I'm going to ignore that last posting, and I don't know one thing about either party in this debacle so I'm not predisposed to like or dislike one or the other, let alone make disgusting inferences.
But I agree -- this has disintegrated into sheer nonsense in spite of several attempts to get it back on track. The original question concerned whether our elected officials are being a credit to the city and to themselves and setting a good example, and the answer is still no. That they're getting way too drunk to drive seems to be a consensus.
The question of whether their sexual behavior is a credit to anybody is also probably no, but we differ on a) whether any crimes were committed (and an investigation is still underway, so we can safely assume we don't have all the facts); and b) whether adults' sexual behavior has much of anything to do with their fitness for office or for public service.
As we know from recent history (Clinton, to be specific) the amount of blame heaped on people caught in sexually compromising situations tends to be related mostly to the political leanings of the blamers. We see the same thing right here and we'll see the same thing in the foreseeable future, and no conclusions are ever reached so it's barely worthwhile taking this point any further. Sometimes somebody crosses the line so repeatedly they lose public confidence (as with the French bank official caught in NYC, or probably Herman Cain) but it takes a lot. Wearing away public confidence is a process of attrition as much as anything else, given the range of public opinions about what's tolerable and what's not in sexual behavior.
There's also the question of he-said/she-said in the issue under discussion. Assistant DA Rusch said it very well:
A defense attorney, she maintained, would point to Berg's intoxication and her acceptance of a ride home from Solomon when another co-worker offered her a ride. The defense would point to the "consensual" back rub, the consensual kissing and the county employee who saw them being equally affectionate with each other. The defense also would stress that Berg invited Solomon to spend the night.
"And, while it is not a legal requirement that sexual assault victims resist their attackers or specifically shout out the word ‘no' before a crime occurs, Ms. Berg's acknowledged lack of any response to Solomon when she awoke to his conduct is a case weakness," Rusch wrote.
But she also made it clear that she believed Berg's allegations.
That's from Steven Elbow's article linked in the first post on page 1 of this topic, and that's what I'm using for a reference for now.
You can believe someone's story without being able to use it in a criminal case. Rusch makes a good and fair point there. If I was on the jury and the evidence was as presented in the article I'd probably vote for acquittal, but it wouldn't be a slam dunk case for either side.
If we can agree each person's account in Elbow's story is accurate (and they don't really contradict one another so much as focus on different parts of the event) I think the most important part of this whole story is how much gray area exists. If you think a crime was committed, at what point did things move from drunken sex to crime? I can't find such a point at all, but some others here apparently do and I am sure you have your reasons.
This is important because if you believe Solomon is a criminal, you have to be able to say at what point the crime occurred. Otherwise, he's guilty of dumbness only.
And this is important because someone's reputation and career are on the line. Accusing someone of a serious crime requires the accuser to take responsibility for saying exactly what crime he believes occurred, whether or not it is prosecutable.
Otherwise, you're just being appalled. And there seems to be a generational split here on whether what happened is run-of-the-mill drunken sex, or something appalling. I find this interesting, because usually it's young people doing the dumb sex and old people being appalled.