fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It also is from two weeks after Christine Blasey Ford went public. We’re not there yet on this story.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Democrats Done Grappling - Credible rape Allegation Propels Fairfax to run for Governor (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter jon_mx
- Start date
She took her story to Fiengold. She followed Fiengold's recommendations on legal counsel and lie detector. Her information was 'leaked' at the 11th hour but she never expressed any outrage at the leak. Her reasoning for not wanting to willing go public is because she did not think it would be successful in stopping the nomination. She consistantly tried to delay the investigation and her testimony (including claiming to be afraid of flying) to push the confirmation until after the midterm elections. She went along through the whole process exactly like she was a pawn for the Democrats. She played it perfectly from a political standpoint.
jomar
Footballguy
good thing for you that this stuff only comes up in Virginia. its not like we'll ever have a presidential hopeful or a MI politician with credible accusations against them or have themselves on tape admitting to sexual assault. how hard is it to say I wouldn't support or vote for any politician who has sexual assault allegations against them? I get it, you don't want to be on record with anything that might put Dear Leader in a bad light or expose your tribe that you don't support in any way
The Commish
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If at "arms length" means
- that all democrats wished this was never a story
- that all democrats hope that this story just goes away on its own because it proves to be not what happened
- democrats who live elsewhere don't really want to comment on people we largely never heard of
- democrats who are serving in what I assume to be a relatively short with lots to do legislative session haven't come to grips yet about this
- democrats want to avoid commenting too much until some facts are established
I think that this thread, if not you is suggesting more
- democrats are dismissing the accuser
- democrats are trying to sweep this under the rug or prevent investigation
- democrats are misbehaving to keep the office in their hands
- democrats are treating this differently because he "one of our own"
sho nuff
Footballguy
Same as always...to complain about Democrats and the “liberals” of this board while ignoring the facts of what all was actually said and the context and differences in timing and situations.
Dickies
Footballguy
She was correct. She laid out a painful moment in her history for the world to see and was publicly made the villain by 30% of the country. We got to see how unqualified Kavanaugh was for the position even if no sexual assault took place, but even that didn't matter.
It was also about someone who, at the time, was merely nominated for a position, not confirmed or elected. (Once Kavanaugh was confirmed, demands for further investigations went away.)
It was also about a United States Supreme Court Justice rather than a state Lt. Governor.
There are plenty of relevant differences. I don't think those differences mean that it's impossible to find hypocrisy, but it's all part of the overall context.
The Commish
Footballguy
This article is asking for the confirmation to be put on hold until a complete investigation is done. Shockingly enough, the Democrats are asking for an investigation into these incidents in VA too. You've completely lost it jon_mx.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
No...I am asking you your point in
at him....he's not going to change. Just keep it on topic and move on...my 
squistion
Footballguy
Feinstein
And was Ford ever interviewed about how she felt about the leaking? She certainly couldn't have been happy about it, since she had wanted to remain anonymous, but felt she had to go public after that, since her name was already out there in the media and the toothpaste could not be put back in the tube.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html
But Ford's identity managed to get out to several reporters, including a journalist from BuzzFeed who Ford claims showed up at her home and office in Palo Alto, prompting her and her family to go into hiding.
On September 16, Ford decided to go public in an interview with the Washington Post, to whom she had anonymously reported the allegations early in July and whom she had remained in touch with through the encrypted app WhatsApp.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
I guess my point is I’m tired of worrying more about those who will call out bs than those guilty of the bs.No...I am asking you your point in
I hate the “oh that’s just how he is” crap. I don’t amd won’t do it as often as I used to...but in multiple threads now we have the same pattern of calling out more the posters perceived reaction to this situation (despite being shown and told the difference) and less actually talking about the situation.
IMO this is the type of behavior that should be called out and it seems clear I’m not the only one doing it here.
The Commish
Footballguy
clearly this thread isn't going the way he originally thought once all the info came to the table. All that has to be done is bring up the facts and let them speak for themselves and explain why the position is flawed. I don't know.....I'm done with this...moving on.
sho nuff
Footballguy
But then you say stuff like this about Republicans in the Kavanaugh thread:
Lots of people on their high horses, when there are pleny of statements made about conservatives all the time which do not get called out.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, I believe her.
jomar
Footballguy
I think I've said credible allegations with corroborating evidence. Not proven allegations, this isn't a court of law and none of this will ever be 'proven' unless the accused admits to it, which never happens. There should be a thorough investigation and if this VA guy's accuser has told this story to her spouse or friends or a therapist many years ago for example, that is pretty good corroborating evidence to me and I would say that he should step down (even though it's not for me to decide, we all know public opinion can have an effect). He's not going to jail, just out of public office. would you agree he (or public official) should step down in those circumstances? or do you just throw up your hands and say 'who knows'?Just allegations or proven allegations?
