People getting fired

[kaz]

Good question in court. In the public arena? Not so much. I'm going to address this further in the next post

So we grant the Gestapo press the power to destroy anyone at any time for any reason they choose?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

That would be a good argument if that's the argument I made. But wow, it isn't.

I said I'm convinced by two accusers of physical abuse. There is a third that accuses him of verbal abuse. I said that's what convinces me. I never said your strawman.

I find it pathetic that Democrats wouldn't bat an eye and just circle the wagons, but I'm arguing they shouldn't defend sexual predators, not that we should

 

[OldLady]

Why are people pluralising - ie - photoS, restraining orderS etc?
As far as I’m aware there is a single photo, a single temporary restraining order which was not renewed and nothing after that.

A photo of someone with a black eye doesn’t prove who/what caused the black eye. Also, Porter claims he took that photo, and the wife admitted he did. Maybe we’ll get to hear why.

A police report is a report of the allegations made, it is not proof of the allegations, it is not proof of how the injury occurred and making a report of the allegations is what the police routinely have to do.

I also keep reading how easy it is to get a temporary restraining order, as who wants to take the chance of refusing one?
Maybe someone can clarify this. Also they seem to be awarded on the allegations made without the alleged ‘abuser’ even being asked any questions - the person may be able to prove they couldn’t have committed the offence but isn’t even given the opportunity to do so. Now I understand why it is this way, but it doesn’t PROVE guilt.

I believe someone ? Letterman had a restraining order awarded by a judge to a nutty woman Letterman had never even met. They’ve also been issued against people who are in prison.

Like everyone else here, I don’t KNOW if whatshisface is guilty, but I am absolutely stunned at the number of people who are so happy to completely dispense with due process. SMH

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

I wonder if you’d feel this way if it were your husband or son who were accused and didn’t get their day in court?

I wonder how you’d like it if you had a son at uni who was kicked out and had his future ruined on the basis of allegations alone?

I suspect you’re one of those people who operates on double standards and is only for principles such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it directly effects them, and sod everyone else

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

 

[kaz]

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

I wonder if you’d feel this way if it were your husband or son who were accused and didn’t get their day in court?

I wonder how you’d like it if you had a son at uni who was kicked out and had his future ruined on the basis of allegations alone?

I suspect you’re one of those people who operates on double standards and is only for principles such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it directly effects them, and sod everyone else

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

Agreed. Though if we switched parties, you'd switch sides and I wouldn't

 

[Thinker101]

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

I wonder if you’d feel this way if it were your husband or son who were accused and didn’t get their day in court?

I wonder how you’d like it if you had a son at uni who was kicked out and had his future ruined on the basis of allegations alone?

I suspect you’re one of those people who operates on double standards and is only for principles such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it directly effects them, and sod everyone else

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

So your answer is yes?

 

[miketx]

Keep it up, Kaz. I'm not stumped in the least, but you can only keep repeating the same lie over and over. I don't like liars or trolls. Get lost.

If it's a 'lie', then that would be so easy for you to prove by rattling off a bunch of meaningful things you are against Democrats on.

For all the feathers flying, you're not laying any eggs

You brought the argument. You prove it, not me.

You sure dance well for an old lady.

That I see you only arguing for Democrats is pretty clear.

That you could so easily disprove me if I'm wrong yet can't is just as clear.

You're the liar. If you're going to blindly follow Democrats, that's fine. But be honest about it

Bye, Troll.

Gotcha, no way someone can question why you constantly post for Democrats and anti-Republican when you claim not to be a Democrat. That's just an outrageous question

She's just another media fed troll shill. Like most of them.

 

[OldLady]

Bye, Troll.

As a semi-impartial observer, it is definitely you who looks like the troll here.

I'm just saying.

Sure. I started flinging around personal lies about you guys when I couldn't come up with any better responses to your arguments. Kaz's posts to me should be deleted as off topic trolling and my responses can go with them. I don't even give a shit today about playing fair. If he doesn't want to, I'm not being the ******* girl scout.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You just said an employer should have the right to fire anyone for any reason.

