That's the top-rated comment on "Eric Schneiderman, Accused by 4 Women, Quits as New York Attorney General" at the NYT this morning. Schneiderman resigned the day the New Yorker article came out, detailing accusations.
Also in the NYT, "Before His Fall, Eric Schneiderman Defended Women and Took On Trump":
Recently, he pushed himself to the forefront of the #MeToo movement, announcing a lawsuit against the company once run by the former filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, who was accused of decades of sexual misconduct.ADDED: As long as the witchcraft metaphor is in play, let me show you this, which I encountered after publishing this post:
“We have never seen anything as despicable as what we’ve seen right here,” Mr. Schneiderman said at the time....
He had also raised his profile nationally by repeatedly taking on President Trump’s agenda in the courts.... Even before Mr. Trump took office, Mr. Schneiderman had filed a lawsuit against Trump University. And more recently, he had been pushing to change state law so his office could prosecute Mr. Trump’s aides if the president pardons them.
“Since November of 2016, Eric has led the fight to protect New Yorkers from the most harmful policies of the Trump Administration,” his biography says.... He successfully sued to block what he called President Trump’s “Muslim Ban.” He said he was taking the Trump administration to court over energy-efficiency standards. He said he was defending the rights of sanctuary cities in his state....
I once cast this spell on my tv show Charmed. It foretold the future. The future is now.
— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) May 8, 2018
From Ancient Time
This Power Came
For All To Have
But None To Reign
Take It Now
Show No Mercy
For this Power Can No Longer Be #Charmed
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
It is awful when those #MeToo torpedoes circle around and keep hitting the wrong people.
I take his resignation as an admission of guilt (or someone has worse goods on him).
How could his office function after an indictment, and how could his subordinates prosecute him?
Can the NY governor fire the AG, or would he have to be impeached by the legislature?
The NYT refused to publish my comment: We shouldn't judge until we know all the facts. Maybe when he was slapping and beating the women, he was saying, "Take that, Trump!" That would make it all right.
They finally hurt the right leftie for the pushback to begin. He seems more reprehensible than normal, except for NY. Spitzer had big ugly shoes to fill.
I got a fright this morning. I misheard the radio news report and thought Spiderman had resigned, caught in a web of deceit.
The court of public opinion will always have some value in cases like these. Intimite violence is often not well suited for the justice system because of the patterns that repeat in these offences over and over. People don’t report, they stay, and when accusatiions first trickle and then pour out, then there’s often little evidence other than the word of one agaist another. Bill Maher said of the Cosby allegations that “size matters”, and when four women step forward with essentially the same story, there is weight to that. Sometimes the exact right conclusion is no criminal conviction, but a well attended hanging nonetheless.
Is there a witch hunt/lynch mob mentality permeating the whole #MeToo movement? Absolutely.
But I really hate when people say things like "we need to rationally and soberly get back to following the Rule of Law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion."
Where has the rule of law been violated? A political figured stepped down amid a potential scandal. And there really is nothing wrong with believing a person committed a crime even if they have never been charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legalistic term. It is foolish to say that the public must suspend judgment on any public case until the outcome of a trial or that somehow the outcome of a trial should be determinative on people's opinions. I think O.J. Simpson murdered two people, and the fact that he was acquitted on homicide charges does not change that opinion. Harvey Weinstein has never been convicted in any court, but do I think the guy is a sexual deviant? Certainly.
Schneiderman is what we called a "sneaky fucker" back when I was in college in the 60s.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a sneaky fucker is a guy who's constantly yammering about his great commitment to feminism and reverence for women's rights in order to get into as many panties as possible.
We keep finding more sneaky fuckers lurking among the Dems. Why is that?
It’s kind of funny that what would have been seen as a banal observation on any conservative blog a couple of years ago, an almost pro-forma recapitulation of conservative and libertarian thinking on the subject gets to be top-rated among New York Times commenters.
It was all good fun when it was fraternities and the Duke lacrosse team, a weapon against Trump, etc, etc... When they could convince themselves it was only conservatives who did it because only conservatives ever got called out on it in the media, but now...
How long will they continue, by and large, to look the other way on Bill “Rapey” Clinton? I know, forever. Just like child sex slave (I can’t bring myself to use the term the New York Post uses, of “child prostitute.”) patron Bob Menendez, D - New Jersey.