Dear leader?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Really? This whole thread was based on a completely false narrative. Maybe now isn’t the best time for you to be critical of others.
Not a false narrative. People are much quicker to rush to judgement and require fewer facts based on whether they like the person or not. This story should have been run in the Washington Post prior to the election. She approached them and they refused.
The Commish
Footballguy
That comment was specific to the politicians in office, not the users here. That you are desperate enough to try and make it broader by suggesting it's "conservatives" and not those politicians is telling and quite shameful. However, it goes right along with everything else you've posted in here that's been built on a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% false premise, so I can't say I am surprised.
Dickies
Footballguy
Wow, just read her account. What she describes in no way resembles a consensual encounter gone awry or "blurred lines" or anything like that. Just from this, I can't say for certain that he did it, but I see nothing that makes me doubt her story, and much that makes me credit it.
Also, the fact that his initial statement falsely cast aspersions on her character was both incredibly offensive and strategically dumb, since it apparently strengthened her resolve to come forward. There doesn't seem to be any disputing that he lied about the Post's initial investigation, which again, doesn't automatically mean he's guilty, but certainly doesn't help his credibility.
Also, the fact that his initial statement falsely cast aspersions on her character was both incredibly offensive and strategically dumb, since it apparently strengthened her resolve to come forward. There doesn't seem to be any disputing that he lied about the Post's initial investigation, which again, doesn't automatically mean he's guilty, but certainly doesn't help his credibility.
The Commish
Footballguy
As do I....the account is vastly different than his. I don't know for sure, but I'll throw my support behind her until proven otherwise.
The Washington Post went all-in on Brett Kavanaugh but spiked a similar story about a Democrat
by Becket Adams
| February 04, 2019 04:24 PM
If the Washington Post didn’t have double standards, it would have no standards at all.
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax’s office issued a statement Monday rejecting claims by a woman who alleges he sexually assaulted her in 2004, when they both attended the Democratic National Convention.
Almost as notable as Fairfax’s denial is the fact that the Washington Post was first approached by the alleged victim more than a year ago and decided not to publish her story. The Post explained Monday that it declined to report the woman’s allegations due to an absence of corroborating evidence.
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax facing #MeToo moment
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
It’s good to see that the newspaper has found a renewed interest in the standard of proof it abandoned entirely when it broke the story of similar allegations of sexual misconduct leveled last year against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Recall that it was the Post that first got Christine Blasey Ford to go on the record with her allegations.
The accusation against Virginia’s lieutenant governor was published first by the right-wing news site Big League Politics, which last week unearthed a 35-year-old photo reportedly showing Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam dressed in either blackface or KKK robes at a party ( more here on that). Fairfax stands to take over the governorship, should Northam's blackface scandal force the current governor out of office.
“Lt. Governor Fairfax … has never assaulted anyone — ever — in any way, shape or form,” reads a statement from Fairfax’s office. “The person reported to be making this false allegation first approached the Washington Post … more than a year ago, around the time of the Lieutenant Governor’s historic inauguration.
“The Post carefully investigated the claim for several months," the Fairfax statement said. "After being presented with facts consistent with the Lt. Governor’s denial of the allegation, the absence of any evidence corroborating the allegation, and significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegation, the Post made the considered decision not to publish the story. Tellingly, not one other reputable media outlet has seen fit to air this false claim.”
The Post published a slightly different, but mostly similar, version of events Monday: “The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him,” the paper reported. “Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story.”
The article added, “She said she never told anyone about what happened at the time or in the years that followed until shortly before she approached The Post.” Notably absent from the paper's explanation is any indication that it had indeed found “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations” in the accuser's story, as Fairfax's office claims. But let's put that aside for a moment and focus on the fact that the Post claims it didn't publish the alleged victim's story due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the paper’s excuse for running multiple stories repeating totally uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse aimed at Kavanaugh? When the Post got Ford on the record amid the fight over Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, the paper didn’t seem to be so concerned by the fact that she couldn't provide a single piece of evidence to verify her claim that the judge tried to rape her when they were both in high school — or even that they'd ever met.
Note that, absent the leaks, her allegation could have been properly investigated by senators from both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee without the resulting damage to privacy and reputation. But the Post, less worried in that case about the lack of evidence behind the allegation, plowed ahead.
In fact, as the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Ted Frank noted Monday, there are fewer red flags in the Fairfax accuser's story then there were in Ford's. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser identifies the exact year and location of the alleged assault. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser belongs to the same political tribe, and therefore speaks against interest in at least one sense.
There are other things that bother me about the Post’s uneven treatment of the Fairfax and Kavanaugh accusers. For example, the paper’s first original coverage of the allegation against the lieutenant governor came only after Fairfax had issued a statement defending himself. Kavanaugh was afforded no similar benefit.
