Tag Archives: Sexual harassment

Does Lawfare Work?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Conservative Review posted an article about the possible impact of the trial of President Trump in New York. Based on what I know of the charges, the trial is frightening because it illustrates how an overzealous justice department can put anyone on trial for anything. Is the jury aware that Congress has a specific fund to deal with allegations of a sexual nature against Congressmen?

In 2017, CNN reported:

So far, there’s been little specific data to help illuminate just how pervasive sexual harassment is on Capitol Hill, but one figure has emerged: the total that the Office of Compliance, the office that handles harassment complaints, has paid to victims.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

So are we going to arrest whoever disburses the money?

The article at The Conservative Review reports:

On Monday, trial arguments began in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president. Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels. The trial is expected to take weeks, which means Trump’s ability to campaign is severely hampered. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is ramping up his campaigning.

That juxtaposition — Trump in a courtroom versus Biden on the campaign trail — could help Trump, Turley predicted.

“This is becoming the split-screen election,” the law professor said on Fox News. “Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania while [Trump’s] held in this courtroom.

The article at The Conservative Review concludes:

“Keep in mind: this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did,” he pointed out. “Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier — which they denied to reporters — they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying, ‘But it was a legal expense.’ Now you’ve got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.”

Turley, moreover, agreed there is credence to the narrative that Bragg’s case is “coordinated” with the Justice Department, owing to the fact that Michael Colangelo, who once worked in the Biden DOJ, helped present opening arguments on Monday.

It’s only illegal when Republicans do it!

Why The Deep State Might Welcome Governor Cuomo’s Downfall

Posted on by

Yesterday American Greatness posted an article about the charges against New York’s Governor Cuomo. The article points out that the sexual harassment charges have taken the focus away from the nursing home deaths caused by putting people recovering from Covid into nursing homes. If those charges were looked into, other states and other Democrat governors would have been involved.

The article reports:

The people running our government and fronting Biden had a great day Tuesday. In one fell swoop, with New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case—not even charges, merely a case—against Governor Andrew Cuomo for prolific, ridiculous sexual harassment, they solved a great many of the Biden Administration’s looming problems: political, personnel, and criminal. Indeed, there was lots of winning for the shadowy cabal. 

Despite his pugnaciousness and tenacity, these harassment charges, most of which will not pass legal muster should trials ensue, are still likely to push Cuomo from office, whether by resignation or impeachment. As of this writing, a majority of Democratic state legislators have announced support for impeachment, with hearings to begin at the end of August. For Democrats, that beats the alternatives. 

The national outrage at Cuomo’s handsiness and bullying—from feminists, Democratic officials, and others who have ignored Joe and Hunter’s actual criminal sexual depravity—and the expiation of sin to follow as he leaves the scene, has made it unlikely that Cuomo will ever face justice for the deliberate murder of roughly 15,000 seniors in New York nursing homes. That is a far more serious charge. Were that case to be unraveled, with evidence, in a court of law or even in a real newspaper, many people besides Cuomo would be in deep trouble. Particularly hard hit would be those for whom he acted in pursuit of unseating Donald Trump in the coming election. So that could not be allowed to happen. 

The article reports:

Cuomo will resign —or the extremely left-wing state legislature will impeach him. The woke, increasingly black-centric New York Democratic Party wants Attorney General Letitia James, a total progressive, to be the gubernatorial nominee. And hey, we already have many black, female mayors running big cities with escalated mayhem and murder. Time for a governor. 

(If the New York state GOP can’t capitalize on this, their obscurity is deserved.)

As if he knew this was coming, Cuomo secured his post-term book deal early. He banked the $5 million payoff for a book no one bought, about “leadership” during the pandemic, written by employees on the public payroll.

