What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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!

Gawker Goes Batty Over Scott Brown

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I don't get the wingnuts of the Democrat Party. Sarah Palin sparks endless ink and air time. Um, she's not anything but a citizen right now.

Scott Brown, well folks on the right should have known he was an East Coast Conservative, sort of an oxymoron, but better than an East Coast Liberal, so they took what they could get.

Now the wingnuts on the left, well they can't decide whether he's 'not so bad' or needs to be annihilated. So the articles of praise and smear keep alternating. Here Gawker goes for dreams of smears, so they proceed to lay out all the documents that would have been used, if the case hadn't been dropped and dismissed with prejudice. I love this dawning of a new day:

The Scandalous Scott Brown Lawsuit that No One Told You About - scott brown - Gawker

The Scandalous Scott Brown Lawsuit that No One Told You About
Did you know that Scott Brown—the new star Republican Senator—was accused of harassing a female campaign worker in 1998? We have the documents to prove it. Did the Democrats blow an opportunity to keep their 60th Senate seat?

In 2000, Scott Brown was a freshman state representative in Massachusetts. A few years earlier, he'd served on the Wrentham, Mass. Board of Selectmen. Jennifer Firth, a local mortgage banker who was elected to the Board of Selectmen in 1999, filed a civil defamation suit against Brown in July of 2000, alleging that he had harassed her when she worked on his campaign in 1998, and then tried to smear her reputation around town with forged letters and emails...

...The case then took a strange turn. Two days after the lawsuit was filed, Jennifer Firth's lawyer, Harvey Schwartz, filed a motion to withdraw as her counsel, saying that "to the best of [Schwartz's] knowledge, information and belief, the above allegations [by Firth] are not supported by 'good grounds.'" The next day, Jennifer Firth withdrew her suit. It was dismissed with prejudice, which means it can never be re-filed. Brown told a local newspaper that her lawyer had decided to withdraw after he was presented with letters and e-mail messages that proved she'd been harassing Brown. The day after she dropped her suit, Firth claimed she'd done so because "her lawyer told her she was unlikely to win it."

Firth's story is certainly an odd one. Why would she have gone to the trouble of filing a suit against Brown only to drop the case so soon afterward? And if Brown had any evidence to support his claim that it was Firth who had been harassing him, why did he never release it publicly? To be sure, it's possible there was no merit to Firth's case. And it's worth noting that Firth has had other brushes with controversy in her county.

But why did Democrats and members of the national press fail to even bring up the fact that Scott Brown had once been accused of sexual harassment and defamation in the myriad stories about him prior to Massachusetts' special election in January? Google it. The entire incident is conspicuously absent....
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top