Justin Fairfax is not being Franken'd

[boston bean]

Stop it with that crap.

We are talking rape here, not a touchy feely comedian here who made women uncomfortable. There are degrees of offense.

And also please stop twisting the Blasey Ford FBI investigation into a defense for Fairfax. That fucking investigation was a fucking white wash and was used to further humiliate a victim in an attempt to cast doubt on her accusation.

And you wonder why women don’t report.

Damn!!

[FarPoint]

1. Look where Kavenaugh is now.....

I say wait until we have FACTS, EVIDENCE, ..... I'm over being politically correct.

[sharedvalues]

6. And Fairfax and Kavanaugh should BOTH be impeached

[FarPoint]

11. I say ....when Kavenaugh is impeached....

then we can address our parties concerns....not until then...

[hughee99]

13. Exactly, it's okay that we might have a rapist as a lt governor at least

As long as Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t stand up for what we believe in (and try to find the truth) until he’s gone!

[whathehell]

106. Yeah, lets get all 'partisan' about rape..

"Yout rapist gets ours". I think not.

[FarPoint]

158. Whar are you talking about?

?????

[ooky]

117. They should both be investigated.

Kavanaugh because his first investigation was a bullshit whitewashing by Trump. Fairfax because he hasn't had an investigation at all.

[PatrickforO]

82. Well, yes, because an impeachment is by definition an investigation into

allegations of wrongdoing. If they did it, then remove them from office. If not, then their names are cleared.

[boston bean]

7. Yeah a rapist on the scotus. Why not one for the governor of Virginia.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Most acquaintance rapists are bright enough not to leave evidence - OTHER THAN

the assertion by the survivor that sex was not consensual.

So what you are really saying is that a rape survivor's word that she did not consent is never enough (or that believing a rape survivor's word is political correctness). Gotcha.

[FarPoint]

22. I'm saying....take it to Court...

I'm done with late claims without due process. .

[Ms. Toad]

23. So you would rather all of the Cosby victims remained silent?

How about Harvey Weinstein victims?

Your desire completely ignores the reality of rape survivor's experiences.

Many women choose not to report at all - because even when they report they are not believed (e.g. Fairfax's second victim who reported a prior rape to the appropriate college officials and was dumped to the curb - why on earth would she bother reporting the second campus rape?). Others want to put the experience behind them - and being involved in legal processes delays that for 6 months to more than a year - or even longer if the rapist cannot immediately be identified. Others fear retribution or harassment - I doubt I would report a second rape after my experience of abuse at the hands of the police, who picked the rapist up, scolded him, and let him go - emboldening him to harass me by phone for months (he found my phone number in my belongings after raping me).

Ultimately, sometimes years later, women are prompted to report to protect other women (part of the motivation for the Cosby and Weinstein survivors coming forward - very similar to both Tyson's and Watson's stated reasons for coming forward now).

If you are not a rape survivor, you need to be quiet and listen. A good start woudl be gto go back through #MeToo or #whyididnotreport hashtags on twitter. The disclosures in that period were powerful examples of exactly why women do not immediately (or ever) disclose.

[FarPoint]

34. I see this current " claim" as a political weapon. .

We Democrats are completely predictable...our knee jerk reflex response to such a claim where we eliminate the target .

I'm saying the late day claims of assault etc...well . could very well be false....

The sexual assault claims are not fresh, timely as in within past 3-6 months ....more like years ago....to a politician ...

One had to ask, who gains from the " scandal claims?".

The women's victim issues are inflammatory, powerful indeed in a time we recognize victims fear coming forward timely in the past. ..Yet nothing is proven..just a claim....I ask why now?

I'm not going to engage in discussing Cosby...

[Ms. Toad]

43. So you are accusing a rape survivor, who happens to be a black, well-educated, college professor

- and a Democrat - of political assassination.

Nice.

Both accusers explained why now.

Tyson had moved on with her life (as many rape survivors choose to do), when she learned that Fairfax was likely to be elected Lt. Governor of Virginia. She felt obligated to tell friends of hers who were Virginia voters so they could make an informed choice as to whether they wanted a rapist as their Lt. Governor. For the same reason, she approached the Post at a time when sharing her story might prevent (not unseat) a rapist from becoming Lt. Governor. When the Northam blackface erupted - and it became clear that Fairfa might become governor, she considered going public. That choice was taken from her when one or more of her friends disclosed a private facebook post and her name. Once exposed - particularly after Fairfax accused her of lying and made false statements about the Post to prove it, she made a single statement to refute Fairfax's allegations that she was a liar.

Watson came forward when it became clear that Tyson was being trashed in order to save Fairfax's political career. And to satisfy your unwarranted demand of a contemporaneous accusation - she reported the rape to her friends immediatley, and has spoken with them over the years about it.

Your refusal to discuss, or acknowledge the pattern of which survivors DU chooses to victim blame is telling.

[LexVegas]

47. Unreal isnt it? nt

[Ms. Toad]

51. To say I'm picking my jaw up off the floor a lot these days would be an understatement.

Although, to be honest, after the 4 decades I've spent working in the anti-rape movement, making progress in baby steps, the immediate and positive response to #MeToo and #whyididntreport seemed too good to be true.

[LexVegas]

59. The new thing about the victim lying because its suspicious that she was raped twice.

[Ms. Toad]

120. Obviously asserted by people with little understanding of, or experience with, rape.

Personally: One stranger rape, one date rape, and four sexual assaults that I can think of in 10 seconds. Guess I'm a big fat liar.

An employee of mine walked into a hornets next when she reported a sexual assault. In discussing reporting v. not, it never even crossed my mind that a woman near 30 would never have experienced sexual assault before - and she had no context to prepare her for the 9 months of hell that resulted.

[FarPoint]

67. You are over thinking this.....You also are confabulating....I didn't say that ..

Your points are well taken but go off on a tangent..... Excellent term paper discussion.

[Dorian Gray]

115. Plus 1 million...

[treestar]

186. You are presuming guilt

The other poster only said that it is not certain. It is not helpful to escalate to your first sentence.

[Ms. Toad]

190. I am presuming Tyson and Watson are telling the truth -

The opposite of the presumption that has been made for years as to rape survivors.

As between the person describing her own mindset - and someone else describing it - that is the appropriate balance.

[treestar]

191. An opposite presumption is

No more just than the old one. Feminism requests fairness only.

[LanternWaste]

198. Courts alone determine guilt.

We, along with the media, simply speculate whether someone is responsible or not. That speculation does not result in judicial consequence as guilt or innocence do.

[treestar]

200. That's fine but then it should not lead to

consequences of losing their office. If you want to claim a lesser standard should apply to that, we still have no body to make the determination and what exactly should the standard be. We can only leave it to the impeachment process.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Vanessa Tyson is an African American Democratic scholar and professor.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211794910

[FarPoint]

78. Excellent credentials for employment....

Donald tRump has Business Degree.... he's impressive..just ask him ..

My point is....the scholar thing is irrelevant ....tRumps education and degree does not reflect the essence of the person...just saying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Are you seriously comparing an African American Democratic feminist scholar and professor

Are you seriously comparing an African American Democratic feminist scholar , author and professor to Donald Trump?

[FarPoint]

84. Only to make a point....

Great credentials don't make one a saint or incapable of deception.

[Empowerer]

134. You think that she'd more credible because she's a scholar and professor?

Would you think she was any less credible if she were an uneducated, working class woman?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. I'm saying her background makes it infinitely less likely she is a a Republican plant.

[Empowerer]

139. Then you should have left out the African-American professor and scholar part

and just described her as a Democrat since her race and her job descriptions are irrelevant to your point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. Not just a rank and file Democrat but a young woman who has worked for and campaigned for Democrats.

That demonstrates a heightened level of commitment. Only God knows the truth at this point. I just don't want to see her dragged through the mud.

[Empowerer]

142. Then you should have said that instead of describing her race and occupation

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. Is that all part of our backgrounds?

[Empowerer]

144. Her race and occupation doesn't make her any more or less

Suggesting that she's more credible because she has a prestigious job suggests that a woman who did not have such professional attainment should be less likely to be believed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. Does it seem she has a great deal to lose by making a false allegation?

[Empowerer]

150. Everyone, regardless their livelihood, has a lot to lose by making a false allegation

[irresistable]

154. It does make her more credible for one specific reason...

She has something to lose....she has put her whole professional career on the line.
People do not take a step like that lightly.

Dr. Ford anticipated the same barrage of resistance and came forward anyway.