Of course, back then—a year ago, in the anxious boredom of the first wave of lockdown—newly single, aging Andrew, 63, with his visible nipple rings, was a sexual icon. Male and female celebrities prattled stupidly on air about “Cuomosexuality” (wink, wink). What a great candidate for president, the narrative went. In retrospect, it’s ironic—nay, hilarious—that New York liberals raved about the sexuality of a powerful, wealthy man who just could not get laid, no matter whom he pursued.

All gone. Biden and the cabal have just cleared the stage of their most compelling competition in 2024. (That need was not anticipated back when everyone expected Biden to die early, so Kamala could take over. But Kamala is such a disaster that even they see she has to go.) 

Meanwhile, for a moment we all get to pretend we’re back in a normal world, where powerful older men harass younger women, in actual workplaces. We can summon gratifying high dudgeon in amusing arguments, without thinking about the needless deaths, trashed economy, censorship, China’s control of our political class, and the end of liberty. So, lots of winning. 

Right now, everything for the Democrats is about 2022 and 2024. They are scared to death that President Trump or Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will be the Republican candidate. As of now, the Democrat’s two best candidates (Governor Newsom and Governor Cuomo) are in serious trouble.

Which Is A More Serious Crime–Murder Or Sexual Harassment?

Posted on by

Recently I posted an article about the decision by the Department of Justice not to investigate the actions of some governors who sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes. The specific states whose governors did that were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. A number of New York residents were disappointed to hear that Governor Cuomo seemingly will not be investigated for his role in sending coronavirus patients into nursing homes in New York State. However, the Governor’s legal problems are not over.

Hot Air reported the following yesterday:

There’s no federal investigation into New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, however, Attorney General Tish James isn’t quite done, yet.

James could release details of her investigation into whether Cuomo sexually harassed nine women before the end of the summer, something the governor’s office seems to believe is becoming more political by the day. Cuomo senior adviser Richard Azzopardi told The New York Times last week, “the continued leaks are more evidence of the transparent political motivation of the attorney general’s review.”

A rather curious statement since Cuomo asked James to look into the allegations while promising cooperation from all New York State employees. (One would guess this includes the governor.) There’s also no evidence of any leaks despite Azzopardi’s protestations on Twitter and in the press, including calling a union president an extortionist who supports James in the governor’s mansion. Cuomo critics like James, but it seems more along the lines of enjoying thorn-like poking in Cuomo’s side versus lobbying for her to challenge him in 2022.

What’s interesting is Republicans are the ones saying James has a better shot at Democrats staying in the governor’s mansion.

When the media reports that a Democrat is being investigated for sexual harassment, it is political–if the media is reporting it, there is an ulterior motive–Democrats don’t usually warrant media reports when they are charged with sexual harassment.

The article concludes:

Not everyone believes James’ report signals doom on Cuomo’s political future. State Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie cast doubt on whether the governor could be impeached for sexual harassment because he wanted the Judiciary Committee to review it as part of its own probe into Cuomo. That comment caused one of the attorneys representing a Cuomo accuser to suggest Heastie betrayed his duties by showing loyalty to the governor instead of the rule of law.

The amusing parts? James’ reputation had been one of a Cuomo loyalist, instead of someone seeking higher office. A source told Yahoo News back in March that the pair had a good working relationship but James would buck things when it was the right thing to do. Perhaps she’s seeing how the political winds are moving and believes she’s the better candidate.

Except no one knows if James will run for governor. The rumors are all coming from Cuomo’s camp, not anyone connected with the AG. Meaning Cuomo’s worried. It’s possible the DoJ’s decision to pass on investigating the nursing home deaths won’t matter. Still seems odd since one would think avoidable elderly deaths matter more than in the grand scheme of things than sexual harassment. This isn’t taking away from the sex misconduct allegations against Cuomo but just pointing out the strangeness of what gets the public up in arms.

And I thought Texas politics was a bloodsport.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Governor Cuomo needs to be investigated for sexual harassment simply because so many accusations have been made?