That would include an unproven allegation.

Yep.

And the employee has the right to sue for defamation of character.

But this situation goes far beyond Porter, into the whole Salem "#metoo" trials, except this time there are no trials, the Gestapo media is fed a victim and then destroys them.

The fallout of this is destroying the career path of women across this nation. No one in their right mind will hire a women in this climate. To protect oneself and one's company, women must be purged from the work place.

I know, you think you'll pass laws that companies must hire women. But how will you enforce them short of state ownership of the means of production.. Oh wait, I think I see the endgame of the Maoist democrats...

Not according to you. What hush money? We're not talking about Stormy Daniels here. lol

Jenifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, all were paid to settle and keep quiet. They could not bribe Juanita Broderick to keep quiet and she is still speaking out about how Clinton raped her and Hillary tried to destroy her life.

and you lib women just keep worshiping the Clintons, WTF is wrong with you?

What is the difference between Juanita Broderick's accusations and Jennifer Willoughby's?
None, except the man involved. You're not fooling anyone.

rape vs a punch in the eye? you see those as equal?

Don't change the subject. Your stance here has been we should take no action on allegations/information about wrongdoing until there is a guilty verdict by the courts. The accusation itself is not the argument you've made.
The two women have made serious accusations that have not returned a guilty verdict. You believe Broderick but not Willoughby. Why?

I believe both of them, but you only believe one. see how that works?

Good question in court. In the public arena? Not so much. I'm going to address this further in the next post

So we grant the Gestapo press the power to destroy anyone at any time for any reason they choose?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Who exactly is being destroyed by this 'Gestapo'?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

If they believed the women were credible, why were no charges filed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You just said an employer should have the right to fire anyone for any reason.

That would include an unproven allegation.

Yep.

And the employee has the right to sue for defamation of character.

But this situation goes far beyond Porter, into the whole Salem "#metoo" trials, except this time there are no trials, the Gestapo media is fed a victim and then destroys them.

The fallout of this is destroying the career path of women across this nation. No one in their right mind will hire a women in this climate. To protect oneself and one's company, women must be purged from the work place.

I know, you think you'll pass laws that companies must hire women. But how will you enforce them short of state ownership of the means of production.. Oh wait, I think I see the endgame of the Maoist democrats...

Jenifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, all were paid to settle and keep quiet. They could not bribe Juanita Broderick to keep quiet and she is still speaking out about how Clinton raped her and Hillary tried to destroy her life.

and you lib women just keep worshiping the Clintons, WTF is wrong with you?

What is the difference between Juanita Broderick's accusations and Jennifer Willoughby's?
None, except the man involved. You're not fooling anyone.

rape vs a punch in the eye? you see those as equal?

Don't change the subject. Your stance here has been we should take no action on allegations/information about wrongdoing until there is a guilty verdict by the courts. The accusation itself is not the argument you've made.
The two women have made serious accusations that have not returned a guilty verdict. You believe Broderick but not Willoughby. Why?

The system in place is any accusation is picked up by the leftist press and used to destroy the lives and careers of those who are denounced. No need for evidence or fact, an accusation is more than enough.


I believe both of them, but you only believe one. see how that works?

Good question in court. In the public arena? Not so much. I'm going to address this further in the next post

So we grant the Gestapo press the power to destroy anyone at any time for any reason they choose?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Who exactly is being destroyed by this 'Gestapo'?

The system which the left has put into place is any accusation made is picked up by the leftist press and used to destroy the career and lives of the accused, regardless of evidence. Because the leftist press is irresponsible and without a shred of integrity, no vetting of accusations ever occurs.

 

[OldLady]

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

If they believed the women were credible, why were no charges filed?

You're intentionally missing the point.
Rather than crying over spilt milk, accept that sometimes you have to make a decision on your own.

 

[Tilly]

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

I wonder if you’d feel this way if it were your husband or son who were accused and didn’t get their day in court?

I wonder how you’d like it if you had a son at uni who was kicked out and had his future ruined on the basis of allegations alone?