It does not mean that someone who does not have a prestigious job isn't credible or shouldn't be believed.

[Empowerer]

155. As I said, EVERYONE has something to lose when making a false accusation

And, arguably, someone with means and connections is in a much better position to adjust and move on than someone who doesn't have those advantages.

My point is simply that basing credibility on someone's position suggests that you would assume that anyone without those qualifications would be less credible because they supposedly have less to lose. I just don't think that should be a standard for determining credibility.

(Not to mention that some of the most batsh$t crazy and lying people I know have high positions and great reputations and I wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw them).

[irresistable]

159. You are the one ASSUMING that I would imagine a less prestigious person less credible.

This isn't a credibility contest between the two actual accusers and your hypothetical "less prestigious" accuser.

They have both agreed to testify in his impeachment hearing.

[treestar]

188. Different issue

She is not a Republican plant. But that does not mean he has to resign due to her claim.

[atreides1]

179. Fairfax's credentials seem pretty impressive, too!

Fairfax graduated from DeMatha Catholic High School in Hyattsville, Maryland, where he was senior class president. Fairfax then graduated from Duke University in 2000, with a degree in public policy. He was a briefing coordinator for Tipper Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign of Al Gore, in the campaign's Nashville, Tennessee office. Fairfax was also a staffer for Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, in the senator's Washington office.

After serving on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee for two years, Fairfax attended Columbia Law School, where he was a member of the Columbia Law Review. Over the summer of 2004, he joined the John Kerry presidential campaign, as a body man for John Edwards.

He then served as law clerk to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2005. He worked in the Washington office of the law firm WilmerHale before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2010. Fairfax worked for two years as a federal prosecutor in Alexandria, Virginia. He served as deputy coordinator of the Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force during this time.

Fairfax ran for public office for the first time in 2013, seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. He lost to Mark Herring, but surprised party insiders with his strong performance in the primary. Herring defeated Fairfax by about 4,500 votes out of 141,600 cast in a closer-than-expected race. The Washington Post praised both candidates during the primary, but endorsed Fairfax, writing that he had displayed "an agile and impressive command of the issues with a prosecutor's passion for justice."

After the race, Fairfax co-chaired the 2014 re-election campaign of Virginia Senator Mark Warner. The following year, he was recruited to work at the law firm of Venable LLP, in the firm's Tysons, Virginia office.

What in this screams out that he's a rapist???

I'm not defending him, but if you're going to use someone's CV, then you need to at least be honest and even handed!

[treestar]

187. Not evidence of his guilt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

189. But evidence she is an extraordinarily unlikely right wing tool as has been suggested by some.

[Honeycombe8]

50. Courts don't work for long-ago claims

Still, getting the accusations under oath is the first step.

Then people need to decide whether the accused more likely than not, did it. And even if he did, so they want to oust him. People have a right to elect whoever they want, after all.

It's up the voters of Virginia to make the call on both Northam and Fairfax. The Court won't be involved.

[FarPoint]

132. So, what I am really saying is...

Take the issue to Court....investigate the claims, not to make impulsive, knee jerk decisions as a Party to have him resign...on something that is alleged. There is no time clock in this...time wasn't an issue for the accuser.

[Ms. Toad]

135. Only if the survivor wants to.

Many survivors describe the court process as at least as bad as the rape itself.

The choice to subject herself to that process is entirely up to the survivor - and I don't blame any survivor for choosing not to do so, whehter or not she chooses to disclose her experience in any other way.

[Empowerer]

141. The fact that "many accusers" describe the court process a certain way

doesn't mean this particular woman shouldn't avail herself of it.

Black people are regularly treated like crap in the criminal justice system. That doesn't mean we can avoid the system whenever we choose.

And most women who described the court system that way do so because they feel stigmatized and humiliated having to discuss and relive their sexual assault.They're not in the same situation that Dr Tyson is in. She has already very publicly discussed in great detail all of the aspects of her allegation.

She can't have it both ways. She can't broadcast all of the details of this incident to the world, publicly allege that Fairfax assaulted her and then just walk away claiming she's too fragile to file a police report. The efforts to infantilize her, notwithstanding, she's obviously a strong woman who knows her voice and is willing to withstand the public scrutiny she's brought on as a result of her claim.

She surely has a right to disclose her experience however she chooses. But if she chooses to do it in this way, she invites questions about her motivations.

[Ms. Toad]

164. You are twisting my words. I never said she shouldn't avail herself of the court process.

I said she, alone, has the right to choose whether to - or not.

Your analogies are inept - suggesting that you have not sat in a courtroom through any rape trials.

Disclosing anstatement prepared in advance, about which you will entertain no questions is very different than sitting in a courtroom with your rapist a few feet away being asked to repeatedly describe minute details of the encounter. Which hand did he grab you with, was his penis sticking out of his zipper? How far? Was he circumcised or not? did it have any other unusual characteristics? Did he have an orgasm? Did you have an orgasm? How long was his penis? Exactly how did he insert it into your mouth? How long did the sex act take? Did you kiss afterwards? etc.

Choosing not to file a police report has nothing to do with fragility. It has to do with emotional health and with making choices about how much control she will cede to justin Fairfax. Every bit of aftermath from rape is a direct consequence of the rapist wresting control from her. Part of healing is taking control back - and that includes controlling the story.

Personally - my rapist still controls my telephone use, occasionally where I sit in restaurants, and my weight. The first as a result of telephone harassment for months after the rape - I use telephones as little as possible; my spouse makes all of the calls for the family; the second - I don't like to have my back exposed so I'm picky about where I sit in restaurants; finally - for years I unconsciously ate myself into an unattractive blob of a woman to avoid being perceived as an object of sexual attraction. Because it was 2 decades before I recotnized the connection, I now struggle with eating habits designed to maintain my armor of fat. He doesn't, however, control my movement (unlike many women raped by a stranger in a street attack, the streets are mine, any time, any day), or speaking out about being raped.

But those are my choices - and every rape survivor must make their own choices of what is healthy or healing for them. Choosing when, where, and how to tell her story - and respecting her choices - are not infantilizing - it is empowering her to choose what is best for her. That may, or may not, match up with what you think is best for her, or for Fairfax, or for Virginia - but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the survivor controls what she is - or is not - willing todo vis-a-vis the public.

[Calista241]

146. Republicans say the exact same thing about Trump.

If we fail to police ourselves here, we will be seen as and will actually be massive hypocrites when we talk about Trump and his sexual assault history.

[ecstatic]

2. Fairfax! nt

[boston bean]

3. Thank you.

[jcgoldie]

4. Good thank you

All I have to say is don't be a hypocrite for political expediency. Too many people saying shit that amounts to 'republicans get away with it so why shouldn't we.' Come on, be true to your ideals or you might as well be them.

[sharedvalues]

5. Agreed. There are two legit accusers, of rape. Very diff fm Franken.

Fairfax has two accusers, who identified themselves. One has corroborating accounts and contemporaneous confirmation.

Same with Kavanaugh: multiple accusers, serious accusations.

Not with Franken: many accusers but none of rape, and most/all had serious problems with their stories or credibility.

Fairfax should go. Kavanaugh should go. Both should resign or be impeached.

I still think Franken deserved a full investigation.

[planetc]

12. I second your entire post.

[brush]

8. Oh, please. If there is no investigation he is bein Frankened.

Get to the truth for fairness to all involved.

Investigate.

[boston bean]

9. You think that FBI investigation was fair?

It gave people cover to allow a rapist in the scotus.

That is all it did.

Investigations aren’t all their cracked up to be.

Especially when it comes to a victim of rape or sexual assault. Most likely one is used to besmirch the victims.

[brush]

14. Think about the non-investigation of Franken.

Many are still pissed he was given due process.

If Fairfax is guilty lest's find out for sure and punish him.

There a risk of backlash of black voters if he is forced out without an investigation but Northam and the AG are left standing.

Think about that. The black guy is forced out but the two white guys get to stay.

I know the charges are different but get to the truth through and investigation. If the accusations are true, and they are accusations not established fact, let's find out.

[boston bean]

15. Franken resigned. He wasn't denied an investigation.

[lame54]

19. Greatly oversimplified

[boston bean]

20. Thems the facts.

[lame54]

21. Partially told

[boston bean]

25. Says you.

[MicaelS]

24. He was forced out.

Because Gillibrand wanted to lead the charge for notoriety, and a bunch of other Democrats were too weak to stand up for him, they were lemmings.

And many of us will NEVER forget that fact.

If Gillibrand wins the nomination I will vote for her. THAT is the only support I will give her.

