Brancaccio caves to the pressure and finally reports what I posted weeks ago: Jacks' resignation was related to alcohol... while covering for the rest.

.
This blog reported on March 25th that Jacks' misconduct and subsequent resignation was related to, but not because of, alcohol... which most people knew already.

The democratian's continuing efforts to cover for the misconduct of Jacks' behavior while imbibing, misconduct that the rag has known about for quite some time seems to be the thing.

Instead we see an obviously organized effort by the democrats to engage in damage control in the comments section.

Comments coming in shortly after 6 am on a Saturday, most quite supportive of a man who acted like a thug when he was drunk, which was most of the time?

What are chances that these and other early comments and Brancaccio's puff piece, leaving out the details that have been reported here, were coordinated?

Democrats lined up early and often with bogus comments that they would never, in their wildest dreams, make if the perp had an "R" after his name.

The contrivance is obvious.  And as the day wears on, more and more people interested in true accountability will take Brancaccio to task for his mishandling and CONTINUED cover-up of Jacks' conduct... the CONDCUT that actually led to his resignation... the conduct that he continues to ignore in print.

Many of those in the legislature are alcoholics.  That they ARE alcoholics (Looking at the democrats legislation, it's clear many of them were under the influence of SOME substance when they wrote that crap) is not, in and of itself, reason to resign.

Misconduct, on the other hand... well, that certainly is.

Some in these comments claim that "bloggers" (which likely, presumably, includes me,)  "have no proof."

To those who make that claim, I have to ask you: what would be "proof" for you?

A video of the misconduct in question?

I had multiple sources that were not connected in any way save that they're on staff at the leg provide the information to me that I posted almost a month ago.

The lack of a paper trail, frequently cited by the democratian as their excuse for not reporting on this issue, excuses nothing.

Brancaccio's self-serving pap of doing this in a column instead of making this a story guarantees that far fewer will know about it then the opposite... since, compared to the stories in the rag, so few read his trash.

In the end, the column tells us nothing we didn't already know.  Now, for me, the question is this:

Will he treat Jacks the same way he treated me?  Will he print every element of Jacks' conduct in the legislature, real or imagined, like he did me?

Gee.  That's a toughy.  What's the letter after Jacks' name again?

Lew Waters has a few choice words for Brancaccio's "effort" to make himself a major part of the story, as slimy as he is.  Give it a read.
.