publicly share my private photographs and intimate correspondence in retaliation.” The woman told the Post that she didn’t post the nude pic of Barton that circulated online this week but admits that she did share material with some of his other former lovers, complaining that he was “manipulative and dishonest and misleading” in his interactions with her and those women. She insists that she never intended to retaliate against him by having the photo go public.
In a sane world, the main angle for WaPo’s story would be that discrepancy between Barton and the unnamed woman. Did she in fact intend to damage him by showing the world his dong or did she share material with one or more of his other exes in the expectation that they’d keep it between themselves? I can imagine jilted exes comparing notes on lies that their former paramour told them (e.g., if Barton had said to each of them, “you’re the only woman for me”), commiserating in the hurt they felt at having been played. I can’t easily imagine why those “notes” would also require sharing a crotch-level photo of a naked Barton. That feels more like an attempt to humiliate him, even if it was done in the belief that it wouldn’t leave the circle of women among whom it was shared.
Under Texas’s “revenge porn” law, there’s no formal requirement that a naked pic be made widely available for the act of sharing it to constitute a crime. Here’s the key part of the statute:
(b) A person commits an offense if:
(1) without the effective consent of the depicted person, the person intentionally discloses visual material depicting another person with the person’s intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;
(2) the visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;
(3) the disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) the disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any mannerWhen the story broke Wednesday, the key question had to do with subsection (2), whether Barton had a reasonable expectation that the woman to whom he sent the photo would keep it private. That is, did he send it to a lover while they were having a relationship or was he so stupid as to have sent it unbidden to a woman he was pursuing? WaPo’s story confirms that Barton *did* have an expectation of privacy; he sent it to a girlfriend. That’s news and legally important! But the story raises a new question about subsection (3), namely, did sharing the photo of Barton with some of his other exes cause harm to him? It did eventually, of course, in that someone put it on the Internet. But if the original recipient of the photo did nothing more than share it with another person, is she on the hook for what that person ended up doing with it? What if that person swore up and down that she’d never publish the photo as a condition of receiving it? Obviously you can’t dodge liability under “revenge porn” laws by simply having a third party upload your ex’s nudie pics to the ‘Net, but can you dodge liability if you shared the pic with a third party who created a reasonable expectation that they themselves would keep it private before betraying that expectation and posting it?
All of these were interesting strands that WaPo could have pursued. But they were more wrapped up in secret audio of a congressman warning an ex that he was going to get his buddies in the Capitol Hill police on her case if she exposed his secrets … even though he had every right under the law to do that. “Revenge porn” is a crime! Of course he wanted the police involved. This woman may have broken the law even if we adopt the narrative of what happened here that’s most favorable to her — she “only” shared the photo with a few other people, she had no intention of posting it publicly, she was simply annoyed that Barton had been “manipulative.” None of that might matter under the statute. If she shared Barton’s photo with a third person knowing that he wouldn’t approve and it caused harm to him because the person with whom she shared it ultimately shared it more widely, a perfectly foreseeable development, in all probability she’s guilty of a misdemeanor.
Arguably, in fact, this doesn’t even qualify as a sex “scandal.” Barton and his wife were already separated and on their way to divorce when he had this fling with the woman to whom he sent the photo and he did nothing criminal in warning her not to share it publicly. He used laughably poor judgment in sending the photo to begin with but the recipient behaved less morally by violating his confidence than he did in sending it to her. And yet, to read WaPo, you’d think he had wronged her, not vice versa. How come?
Being incredibly stupid doesnt really matter in politics, it doesnt work out like that in real life.
Since 99% of our news is Fake News so why should we ever beleive a darn thing they tell us since most of them a liberal leftists scumballs
Of course, the lost story is that Barton acted like an idiot. What the hell IS it with people?
Because he threatened to use the powers of his elected office to retaliate against the woman to whom he sent the photograph, if she dared to made it public. The legal problem involves abuse of office, not the sexual conduct or marital misconduct that occasioned it.
@Greg: There was already a law against revenge porn how does he being in office have anything to do with that? Just her sharing it with his other conquests was a crime. She needs to be prosecuted for her crime. He had a pre-existing condition, he was stupid BEFORE sending her a shot of his business that showed his face.
@Greg:
No, he warned her what was going to happen, just like someone warning a neighbor that if they don’t keep their dog from barking all night long, they are going to call animal control. It is a warning that if someone does not control their own behavior, they are going to call in the proper authorities to force compliance, rather than take matters into their own hands and shooting the dog.
Barton warned the woman that she is venturing off onto a perilous tangent and he was not going to just roll with it. He would let the proper authorities handle the situation (rather than go Clinton on her and have her killed).
Though I suppose the threat of legal action is indeed a threat.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: But it wasnt a threat to make his Jabba the Hut impression public? Just as the song goes “Breaking up is hard to doooo”
Do you think it’s proper for the Capitol Police to be used an instrument of intimidation by a Congressman to keep his questionable sexual conduct under wraps? Would we want to allow Barton’s case to set such a precedent?
Replace Barton’s name with Anthony Weiner’s, and then think the situation over.
I realize this may not be helpful. It’s already been established that there’s one set of standard for Bill Clinton in such matters, and another entirely when it comes to Donald Trump & Co. In fact, there are double standards that cover a host of issues. What would happen if the right looked at the Trump family’s dealings with Alexandre Ventura Nogueira the same way they look at the Clinton’s financial activities? Most likely the right’s officially approved news outlets haven’t even reported on the story.
@Greg: Yes it is proper, he was ready to come clean rather than be blackmailed by a scorned woman. Its the only way to end such things is to tell them it might hurt me but what you are threatening is illegal.
Way different than Carlos Danger sending his business Weiner pled guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor. His other sexting scandals may have been with adult women so in those cases WGAF.
@Greg:
If someone is threatening YOU with something illegal, is it improper to counter with telling them you are going to call the police? Or, is this not allowed of Republicans?
There is but one standard; that of proof. Clinton, in addition to being caught lying about Monica, has had to pay a settlement of almost a million dollars. Furthermore, his accusers don’t simply disappear when their political usefulness is spent. In Trump’s case, you base everything upon a statement he made stating, quite accurately according to what we have seen from some prominent liberals, what he COULD do, if he wanted to. Because it has been politically convenient, you liberals have turned a statement into an action; one which there is NO proof to substantiate, and you have tried desperately hard to make it so.
There is a vast difference between fact and politically motivated accusations.