Another Leftist/progressive elite is revealed to be a violent asshole. What a surprise. Although he denied "nonconsensual" violence, he eluded to "role-playing", which i take to mean he does like hitting women, but they went along with it because he's so "woke".
Are the women into S&M, or willing to tolerate it as part of a deal they're making?
Withdrawn consent is a thing. They feel bad years later, decide it must be because they didn't consent, fall into the fad. #Don'tForgetMe payoff.
I don't trust them.
It's not part of a deal if it's reported immediately. Otherwise forget it. Women are psychological messes.
In a Day (2006) has a woman-abusing women's advocate as a minor plot point, so apparently it's a thing narrative-wise. Nice quasi-romcom.
That’s not the actual definition of “sneaky fucker” They are the ones fucking the ladies when the alphas are all out killing mammoths or fighting wars or whatever alphas do, all the while presenting to the alphas as submissive losers.
Memo to Huma Abedin: If you can ever quit Anthony Weiner, there’s a love connection waiting for you. Hillary can make the introduction.
While the honorable side of me agrees with rhhardin on this one, I can’t help but cheer on the mess this is making among powerful Democrats once immune to this kind of attack. The like from Red October is evergreen. “You’ve killed us!”
The Crucible did involve an investigation, a trial, and a verdict.
The investigation begins in Act I and proceeds through Act II.
The trial is in Act III.
Verdicts are revealed in Act IV.
The Crucible is an interesting choice. I wonder if the writer was wholly aware of the subtext of that choice. Not McCarthyism, but a tale of accusations by young women against powerful men in an environment in which women had little power.
Apparently Trump tweeted about this in 2013 that this guy was worse than Weiner and somebody else and his comeuppance was coming. They're all terrible aren't they
Bill “You might want to put some ice on that” Clinton was unavailable for comment.
It's interesting to dive into the very exacting and scientific manner in which thinkers in the age of enlightenment explained witchcraft.
Bill Maher said of the Cosby allegations that “size matters”, and when four women step forward with essentially the same story, there is weight to that.
Unless it’s Bill Clinton, who is the exception that proves the rule, I guess. All of those women were former Democratic volunteers and supporters who unaccountably turned into right-wing nuts and sluts. We are all witnesses to that highly unusual cluster of events and should consider ourselves lucky to be alive at the time that a six sigma event like that happened.
tim in Vermont
That's a good one too!
I'm all for inclusion. How about if we include both definitions?
Amusing that such a comment was atop an article detailing actual behavior, not just accusations of such behavior, by the person who resigned office immediately after the publication. What party was that person in, again?
Women are psychological messes.
The ones who put up with it certainly are. But it doesn't mean they're lying now. Couldn't they get him on tape?
Last Friday came the shocking news that Michael Skakel, the Kennedy cousin finally found guilty of murder back in 2002, had his conviction vacated. Then again, the degree of shock depends on your relationship to the Kennedys. Shortly after the announcement, Skakel’s cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his most ardent defender, told CNN that he’s sure Skakel will never be retried. “It would be pretty hard to pass the threshold of reasonable doubt,” Kennedy said. Really? Perhaps we should revisit that.
The article goes on to explain exactly how this powerful member of the Democratic ruling elite was convicted in the first place. The “Rule of Law” is no obstacle if you are well enough connected in the Democrat Party.
Well, if the enlightened New Yorkers want an AG that knocks around his lovers, they can always re-elect him. He quit of his own accord. His campaign slogan could be, "I'll give 'em a beat-down!"
Bill Clinton was the commonplace that proved the exception. The exception is what has rolled forward and become the rule.
Yes. Schneiderman deserves some mercy and sympathy for acting out his demonic games of assaulting independent women and assaulting independent Presidents.
My suggestions is that we start him a GoFund Me account to raise $130,000. That much can buy him one night of intimate succour from a submissive Stormy Daniels. But Stormy is 12 years older now. So Schneidrman should get a discount there, and then he can afford a branded 12 year old supplied by NXIVM.
Which state is the most corrupt? NY or IL?
“Withdrawn consent is a thing. They feel bad years later, decide it must be because they didn't consent, fall into the fad. #Don'tForgetMe payoff.”
I think it can be a thing - sort of. Request for consent with a man prone to the kind of violence Schneiderman is accused can come initially with a fist or a slap or a backhand to the head. Women can be shocked into staying, confused into reconciling, seduced into stupidity by power or money or status, or even be initially intrigued by the excitement or “bond” of the violence, or of the ritual of forgiveness that follows. But time and perspective and the reality of the psychological experience as it evolves can retrospectively reveal the actions of a Schneiderman as clearly abusive.