 

When Lady Justice Removes Her Blindfold Things Go Downhill Quickly

Posted on by

This article is about the Michael Flynn case. I wanted to bring everyone up to date on some recent information about Judge Emmett Sullivan, but I also wanted to inform readers about some of the reasons the deep state does not like General Flynn.

First, the current news. The Gateway Pundit posted an article today which stated that in the past Judge Emmett Sullivan arranged a speaking gig for James Comey at Howard University for $100,000. That does not sound like a person who would be likely to be an impartial judge in the Flynn case. There are some other problems with Judge Emmett Sullivan as an impartial judge listed in the article. Please follow the link above to read the details.

Now, let’s review some past history. The information I am about to share came from the blogosphere. I am sure there are other sources, but these were the most available to me.

On December 4, 2017, Pacific Pundit reported:

Corrupt Andrew McCabe has long been overlooked in this whole “Russia-Collusion” BS that lead to the fake news of Mike Flynn claiming Trump as a POTUS candidate told him to contact the Russians. There McCabe is a Clinton hack who’s wife donated to Hillary’s BFF, Democrat Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe in the amount of $500,000. But there’s more to this whole Flynn story than what’s been reported by the fake news media. While working for Obama, Flynn intervened after a female employee named Robyn Gritz accused Andrew McCabe of sexual harassment. This enraged McCabe and it lead to the retaliation of investigating Flynn by McCabe and other hacks at the FBI. Funny how the media doesn’t report this story.

…Flynn’s intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz’s case and an offer to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was soaring through the bureau’s leadership ranks.

The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.

The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show.

There’s more. On February 4, 2017, The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

I am posting this to illustrate the undermining of President Trump that has been going on since before he took office. This is not acceptable behavior in a representative republic. If this is not dealt with and consequences felt, we will lose our republic.

Was This Lie Told Out Of Ignorance?

Posted on by

Former Vice-President Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC this morning to answer Tara Reade’s charges of sexual assault. MSNBC posted the video and the transcript. Breitbart posted an article this morning about something Joe Biden said in the interview that is false.

The article at Breitbart reports:

The National Archives and Records Administration on Friday disputed former Vice President Joe Biden’s claim that the record of a sexual harassment complaint allegedly made by former staffer Tara Reade would be in its possession.

Biden, who faces growing pressure on the topic from both allies and the media, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that there was no truth to claims he either harassed or sexually assaulted Reade while she worked for his Senate office in the early 1990s.

“No, it is not true,” Biden told the show hosts. “I’m saying unequivocally it never, never happened and it didn’t. It never happened.”

The MSNBC appearance marked the first time that Biden has addressed the accusations directly since Reade reemerged last month.

Reade, who worked for Biden’s congressional office between 1992 and 1993, had initially come forward last April to accuse the former vice president of unwanted touching. At the time, she told a local California news outlet that she had filed a complaint noting the misconduct with the Senate’s personnel office when it purportedly occurred. In March, however, she claimed there was more to the story, asserting that Biden had pushed her up against a wall, forcibly kissed her, and digitally penetrated her sometime in 1993.

IF Ms. Reade filed a complaint (as she has stated) with the Senate’s personnel office at the time, that record should be available to be checked.

The article explains where that record would be and why it is inaccessible:

The National Archives did not respond to requests from Breitbart News before press time. The organization, however, did inform Business Insider that it does not possess records from the Senate Fair Employment Practices offices. Instead, those records are governed by rules crafted by the Senate, which state that they cannot be made public until 50 years after a complaint has been made in order to ensure the privacy of individuals impacted.

The article concludes:

The rules ensure that, unless the Senate acts to release the information, any documents from Reade’s 1993 employment will not be made public until at least 2043.

The problem with this accusation is that there are people who were told of the accusation at the time it happened. There is also a recording of a call to Larry King Live that is said to be Tara Reade’s mother talking about the incident.

There are also a lot of pictures that show a pattern of inappropriate behavior by Joe Biden:

The man obviously has very little respect for personal space.

This Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone Who Is Paying Attention

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article that clearly shows how the media alters the news to fit its narrative. The media has worked very hard to ignore the sexual assault charges against Joe Biden. They have mostly buried the story, and when they have reported it, they have put it so far into their publications that no one will see it. Well, they have also added (and subtracted) things from the story to paint a picture that may not be accurate.

The article reports:

The New York Times edited a controversial passage in an article about a sexual assault allegation against former vice president Joe Biden after his campaign complained, the paper’s executive editor said Monday.

Dean Baquet, in an interview with Times media columnist Ben Smith, explained why edits were made to the following sentence, which appeared as follows in the print edition of the paper, on page A20: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

Baquet said the Times decided to delete the second half of the sentence, without explanation in the form of an editor’s note, because “the [Biden] campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct.”

Smith asked a number of questions challenging Baquet to defend the Times‘s excessively cautious approach to reporting the sexual assault allegation against Biden—first made public by a former staffer, Tara Reade, on March 25—in light of the paper’s decidedly more aggressive approach to publishing similar allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Baquet failed to muster a coherent response beyond noting that the standard for reporting on such allegations is “very subjective.” He explained that the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in 2018, which included testimony from a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of sexually assaulting her in high school, constituted a “hot story” that required a “different news judgement.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but in the era of ‘me too,’ aren’t ” hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable” considered sexual harassment? Brett Kavanaugh had no history of questionable behavior around women–in fact, his reputation was just the opposite. Joe Biden has a history of strange behavior around women and children. You can easily find examples of this on various internet sites.

Any credibility The New York Times has left as an unbiased news source has been totally destroyed in the recent past. They are responsible for misleading and dividing Americans.

What’s Good For The Goose Is Good For The Gander

Posted on by

Much has been made about contracts President Trump entered into with sexual partners that were supposed to buy their silence. We saw how well that worked. Meanwhile Congress had a slush fund used to pay off sexual harassment claims and other matters dealing with misbehavior on the part of Congressmen. That fund was paid for by taxpayers.

The Daily Wire reported yesterday that the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a bill yesterday (by unanimous consent) that will require Congressmen to pay out of pocket for settlements with former staffers and aides who accuse them of sexual misconduct and will not be allowed to rely on taxpayer money to defend themselves in lawsuits brought by former colleagues.

The article reports:

The Huffington Post reports that the bill goes a bit further than just limiting cash flow, reforming a grievance reporting system mired in the 1990s: “Under the current law, which has been in place since 1995, Capitol Hill staffers who claim they’ve been harassed or discriminated against have to undergo counseling, mandatory arbitration and a 30-day ‘cooling off’ period before going to court. They won’t have to do any of that anymore.”

The bill doesn’t accomplish everything Speier [Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)] set out to do. The provisions within the bill are limited to sexual harassment claims and sexual misconduct claims only — not claims of discrimination, even if those claims are sexual in nature. The bill also does not provide representation to alleged victims free of charge. Although those two requests were in the House version of the bill, Senate leadership encouraged the bill’s authors to pursue those objectives in separate legislation.

This is a mixed victory. One aspect of being in the public eye is that you are vulnerable to false claims made by people seeking money. In corporations, the corporations simply pay the ‘victim’ without confirming the charges because in the long run that is cheaper and easier. One example that comes to mind is a company in Massachusetts that awarded a large settlement to an employee who claimed sexual harassment. The company paid the claim despite the fact that the employee had lived with the person she made the charges against and actually had two children with him. Rather than debate the circumstances, the company paid. Not all charges against Congressmen are valid, and it is actually easier (and probably cheaper) to pay all of them. This may not actually be a step forward.

A Short History Lesson

Posted on by

Remember Herman Cain? He ran for President, but dropped out of the race after sexual allegations. So what happened next?

A site called Yahoo Answers explains:

What ever happened to the women that accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment?