I suspect you’re one of those people who operates on double standards and is only for principles such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it directly effects them, and sod everyone else

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

I wonder if you’d feel this way if it were your husband or son who were accused and didn’t get their day in court?

I wonder how you’d like it if you had a son at uni who was kicked out and had his future ruined on the basis of allegations alone?

I suspect you’re one of those people who operates on double standards and is only for principles such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it directly effects them, and sod everyone else

The allegations were looked into by people who do this kind of thing everyday. They believe the women were credible. I stand by my earlier point: we can wish for a court to relieve us of the responsibility of making hard decisions, but we don't have that luxury here. So do we ignore the credible allegations?

So you would be fine with your husband or son having their reputations, their livelihoods and even their lives ruined whilst not even being given their day in court? It’s a simple enough question.

 

[kaz]

Bye, Troll.

As a semi-impartial observer, it is definitely you who looks like the troll here.

I'm just saying.

Sure. I started flinging around personal lies about you guys when I couldn't come up with any better responses to your arguments. Kaz's posts to me should be deleted as off topic trolling and my responses can go with them. I don't even give a shit today about playing fair. If he doesn't want to, I'm not being the ******* girl scout.

This is a clear partisan issue. Someone arguing for Democrats and saying they aren't a Democrat like you did isn't that far off, particularly since it goes directly to your credibility on the issue being disscussed.

And there is zero reason to get angry when you're posting for Democrats and claim not to be one to back that up. Unless you're compensating for that you can't.

Even if you weren't a Democrat, you know what motivated the question. You know you typically argue for them. Again that you can't address the question and get angry it was asked is just deflection

 

[jc456]

Coyote: Here is the difference. Clinton’s accusers had their day in court. If there was a photo of one with a beaten face a police report? That rather changes things.

- You're probably not actually reading the discussion because you seldom do, but I'm anti-Porter and said do. BTW, he hasn't actually had a "day in court," your new standard justifying switching sides based on party
- Juanita Broadderick didn't have a day in court either

Coyote: Was Clinton a womanizer? Yes.
Coyote: Did he harass women? I think so.

- Exactly. Coyote's standard. Is multiple accusers telling the same story proof? Democrat - no. Republican - yes. Even when one of the accusers to the Democrat was a long time supporter and activist
- You also are alibiing the the media for hounding Democrat accusers of Republicans and ignoring the reverse
- I looked at Porter and said photos and multiple accusers, the guy's guilty enough to get fired.
- You look at multiple accusers of a Democrat and say "I think so"

Coyote: Did he rape? Not according to the court.
Coyote: Did he beat women? No evidence of it.

- Rape is worse than beating women. And you made that up, the court never said Slick didn't do it. It never went to court. On harassing women though, he paid almost a million for what he did

Coyote: How about the women accusing Trump?

- Well, I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons. First that he's anti-free trade. Second that he's a pig to women. Again, does kaz have a standard? Yes. Coyote? no, not at all.

As for the more extreme accusations though, unfortunately since we know that Democrats paid Democrats to lie, we'll never really know what's true and what was paid for by Democrats. I still find the accusations disturbing though.

If you actually cared about women, you'd be hysterically angry that Democrats paid women to lie. There is nothing more anti-woman than that. This country is growing deaf to the endless fake accusations of sexual harassment and racism. And that's bad because you're protecting the people out there who are actually guilty

I think Trump and Clinton are the same in regards to women. They are pigs. But pigs aren’t necessarily criminals. That is what what the courts determine.

In regards to Broaddrick there were significant problems with her accounts, recants etc....that makes it a bit hard to take as gospel truth.

Btw you realize the Republicans paid the Clinton accusers court costs don’t you. Does that mean they were paid to lie?

I think you are as biased to the R as you say I am to the D.

Ps if you actually read what I have written on these things you would realize I have a lot of concern for a lack of due process going on in this newfound zero tolerance.

Gotcha, this is why you're such a joke. I'm saying I believe Porter is guilty, I'm glad he got fired and I hope he gets the same back.