[boston bean]

27. Umm no. He decided to resign. Amongst many calls for him to do so. But still it was his choice.

[tavernier]

124. My last heart to you because ...

Well because I agree.

I can’t support someone who backstabs a Dem to get a nomination and I think that’s what she did.

[MicaelS]

175. Thank you very much for the heart and compliment. n/t

[brush]

30. You're sounding like a Gillibrand surrogate, all about rushing...

to judgment.

Slow down, let's have an investigation and find out. Fairfax is just as vociferous in his denials ast the accusers are with their allegations.

No judge, jury and executioner from just accusations, please.

[boston bean]

38. Umm. Who is gonna do this investigation. mr faifax's lawyers?

Maybe the Virginia congress can provide one via impeachment.

And then, what??

Listen there are two credible accusers. He isn’t facing a judge or prosecutor. He should just resign. These women are not republican pawns.

[brush]

58. Slow the hell down. Due process. Ever heard of it?

We have a criminal justice system the whole society is based on. If the accusers are bold enough to come out with these allegations they must file charges and we go from there.

There is way too much history of black men being accused of rape and just lynched with no investigation or trial.

That is not exactly the situation here, but your calling for immediate punishment with no investigation certainly has some similarities.

[boston bean]

66. A prosecutor brings a case. Not the victim.

[brush]

68. Are you totally devoid of any knowledge of the justice system?

The accusers file charges then it proceeds from there.

God, I can even believe this has to be explained.

[LexVegas]

79. That is patently false. nt

[brush]

87. What's false? At least follow the thread with whon...

I'm responding to before injecting nonsense.

[AncientGeezer]

83. Did Dr. Ford file charges? Did you belive her?

[brush]

88. For Gods sake. It's about due process. It's what our system is based on.

File charges to get an investigation going. Where is all this coming from? Everyone involved in the Fairfax case deserves fairness—including Fairfax.

[AncientGeezer]

93. There's no due process in a He said She said...with so many yrs gone

Either you believe the women or you don't.
I bet you believed Dr Ford....and demanded Kav be gone without "due process".

If I'm wrong link me ONE post You made calling for Kav "due process"

I'll be waiting for that link to your call of "due process" for the frat boy.

[brush]

96. Saying there's no due process is frankly, silly.

No one ever knows what an investigation will turn up, and you don't either.

[dsc]

123. I actually had no idea if I believed Ford until both she and Kavenaugh testified under oath

then I had an opinion (he was definitely a liar and most probably a rapist). With the second victim and her having told people when it happened, I now believe Fairfax likely did assault both of those women. Even years later, we can evaluate the credibility of people look at facts that are there. For example, Dr Tyson said she never contacted Fairfax after the 2004 encounter, he says they kept in touch. We can look at phone records, text messages, and email and see who is telling the truth about that. In the case of the second victim one of the people she told back then came forward and backed her up on that. The fact is we can investigate this sort of thing.

[FarPoint]

110. I ttotally agree...

Due process is the key....Another thought...let the election stand...don't ever vote him into any public service...there..

[AncientGeezer]

86. You seem devoid of facts....An accusation is made...maybe an arrest

...then a prosecutor files charges or not... might proceed to a JG or straight to a charging document from the cops to be handled by an arraignment judge..then it proceeds to the regular Court system....

Most victims don't report because of the shitshow of a rape claim...the stigma attached....the outright humiliation...she asked for it bull shit.

My wife was a rape victim...she didn't report because her perp had power...she wasn't a Ratfucker or RW troll.

[brush]

90. Have the accusers file a police report, however it works...

to get an investigation going.

You are in favor of an investigation to get to the truth, right?

God, too many are sounding like a lynch mob around here with all this rush to judgment with no investigation.

Is this DU, the site for the party of diversity and fairness or not?

I'm sick of this shit, having to argue for fairness for all party's involved.

[AncientGeezer]

97. Did Dr Ford file? Did you call for due process for Kavenaugh?

We both know better...I looked back.
Link 1 post you made about due process for Dumpster's latest appointee...we both know how that will go don't we?

[brush]

100. Of course I called for an investigation for Dr. Ford's...

recollection of events and the witness she said was there with Kavanaugh. trump made sure there wasn't a legitimate investigation and Collins and Flake flaked.

Once police reports are filed perhaps Virginia authorities will conduct a better investigation than the stunted one the FBI conducted under trump's instructions

Now I'm done with this foolishness of people not wanting to offer due process to an accused.

How un-American can someone get?

[boston bean]

102. he ain't going to jail.

[AncientGeezer]

103. So..you can't source your call for due process..

". trump made sure there wasn't a legitimate investigation and Collins and Flake flaked. "
That's just bullshit^^ Dumpster didn't have squat to do with that shit show...That was the Senate Judiciary Cmt...

I'm still waiting for your post for due process for Kav...ANYthing that resembles the same call for due process....
You must be able to supply one?

[brush]

105. You dreally think trump didn't limit the FBI investigation?

You don't pay good attention do you?

I called for an investigation in the Dr. Ford case.if that's not enough for you who cares.

Plow ahead with your un-American rush to judgment and no investigation/due process for Fairfax and the accusers.

I'm done with this foolishness.'

[AncientGeezer]

108. "I called for an investigation in the Dr. Ford case."

Did you call for due process....on Kav's behalf...you must have a link to that call for justice ..here...OR did you demand the FBI prove Dr. Ford's claim correct.....that could Never be substantiated because of the time and her lack of detail and memory?
I get it...you can't link squat....I know you do not give the Fairfax accusers the same belief you give the Kav accusers and I know why....just admit it.

[dsc]

125. He most certainly did

Trump decided the parameters of the FBI investigation. It is nothing short of bullshit to deny that fact.

[treestar]

192. Yes we did

We wanted it investigated. So much worry over Republicans. And he is on the court. You can bet he won’t step down if there is more proof or a new allegation

[AncientGeezer]

197. I'll ask again...Did ANY accuser against shit head Kav file charges?

Every single poster here wanted an investigation to Convict Kavadouche....Not exonerate the frat boy...a denial of that is patently dishonest.
We all knew there was ZERO chance to corroborate Dr. Ford's accusation.

Not 1 poster here wanted him confirmed to SCOTUS...regardless of the truthfulness of the accusations. I was 1 of them because of Garland's treatment.

[treestar]

199. In one of these cases, the statute of limitations has not run

Of course it is true we did not want him confirmed and there were other reasons not to.

He was trying to get on the court - it would be more alike here if these accusations came out during the campaign for Lt. Gov.

No Repub would step down over these kinds of accusations, so I don't see that Democrats have to. If Ford's could not be corroborated, neither can Tyson's.

Though I will incur wrath of feminists, I think people should report these things rather than assert them many years later. If it is as serious as we say, it should not matter who did it, whether they are a judge or governor or not, and the police are now better trained not to dismiss things out of hand. There are female police officers who could take the reports.

[AncientGeezer]

201. She reached out to Rep Bobby Scott in Oct '17....

[Mystery sage]

52. Agreed

We live in a society of opportunity so let's give him the opportunity to defend himself

Besides, him resigning means guilty by the public which will mess up his life (unless we find out later the ladies were lying after all)

All in all let's do this the American way not like a tribe that decides the next sacrifice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. In a perfect world all three would go and Northam would appoint his successor before he resigned.

[brush]

85. I wish that could happen but the repug hit job is in full effect...

at least with the two white guys. It won't work for them though as the 4th-in-line repug most likely has the same sort of racial incident histroy in his background, being from the area and time frame.

As for Fairfax the hit job may or may not be operating but he still deserves an investigation to get to the truth.

If he goes with no investigation and the two white guys stay, all bets are off in Virginia and maybe even the country with some black voters. It's a mess and those calling for Fairfax to step down with no investigation are playing with fire and not considering consequences.

[AncientGeezer]

109. How about the Va Dems calling for him to get the Hell out?

It's not a hit job brush...
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/dems-call-on-fairfax-to-resign-after-second-sexual-assault-allegation

[brush]

116. You don't know that just like I don't.

Stop being an un-American a-h__e an allow for due process/investigation that everupme osentitled to—including black guys.

I starting wonder what's up, you're not screaming for the white guys to step down.

[uponit7771]

42. Of course not, that doesn't mean repeat the same mistake on a different day

[boston bean]

46. That same mistake is perpetrated on victims of sexual assault on a daily basis. It is not uncommon.

[uponit7771]

55. Which is part of what #metoo is about; due process while taking a persons accusations seriously

... that doesn't mean erase due process from one side.