I know that Sharon Bialek has a history of lawsuits against her and I believe that she wanted to use Herman Cain to her own advantage by supposedly coming out about this so called sexual harassment. Then Karen Kraushaar the last time I have heard filed a complaint at her new job. According to the huffington post “two former supervisors say she initially demanded a settlement of thousands of dollars, a promotion on the federal pay scale, reinstated leave time and a one year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of government.” Why do women like them think they can do these things abuse the sexual harassment policy against male supervisors?

This is the “Biden Rule” as stated in Politifact:

“Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Let’s fast-forward to the sudden death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Politifact reported:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called “Biden Rule” to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.

Chuck Shumer was fine when the Biden Rule was used in the George Bush administration. He was not fine when it was used in the Obama administration.

That tweet illustrates part of the reason for the brutal attack on Judge Kavanuagh. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Hillary was supposed to win the election, and Loretta Lynch was going to be named to the Supreme Court.

Today ABC 7 News is reporting:

With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to “drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill,” the network reported.

When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: “Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that’s what she sought to do here.”

Judge Kavanaugh has been confirmed. Professor Ford’s charges did not cause him to withdraw from the race. Unfortunately, her charges, though unproven, will have a negative impact on Judge Kavanaugh’s spotless record and on his family. Now, with a serious amount of money from her GoFundMe Account, Professor Ford will go on her way, leaving a trail of destruction behind her.

It’s funny how unsubstantiated charges of sexual misconduct seem to magically disappear when they are no longer useful.

Congratulations to Judge Kavanaugh for standing firm and beating back the mob.

Sometimes The Double Standard Is Very Puzzling

Posted on by

The New York Post posted an article today about Bill Clinton. Although he is doing a lot of speaking at various political and charitable events, he is keeping a rather low profile. No so with his wife. According to Hot Air, Hillary Clinton recently tweeted:

If I were a Democrat, that would strike fear into my heart. According to an April 19th article at BizPacReview, Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating is at 27 percent. The article reports that this is a new low for Clinton who dropped in popularity from 30 percent in August 2017. Just as a point of reference, President Trump’s rating was at 35 percent. I suspect it may have gone up in the past month.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton seems to be relatively popular with the American people despite his past actions.

The New York Post reports:

As recently as 2016, the very liberal Joy Behar was dismissing the women who slept with Clinton as “tramps” on “The View.” Not that much has changed since the period in the ’90s when Maureen Dowd dismissed Lewsinky as being “nutty and slutty” and “a ditsy, predatory White House intern who might have lied under oath for a job at Revlon.”

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken in November 2017, a month after the #MeToo movement began, found that 59 percent of people believe the accusations against Bill Clinton. But you wouldn’t know it from the way he’s being treated.

Somehow Bill Clinton has escaped the wrath of the #metoo movement despite the believable accusations against him.

The article at The New York Post concludes:

It’s not hard to find worse men than Bill Clinton of course (Harvey Weinstein). It’s not even hard to find worse men named Bill (here’s looking at you, Cosby). But there’s a big difference between “not being the worst man in the world” and “being a guest of honor in an age where women are speaking out against assaulters like you.”

If Democrats want to hold Donald Trump accountable for his alleged misconduct, and we should, then we have to hold Democrats accountable, as well. Sexual harassment isn’t an important issue because it serves as leverage against another party. It’s important because it destroys women’s lives and careers. At least in Lewsinky’s case, we know the fallout from the affair rendered her suicidal. But Clinton seemed to go blithely on, largely beloved in spite of the way he abused his power.

Maybe this is the year we say enough. After 20 years, it’s time for Bill to go and take a long walk in the Chappaqua woods.

We should be so lucky.

Wisdom Proven True

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article stating what many Americans knew all along–Vice-President Mike Pence was right when he said that he has a rule never to be alone with a woman who is not his wife. Think how many recent scandals we would have avoided if Hollywood, newscasters, and politicians followed that rule.

