Thursday, November 16, 2017

The epidemic of sex abuse allegations: Latest, Sen. Al Franken. Now what are you going to do, democrats?.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) has now been accused of actual sexual misconduct.

Are the democrats and RINOs going to be so quick to demand that he resign or get kicked out?

Fat chance.

Al, you see, is a democrat.  And democrats are "different."

In fact, let me tell you a brief story about a legendary gay democrat, in the vein of, well, former Mayor Sam Adams (D-Portland).

This guy was Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA13).

Now, we see all this fake outrage (And it is fake) from the left and the Congressional RINO contingent.

What happened when THIS verified episode of child rape of a male House page took place?

Well, Studds wasn't kicked out.  In fact, the leftists made him a committee chair.  AND, he was reelected SIX MRE TIMES by democrats who really didn't care.

And I ask you: 1.  If Moore were the democrat in the Alabama race, would we be hearing about any of this now?

2.  If Moore were the democrat in the Alabama race, would the leftists and RINOs be expressing this anger?

Go figure.

Anyway, here's the scoop:
On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee recommended that Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages.[1] Washington, D.C., law specifies an age of consent of 16, meaning that the relationships were legal;[2] however the committee felt "any sexual relationship between a member of the House of Representatives and a congressional page, or any sexual advance by a member to a page, represents a serious breach of duty." The Congressional Report found that in 1980, a year after entering office, Crane had sex four or five times at his suburban apartment with a female page and in 1973, the year he entered office, Studds invited a male page, who testified he felt no ill will towards Studds, to his Georgetown apartment and later on a two-week trip to Portugal. Both representatives admitted to the charges.[3]
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were each separately censured by the House of Representatives for an inappropriate relationship with a congressional page — in Studds' case, a 1983 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male. During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgment."[3] 
On July 20, 1983, the House voted to censure Studds, by a vote of 420-3. With his back to the other members, Studds faced the Speaker who was reading the motion.[4] In addition to voting the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee. (Seven years later, in 1990, Studds was appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.) Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.[5] 
Studds defended his sexual involvement as a "consensual relationship with a young adult." Dean Hara, whom Studds married in 2004, said after Studds' death in 2006 that Studds had never been ashamed of the relationship. "This young man knew what he was doing," Hara said.[6] In testimony to investigators, the page described the relationship as consensual and not intimidating.[7] 
Although Studds said he disagreed with the committee's findings of improper sexual conduct, he waived his right to public hearings on the allegations in order to protect the privacy of those involved: 
"...I have foremost in my mind the need to protect, to the extent it is still possible given the committee's action, the privacy of other individuals affected by these allegations," said Studds. "Those individuals have a right to personal privacy that would be inevitably and irremediably shattered if I were to insist on public hearings...."
Studds said that deciding not to have a hearing "presented me with the most difficult choice I have had to make in my life."[8] 
Studds was re-elected to the House six more times after the 1983 censure. He fought for many issues, including environmental and maritime issues, same-sex marriageAIDS funding, and civil rights, particularly for gays and lesbians. Studds was an outspoken opponent of the Strategic Defense Initiative missile defense system, which he considered wasteful and ineffective, and he criticized the United States government's secretive support for the Contra fighters in Nicaragua.[9]
So, let's see.

Franken is facing allegations.

Nothing is proven.  Clearly, there are others out there that this happened to and they are likely to come forward if the pattern holds.  But why wait?

No trial is necessary.... kick Franken out NOW.  After all, the left and the RINOs have dropped the bar of proof from innocent until proven guilty... to mere allegation.

And if that's the only standard required for Judge Moore, doesn't fairness demand that such be the only standard for Sen. Franken?

I expect Schumer and his colleagues to implement this TODAY.

They won't, of course, because they... and the RINOs... are all hypocrites in an institution where this sort of thing goes on EVERY DAY... to their silence.

I have written before and I say it again:  These allegations are based not on the occurrences... but on Judge Moore's politics.  Those demanding he step down needed to find a way to make his conservative views go away.  What better method than allegations he cannot easily... or timely... disprove?

Are the allegations in any real way true?  Only those making the allegations and Judge Moore know.  But the circumstances of the timing of these allegations... forty years after the fact?

To reject a political motive as being the primary mover of this stuff is to play the role of an ostrich with your head buried in the sand.  And the GOP's response to all of this... particularly given how much they've likely prayed for a cause to get rid of Moore after he beat up the Establishment RINO in the primaries... is the political version of the Keystone Cops.

However, I expect the Senate to apply ONE STANDARD FOR ALL.

And that means Franken should be expelled by COB TODAY.


I mean... anything else would be hypocrisy... wouldn't it?

No comments: