Virginia Lt. Gov.'s accuser willing to testify at impeachment hearings: lawyers

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

Lawyers representing a college professor who alleged Virginia Lieutenant Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) sexually assaulted her say their client is willing to testify at impeachment proceedings or to cooperate with law enforcement in an investigation of her claims.

In a statement Saturday night, attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks write that Vanessa Tyson is "fully prepared" to testify under oath on her claim that Fairfax assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

"In response to two credible claims of sexual assault, by women with no connection to one another, Lt. Governor Fairfax has claimed that the women lied about what he insists were consensual sexual encounters and has baselessly and callously attempted to discredit these women," Katz and Banks write.

"We are confident that once the Virginia legislature hears Dr. Tyson’s harrowing account of this sexual assault, the testimony of many corroborating witnesses, and evidence of his attempts to mislead the public about The Washington Post’s decision not to run a story in 2018, it will conclude that he lacks the character, fitness and credibility to serve in any capacity," they continue.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429297-virginia-lt-govs-accuser-willing-to-testify-at-impeachment-hearings

[Sneederbunk]

1. Must see TV. Ratings,Ratings,Ratings!

[keithbvadu2]

2. First thing; check her police report.

First thing; check her police report.

[Fresh_Start]

26. There is no requirement for there to be a police report

and I think you are dreaming if you expect there to become a requirement for her to have a policie report

[keithbvadu2]

27. That was a HUGE right wing talking point for Kavanaugh's accuser.

That was a HUGE right wing talking point for Kavanaugh's accuser.

Throw it right back at them.

[Fresh_Start]

28. I don't think this is a rightwing hack job

Both victims reached out to their friends and acquaintances before Fairfax was inaugurated to tell them about him because they didn't want their friends to vote for him.

The fact that it made headlines is of course political. But the actual accusations, not so much.

[keithbvadu2]

29. That's exactly the point... It is political.

That's exactly the point... It is political.

Surely you don't think it now suddenly a moral issue to the republicans.

[Fresh_Start]

30. republicans only moral is more money for them nt

nt

[keithbvadu2]

31. Agreement there!

[Jarqui]

3. I think it is their best shot to get him out of office and punish him

Civil action is long barred by the statute of limitations in both MA and NC

The chances of these allegations ever resulting in a criminal charge are between very, very slim and non existent because they were acquaintances, he can claim consent and the physical evidence is long gone with almost no witnesses. It's almost impossible to attain "beyond reasonable doubt".

An impeachment hearing would punish him politically - even if he survived impeachment. He probably could never run for Governor. The Republicans would only need six Dem VA Senators to impeach him.

[dalton99a]

4. +1

[DirtEdonE]

5. I'm praying for a HUGE Democratic landslide in 2020

So we can then force all of our anything-less-than-perfect winners out of office and hand over government to the pubican losers again.

They cheat to win. If they still don't win they cheat after they lose to negate our win.

Democrats better wake up to those facts before 2020.

[brooklynite]

6. How do the Fairfax accusations involved cheating?

[DirtEdonE]

7. Well, how did all these allegations just happen to come out right after a big Dem win?

Democrats, please watch your step. ratfcking operation in progress.

That's how it's cheating.

[brooklynite]

13. The big Dem win in Virginia was in 2017...

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2019, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

...The big Dem win in the midterms was three months ago. I don't see an obvious connection.

[DirtEdonE]

14. Oh boy

Only three months since the big Dem win in Virginia and all three top Dems are at risk of resignation due to an obvious pubican ratfking operation and you don't see a connection.

I wonder why we lost in 2016? No one saw a connection then either.

2020 is around the corner and it's looking like we still haven't learned how to make a connection.

I'm worried.

[brooklynite]

19. How about: don't run for office if you have serious skeletons in your closet?

Or, at a minimum, reveal them up front.

[DirtEdonE]

22. The putican ratfkers

Will find something on everyone or make something up.