The article notes:

Vice President Mike Pence was roundly ridiculed when it was revealed that he makes an effort never to be alone with a woman who is not his wife, but the policy is looking less prudish and more sensible as accusations of sexual misconduct against powerful men proliferate.

Accusations first surfaced last month against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and have since reverberated through Hollywood, the media and government at every level. On Wednesday, Matt Lauer, a longtime host of NBC’s “Today,” and Minnesota Public Radio’s Garrison Keillor were fired by their respective organizations amid accusations of improper behavior.

Joseph Backholm, president of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, said the spate of sexual misconduct accusations makes it “increasingly obvious that we need to re-evaluate our boundaries.”

The article notes:

The entry of women into the workforce since World War II, followed by the sexual revolution and the erasure of well-established sexual mores, has left men and women with little guidance as to how to interact in the workplace, Mr. Richards said.

“We now find ourselves trying to kind of create rules after discovering fallout from these dramatic social changes,” Mr. Richards said. “It’s not as if Pence’s rule is written in stone; different people have different rules that are similar to this. But I know many Christian organizations and Christian ministries that have rules more or less like Mike Pence’s in place for all employees.”

In addition to guarding against infidelity and other sexual misconduct, Mr. Richards said, the Pence rule preserves the reputations of all parties involved.

“It’s as much or more about preserving the reputations of himself and other women,” he said. “A simple guardrail is absolutely reasonable if you want to prevent the rumor mill from starting, let alone even worse sexual transgressions.”

There are some obvious things that could have been done to prevent some of this and some obvious questions about the actions of some of the people involved. Why did Matt Lauer have a button under his desk that would allow him to lock the door to his dressing room without leaving his chair? Why did Harvey Weinstein conduct meetings with women in hotel rooms wearing only his bathrobe? Did their employers or the people they were accountable to know of their behavior? Was there anyone Harvey Weinstein was accountable to? Where did these men get the idea that it was okay for them to do the things they did? Did they not believe that societal norms and social graces applied to them?

Where these actions are proven, there have to be consequences. Those consequences need to be consistent in the political and the corporate world. It will be interesting to see if they are. Meanwhile, the wisdom of Vice-President Pence is apparent.

 

Things Are Not Always What They Seem

Posted on by

Yesterday, One America News posted the following video:

I am posting this video because I was very concerned about a report I heard on Fox News this morning. A commentator was talking about the recent firing of Matt Lauer. He also mentioned Roy Moore in his comments, making the assumption that Roy Moore was guilty. I would like to point out that Roy Moore has been a public figure for more than twenty years, and none of these charges have been previously reported. I would also like to note that none of the charges are less than thirty-five years old. I think a presumption of guilt in this case is not justified. The connections of some of Roy Moore’s accusers and their past activities further cast doubt on these accusations.

The Key To Understanding Recent Sexual Scandals And How They Have Been Handled

Posted on by

It seems like almost every public person in American life has now been accused of sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior or some other horrible crime. I don’t mean to make light of these accusations, but there is a wide range of things that can be considered inappropriate behavior. Telling someone they look nice can be misconstrued. Also, I am aware of a case where two people who worked for the same company lived together for a number of years and had children together. The relationship ended, and the women sued the man for sexual harassment. That seems like a stretch to me. However, the obvious problem in this discussion is the discrepancy in the way in which these charges are reported and handled.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today that explains it all in one sentence:

Maxine Waters to women: John Conyers ‘has impeccable integrity on our issues’

Note that she did not say that he had impeccable integrity–she said he had impeccable integrity on our issues! That is the key. It doesn’t matter how badly Democratic lawmakers behave on their own time as long as they are consistent on ‘our issues.’ Think Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, etc. That is the key to understanding how the media is treating the various stories involving sexual scandals of public figures.

The article further quotes Ms. Waters:

“He is quiet, he is confident, he is powerful, but he has impeccable integrity on all of our issues. Give John Conyers a big round of applause.” C-SPAN captured her comments and those of others who spoke at the event.

