Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Andrew Gillum: We Will Fight to take your guns away and we will win!
If you thought just because we have a Republican president the boogy man is gone. You were wrong. A Florida Mayor running for governor of the sunshine state is claiming he will take away your second amendment rights!
Andrew Gillum posted to twitter
And just like Levi Strauss hes receiving funds from the Usual suspects.
Rain or shine, Florida @MomsDemand volunteers will be supporting @AndrewGillum, candidate for FL governor 100%! Today, he announced he has been endorsed by @Everytown! Let's #BringItHome y'all!!!#FlaPol
related: FLORIDA’S ANDREW GILLUM POSES A THREAT TO CAPITALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSAs we have stated before Gun owners and americans who care their rights need to do more than post to facebook. You need to take action. Mail your representatives and elected officials. Actually show up and vote these scumbags out of office. These same people are attacking our constitution at an alarming rate its no longer the 2nd amendment they are after but...
10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer
I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.
My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.
Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.
I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.
When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.
Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.
1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.
Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.
For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.
The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.
The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the...
Guess What Day It Is!!!
Wednesday! Register To Vote Today, Vote On November 6th To Preserve Liberty And The Constitution!
More Hump Day:
Happy Hump Day!
Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh
Perhaps in a bid to help bolster the crumbling narrative surrounding California professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old unsubstantiated accusations against Kavanaugh, The New York Times just did a purported deep dive into Kavanaugh’s 1983 high school yearbook from Georgetown Preparatory School.
The Times heavily implied in the article that Kavanaugh and his friends were some kind of sex-obsessed gang that openly bragged in the yearbook about their sexual conquests, especially with regard to one female student in particular named Renate Schroeder Dolphin, as they referred to themselves in a group picture as “Renate Alumni.”
But as Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist painstakingly pointed out, there are several glaring problems with the article from The Times that have rendered the story “fake news” and, if The Times had any integrity left, would seem to merit a full retraction and issuance of public apologies, rather than a handful of quiet and unexplained edits.
The first problem appears to be that The Times attempted to delete the name of a source for their smear against Kavanaugh and his friends. The original online post of the article cited a source named only as “Mr. Madaleno,” a singular reference to the source that has since been completely deleted from subsequent versions of the article, according to a site known as NewsDiffs that tracks such changes via online archives.
Standard editorial procedure for The Times is to introduce a source by their full name when first mentioned in an article, followed by the individual’s last name and title for any future references to them. However, any such reference to “Mr. Madaleno” is decidedly lacking in this piece by The Times.
Hemingway pointed out that the “Mr. Madaleno” in question is most likely a Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s named Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Maryland state senator who is virulently anti-Trump and just unsuccessfully ran for governor in the state on a platform that consisted largely of touting how his being gay and progressive would “infuriate” President Donald Trump.
Considering Madaleno’s obvious animus toward all things Trump, ethics would seem to dictate that The Times identify him so readers could gauge his particular motivations for making claims against Kavanaugh. Yet they did not, nor did they provide any explanation for why not or why his name was ultimately deleted completely from the article.
Furthermore, The Times also left unmentioned in the piece several key pieces of information that contradict or undermine the claims made by the article, such as the fact that another source who was actually named, William Fishburne, was an active campaign surrogate on behalf of Madaleno’s failed gubernatorial bid, a rather pertinent fact that again goes toward motivation.
On top of that, The Times also cited a classmate named Sean Hagan as condemning the jokes in the yearbook about Dolphin, but failed to note that Hagan was the editor of that yearbook — and thus allowed what was written to be published — or that he is friends on Facebook with Madaleno and “likes” socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other anti-Trump pages.
The article did mention that “(Dolphin) and a second friend of Ms. Dolphin’s denied that there was any sexual contact between Ms. Dolphin and Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else in his circle,” but failed to include a similar statement of denial issued by Kavanaugh’s friends, which stated in part, “None of us has ever taken part in any kind of verbal conduct or physical actions described by the Times and never bragged about or suggested any such thing.”
Indeed, the men all insisted that there was nothing sexual about the references to “Renate” in the yearbook, but merely a notation that all of the friends had at one point or another dated, danced with or kissed Dolphin … all completely innocent behavior for teenage high school boys and girls.
Some of the men even claimed to have remained good friends with Dolphins over the years since then as well, all of which would undermine the narrative that she was some sort of sexual...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)