That would not be wise at all.

Investigate, get all information ... decided from there.

I'm more surprised at the reluctance of an investigation, wasn't that part of BK's down fall?

thx

[boston bean]

60. There was an avenue for an investigation by the FBI with Kavanaugh. Trump told them to complete a

Limited investigation. Again another white wash.

The avenue for investigation in this case is impeachment and conviction. You down with that?

If so, fine.

[uponit7771]

63. Of course, if Fairfax knows such & demands to go down that "avenue" are you down with that? tia

[boston bean]

65. Yeah. I doubt he is down for that though.

[uponit7771]

69. We'll see, BK's reluctance to go down the road of a proper investigation was the empirical evidence

... against him.

[Empowerer]

113. " that doesn't mean erase due process from one side"

+1000

[wasupaloopa]

72. You think convicting without evidence is fair?

[boston bean]

81. Who was being convicted?

[wasupaloopa]

92. Geez what a question.

[boston bean]

101. Can you answer it?

[Squinch]

10. This. There is no comparison. While I do support an investigation, these allegations are a

world away from the ones leveled at Franken.

I will say it again: I love Franken, but he called for an investigation and then did not stay for it. I think he would have been exonerated by one. His mistake was that he stepped down.

[uponit7771]

45. The same mistake would be Fairfax's also, he should demand an investigation and fairness

[LexVegas]

16. Fairfax is a sexual predator as much as Harvey Weinstein. nt

[boston bean]

17. Or Bill Cosby who got away with it for decades. Both of them did.

And a hell a lot of them just get away with it because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions and their victims not wanting to live through a public trial that somehow always ends up trashing them.

[brush]

32. You don't know that for sure. An investigation can...

can establish that he's guilty, or not.

Rushing to judgment and getting rid of the black guy on just accusations while leaving the two white guys in office could be devastatiing to Democratic politics in Virginia and maybe even the country.

We'll risk black voter resentment if we force Fairfax out and leave the two white guys in.

Do the right thing and investigate.

[halobeam]

26. k&r! n/t

[Kurt V.]

28. K&R

[Dream Girl]

29. And you know that how?

[Jarqui]

31. "And you wonder why women don't report."

I wonder if more women would report if their claims were taken more seriously and investigated more diligently.

In Kavanaugh's case, they were basically swept under the carpet or brushed aside.

If Fairfax does not resign, both these claims should be looked into and the public invitation to look into other claims be made in case there are other victims out there (as so often, there are).

If Fairfax does resign, these women should be consulted to see if it should end at that point. It may be, due to the statute of limitations, that there is no other legal recourse.

[Empowerer]

33. The statute of limitations for rape in Massachusetts has not expires

Why doesn't she press charges?

[Jarqui]

36. In her MA case, probably due to a lack of evidence

The statute of limitations for a civil claim expired years ago in MA (3 or 6 years as I recall).

A criminal claim (15 year statute of limitations in MA) requires evidence to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. She has almost no evidence - it is her word against his - which might win a civil claim but it won't get a criminal conviction. They would lack the evidence to even charge him much less get a conviction.

Duke is in North Carolina. If that is where that alleged rape occurred in 2000, the statute of limitations for a civil claim has expired (3 years). There is no statute of limitations for the crime of rape in North Carolina. But again, she's up against it to produce enough evidence.

[Empowerer]

91. The police and prosecutor decide if they have enough evidence to proceed, that's not up to the victi

That's not up to the victim.

And it seems to me that if a victim is willing to talk about their case to the world, they should be willing to have the police and prosecutor doing investigation. Since they clearly no longer are concerned about having a personal matter exposed to the public.

While I believe that all women should be taken seriously, I don't think that translates into being required to assume that every man accused of a crime must be guilty based solely on the accusation.
And I think that if a woman is willing make a very public accusation such as this, she should be willing to press charges. Otherwise we are supplanting the criminal justice system with a "court of public opinion" system in which a victim can make any accusations she chooses and the accused has no rights whatsoever.

We wouldn't tolerate this in any other type of crime. And while sexual assault has a unique place in the criminal justice system, the very fact that it is so highly charged is one of the reasons we should not allow accusations to be launched against people without any check or balance.

Women must be protected and empowered in this process. But the process must be fair and women in this situation, while deserving of great difference, can't have it both ways.

[Jarqui]

104. I agree and never suggested otherwise that the police, a prosecutor or

a grand jury make the decision on whether to proceed with a criminal case or not.

Having said that, you do not have to be one of those to develop an opinion that this case is a "he said vs she said" MA claim and therefore, it is a claim severely lacking in evidence to proceed in criminal court.

We know that from the Washington Post making a substantial effort to look into it and being unable to even report the story at the outset after their investigation. And we know that from her recent statements on the matter that provided no more than what she had already provided to the Washington Post. The bar for reporting such a thing is much lower than the bar to decide to whether to proceed with a criminal case or not. She fell well short of that lower bar to publish the story. Fairfax's press release opened the door for publication and was a major error on his part.

As 14 years have passed and no claim was made for fourteen years, we have no physical evidence, no police report and no witnesses from back then at this point. Unless something almost magical happens in terms of evidence appearing, she doesn't have nearly enough to attain "beyond reasonable doubt" and therefore, no prosecutor is going to proceed with this case that they cannot win. It would be a waste of public resources.

He says it was consensual. She says it wasn't. That will not get you beyond reasonable doubt. Most people don't need the police or a prosecutor to understand that. If you're going to put someone in prison, you better have substantial evidence or it is a waste of time and resources. Now, one might say "let the police look at it". Maybe they already are - as a formality. But what chance to they have of turning up something WaPo couldn't after 14 years? Very unlikely.

[Empowerer]

111. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard, but not political or public opinion

Even if the investigation doesn't produce enough evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, it could very well develop enough to provide corroboration for the allegation - it would certainly provide more information than has been produced to date.

[Jarqui]

118. But that is not exclusively the job of the police or prosecutor.

Their job is to uphold the law. But to also manage their limited resources to do so.

For the MA case, they cannot go on a big wild goose chase for evidence that no one has even given a hint that can be produced under these circumstances and expend substantial resources on a criminal case that has almost no chance of going anywhere. That is also their duty - put their limited resources where they have the best chances of bearing fruit - maybe rape cases from last week where they have clues, witnesses and a rape kit.

Remember that it is a "he said - she said". He said it was consensual so even if she produced a blue stained dress or video of them together that evening or can describe his genitals, it wouldn't help her. They need evidence that he forced himself on her. If she had any physical marks, those have had 14 years to heal up or could be alleged to have been caused by something else in the last 14 years. She says she told no one for 13-14 years so if she suddenly produces someone as a witness, there's immediately some doubt because she's already on the record saying she told no one.

It's pretty obvious looking for evidence of rape in this alleged consensual sex case 14 years after the fact is probably tougher than finding a needle in a haystack. The police or prosecutor will utilize their resources accordingly - as they should. If she truly was raped - as I suspect she was, I feel terrible about that but waiting 14 years before she did anything about it didn't help her situation.

[Empowerer]

133. A police investigation doesn't need to be a huge CSI undertaking

It can start with something as simple as investigators trained in dealing with sexual assault survivors walking Dr. Tyson through her story and interrogating Lt. Gov Fairfax. They know the right questions to ask a victim to gather as much pertinent information as she can provide and they also know how to question an accused person in order to pin them down, circumvent efforts to evade and poke holes his story if he's not telling the truth, while also protecting his rights and not entrapping him.

If she's unwilling to do this - when she was willing to publicly discuss the details of the incident with the world - I will wonder why.

[Jarqui]

136. Fairfax has very good lawyers, right?

One of two things will happen in the MA case:
- either he doesn't speak with police telling them his statement says it all - he has a right to remain silent
or
- he answers only questions his lawyers allow him to answer in the way they want him to answer them and he doesn't answer the rest

Either way, they're going to get a consensual sex story (and probably have already got close to all they're going to get from him)

She might add a few details but they're not going to get evidence anywhere close to attaining unreasonable doubt - because it's all his word against hers.

Jaws are really strong. How did he get her to open her mouth and not bite his dick off? Vaginas don't have teeth. No matter what she says, confronted by a good lawyer or investigator, she already has a problem overcoming this. Some sort of consent had to have been given because she opened her mouth and didn't bite his dick off. Naturally and probably, he intimidated/threatened/scared her. But the point is: this is a much tougher sell - along the lines of 'why didn't you cross your legs?' to a jury. Only takes one juror of twelve to nuke the criminal case ...