In her address she rallied women. “We are reclaiming our time,” said the outspoken Trump critic.

“We’re speaking to women who are single mothers, women who work two and three jobs making minimum wage or less, women who have been exploited, harassed, or taken advantage of in their personal and professional lives,” said Waters, adding:

“I just want to take time to focus on something that I think we need to focus on right now. It is very fortuitous that we are gathered here this afternoon in Detroit as we continue to recognize a record number of women who are boldly coming forward to reveal disturbing and grotesque acts of sexual harassment, assault and rape, often times at the hands of men who believed they were too rich and too powerful to ever be confronted or held accountable.”

It must hurt your head to engage in the kind of reasoning it takes to justify the behavior of some of these men.

One Way To Save Taxpayers Money

Posted on by

Yesterday Roll Call posted an article stating that the House of Representatives has paid out more than $15 million over the last decade to settle harassment cases, though that number also includes discrimination claims. There has been no information released as to exactly why the payments were made or exactly which members of Congress were involved.

The article reports:

Speier’s (Representative Jackie Speier) office clarified Wednesday that the Office of Compliance, which handles workplace and accessibility issues on Capitol Hill, does not provide a breakdown for the type of discrimination payments made.

The OOC’s $15 million figure covered more than 200 payouts made from fiscal years 1997 to 2016 for all claims the office covered, such as racial and religious discrimination cases, discrimination against people with disabilities and sexual harassment, a Speier staffer said.

Why were the taxpayers paying out this money instead of the people involved?

It seems as if sexual harassment has become the issue of the day. I find this a bit disingenuous. In addition to the pass given to Bill Clinton, where was this issue when Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd were in Congress? There is a danger of a witch hunt here. There is also a danger that because of the political divide in the country right now, the investigation of sexual harassment in Congress will turn into a very ugly political process.

 

Using False Accusations To Silence Opposing Speech

Posted on by

Bill O’Reilly has departed from Fox News amid charges of sexual harassment and payoffs for past charges of sexual harassment. The departure of Bill O’Reilly was the result of an orchestrated attack to convince advertisers to withdraw their advertising from the show. It had much more to do with politics than it did with sexual harassment (story here). Now that Bill O’Reilly is gone, the attack has moved to Sean Hannity, another very popular host on Fox News.

Yesterday The Blaze reported the latest events.

The article reports on the accuser:

The radio segment started with Campbell (Pat Campbell, an Oklahoma radio talk show host) asking Schlussel (attorney/blogger Debbie Schlussel) if she experienced or witnessed any inappropriate behavior during her time at Fox News. “Only by Sean Hannity, not by Bill O’Reilly,” Schlussel replied.

Campbell jumped on that statement and asked Schlussel to explain. The lawyer proceeded to launch into a rambling, nearly eight-minute monologue with a laundry list of charges against Hannity, Fox News executive Bill Shine, Hannity’s replacement hosts and several women working at Fox News who Schlussel called “fixers for Roger Ailes.”

At the core of Schlussel’s charges is her claim  that Hannity attempted to get her to come to his hotel room before and after his appearance in Detroit. Schlussel alleges her refusal to accept Hannity’s invitation doomed her from future appearances on the popular program.

Sean Hannity was very clear in his response to those accusations:

“LET ME BE CLEAR – THE COMMENTS ABOUT ME ON A RADIO SHOW THIS WEEK by this individual are 100% false and a complete fabrication.

This individual is a serial harasser who has been lying about me for well over a decade. The individual has a history of making provably false statements against me in an effort to slander, smear and besmirch my reputation.

The individual has not just slandered me over the years but many people who this individual disagrees with.

This individual desperately seeks attention by any means necessary, including making unfounded personal attacks and using indefensible and outrageous political rhetoric.

My patience with this individual is over. I have retained a team of some of the finest and toughest lawyers in the country who are now in the process of laying out the legal course of action we will be taking against this individual.