Where I live, you can’t actually consent to harm legally. If a homeless person accepts 100 bucks from a sadist so he can administer a beating, I think we’d still see the sadist as a danger and somebody who should be stripped of status and power and public trust. I don’t see it much differently just because it happens domestically behind closed doors.
Who Whom. If it's happening to Schneiderman, that's a good thing.
James Carville should team up with Schneiderman, Weiner and Spitzer for the most kickass Democratic consulting firm ever—Snake, Fake, Freak and Sneak.
"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you."
Hillary Clinton's Evergreen Tweet, 2015
Of course, she's since deleted it. I guess she doesn't believe.
“Unless it’s Bill Clinton, who is the exception that proves the rule, I guess.”
I don’t personally know anybody who doesn’t think Clinton should be thought of in the same way. If that stuff came out in this era, this climate, things would have evolved differently. MeToo does not seem to be sticking to anybody retroactively. If people had their reckoning in the past, such as they were, that seems to be that.
Oh, and Schneiderman suspended investigation of the NXIVM sex cult last month.
If you look at the Sri Lankan lady this guy was bedding, you've got to wonder. She's an exotic beauty, and ordinary sex didn't seem enough for this guy. Why not? Why would you want to beat up an exotic beauty? Why not warm, compassionate love making?
I'm thinking the change in attitude toward gay male sex as it is practiced, particularly in NY. All liberal women feel obliged to tell you that they approve of, in fact celebrate, the practices of NY's gay male community.
(Althouse, of course, is living under the bizarre delusion that she's going to cure gay men of this and domesticate them into marriage and family. Like all socially liberal women, she reflexively gives you the "Don't you love gay men!" bullshit as a shit test.)
And what do those gay men do?
S&M, B&D, thrill seeking and physical abuse all have their subcult status in the gay male world of NY. I'm thinking this is why these liberal women have trouble just saying "No!" or getting the hell out. They've already confessed their admiration for the bestial, violent and digging in shit sexual behavior of gay men. So, what moral ground do they have to stand on with their hetero lover?
But time and perspective and the reality of the psychological experience as it evolves can retrospectively reveal the actions of a Schneiderman as clearly abusive.
Right, then it falls into the category of an account, not something going on at the time.
The women's mind does long-term chemical calculation and decides she comes out ahead if it's abuse and not consented to.
The guy needs faster notice. That's the age of consent thing, you're required to function as an adult.
Everybody is loving women as helpless these days.
Anymore, when I see a picture of a well connected, highly influential man with an adoring Hillary Clinton, I'm just going to assume he's a criminal sexual deviant.
I guess he's the model for the Paul Giamatti character in "Billions."
The time to press assault charges may have passed, but the embarrassment of what he is can go on forever. If there was "role playing" it seems that he picked partners who were not so excited about that. But they do have a right to talk about their relationships to him, don't they? You are allowed to talk about a public figure's private life in public. And newspapers are allowed to print that information.
You have people that may OR may not have done something illegal. That we don't know and we may never know for sure. But what we can judge is their ethics. Are they a good person? Are they a person we want to represent us? Are they someone we want to work for or work with? So if an ex or many exes talk about that person we get to see what they are like in private, and we can judge that.
Trump hinted at this in 2013? Five years ago? How much of an open secret was it, then? Did Schneiderman respond to Trump's tweet with a denial or a threat of a defamation action?
The back story here sounds yuuuuge.
"soberly get back to following the Rule of Law, where Democrats are innocent"
Edited for accuracy.
ST sez:
"She's an exotic beauty, and ordinary sex didn't seem enough for this guy. Why not? Why would you want to beat up an exotic beauty? Why not warm, compassionate love making?"
Exactly right. What''s wrong with this Leftwing shithead? And is there something larger going on with the NY elite, shithead community?
You found a lovely woman. Full stop. In my pre-marital days, that meant something. It meant joy, thrills, excitement, laughter, intimacy, fulfillment - all these good, healthy things.
And instead of celebrating your good fortune, you go violent/slave/master/power trip?
Something rotten is in the water of the New York/Hollywood/Leftist/elite axis. It's as if young Ronan Farrow has stumbled into a deformed cult of sex weirdos not unlike his young Mama in "Rosemary's Baby"
Shouting Thomas said...