I do not like being crass here as Dr. Tyson was probably violated - probably is a victim. But this is how these things go and based on her word alone, it is going nowhere. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a tough standard of testimony and evidence to obtain - as it should be.

The Duke NC case seems to have a little more with a witness at the time and maybe it wasn't consensual and maybe it wasn't a blow job (I do not know the details). If he claims it was a consensual blow job, without a witness to the act itself, it's pretty much game over for being unable to get a criminal conviction. But again, at this point, we have no physical evidence - no witnesses that actually saw it and no police report. The only evidence beyond her word that we know about is that she told someone about it - apparently around the time of the incident. That's not enough to attain unreasonable doubt. If he claims he never touched her and she's got a stained blue dress, he has a big problem. Because they both admit being friends, if he alleges something consensual, it is almost impossible to get unreasonable doubt without witnesses of the act itself and physical evidence.

For PR reasons, by all means, the police will go through the motions to ask a few questions, etc and fill out a report. But it is highly unlikely to go anywhere in a criminal court because the evidence is so scant. The NC case might have hope if she has more evidence and he claims nothing happened - otherwise, it's over.

Their best chance of getting any justice is via impeachment or getting him to resign and/or as a result, damage his political aspirations.

[Empowerer]

137. Sound like you think the law enforcement should never bother to investigate most sexal assault cases

- because the alleged assailant might have good lawyers, the police won't do more than a "PR" job, etc. - but instead, we should just resort to extra-judicial means such as a person being forced out of his job and his reputation being permanently damaged because someone accused him of a crime.

No, thank you. I prefer due process.

[Jarqui]

145. That's a ridiculous strawman

These cases happened 14-19 years ago and they have almost no evidence. And almost no conceivable way to get evidence to achieve "beyond reasonable doubt".
No matter how good the lawyers are. These cases presently have real limits.

Here's some statistics on rape convictions for rational minds to mull over
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
"Out of every 1,000 rapes, 5 will lead to a felony conviction"

In these two cases:
There is no police report from the time.
There is no known physical evidence/rape kit
There is no one who saw it - no witnesses to the actual alleged crime.
No one did a damn thing about these cases for 14 or more years.

Out of those 1,000 rapes, there won't be too many with evidence as scant and old as these two claims.
Therefore, the chances of this getting a conviction in criminal court attaining "beyond reasonable doubt" are arguably substantially less than 0.5% conviction rate above. That's pretty close to the harsh reality here no matter what you say about due process.

You can go ahead and knock yourself out with due process. As many have said, "facts are stubborn things". Fortunately, police and prosecutors know more about this than you & I and they will allocate their resources accordingly. That is the way that it is whether you like it or not. There are probably a bunch of rape cases more likely to bear fruit in terms of a conviction than these two. Resources are finite.

When the Washington Post couldn't even put enough evidence together to print a story, you know the case is in real trouble in terms of getting a criminal conviction based upon evidence that is "beyond reasonable doubt". The only thing that occurred to allow them to go to print was Fairfax responded.

Due process based upon such scant evidence is highly probable to get absolutely nothing in criminal court. The statute of limitations has long passed on civil claims.

By far, the best chance for these women to get any justice is impeachment or getting him to resign. They have to pay their lawyers too which you conveniently overlook. They might as well invest their lawyers time in something that might get them some measure of justice.

[Empowerer]

148. "the Washington Post couldn't even put enough evidence together to print a story"

But you think there's enough there for him to resign?

And the Washington Post reporters aren't trained professional criminal investigators and did not question either Tyson or Fairfax under pain of criminal consequences if they were caught in a lie. That's why criminal matters are investigated by the police not the media.

I find it odd that she's willing to tell her story to a newspaper but not to an investigator, which would put it under some scrutiny. If she wants to publicly accuse him of committing a crime, she should officially accuse him. Even if it does not lead to a conviction oh, it can certainly help her prove that it's more likely than not that he committed the crime she alleges.

[Jarqui]

160. At least one of these women has agreed to testify for impeachment

Mr Cohen can advise them of the penalty for lying while cross examined under oath to a legislative body. How is that materially different that answering questions from criminal investigators? I'm sure the impeachment prosecutor and defending counsel will be well prepared for the show.

The point of bringing up the Washington Post has gone soaring over your head. They're known as a pretty good paper with pretty good resources. After looking at this story for several months, they couldn't gather enough evidence to publish it. That is an indication of how little evidence and how unreliable the evidence was. When a good paper cannot gather enough evidence to run a story, they're a long, long way from being able to gather enough evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The VA Senate has 21 Republicans of 40 in the Senate.
How do you think the party of racists will vote on impeachment of a black man accused of rape?
Impeachment probably only needs six more of 19 Dems who might see voting for impeachment as politically good for them - on top of the 21 Republicans.

Getting due process that does not result in a conviction doesn't get the victims anything except bigger legal bills from their hot shot lawyers.

Getting Fairfax impeached or successfully pressuring him resign gets them some justice.

The chances of these two women being able to persuade 6 of 19 Dems to vote for impeachment or put enough public pressure on Fairfax to resign is probably much better than the roughly 1 in 10,000 chance they have of getting a criminal conviction through the due process you advocate. They can get the cursory due process they're likely to receive because their case is so poor and flip that towards impeachment - where their chances are much greater to get them justice.

[Empowerer]

168. That's good, but none of the politicians conducting the hearings are trained interrogators

or have any training in dealing with rape victims.

[Jarqui]

173. Nonsense

Half the VA Senate is made up of lawyers

This gang of 20 lawyers & a state trooper, able to tap outside counsel and resources, cannot match a couple of prosecutors in MA and NC?

I doubt it.

How about this senator?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-mcdougle-02852517/
Mr. McDougle is former prosecutor who spent years prosecuting thousands of cases in Virginia’s Circuit Courts, General District Courts, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts.

Or this senator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Black_(politician)
Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps
After the war, he left the service and earned a law degree, returning to military service (1976) as a prosecutor with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps.[1] Black later headed the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, before retiring from the military in 1994.

Rape in the military was a pretty big deal for JAG

Or this senator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Stanley_(politician)
(Stanley) joined the Northern Virginia law firm of Gilbert Davis, where he was involved in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton.

Or this senator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Edwards_(Virginia_politician)
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed Edwards United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. During his term, Edwards's office achieved several milestones. The Roanoke Times & World News reported that he had one of the "perhaps most successful tenures of any federal prosecutor in recent years." He prosecuted the largest criminal case in the country at the time under the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, prosecuted the first criminal civil rights case in Virginia, initiated a national investigation into public corruption in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, prosecuted the largest bank robbery in Virginia history, and prosecuted organized crime. His office also received recognition from the Department of Justice for increasing by several times the collection of monies owed the federal government. He is the author of "Professional Responsibilities of the Federal Prosecutor," 17 U. Rich. L. Rev. 511 (1983).
Edwards is a partner in his law firm. His law practice includes a broad range of civil and criminal litigation in federal and state courts, including trials and appeals.
He has handled many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ...

Or this senator?
Former Virginia State Trooper Charles William Carrico Sr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_William_Carrico_Sr.

Or this senator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Norment
Norment is an Adjunct Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School.[2] He served as on-campus attorney, and counselor and attorney to the President of William and Mary

I wonder how many on-campus sexual assaults he's overseen ...

Scott Surovell - Criminal lawyer
Lynwood Lewis - Criminal lawyer
Jennifer McClellan - lawyer, served on Courts of Justice Committee
Mark Peake, lawyer, Personal injury, Criminal defense
Creigh Deeds - Criminal lawyer

Other Lawyers in the VA Senate
Lionell Spruill
Glen Sturtevant
Bill Stanley
Creigh Deeds
Ben Chafin
Mark Obenshain
Jill Vogel
Richard H. Stuart
Chap Petersen

Senator Barb Fravola - not a lawyer but
"Chair of the Virginia Advisory Committee for Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence"

These 20 lawyers asking these two women questions ought to be able to do a pretty good job on due process of a rape allegation compared to a couple of prosecutors in MA or NC.

The pitch they can make to politicians during impeachment that probably won't do as well in court ...

Statistics show between 92% and 98% of rape allegations have merit. Each woman has an 8% chance they're lying. The probability that both women are lying is 8% x 8% = 0.64 %
In other words, there is roughly a 99.36% statistical probability Fairfax raped one or more of these women based on those stats.

Now there's about 0.1% chance it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But politicians under public and political pressure might vote for the women ...