In this fiercely divided & vindictive political climate, I will no longer allow slander and lies about me to go unchallenged, as I see a coordinated effort afoot to now silence those with conservative views. I will fight every single lie about me by all legal means available to me as an American.”

The article at The Blaze also notes that this woman had previously made false accusations against Hannity for his activities with the Freedom Alliance.

There is an attempt by the political left to shut down any conservative media that is having an impact. In this world of political correctness and lawfare, it is relatively easy to make accusations that will tie a person up for years with legal actions that will be very expensive. The best way to handle this behavior is to expose it whenever it appears. Hopefully the lawyers that Sean Hannity has hired will be able to teach an object lesson about false accusations and using lawsuits to stop opposing speech.

UPDATE (from Western Journalism):

Schlussel clarified her accusation in a Monday interview with LawNewz. She now insists that Hannity’s actions did not constitute “sexual harassment,” but they were still “creepy” nonetheless.

“I would never accuse him of that. Sexual harassment has a special meaning under the law, and I would never accuse him of that,” Schlussel said.

“I never thought I was sexually harassed by Sean Hannity, I thought he was weird and creepy not someone I liked,” she added.

Simply amazing. A good lawyer is worth his weight in gold!

Creating A Circular Firing Squad

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted a story today on National Review Online about the Herman Cain scandal that seems to have taken over the media this week. Mr. McCarthy points out that Politico ran with this story without substantial evidence that the story was true or newsworthy. Politico has compounded that error by keeping quiet about the source of their story.

Mr. McCarthy points out:

But we’ve learned the most about Politico. Look, for example, at this: Politico this morning had a post about how, after Cain blamed Perry for being the source of the sexual-harassment story, Perry promptly turned around and floated Romney as the likely source. Yes, congratulations GOP on the circular firing squad — but that’s not the point. The point is: Politico knows who the source is.

Meanwhile, Politico has twisted the story to be about who leaked the story rather than whether or not the allegations have any foundation. Since Politico knows who leaked the story, that is rather questionable journalism.

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

When I was a prosecutor, it was considered serious ethical misconduct to suggest to a jury something the prosecutor knew to be factually untrue. If the defense called Witness A, and I was aware of the fact that Person B had robbed a bank, it would be a weighty impropriety for me to impeach A’s credibility by suggesting in my questions that A had robbed the bank. If the judge asked me a question, my choices were to give a truthful answer or to refuse to answer and explain why the law supported my refusal — making a representation that was false or misleading was not an option. And if I later learned that I’d been mistaken in something I’d represented, my obligation was to go back and correct the record as soon as possible. All this because a trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and I would be perverting the process if I suggested that the factfinder should consider something I knew to be inaccurate or false.

I guess similar rules don’t apply in today’s journalism.

Unfortunately, he is correct.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Just Wondering …

Posted on by

The Daily Caller reported today that Herman Cain told reporters today that he would not answer questions about the alleged charges against him while he was speaking to the group Docs4PatientCare at the group’s annual meeting in Alexandria, Virginia. I have no problem with that–the whole story is ridiculous. The Women’s Liberation movement has made sexual harassment charges a joke–anything you decide makes you uncomfortable can be classified as sexual harassment. The standard is so low that opening a door for a woman can be considered harassment.

Anyway. I am wondering where these charges came from. I have no doubt that someone who claimed harassment was paid a severance and let go. I just want to know who she approached with her information. My actual guess is that the attack came from the Republican establishment. If they are really good, they will blame Rick Perry for the attack–that would eliminate two non-Republican-establishment candidates at once. I realize that I am in the tall weeds here, but I do wonder who gave the story to Politico. I don’t think Herman Cain has handled the charges well, but he is so inexperienced and understaffed that he can easily be caught off guard.

I do wonder who dug up the dirt and I am prepared not to believe anything I hear about the source until well after the 2012 election. The truth may or may not ever come out!

Enhanced by Zemanta