If you look at the Sri Lankan lady this guy was bedding, you've got to wonder. She's an exotic beauty, and ordinary sex didn't seem enough for this guy. Why not? Why would you want to beat up an exotic beauty?"
Hear him whip the women just around midnight.
Where are all the lefty defenders of women? ARM? IngaKnew?
Don't let the democrats re-write history.
Al Franken was sacrificed by his own people. Not public pressure. He was a roadblock standing in the way of #metoo forcing Donald Trump in to resigning. No, it didn't work, even backfired, but it sure seemed like a winning strategy at the time for delusional liberals.
>>where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion
Unless they are young men in college. In that case Title IX requires guilty verdict upon accusation.
>> Ronan Farrow has stumbled into
Ronan Farrow is publishing open secrets... things everyone knows but nobody talks about publicly.
Is the me-too campaign anti-Semitic?
Schneiderman
Weiner
Spitzer
Weinstein
And it’s ignoring accusations against non Jews?
"... where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,..."
It annoys me when people say things like this. You are guilty of a crime, immediately and forever, when you commit the crime. In a criminal trial, the procedural rule is that the defendant is entitled to a PRESUMPTION of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. These procedural rules may have an impact on whether or not you are convicted of the crime - but they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you are guilty as a matter of objective fact.
urious George said...
Where are all the lefty defenders of women? ARM? IngaKnew?
5/8/18, 7:55 AM
They'll skip this thread. Oh, Inga might turn up to write a perfunctory sentence or two about how she is glad this terrible man is no longer NY AG and she'll note that Farrow's piece appeared in a liberal publication, while ignoring that liberal Manhattan elites appear to have ignored Schneiderman's behavior for years. But she sure won't stick around to write 40 gloating comments, which is what she would do if he was a Republican. Nor will she dwell on the fact that the left-wing feminist sisterhood told one of the victims to keep her mouth shut, because Schneider was such an important ally in the "Resist" movement. A month or so ago, she chastised me as being a traitor to women because I didn't side with some petty feminist complaint. But hey those pussy hats in Manhattan decided that when it came to Schneiderman, what's a few black eyes and busted eardrums? Hey, he's pro-choice and hates Trump, that's what's really important!
The only reason I think this case is receiving any attention is because Schneiderman, like Weinstein, chose the wrong victims. If he had targeted "nobodies" like that sly bastard Bill Clinton did, who would care? It's one thing to victimize a beautiful Sri Lankan feminist, while throwing more than a bit of racism into the mix, and quite another to rape Juanita Broderick. The latter is forgivable, the former is not.
"And it’s ignoring accusations against non Jews?"
You mean like Trump?
Come on. New York and Hollywood.
The Title IX "Dear Colleague" letter made every male college student guilty waiting for an accusation.
As others have stated, the torpedoes are circling back.
Kurt Schlichter warned them they wouldn’t like playing under the rules they made up, but did they listen?
and we need to rationally and soberly get back to following the Rule of Law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion
...because we are causing more damage to the Left than we are Trump.
The fact that Trump knew about Schneiderman in 2013 doesn't indicate any special knowledge on his part. As with Weinstein and Charlie Rose, a huge number of people knew about their proclivities for quite a few years.
There is a lot of dirt out there on political and media figures. As a friend in the know told me after the Weinstein scandal broke, "This is just the tip of the iceberg."
@Ray - There is a certain "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" quality to it. But that forgery from the early 20th century that claimed a Jewish interest in subverting western civilization by such means as dominating banking and the media was exposed long ago.
"#MeToo should not be about allowing anyone to make accusations about whoever they want to."
Well, it shouldn't, and it's so nice of progs to recognize it at last, but as yours truly brilliant observed on this very site before this NYT comment even posted, any woman can now make any claim against any man at any time.
"It should be about providing a supporting environment where women and LGBTQ can seek justice under the law if they have been aggrieved. It should be about teaching men it is not okay to behave however they want. But it should not become Salem 2.0."
Note, men should not be able to "seek justice under the law." Following the McGowan principle: no mercy. But just as #MeToo is now causing blowback for progs, no mercy will produce real blowback from men, and from the women who won't stand by to see men they love unjustly vilified.
Which is not to say Schneiderman is being unjustly vilified.
But then, are any prominent progs clean? Is there anyone other progs can vouch for?