[Empowerer]

174. Just because they're lawyers doesn't mean they are trained interrogatoes

Or that they know how to question a sexual assault survivor. - as evidenced by the Thomas-Hill hearings and the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of whom are lawyers, except Chuck Grassley.

[Jarqui]

178. The combination of them along with their ability

to get outside advice makes them more than adequate.

Basically, in terms of the questioning of these women, they have the easier job at the outset. They're going to ask these women to simply tell their story.

The harder part is the handling of the cross examination by these women and trying to argue to attain "beyond reasonable doubt" when the evidence is clearly lacking to do so.

But in a criminal case, these women haven't got a prayer anyway. They have almost no evidence beyond their allegation and maybe a witness Ms Watson told.

"as evidenced by the Thomas-Hill hearings and the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee"

Anita Hill's claims had the same problem as these women and Christine Blasey Ford. They were all believable. But they're all "he said vs she said" claims lacking in evidence that would allow one to conclude without doubt. It wasn't the caliber of folks asking the questions. It was the lack of evidence to back up the claim that hurt Anita Hill the most. You'll see that in these claims when Fairfax's lawyers cross-examine these women. They do not have the evidence to back themselves up.

[Empowerer]

181. Then, based on that, you'd be fine with Trump shutting down

Since you think the Senate and House committee members with law degrees are more than capable of getting to the bottom of Trump's wrongdoing without any need for the FBI or other law enforcement to get involved.

:shrub:

[Jarqui]

183. Another really, really silly strawman

Most rational people can distinguish between the simplicity of assessing two alleged similar sexual assaults by a Lt Gov in a state legislature - when there is not a fruitful criminal court alternative due to lack of evidence - and the complexity of what has gone on with Trump that goes beyond our borders and spans a wide spectrum of crimes, jurisdictions, people, companies, financial institutions and countries.

As well, a bunch of the corruption and perpetrators/co-conspirators/aides/obstructers for the Trump crimes appear to have been committed by members of the very House and Senate you propose to pass judgment on these crimes. Again, very different circumstances from simple sexual assault allegations in VA - differences that even the simple minded can grasp.

As I've outlined in detail, these alleged sexual assault victims in VA (MA/NC) do not have the evidence to obtain a criminal conviction to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" against Fairfax. Unlike these simple alleged sexual assaults in VA, as Mueller has proven again and again, there is sufficient evidence to prosecute those he has indicted and received guilty pleas from to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". And again, even the simple minded can distinguish the differences here.

[Empowerer]

193. Whatever

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further.

Not only have your arguments become increasingly more irrational, your take on this has changed dramatically in the last week since you first started repeatedly privately inboxing me about the allegation. Remember that spate of private messages you sent me last Monday, starting with "I'm not going to post this because it is from that right wing site"?

Or as we said on my block,"'Member dat?"

I thought your eagerness to confide in me was odd. It's really odd considering you had an entirely different take about this in private than you do now:

It may mushroom.

It depends on what the mainstream media does with it

Mainstream media won't run with it uncorroborated.

They'll want witnesses, police report, lie detector test, second allegation from someone else, etc - something to back it up.

This hit job looks more like Al Franken's ...

Time will tell.

It could be coming from Northam ...

Who knows?

I wonder how many other folks here (or elsewhere) got similar private emails from people bemoaning the lack of corroborating evidence like a police report or lie detector test or being concerned about an Al Franken-like "hit job" that "could be coming from Northam" before their correspondent started trashing DUers for raising similar questions. ...

I'm not sure what you're up to with this approach, but whatever it is, you can leave me out of it.

[Jarqui]

194. I said "Time will tell" and it did

The PMs took place because the original story pertained to our discussion but was from a right wing site which could not be posted. At the outset, it looked like it could be a hit job like Franken. I stated "I'm not going to post this because it is from that right wing site"

It evolved.

Allegations from Fairfax or his supporters claimed that it came from Northam and/or others for political reasons. Someone had to have tipped the right wing website off. We still don't know who - it appears that someone who knew about the claim from last summer. It still appears to have been politically motivated - more likely from Dems who knew about it last summer.

I said "It may mushroom. It depends on what the mainstream media does with it. Mainstream media won't run with it uncorroborated" which was correct. The media would "want witnesses, police report, lie detector test, second allegation from someone else, etc - something to back it up. " was also correct and the Washington Post went on to back me up on that by stating why they didn't run with the story after investigating it over months because none of that was provided or could be obtained.

The media was able to publish the story when Fairfax issued his press statement (which I criticized him for as a stupid move - not something good advice would suggest because it would allow the media to run with the story as it corroborated the claim had been made)

As it evolved, early on, I also messaged about how credible Dr. Tyson looked. Message title 'Might have some legitimacy' That she was a long standing supporter of Democrats so it was unlikely to be politically motivated. She was a respectable looking person with a good professional career.
"This allegation could be something like Christine Blasey Ford ... So there is a real possibility this could be a problem for Fairfax "

It remains a political problem for Fairfax but is unlikely to be a criminal case for court because of the lack of evidence.

Once again, you're not covering the whole story and how it evolved.

[Empowerer]

195. Hummuna hummuna

As I said, whatever ...

[EffieBlack]

196. You should just let this one go... Yuh busted

[Bradshaw3]

202. Look in the mirror

You get busted all the time and never own up to it.

[Jarqui]

165. Fairfax is now claiming both 'interactions were consensual'

https://wtvr.com/2019/02/10/lt-gov-fairfax-calls-interactions-consensual/

The chances of criminal due process resulting in a conviction just went way down on the second claim. The first claim has a similar problem.

[peggysue2]

37. I thought the charge indicated

the rape occurred at Duke? I just looked it up--the limitations statute in Massachusetts is 15 years from the date of occurrence. Unless the victim is 16 years old or younger. But in North Carolina? There is no time limit on a rape felony charge.

Interesting. Didn't realize the states differed by such a wide margin.

[MustLoveBeagles]

35. +1000

Thank you

[Demsrule86]

39. How do you know we are talking rape? We need an investigation...but no matter what we deal

with Fairfax and do not turn the seat over to Republicans.

[boston bean]

41. Because we are talking about rape.

And who says the seat goes to a republican?

[Demsrule86]

54. First of all ...that is what being attempted. If the LT general is forced out , the GOP legislature

could force an election for the seat this year and might win...this means they will have a big impact on legislation because the LT governor helps move it along-not to mention if they manage to force Northam out...also if they managed to get rid of all three than the next in line is a Republican and this is their goal in my opinion...so anytime any woman says she was raped the man is automatically fired from his job or kicked out of office...it is assumed to be true in all cases? I don't t think that is fair and as the mother of a son, sister to three guys and wife to a wonderful guy...I can't be part of a movement that does this. Investigate and if it can't be proven than Fairfax stays and the voters decide in the next election. That is the only fair thing to do. And we can't reward the GOP for this shit.

[boston bean]

64. Umm. Northam can replace a Fairfax by appointment and Northam resigns the new lt gov becomes g

Governor, no? Am I wrong on that?

As for the rest of your post all I can say is you are comfortable with a man who is accused credibly by two women as of now, of rape. And you want the Democratic Party to be ok with it too.

No better than the repugs with Kavanaugh.

[uponit7771]

40. #metoo doesn't mean guilt by accusation, even Mueller had some kind of due process

[boston bean]

44. I am sorry. I didn't realize anyone was guilting by association.

[uponit7771]

49. accusation ... a person should be afforded due process. There's no wisdom in receiving half the

... information and with BK his unwillingness to be truthful was more his undoing than the simple accusation itself.

[AncientGeezer]

89. You keep saying that..."..his unwillingness to be truthful"..but have yet to show it.

[uponit7771]

122. This is false on its face. BK lied about the sex games ...

.. and drinking games under oath.

Those games are well-known and even socially defined

Gaslighting works better at Free republic and jackpine radicals

[dsc]

128. seriously

Kavenaugh had lied long before any of us knew who Dr. Ford was. He lied in 2006 about his role in receiving information from the computers of Senate Democrats and lied again in 2018 about that same topic. In the hearing about Ford's accusation he lied about drinking games, liked about Renate Dupree, and lied about his drinking habits.

[AncientGeezer]

184. I wasn't aware the FBI had corroberated ANY that in all of his vettings

Have we asked him to appear before the newly seated House Judiciary Cmt.?
I haven't seen Rep. Nadler calling for him to appear. Did I miss that?

[CTAtheist]

48. This is patently false.

Franken was accused.
Fairfax was accused.