It’s fine if the Post passed on the Fairfax story because of a genuine lack of evidence. And there definitely doesn’t appear to be that much to go on, other than the word of a single accuser. But it’s hard to see the Post’s decision to spike her story as anything but politically biased considering how the paper gorged itself on nearly every flimsy and fantastic allegation hurled in Kavanaugh’s direction, no matter how ridiculous, again with no evidence to back any of it up.
It's funny how editorial standards change, depending on the target’s party affiliation.
by Becket Adams
| February 04, 2019 04:24 PM
If the Washington Post didn’t have double standards, it would have no standards at all.
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax’s office issued a statement Monday rejecting claims by a woman who alleges he sexually assaulted her in 2004, when they both attended the Democratic National Convention.
Almost as notable as Fairfax’s denial is the fact that the Washington Post was first approached by the alleged victim more than a year ago and decided not to publish her story. The Post explained Monday that it declined to report the woman’s allegations due to an absence of corroborating evidence.
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax facing #MeToo moment
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
It’s good to see that the newspaper has found a renewed interest in the standard of proof it abandoned entirely when it broke the story of similar allegations of sexual misconduct leveled last year against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Recall that it was the Post that first got Christine Blasey Ford to go on the record with her allegations.
The accusation against Virginia’s lieutenant governor was published first by the right-wing news site Big League Politics, which last week unearthed a 35-year-old photo reportedly showing Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam dressed in either blackface or KKK robes at a party ( more here on that). Fairfax stands to take over the governorship, should Northam's blackface scandal force the current governor out of office.
“Lt. Governor Fairfax … has never assaulted anyone — ever — in any way, shape or form,” reads a statement from Fairfax’s office. “The person reported to be making this false allegation first approached the Washington Post … more than a year ago, around the time of the Lieutenant Governor’s historic inauguration.
“The Post carefully investigated the claim for several months," the Fairfax statement said. "After being presented with facts consistent with the Lt. Governor’s denial of the allegation, the absence of any evidence corroborating the allegation, and significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegation, the Post made the considered decision not to publish the story. Tellingly, not one other reputable media outlet has seen fit to air this false claim.”
The Post published a slightly different, but mostly similar, version of events Monday: “The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him,” the paper reported. “Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story.”
The article added, “She said she never told anyone about what happened at the time or in the years that followed until shortly before she approached The Post.” Notably absent from the paper's explanation is any indication that it had indeed found “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations” in the accuser's story, as Fairfax's office claims. But let's put that aside for a moment and focus on the fact that the Post claims it didn't publish the alleged victim's story due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the paper’s excuse for running multiple stories repeating totally uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse aimed at Kavanaugh? When the Post got Ford on the record amid the fight over Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, the paper didn’t seem to be so concerned by the fact that she couldn't provide a single piece of evidence to verify her claim that the judge tried to rape her when they were both in high school — or even that they'd ever met.
Note that, absent the leaks, her allegation could have been properly investigated by senators from both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee without the resulting damage to privacy and reputation. But the Post, less worried in that case about the lack of evidence behind the allegation, plowed ahead.
In fact, as the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Ted Frank noted Monday, there are fewer red flags in the Fairfax accuser's story then there were in Ford's. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser identifies the exact year and location of the alleged assault. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser belongs to the same political tribe, and therefore speaks against interest in at least one sense.
There are other things that bother me about the Post’s uneven treatment of the Fairfax and Kavanaugh accusers. For example, the paper’s first original coverage of the allegation against the lieutenant governor came only after Fairfax had issued a statement defending himself. Kavanaugh was afforded no similar benefit.
It’s fine if the Post passed on the Fairfax story because of a genuine lack of evidence. And there definitely doesn’t appear to be that much to go on, other than the word of a single accuser. But it’s hard to see the Post’s decision to spike her story as anything but politically biased considering how the paper gorged itself on nearly every flimsy and fantastic allegation hurled in Kavanaugh’s direction, no matter how ridiculous, again with no evidence to back any of it up.
It's funny how editorial standards change, depending on the target’s party affiliation.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
jomar
Footballguy
jon, there are differences here. CBF had been telling her spouse and a therapist many, many years before she went to the Post. that leads credence to her claims because how could it be a political ploy made up if she was talking about it 15 years before she went public?. this latest woman did not do that, so she doesn't have the same credibility. I am still inclined to believe her but if you can't see the difference(s), you have the partisan blinders on.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
guilty until proven innocent
the new USA motto
I have no love for a liberal Democrat .......... but accusations without proof and destroying Fairfax's career literally over an accusation ............. is that really how ya'll want our world to work ?
the new USA motto
I have no love for a liberal Democrat .......... but accusations without proof and destroying Fairfax's career literally over an accusation ............. is that really how ya'll want our world to work ?