You're saying Slick is "probably" guilty of harassment.

What a useless douche

And you said Trumps accusers were lying....hmmmmm

Paying Trumps accusers $750,000.00 dollars doesn't impact credibility...?? Especially when they were investigated and found the accusations were lies. The republican party paid for legal counsel for verified crimes while democrats out right paid them and gave them legal counsel for deceptions...

Funny how now even today, after 16 months, the Trump accusers have NO VERIFIABLE accusations...

Just like the Russia collusion lies, nothing to see and nothing found...

It's hilarious. Coyote says pointing out they got paid is calling them liars. It's OK for Democrats to pay them, but it's not OK to say that they got paid.

And I called her a Democrat hack. Nailed it ...

If Republicans paid people to lie about Obama, what are the chances do you suppose that Coyote would be here defending the people who got paid to make the accusations against Democrats? She's unbelievable. Literally ...

That’s just a leftist period. No character or honor with no integrity on the side

 

[jc456]

Bye, Troll.

As a semi-impartial observer, it is definitely you who looks like the troll here.

I'm just saying.

Sure. I started flinging around personal lies about you guys when I couldn't come up with any better responses to your arguments. Kaz's posts to me should be deleted as off topic trolling and my responses can go with them. I don't even give a shit today about playing fair. If he doesn't want to, I'm not being the ******* girl scout.

This is a clear partisan issue. Someone arguing for Democrats and saying they aren't a Democrat like you did isn't that far off, particularly since it goes directly to your credibility on the issue being disscussed.

And there is zero reason to get angry when you're posting for Democrats and claim not to be one to back that up. Unless you're compensating for that you can't.

Even if you weren't a Democrat, you know what motivated the question. You know you typically argue for them. Again that you can't address the question and get angry it was asked is just deflection

Naw, typical. Goes back to my previous post

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're intentionally missing the point.
Rather than crying over spilt milk, accept that sometimes you have to make a decision on your own.

What does this have to do with the topic? The OP stated that due process should be ended, that an accusation is all the proof of guilt that is ever needed. You agree with that, I do not.

 

[jc456]

Typically they say things like you were mentally cruel. They don't produce pictures of you with a black eye and say you beat them supported by another ex-spouse who says you did the same to her.

Also, they typically want money and if they make you unemployable, that's hard to get. If they have children that's also a strong thing to do to their father.

Sure, one accusation I could write off. But two and photos, that's hard to ignore

When I was young and poor, we had a washer that would have the clutch jam. I kept the back off of it so that I could reach the clutch lever to break it free. My ex knew how to do this as well. One night she hit the high voltage box while reaching in and it threw her back, she caught her arm on the sheet metal case and had a severe cut, like 4 layers of stitches over a 6 inch laceration. Obviously paramedics were called via 911.

Years later when we were divorcing, she threatened to use photographs of her arm as proof I had attacked her with a knife. Now my ex is dumb as a rock, and didn't grasp that the paramedics keep records. BUT a photograph of an injury is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I don't know anything about the Porter situation, nor do I much care. I DO care about due process and the direct assault on Western justice that is going on. Guilt or innocence is now a matter of party affiliation and gender, rather than evidence and fact.

Fair enough. If it was one person alone, I'd be a lot more willing to write it off despite the photo. Two is harder to ignore. And I do not believe it's very common to accuse spouses of actual physical assault much less getting two to do it to one guy.

And again, all I'm arguing is it's enough to get him out of his job in the White House. If he married two psychos who'd make that accusation, that says something about his judgment anyway

Except one wife didn’t bring her claim public until the press talked to her. Having arguments with a spouse is normal. We wouldn’t have 50% divorces if it weren’t. What a bunch of sick mther fkrs for pointing fingers.

She didn't say they were "having arguments," she said he hit her

I think only the first wife alleged he hit her. I believe the second wife alleged verbal and emotional abuse and breaking a window.