There was no other evidence or corroboration against Franken.
There is no other evidence or corroboration against Fairfax.

From the moment of the accusation, people blindly called for Franken's resignation.
From the moment of the accusation, people blindly called for Fairfax's resignation.

The only difference is that we got to see two pictures related to Franken's accusations, none for Fairfax.

I don't know how any rational person can claim that they are not similar.

Without evidence, any call for Fairfax to resign is absolutely a "Frankening".

[Honeycombe8]

62. Well.....not quite, IMO.

1. Franken was accused of harassment...the allegations were what most would call minor in nature (a gag pretending to cup a fully clothed in uniform sleeping woman's breasts, but did not touch them; putting his hand around the waist of someone he agreed to do a selfie for and grabbing a bit of flesh; telling someone that because he's a celebrity he can kiss her).
2. Fairfax is accused of rape and sexual assault (or whatever you called forced oral sex). Forced oral sex; forcible rape.

Although, there is corroboration of Fairfax accusation of rape: She told friends at the time, and they have stated that that is so, and that they believed it to be true.

3. Franken - no evidence, pro or con, of any sort, because no evidence was given under oath; "evidence" are facts that are sworn to or presented under possibility of perjury.
4. Fairfax - same is true for Fairfax, although it is pretty early in the accusation phase.

The level of the alleged offenses is very different. Fairfax's are on a different level. We're talking prison level. Although it won't go to Court. Franken would never be charged with a crime for pulling a gag where he pretends to touch someone's fully clothes breasts while she sleeps...he was a comedian, so logical that that was a joke and disrespectful at most, but not criminal.

They are alike only in the sense that "Me,too" women have made some accusations against politicians related to sex in some way.

They are also alike in that both, IMO, were coordinated manipulations by Republicans. In Franken's case, the accusations may or may not have been true, but rather, falsely alleged. Maybe, maybe not. In Fairfax's case, the accusations seem to be genuine, but no doubt the Republicans arranged getting those accusations verbalized and publicized.

They are different in that Franken was used by other politicians early on for grandstanding, to further their own careers, IMO. I haven't seen that yet with Fairfax. If they are not Virginia voters, any politician calling for his ouster is grandstanding, IMO, unless the politician is a leader who has the authority to speak for the Democratic Party as a whole. Even then, the most that leader can request is for him to leave the party. No one not in Virginia has any authority or right to tell Virginia officials to resign.

[CTAtheist]

77. I didn't say identical, I said similar.

I get what you're saying, but regardless of the minute details which differ, the similarities are overwhelming.

Also, 1 nit: there is no other "evidence" against Fairfax. Anything her "friends" at the time say is irrelevant. It's defined as "hearsay": Person A claims something. Person A told person B the claim. Person B claims he heard Person A make the claim. <-- that part is hearsay. Its worthless, and it adds nothing whatsoever to the accusations against Fairfax.

So far, I have read only what the accusers have said publicly, and neither account seems believable. If something new comes along, I am all ears (well, eyes if posted...)

[Honeycombe8]

99. Well, no. It's not hearsay...

if the witness himself tells it. Which is the case. I read statements by, I think it was two witnesses, who said they remember her telling them about it at the time. One was the next morning.

That is considered very strong evidence of a crime that took place a long time ago.

Of course, NONE of the accusers or witnesses for Franken or Fairfax have signed sworn affidavits or given testimony under oath, that I know of.

[CTAtheist]

112. Hearsay

- information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate;
- the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
- Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

Sorry, but the so-called "witnesses" are not. Anything they say is hearsay.

[dsc]

149. yes and no

they are hearsay as to whether a rape occurred but they aren't as to whether she told people a rape occurred.

[CTAtheist]

161. What value does that hold?

If Person A makes a claim, and tells Person B the claim, how does Person B corroborating that Person A told them a claim help anyone determine the truth of the claim itself?

[dsc]

162. By showing a few things

one that the accuser didn't just wait until Fairfax was famous or rich to make the claim, two that the accuser told the same story then as now for example.

[CTAtheist]

166. Those aren't valuable.

1. Even assuming she said something the day later (many years ago), it provides no insight into the claim's truth.

2. Its nearly impossible to conclude the story is the same. She made the claim today, and anyone who "remembers" that she discussed it with them years ago, cannot then possibly detach her words from today from their memory of her words back then. If she had never came forward, and you asked these friends about something she said years ago, you'd either get "nothing" or a totally different story. Her coming forward publicly has poisoned the memories of these friends, and they are no longer capable of remembering accurately what was said 35 years ago.

We need to remember that even eye-witness testimony is almost worthless, scientifically. It is the worst form of evidence. And that's testimony which is given within hours or days of the event. The fact that they aren't eye-witnesses in the first place, and the fact that 35 years have passed, means their recollection is 100% worthless, and is completely biased by her present, public statement.

[dsc]

167. actually the first removes the possibility of her ratfucking him

Fairfax was literally a nobody back then.

[CTAtheist]

169. Again, not true.

Let's say they had sex, and she was into him, and he said "Nah, just wanted some. Thanks for the roll in the hay!" and she got pissed. Then she told her friends the next day that he assaulted her just because he used her. Then, by sheer coincidence, he becomes Lt Gov. and things transpire as they did. So, she takes the opportunity to finally get back at him.

This is just as plausible, and we have absolutely no way to tell which story is right. Her friends' testimony changes nothing.

That is why hearsay is useless.

[dsc]

170. that is absurd

[CTAtheist]

171. Maybe it is.

But we have no way to tell the difference between my story and her story. I have also said, in separate threads, that her story is simply not plausible at all, and is far more absurd than the one I made up.

But my point is that not everything in life is political, even when it involves a politician. Democrat or not, professor not, she can have an unknown number of reasons for wanting to screw him over with a lie, which we cannot know right now, because there is no evidence or anything else for us to go on. I support an investigation fully. He should not resign unless and until more information comes forth which would count against him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

177. What is implausible about the accounts of Ms. Tyson and Ms. Watson?

Thank you in advance.

[CTAtheist]

180. I was referring to Ms. Tyson

The reason I didn't include Ms. Watson is that she hasn't made any specific claims, other than "rape". As in, she has given no details that I can find. I found only one article which states "it was similar to Ms. Tysons account."

So, with that said, we'll go to Ms Tyson.

There is a difference between the word "force" and "coerce".

If I tell you to sit down, and you refuse, and I threaten to kill your child, and you then sit, that is coercion.
If I tell you to sit down, and you refuse, and I knock your legs out and you fall down, that is force.
With coercion, you consciously decide to take an action to avoid a consequence that is threatened.
With force, you make no choices, no decisions, and take no willful actions. Something simply happens to you.

Ms. Tyson never once claimed coercion. She never said anything about threats, repercussions, outcomes, or choices in her statement. She claimed it was force, and described the force in a little detail (not a lot, but a little). She claimed she could do nothing, because his one hand on her neck was strong enough to prevent her from escaping. This is, of course, nonsense. Even as an untrained combatant, and even being far weaker than your opponent, no one can use one hand on the back of your neck to hold you to their groin area with no possibility for you to move or escape. Its not physically possible. To then claim this force continued for the entire duration of oral sex is preposterous on its face. By definition, she has to move forward and back (or be moved forward and back, or be held in place while he moved forward and back), and the pressure of one hand on the back of her neck would not remotely be capable of preventing her escape during this motion. She never bit down, she never attempted to grab his 1 hand with her 2 hands, she never struck him anywhere, especially in the groin. She relates no account of any resistance in her official statement at all. Per her claim, she was in a standing position ("took my hand and pulled me towards the bed". ) and went from there directly to hand behind neck pushing downwards. There is no conceivable way the physics of this would prevent some sort of action on her part, and especially, no way to prevent her from speaking. Yet, there is neither in her account.

This makes her claim completely suspect. At some point, I would have expected to read something about why she didn't fight back. There are plenty of reasons not to, the most prevalent are fear of getting hurt. But that was absent from her statement. She does not even claim to have said "no", or resisted in any way. Her statement reads: "We consented to kiss, then I was pushed to his groin and forced into oral sex and this was not consensual."

Now, could it just be that the statement from her lawyer was designed to relate the "gist" of the assault and purposefully left out a lot of details? Of course. But, it would still contain the element of coercion, the element of fear which led her to not physically resist. That would be absolutely key to her state of mind and demonstrate the nature of the assault.