The Commish
Footballguy
But that's his point NOW FG....keep up dude
This, of course, ignores the reality that Ford had been in communication with the Wa Post for weeks, continually rejecting the request to go public. And this particular VA story was first reported by someone other than the Wa Post, yet somehow they are the same...or similar enough to compare.
matttyl
Footballguy
For the record, here's the best timeline I could find of the Post's interactions with Blasey Ford. She first contacted them in early July. The Post reporter spent the next couple months trying to report the story out, but the main impediment was CBF's unwillingness to go on the record. In mid-September, the story started to leak out, including a published piece in The Intercept. At that point Blasey Ford decided to come forward, and the Post published an article on her on Sept. 16. So I suppose technically you could argue that they "broke" the story, but in truth it was already known that Kavanaugh had an accuser, so the fact that that person was willing to put her name out there was absolutely newsworthy. No media outlet in the country (other than maybe The National Enquirer) would have sat on that story.
Although the two scenarios weren't exactly the same, I would say the Post's behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings was more similar than not to how they've handled the Fairfax story. In both cases they passed up opportunities to break the story, and only published something after it had already been reported in other outlets.
It was not just about Ford. Several ridiculous claims against Kavanaugh such as the ones concerning exposing himself, spiking the punch, and even gang rape were widely reported as legitimate even by the WP which now seems to have found higher standards.But that's his point NOW FG....keep up dude
This, of course, ignores the reality that Ford had been in communication with the Wa Post for weeks, continually rejecting the request to go public. And this particular VA story was first reported by someone other than the Wa Post, yet somehow they are the same...or similar enough to compare.
The Commish
Footballguy
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here at all. You've shifted gears so many times, that I can't keep track. What IS the point you're trying to make with all these little tangents? Initially it seemed that you were upset the Wa Post wasn't treating the release of these two stories in a similar fashion. Now, with this post, you seem to have broadened the brush (shocking) to include reporting in general (including the Wa Post).
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
It is not up to me to tell anyone to step down. In the same situation I probably would knowing what is ahead.
I never said he should stay or step down only that is it going to get ugly for him with the accusers lawyer.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'm probably going to be grappling with this most of the night. Maybe even on into the morning hours.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
I could use a good grapple.
bigbottom
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
I understand the concern. But sexual assault happens behind closed doors, and the shame often silences the victims. While you make a valid point, I also don't want our world to work in a way that men get to assault women without consequence simply because the women's shame and psychological pain keep them silent until they can come to terms with the event years later.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
its a very complex situation yes - there was no reason not to believe Brian Banks accuser :(
as I said before, every man is 1 accusation away and it doesn't matter is that accusation is true or not, that's where we're going wrong in all this IMO. To those saying she's credible ......... if she were accusing your Dad or son, would her accusation still be believable or is it only because you don't know Fairfax that you believe her?
investigations - that's all that can happen but we have to also preserve the integrity of innocent until proven guilty - and Fairfax? he's already been tried and convicted, his career is over and it doesn't matter if there isn't ever a shred of evidence to back her story up.
his career is over, everything he had worked for - over
as I said before, every man is 1 accusation away and it doesn't matter is that accusation is true or not, that's where we're going wrong in all this IMO.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This woman is far more credible. It is not even close. We at least know 100% for certain that an encounter happened and she knows where, when, etc. She also is going public roughly 15 years before blasey ford allegedly breathed a word of it to anybody if you want to compare timelines. Her memories would also be 21 years fresher.
I still would have a hard time saying he has to resign, but it is at least something to weigh.
Ford couldnt even prove that she was even an acquaintance of kavanaugh. Her friend couldnt remember a time they had been in the same place together, ever. That isnt an issue here and as far as i am concerned is the single greatest difference.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Well the timelines seem similar...when they realized their accused attacker’s were a step away from a gigantic position.
whoknew
Footballguy
You keep using innocent until proven guilty. That's a criminal standard. Its not (yet) applicable here.
You also wrote that Fairfax has been tried and convicted already. No, he hasn't. He's been neither.
The Commish
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
it is exactly right
ask Fairfax .... this one accusation has ruined him, true or not, facts or not
Herb
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
by the public eye he has - Fairfax is done
even if this goes into a long investigation, and there are zero facts or evidence ... he's going to be guilty in many many peoples eyes and his political career is over, professional too and its impacting his wife and kids
almost all Democrats still believe Kavanaugh is guilty after an FBI investigation and 400 pages + of info saying there was absolutely nothing indicating Ford's story was accurate
think about that- we KNOW Fairfax and Tyson were together sexually ....... that's vast more proof than there ever was with Kavanaugh / Ford ........... do you REALLY think Fairfax has any chance at all here ?
The Commish
Footballguy
I can give you a laundry list of men where this is not true. Look no further than Kavanaugh. Stop with this bull####. It's tiresome.
Similar threads