Boomerang torpedos are always a bummer. Didn't any senior Dems see Hunt for Red October? Alec Baldwin should have told them all about it.
Karma is a cold, cruel mistress, but calling her a witch is unfair, not to mention unwise.
“If people had their reckoning in the past, such as they were, that seems to be that.”
Reckonings? You mean like being celebrated by the Democratic Party for 20 years and having your chief enabled being the Democrat candidate for president in 2016 kind of reckonings? Or enjoying the perks and power of the Senate for another 30 years kind of reckonings? The hypocrisy of Democrats stinks to heaven.
"If there was an assault, can we then have an investigation, a trial, and a verdict. This Crucible-like environment needs to stop..."
"... and we need to rationally and soberly get back to following the Rule of Law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion. If he did it, then he deserves to suffer the consequences prescribed for his crimes under the law, but he needs to be able to exercise his rights to a fair trial and to face his accusers in a Court of Law before we all jump to conclusions. And if he is innocent then he should be exonerated. #MeToo should not be about allowing anyone to make accusations about whoever they want to.
Wrong. That is exactly what "Me Too" has come to, and people like Eric Schneiderman are the reason why.
Crucify him.
Welcome to the wonderful world of social justice, lefties.
Althouse wrote in the previous post:
Role-playing. Was the role-playing the part where you were the champion of women's rights?
No sh!t, sherlock. Every single white knight leftist male is role playing in order to get laid, or to get to be another Bill Clinton, who uses women like Kleenex, and sometimes rapes them, and gets away with it because people don't matter to the Left, only politics matters.
It what happens when you have a Party that has no principles other than Power.
(Note: a principle is a rule that you follow even when it gives you an answer you don't like. Written Constitution? Rule of law? Democracy? 5 votes on the SC is all that matters? No sexual harassment? There is no rule that the Left honors when it gets in the Left's way. So you get the vast majority of politicians who have no conscience, and no principles.
Enjoy!)
Here's the rule of law. The Manhattan DA will be investigating these allegations. That would be Cyrus Vance. He's the DA who evaluated the allegations against Harvey and gave him a pass. This should reaffirm everyone's faith in the rule of law.
There once was a quaint concept called due process. It captured millennia of lessons about our fallen nature and our bitter experience from rushing to judgment and listening to biased or ignorant or self-deluding witnesses and accusers. That due process thing was a capsule of semi-sanity or a lifeboat of semi-order in a maelstrom of anger, fear, envy and suspicion.
But we were too civilized and Woke to need that concept any more.
"Right, then it falls into the category of an account, not something going on at the time.
The women's mind does long-term chemical calculation and decides she comes out ahead if it's abuse and not consented to.
The guy needs faster notice. That's the age of consent thing, you're required to function as an adult.
Everybody is loving women as helpless these days."
Reasonable people can disagree about the motivations or psychological state of women in these situations. I don't see it as helplessness, but something more like acting in a way that is against your true best interests for a while, as people do, in many circumstances in life. But regardless, my larger point is that we don't need to determine whether these women saw it as abuse before or after the fact. Objectively, I can see it as abuse. As violence. A guy who needs or wants to serially beat and degrade women in his private life can be judged as unsuitable for some kinds of public life, particularly when he may be using that position as further intimidation, regardless of how complicit the women were or were not at the time.
Harvey remains the worst of the worst, but in the narrower field of hypocrisy, Eric deserves special mention......Harvey abused movie stars with their own lawyers and publicists. How do you do something like that and get away with it for decades.....,.Eric slapped around militant feminists with law degrees from Ivy colleges.. How do you get away with doing something like that even once? And then go on to write laws outlawing the physical abuse of women.. Harvey, so far as I know, didn't produce movies that were notably feminist, but Eric was the AG for feminist causes.
The comment is typical of such things. Wishing for the impractical. People want inherently blunt instruments to be as scalpels, yielding precise justice, but even the attempts to narrowly limit such phenomena are themselves masses of rules that become such blunt instruments.
You really cannot get what you want.
At the college level, I've seen a number of cases where the male students have been unfairly punished. I don't see that going on with elected figures and celebrities. Franken, arguably, was punished disproportionately for his offense, but he chose to resign. His martyrdom was self inflicted, and I don't see other martyrs among the elect.
That is rich. Hilarious. This guy is just as guilty as Rob Porter. I'm sure this NYT reader had no problem with his resignation.