My position is weak - meaning, I am not dug in on it. She could decide to release more information and I could turn on a dime on my opinion here. I don't want to seem like I am 100% apologist, because I don't really have a position for or against Fairfax. The reason is that I simply don't have enough information yet. I take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously, and I am not convinced this is a credible claim yet. And as I said, Ms. Watson is even worse, as she gave no details at all for me to consider. I'm not claiming I'm right, I'm just not convinced.

[ooky]

121. The similarity is the rush to judgement and no investigation.

And, Franken chose to resign. The circumstances of the accusations are totally different. But my opinion is that investigations were/are warranted in both cases before either should step down or be impeached.

[Dopers_Greed]

53. I was skeptical at first only because the Fairfax stuff came out at the same time as the blackface

But I think he should resign now.

[Charlotte Little]

56. Totally agree

Also, something no one wants to hear: if we don't discern ourselves as morally polar opposite of Trump & the Republicans, we run the risk of the average voter cynically thinking, "both parties are the exactly the same" This is what the republicans want. They want to whataboutism, gaslight, and sow so much chaos, that Americans are confused, disillusioned, and checked out.

This is exactly why Northam and Fairfax MUST go. As should Hyde-Pierce, McConnell, Trump, Kavanaugh, etc. etc. The former may. The latter won't until they are voted out or impeached. That's what we face.

But if the Dems fall into the "I'm tired of the political correctness! Why do we have to draw a line when they won't!" trap, we have nothing to hang our hat on.

Northam should go, but currently it looks like he won't and may skate by. Fairfax should be investigated and then go, because both women seem very credible, unconnected, and Watson has receipts. I don't care about who's representing whom. Take the tinfoil hats off. The legs are there, and we should ALL be appalled and demand he go unless he comes up with receipts himself (which he could, so we should wait long enough to see what his defense is).

We're better than them, there are more of us, and we don't need to get into the trough with them, especially on these very sensitive and important issues.

[loyalsister]

98. +1

That is the crux of it. Every time a Democrat defends the indefensible, a republican smiles, a cynic shakes their head and looks on with scorn.

[kcr]

57. Sorry, but I'm not going to stop until there's an investigation.

Especially with the issues like the first accusation being based on repressed memories, and multiple issues with the second one.

[Rocky888]

61. All three of these men should be replaced by scandal free women of substance.

[dsc]

127. even if all of them were to be white

the second African American elected statewide in VA thrown out and replaced with a white person

[Rocky888]

172. I never mentioned race and this was meant tongue and cheek without malice for anyone.

[LakeArenal]

70. I agree with Nancy...

Virginia voters should decide.

[wasupaloopa]

71. You stop it! Charge him bring evidence or STFU

[Mr.Bill]

73. If we demand the resignation of any Democratic elected official

as soon as he/she is accused of inappropriate behavior, sexual or otherwise, we might as well close up the Democratic party and let the republicans have it all. They won't stop here, even if you want to believe all the allegations are true. I guarantee you even if these men are all guilty, the republicans would be fools to not be planning right now to ratfuck every Democratic elected official in the country. We are handing it to them.


There are a disturbing number of folks on this forum who are all too quick to throw due process out the window. This is very dangerous.

[Drunken Irishman]

107. Bullshit...

Fucking utter bullshit.

This isn't just a trumped up accusation with no teeth to it. This isn't just GOP dirty tricksters. This is a legit acquaintance (two actually) that have a history with Fairfax. To suggest this is a right-wing smear job is an insult that does nothing but dismiss the accusations. People aren't demanding he resign because of an accusation - they're demanding he resign because the accusation is extremely credible.

Just compare this situation to the Mueller accusation a couple months ago. That was so fucking pathetically silly that everyone dismissed it out of hand and nothing became of it. It only becomes an issue when it's credible and there's legitimate smoke to the story. Fairfax has admitted to being in the hotel room and knowing the accuser. That's pretty fucking credible.

There's a disturbing number of folks on this forum who are all too quick to dismiss allegations solely because it's dealing with a Democrat.

[Mr.Bill]

129. Then let's have due process and an investigation.

This isn't a third world country. You're entitled to your opinion, but you are not a judge or a jury.

[Drunken Irishman]

131. lol

I love how liberals become all law and order when it's their guy and yet, I don't recall anyone demanding an investigation into Roy Moore or other Republicans we've said should resign for their actions.

He's hurting the state. He's hurting his office. He's hurting his party. He should resign RIGHT NOW. Then they can conduct the investigation.

[Empowerer]

151. If he resigns now, there's no jurisdiction for an investigation UNLESS

Dr. Tyson files criminal charges, which it doesn't look like she intends to do.

And what you call "all law and order," we "liberals" call fairness, justice, and due process. Yeah, it's a thing with us, you know.

And check your facts... We didn't say Roy Moore should resign oh, because he wasn't even in office when the information about him surfaced. We said that was one of the reasons he shouldn't be elected - a very different thing.

[Drunken Irishman]

152. Just stop.

You're embarrassing yourself.

There becomes a point where an elected official is so tainted and toxic that he must step aside for the better of his party and country/state - see Richard Nixon. If you recall, Nixon resigned before an impeachment hearing.

Fairfax is hurting his state and his party. He can't effectively govern in a situation that is becoming increasingly pathetic by the day. Moreover, it's also putting the entire government in Virginia in a very terrible spot with an already impotent governor who's battling his own issues.

The only sane, responsible thing to do is for him to step aside and resign.

And no, liberals aren't for due process. They weren't with Kavanaugh and they won't be with the next Republican embroiled in scandal - and absolutely MANY liberals were pushing for Moore to drop out of his race when the allegations crept up in that race. And, without doubt, most here felt Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court should have been pulled - and rightfully so. Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The 'investigation' didn't prove anything.

Fairfax needs to resign. There is simply no justification, or rationalization, for keeping him in power.

[Empowerer]

153. No, I don't think I will.

And it takes more for me to feel embarrassed than having an anonymous poster who calls himself Drunken Irishman and rails against "liberals" disagree with me.

[treestar]

185. It is totally up to

Him whether he resigns or not. If impeached, there would be a hearing. Republicans would never resign. As long as they are going to be that partisan, we have to also or they will rule us all.

[Grey]

74. I believe her.... nt

[spooky3]

94. The impeachment process includes an investigation and trial. P. Hope (D-McLean, VA) says he is

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2019, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

introducing legislation to initiate impeachment if Fairfax has not resigned by Monday; so far, Fairfax has refused to resign.

Therefore, those who want an investigation should be pleased if this legislation passes.

I have read the statements from both of Fairfax's accusers and find them very credible. But I believe the investigation/impeachment should play out, unless Fairfax knows that he has done what he was accused of and chooses to resign. I also read the accusations against Franken and not only saw what he was accused of as very different from rape, several of the accusations were far from credible, and at least one was openly motivated by Republican ties.

As our fellow DUer DFW has posted several times, Franken said he felt he had no choice but to step down when the MN governor appointed his replacement PRIOR to Franken's making a decision. It is incredibly disingenuous, IMHO, to treat Franken's decision as a voluntary and optional one, given the group pressure on him and the MN gov's action. Being a Senator is a cooperative position (just ask Sprk. Pelosi how important cooperation is in the House). A Senator is not an entrepreneur.

[StarryNite]

95. Right on BB!

There is a big difference.

[donkeypoofed]

126. 3-in-line taken out with a 4th repuke left standing?! In a SWING state?!

Ya darn right it's a hitjob by the FR. I say let the FBI investigate, for as long as they need, and then Fairfax either stays or goes.

This is to suspicious to even give those bastards the slightest lying edge right now. They're been so inept so far one can only assume they will continue to be. The FBI will figure it out and then there'll be hell to pay.

People are going to be so upset that they may have to start the aerial spraying of prozac (jk) on us all.

[Beakybird]

130. He should be investigated.

Democrats don't cover up for their rapists. We demand they resign because we have integrity.

[DirtEdonE]

157. ALL Democrats being forced to resign

Are being ratfked by pubicans. How do I know? Because NO pubicans are resigning and it's therefore all somehow, mysteriously, inexplicably just a coincidence.

Remember Don Siegleman. He was a coincidence too. Just like Senator Franken.

Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot on this. We need gun control more than ever right now. Let's put a hiatus on these "scandals" and concentrate on winning BEFORE we clean house. That way, the pubicans don't get to clean OUR house while theirs is still a toxic waste dump.

[Vinnie From Indy]

163. Sorry...

I actually believe that people have a right to due process if they are accused of crimes.

[ProfessorGAC]

182. Picking An Unnecessary Fight

With allies!
A strategy that is doomed to failure
You happy?