Show me your perfect candidate, if you can find ONE, and I'll show you how to lose even when you win.

Just keep doing exactly what you're doing. Falling for pubican ratfking operations.

[Cold War Spook]

23. I don't see anyone with skeletons in their closet.

But then again, I happen to believe in the Constitution. Have the authorities investigate both of them. One to see if he committed a crime even if it is too late for criminal charges and the other one to see if that person committed a crime.

[cstanleytech]

8. There might not even any impeachment hearings unless he committed a crime inside Virginia itself and

and I assume it also has to be recent enough to be still be within the statute of limitations.

[sweetapogee]

33. not to anyone in particular...

from the article link in the OP:

""On Monday, I will be introducing articles of impeachment for Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax if he has not resigned before then,” Del. Patrick Hope (D) wrote on Twitter."

My take on this is if the Lt. Governor has not resigned by Monday then a Delegate who is a member of the Democratic party, will introduce articles of impeachment. The issue as implied by Delegate Hope does not seem to concern itself with where (state) or when (year). Those aspects of the matter would be addressed in the articles of impeachment and/or the inquiry that would follow if the articles are acted on.

[cstanleytech]

34. Will be interesting to see what happens then because I suspect there will be alot of politicians

among both parties that might be afraid of setting a precedent of trying to impeach someone for something that does not have (as of yet) any evidence of having happened.

[KWR65]

9. Legal Question: Can they impeach him for something that did not happen while in office?

[DirtEdonE]

15. I've been searching for an answer

High crimes and misdemeanors isn't predicated on a time frame as far as I know. But, as with much of our "law" lately it seems, this isn't a settled point of law.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

[DirtEdonE]

16. Virginia

Constitution of Virginia

Article IV. Legislature
Section 17. Impeachment

"The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, judges, members of the State Corporation Commission, and all officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the General Assembly, offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor may be impeached by the House of Delegates and prosecuted before the Senate, which shall have the sole power to try impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Commonwealth; but the person convicted shall nevertheless be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the General Assembly for the trial of impeachments."

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article4/section17/

Virginia House of Delegates and Senate impeach. They're pubicans. That's why I keep saying this is nothing more than another pubican ratfking operation.

[rocktivity]

10. Let her testify where it actually counts -- in an actual court of law

AFTER having filed criminal charges, AND accepting the risk of not being believed.


rocktivity

[CTAtheist]

11. Publicity Stunt. There won't be any impeachment. -nt

[DirtEdonE]

17. I can't help but think of Don Siegleman

Another pubican ratfking operation where the guy won the election then woke up the next morning indicted by a bush cronie in the Alabama "justice" system and imprisoned for doing exactly what every other pubican governor of Alabama had done many times before him.

I'm sure the pubicans have plenty of cells next to Siegleman's ready and waiting for their upcoming ratfking victims.

[brooklynite]

20. The standard line around here was that Siegleman was innocent

Are you claiming the same about Fairfax, Northam and Herring?

[DirtEdonE]

21. I'm saying

They all were or are being ratfked by pubicans. Innocence or guilt is usually decided with due process. Not a lynch mob. We're not pubicans are we?

[Cold War Spook]

24. No, I don't have to claim they are innocent.

They are innocent until they are found to be guilty.

[wildflower]

18. She is a brave woman.

[DeminPennswoods]

25. Not sure this is a great idea

I'm sure she believes what she's saying, but her admission that she had a "repressed memory" of the incident is problematic, imo. Repressed memory is, at the very least, a controversial concept.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/201602/how-does-the-law-treat-repressed-memories

[David__77]

32. I do wonder if she didn't recall this in the past.

Is that what she meant by “suppressed” memory? Is it that she didn’t know this happened and then did know it?

[Alliepoo]

36. Yep-what DeminPennswoods said.

[madville]

35. Very brave of her, I hope Ms. Watson agrees to testify as well

There are usually multiple victims in cases like this, I wouldn't be surprised if another one or two surface soon.