My wife threw a remote at me when she once got mad at me. I now know that was abuse and emotional abuse. Did she leave right after he broke the window? If not then they reconciled that moment. Fk these idiots who don’t have lives.

 

[kaz]

The system which the left has put into place is any accusation made is picked up by the leftist press and used to destroy the career and lives of the accused, regardless of evidence. Because the leftist press is irresponsible and without a shred of integrity, no vetting of accusations ever occurs.

I find two ex-wives and one ex-girlfriend telling the same story to be evidence. We're talking about whether he should be in the White House. Jail is a different discussion.

What's unfortunate is how this standard by the media is only for one party while Democrats are held to no standard.

Franken would still be in the US Senate other than that he botched his handling of the accusations. All he had to do was hunker down and ride it out, and he didn't. He seemed to grasp that at the end, but he couldn't undo what he'd already said

 

[jc456]

Why are people pluralising - ie - photoS, restraining orderS etc?
As far as I’m aware there is a single photo, a single temporary restraining order which was not renewed and nothing after that.

A photo of someone with a black eye doesn’t prove who/what caused the black eye. Also, Porter claims he took that photo, and the wife admitted he did. Maybe we’ll get to hear why.

A police report is a report of the allegations made, it is not proof of the allegations, it is not proof of how the injury occurred and making a report of the allegations is what the police routinely have to do.

I also keep reading how easy it is to get a temporary restraining order, as who wants to take the chance of refusing one?
Maybe someone can clarify this. Also they seem to be awarded on the allegations made without the alleged ‘abuser’ even being asked any questions - the person may be able to prove they couldn’t have committed the offence but isn’t even given the opportunity to do so. Now I understand why it is this way, but it doesn’t PROVE guilt.

I believe someone ? Letterman had a restraining order awarded by a judge to a nutty woman Letterman had never even met. They’ve also been issued against people who are in prison.

Like everyone else here, I don’t KNOW if whatshisface is guilty, but I am absolutely stunned at the number of people who are so happy to completely dispense with due process. SMH

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying..
You have a point about innocent until proven guilty, but you are forgetting that in the case of the high profile "firings" and forced resignations from the MeToo movement, HR departments DID look into the allegations, and in the case of Porter, the FBI did. They determined after getting all the information that the allegations were credible.
Maybe now that women feel they will be listened to, it won't take decades for them to speak up. Maybe, now that women feel they will be listened to, they will be more willing to follow up with criminal court proceedings.

Maybe they should have filed for court proceedings? Called Police? DUE PROCESS not the severity of the accusation without proof..

Maybe they will in the future. What we have to work with right now is different. You can wish for a criminal court to make all your decisions for you, but right now it is your responsibility to weigh all the information and decide what you think. Same as the WH did.

Oh

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good question in court. In the public arena? Not so much. I'm going to address this further in the next post

So we grant the Gestapo press the power to destroy anyone at any time for any reason they choose?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Who exactly is being destroyed by this 'Gestapo'?

The system which the left has put into place is any accusation made is picked up by the leftist press and used to destroy the career and lives of the accused, regardless of evidence. Because the leftist press is irresponsible and without a shred of integrity, no vetting of accusations ever occurs.

I find two ex-wives and one ex-girlfriend telling the same story to be evidence.

What's unfortunate is how this standard by the media is only for one party while Democrats are held to no standard

Trump was accused of all sorts of things and got elected president.

 

[jc456]

The system which the left has put into place is any accusation made is picked up by the leftist press and used to destroy the career and lives of the accused, regardless of evidence. Because the leftist press is irresponsible and without a shred of integrity, no vetting of accusations ever occurs.

I find two ex-wives and one ex-girlfriend telling the same story to be evidence. We're talking about whether he should be in the White House. Jail is a different discussion.

What's unfortunate is how this standard by the media is only for one party while Democrats are held to no standard.

Franken would still be in the US Senate other than that he botched his handling of the accusations. All he had to do was hunker down and ride it out, and he didn't. He seemed to grasp that at the end, but he couldn't undo what he'd already said

So you never argued with your significant other? Interesting