What was the context of the discussion and who were the parties involved? Sounds horrendous….

You need to post the clip if you’re going to make accusations like that.

[deleted]

The clip hasn't posted yet but yes this did happen in committee today. The clip should be posted in a day or so.

Please post it, I’m very interested in seeing it as he is my rep.

Sorry, I won’t have the clip ready to go until the entire hearing is archived.

But I’ll be sure to have the screencast app ready to go next time just in case another GOP rep decides out of the blue to accuse another rep who’s presenting a bill of being a pedophile. Until then though there’s an entire room filled with witnesses to the embarrassment that is the RI GOP.

Thanks for posting this!!

I’m sitting here wondering… when/how can actual survivors of child sexual abuse (I am one of many, many diverse stories) speak up and check talking point from people who (seemingly) have no first-hand idea what they are talking about.

WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING TO SPEAK FOR US? Ever ask survivors what they think would help?

(And this is sort of outside politics as I am independent/moderate/eclectic). Obviously elements of the GOP are running with this right now and it’s infuriating… as a survivor….

Go r/you

Then wait till you have the video to make the post.

At this point, you’re just spreading hearsay. Be better than that.

Or ya know the poster can talk about it as it's happening in real time and follow up with a video later, like they said they would. It's not their fault Capitol TV posts are delayed. I also was watching the hearing and heard it all happen too. Start watching Capitol TV more often and you'll see just the kind of nonsense things your rep says.

Here’s what happened to the best that I can recall:

Rep Kislak presented a bill that would attach a social impact statement for all new legislation that would outline how new bills would either directly or indirectly affect communities of color, LGBTQ, gender identities and other underrepresented groups throughout the state, as though it’s an environmental impact or a financial impact statement.

Quattrocchi went on to ask that, if because it includes all gender identities, that also includes sex offenders, satanists and pedophiles.

Kislak rightly took offense to that, and vocalized her objection to his inquiry, because why the fuck would that be a reasonable response to anything, even from a republican. She responded “Thankfully pedophiles aren’t a gender identity.” Quattrocchi responds to Kislak’s objection with the accusation “What, are you a pedophile?”

Those aren’t exact quotes, but they’re as close to what I can remember now as I can get.

Just because you don’t believe that it happened doesn’t mean that there isn’t literally an entire room of people who witnessed it happen in real time.

I posted here because it was an outrageous and unprofessional abuse of power from an elected official, and felt that as many people need to know about it as possible.

I get really suspicious of the highly "moral" types who say this so loudly. Too often they are trying to divert attention away from something.

🤦 Talking about something you witnessed is not hearsay.

Lol, just a typical conservative using words that they don’t fully understand. They do seem to have a firm grasp on pedophillia though, it honestly feels like projection at this point.

Considering how much members of the GOP project I wonder what Quattrocchi is hiding on his laptop.

OP may have witnessed it, but provides no evidence. They are spreading it to others, which will then be hearsay.

I never said I don’t believe it, but I do like to have proof with a claim as abhorrent as you’re making.

If I had the time I would, but sadly I’m working and in meetings most days.

Lol no, that is not hearsay. 😂

Ding ding ding!

Without the video evidence being provided, how could it be substantiated? It would be hearsay.

No! Wrong!

First of all, look around; This isn’t a court case. Y’all can fuck off with hearsay all together. I heard from a guy I know whose wife told him you fuck dogs. That’s hearsay and I can still say it whenever I feel like.

In court:

“I saw her say X” is admissible testimony.

“My friend said she said X” is hearsay, which is not admissible evidence in court.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/20/ri-rep-quattrocchi-asks-rep-kislak-if-she-is-pedophile-amid-debate/70028697007/

Surely you'll call this hearsay too, since it doesn't include a clip. Hope it's sufficient enough for you, though.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/20/ri-rep-quattrocchi-asks-rep-kislak-if-she-is-pedophile-amid-debate/70028697007/

Excuse me while I spread this, then.

Thank you for posting something to it.

While he was throughly being a dick, he didn’t accuse her of being a pedophile as you stated in your post.

Please do, he was being an asshole. But he didn’t accuse her of being a pedophile as you stated in your post.

>"Oh, I didn't mean to. Are you a pedophile? I'm sorry," Quattrocchi, a Scituate Republican, asked Kislak, a Providence Democrat.

The article doesn't convey the timing of that quote as well. There was a long pause between "Are you a pedophile?" and "I'm sorry." Long enough to put a pretty significant emphasis on the accusation. Enough to get a rise out of the entire room.

Regardless, I got a feeling that even if I did have a clip of the moment for you, you would still find a way to misconstrue the obvious reality of the situation.

I like to have some sort of proof before taking a strangers word on a serious accusation like this.

You seem to think I’m defending this rep, I’m not. Hell, I didn’t even vote for him (and he was on my ballot). But before I break out pitchforks and torches (hyperbole, but making phone calls and visiting offices isn’t off the table), I like to hear/see it from a reputable source.

While I think he was being a douchebag, it doesn’t read from the article as bad as you initially made it sound. Although, you might be right, the video might make it worse.