"where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion"
Makes no sense to me. First, this isn't a court of law, it is the court of public opinion. Second, four women apparently accused him, their stories agree, and he resigned right away. Why did he do that, to spend more time with his family? Or because it's the quickest way to keep the story from getting bigger, with more ladies' stories following onto Page One?
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This is an excellent example of the role of custom, as opposed to law. This sort of thing cannot be a question of law, except under the most clear-cut, public circumstances, where assault is assault.
But in private with no witnesses and moreover a total lack of sexual limits there is no way for a third party to judge such things objectively.
Years ago a friend (yeah, that's the ticket) had a very happy physical relationship with a woman. Then she revealed she'd like to try bondage. My friend was not into tying his partner up, but was willing to let her try her fantasy.
Silk ties sacrificed she was immobilized. She said something like, "Here's what I want you to do". Friend said, "No! You're the one tied up. What I want is all that matters".
She expressed fear. My friend untied her and said THAT is why you need to think long and hard about giving power over to ANYONE."
She never expressed that desire again.
Pro tip Ladies (and men) some things should fall under the one strike and you're out rule.
What the writer really means is that this frenzy is taking out too many men
who are on the right side of history.
If there were an 'R' after their name we would be told we are only scratching the
surface.
"Eric slapped around militant feminists with law degrees from Ivy colleges. How do you get away with doing something like that even once?"
By targeting "militant feminists with law degrees from Ivy colleges." Meaning, chicks for whom politics trumps gender, ethics, or anything else. They let you get off. Until now, when their politics demands victimhood. But since they only did the deed(s) with lefty men, #MeToo was always bound to hurt prog males more.
Of course, I am not offering this as a General Theory of Prog Assholery. Weinstein and Weiner present different categories and causal mechanisms.
@Ray,
Is the me-too campaign anti-Semitic?...
And it’s ignoring accusations against non Jews?
I don't think it's about Jews/Judaism per se.
I think it's about amoral powerful men abusing women. Since Jews are the wealthiest & best educated ethnic group in the US, they are disproportionately found among those "powerful men". They are also the most "secular" ethnic group (i.e. the ethnic group with the highest percentage of agnostics & atheists), and so have the least amount of religious & social stricture against such sexual behaviors. And, as Mike K. points out, there are lots of Jews in the localities where the events are happening. NYC probably has an awful lot of Jewish jaywalkers, too, but that's because it has a lot of streets & Jews in the same place, not because of any predilection of Jews to jaywalking.
@Rob - pretty good!
“It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson!”
@William
"After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose."
Written by someone who never read The Crucible.
Commenters here and in the Times have their categories crossed. Due process, a trial, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are the essential standards to deprive someone of their liberty and lock them up. None of that is required (nor appropriate) in order to run a hypocritical politician out of office.
Earnest Prole,
That is absolutely correct. The comment was written by someone, though, who doesn't like the fact that the torpedoes have circled back.
You know, I think I understand now why New York has such strict gun control laws. I can imagine what would happen if I hit my wife after she responded to my telling her to call me “Master” with a the hysterical laughing fit. One 9mm headache that all the Tylenol in the world couldn’t fix.
The left is taking a bow on behalf of the free press for breaking this story. Well, okay. Good on Ronan Farrow. Out of an abundance of cynicism, I can't help but notice that the story broke not when Schneiderman had passed the primary and the Demicratic Party was vulnerable on Election Day to this disclosure. This was in contrast to how the Moore story unfolded.
"... and we need to rationally and soberly get back to following the Rule of Law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and stop convicting people in the Court of Public Opinion...
Unless, of course, that person is an evil Republican.
But then, that goes without saying.
Somewhat paraphrased, but apparently, they really don't like living under the same rules they've been using on others.
Now that big-time Democrat Resistards are being scooped up, we must remember fairness and presumption of innocence! WE MUST!
Now if these people were not Democrats, it would be perfectly acceptable, indeed it would be a moral imperative, to toss this commenter speaking of a "Crucible-like environment" into the fire for his (or even worse, her!) misogyny and defense of the patriarchy.
Smug lefty Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal Schneiderman hagiography. Warning: Viewing this video may induce a 72-hour schadenboner.
Prole
Wow. I only watched a bit, for safety sake, but, yeah.
Ah, sweet schadenfreude!
I bet the Germans have a word for that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा