WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen
VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.
WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.
WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
Story continues below
VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.
WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.
VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment
WOMAN: But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you.
VITTER: Do you think he’s in favor in rape?
WOMAN: I’m asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent?
Vitter’s lone talking point isn’t very good, as Stein observes:
While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment, the White House itself said it supported “the intent” and was working to make sure it was “enforceable.”
In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what Vitter’s constituent is on about: