Yes, I broke the story on the Jim Jacks' resignation for misconduct with female staff.

So, the democratian FINALLY gets around to the truth of the Jim Jacks matter that I had told everyone about years ago... at the time it happened.

No leftist cover up.  Nothing to see here, move along.

Excerpts from the posts detailing both the reasons for his resignation and the democratian's efforts to cover it up.  These are in reverse order: my post breaking Jacks' resignation long before the democratian got around to it is at the very bottom of this entry.

February 21, 2012

One has to wonder: why is the newspaper protecting Jim Jacks.... I mean, Marc Boldt?

Former Rep. Jim Jacks (D-49) was forced out of the legislature by his caucus for alcohol-fueled misconduct with female staffers.  The Columbian refused to report the entirety of the truth on this issue; in fact, when presented with the opportunity, never specifically asked Jacks anything about the issues in question.

It has been over 332 days since Jacks' expulsion.  The excuse repeatedly given by the Columbian is a so-called "lack of a paper trail."  It would seem that actually interviewing people in Olympia who know is somehow out of the question.  I guess those reporters doing such "solid, informative" work just couldn't find the time.

November 20, 2011

It's eight months today that the Columbian began their cover up of the Jim Jacks scandal, to protect him... and the democrats.

Self-describing:

Former Rep. Jacks resigned due to misconduct that involved staffers and alcohol.

This has been confirmed to me by multiple sources.

Jacks is a democrat, so naturally the local Goebbelian propaganda arm will do anything they can to protect him or any other democrat... after all, didn't they insist on endorsing a democrat for Assessor WHO HAD NEVER VOTED IN THE ENTIRETY OF HER LIFE?

The allegations concerning Jacks range from repeated sexual harassment episodes, to inappropriate physical contact to all hours "drunk calls" to at least one female staffer.

The democratian likely knows this. The information is, in fact, readily available, and the democrat's efforts to keep it covered up, while expected and supported by the rag is hardly the kind of transparency exhibited during the episodes concerning Jim Dunn and Richard Curtis... so the double standard is both obvious... and blatant.

September 22, 2011

Well, it's been 6 months now and thanks to Brancaccio and Chopp, Jacks looks like he's getting away with it.

This blog broke the story that former Rep. Jim Jacks (Boozer-49) quit in the middle of the last legislative session as a result of misconduct he engaged in related to his alcoholism.

The local paper, which I refer to as the democratian for reasons such as this one, did absolutely nothing to discover the nature of this misconduct, which involved female staffers working for the Legislature both in the democrat caucus and from the Office of Program Research.

The only thing I didn't do is provide the names.

The rag's excuse was there wasn't a "paper trail." and, therefore, they were helpless.

Brancaccio did a powder puff interview with Jacks which accomplished absolutely nothing concerning either the true reasons for Jacks' departure or the names of his victims.  he had the opportunity to specifically ask Jacks... and refused to ask the questions that should have been asked.

July 23, 2011

Was it four months ago the cancer on our local society began their Jim Jacks cover up?

The little clock widget continues the countdown from the day politic journalism finally died at the democratian.

It was 120 days ago that then State Representative Jim Jacks was unceremoniously ejected in a web of lies, drunkeness and misconduct with female staffers, all while our local rag stood there, paralyzed like it had just been visited by a Tarantula Wasp, stung, and had the egg laid on it's abdomen to be eaten alive later after the egg hatched.
.
Given the last election cycle and Lou Brancaccio's despicable columns crucifying candidates and others smart enough to oppose his twisted world view, it's hard to deny his efforts to protect a fellow leftist, particularly one who had carried the rag's agenda like Gunga Din bringing Slurpees to the troops out in the field.

There's precisely no excuse for this floor-flusher's failure to have gone after Jacks with all the enthusiasm he displayed in going after, say, me... or Peter Van Nortwick... or as he was winding up to punch Brent Boger before others with some decency knocked him into next week.

Let's set the stage.  Then Rep. Jacks (D-49) was a drunk.  He engaged in misconduct with his own legislative assistant and with a female staffer from OPR.  He was observed by another legislator engaging in that misconduct on St. Patrick's Day this year in Olympia.  As a result, he was gone before the week was out.

June 27, 2011

A quick quiz for Lou Brancaccio. So Lou, what's it mean when an organization like ICC (aka Identity Vancouver) has a speaker like Jim Jacks?

It wasn't that long ago that local media bully sprayed a few hundred gallons of ink my way by attempting to hurt Ann Rivers by beating her over the head with me.

A classic case of attempting to infer guilt by association.  In fact, that punk was so enamored about his one-sided mud-slinging that I rated two consecutive weeks of his babble.  Later, he was loading up to crucify Brent Boger the same way, but stupid enough to tip his hand, and he was beaten senseless as a result.  Naturally, he ran away with his tail between his legs, having FINALLY crossed the line.

That brings us to this situation: the ongoing democratian cover-up of the escapades of a drunk, serial harasser by the name of Jim Jacks.

Jacks was a state representative invited to get his ass out of the House of Representatives most-riki-tik because of his final straw shattered over the back of a camel last St Patrick's Day.

While Jacks has publicly confirmed he has an alcohol problem, he has never publicly disclosed the extent of his misconduct with female staffers in Olympia.

June 26, 2011

A sad anniversary passes: The Columbian continues their cover-up on the Jim Jacks misconduct issues.

When you're a democrat front publication, it's difficult to break the leash from your fellow fringe leftists and it's even harder to treat a bridger/looter Gunga Din water carrier for our local rag the same way they have treated, say, Peter Van Nortwick.

So, here's what we've got: a fringe-leftist who voted almost exactly like neo-communist Jim Moeller; who was a drunk, and who engaged in misconduct with female staffers.

The other thing we've got is a self-neutered newspaper, who, like the people living across the street from Dachau who didn't know it was a concentration camp, doesn't "know" about Jacks' well known and easily verified misconduct... misconduct that led to his resignation and subsequent expulsion from the House... that, because they're too stupid to find a paper trail, can't "prove" anything so they refuse to "speculate" about Jacks' expulsion.

And like those living in Dachau... if they don't know?

It's entirely and only because they don't WANT to know.

Yeah, I know his lies about "resigning."  But he didn't "resign" so much as he left under the threat of exposure.  The rag knows this, of course, but because Jacks was their faithful lackey, well, they couldn't go out there and follow up... and then publish it, could they?

May 23, 2011

Congrats to the democratian for 60 days of burying the Jim Jacks/House democrat story.

It's got to be tough on the lazy D.  When the democrats own you because they gave you a huge tax break while they jacked everybody else's taxes up, you know you're beholden to them, because you also know that switch flips both ways.

In this case, the democratian is repaying the favor by continuing to bury the Jim Jacks misconduct story as they have failed to engage in even 7th grade school newspaper journalism to get the facts in the hopes that everyone will "forget."

Well, I won't forget.  And every so often, I'll remind the reader that the local paper failed in it's duty to dig out the story, letting the supposedly "transparent" democrats completely off the hook and failing to report on then Rep. Jacks' rank misconduct, likely alcohol fuel but never the less, misconduct of a sort they don't want the average reader to know about... because the pattern of misconduct isn't recent... it's long term.

Our local paper has lowered the bar to unheard of levels.  The editor, who has had no trouble at all crusading against ME seems incapable of speaking truth to power and crusading against THEM.

Rest assured, gentle reader, had it been Rep. Hinton, there is no stone the local rag would not have turned over; no colleague or staffer they wouldn't have interviewed, no rumor they wouldn't have run down to the DNA level.

Because that's how they roll.

May 9, 2011

More democratian double standard: Speculation on Jacks misconduct verbotten. Speculation on Randy Leonard's daughter's death? Encouraged.

Was it just 45 days ago that democrat former State Rep. Jim Jacks' alcoholic misconduct caught up with him and his caucus ejected him under the guise of his "resignation?"

Most know the details the rag won't publish or even spend any time investigating.  You know... that would be something akin to "journalism," one of the long, lost "dark arts" the paper knows so little about.

Remember the first effort to cover for Jacks and the fringe-left democrats?  Here's a brief reminder:

April 25, 2011

Lou puts up another nonsensical self-serving poll:

What a total crock.

Did former Vancouver State Rep. Jim Jacks do the right thing by going public on why he suddenly resigned from office? 

Yes. Not only did he have an obligation to do so, most members of the community will rally behind him now. 55%  94 votes 

No. As soon as he left office he was a private citizen and had no obligation to tell the community anything. 35%  61 votes 

No opinion at this time. 8% 15 votes 170 total votes

It's this variety of self-serving crap that makes Brancaccio ooze the way he does.

It's a variety of "heads I win, tails you lose" questions that, once again, completely ignore Brancaccio's complete lack of journalistic integrity and the fact that he's let Jacks skate like Jacks was paying him.

The questions Brancaccio SHOULD have asked?

We all know there's much more to this than Jacks has told us; no one resigns and moves out so fast they leave a vacuum behind.

1.  Was I right to violate any tenet of fairness and integrity to let Jacks off the hook so I can cover for him?
2.  Will This paper EVER have any respect for the unvarnished truth instead of just continuing on as a left wing swindle sheet?
3.  Should I have asked him about specific examples of misconduct instead of letting him control the interview and blow me off like a rookie cub reporter?
4.  Should I resign immediately as well?

April 20, 2011

More confirmation of the democratian double standard.

As we all know, Jim Jacks resigned suddenly for reasons the local rag will not only not print, but will neither speculate about NOR ALLOW OTHERS TO SPECULATE ABOUT.

Comments to that effect were removed from the Jim Jacks democratian puff piece because, by golly, when it comes to Jacks... ve vill not allow speculation! und, und, und!

Unless it's for any other story.

Speculation and unsubstantiated claims ran rampant recently when it came to a local Oregon lottery winner, going so far as to claim she was a heroin addict.

All of this begs the question as we end the 27th day without any news from the democratian... because, of course, they've made no effort to GET the news concerning Jacks misconduct.

March 28, 2011

A recent, illustrated history of democratian hypocrisy: Jim Jacks compared to an auto accident

Most anyone reading my blog is aware of the Jim Jacks debacle, some level of his rampant misconduct in Olympia concerning female staffers and alcohol at a minimum, and the democratian's cooperation with the democrats; who, through tax breaks, own that rag like they use it to mop up oil in a garage and their not even subtle efforts to bury this, covering for both Jacks and democrats.

From the comment section on the lame article the democratian settled for:

Friday, March 25, 2011

The democratian's, reeking, rank hypocrisy on Jacks' "wishes" and "privacy."

As someone who has been the object of a one sided, exaggerated, slanted and biased character assassination by the democratian, I can't help but be amused by the concern expressed by the rag over Jack's departure. For example:

Truth time, democratian: Rep. Jacks forced resignation is due to misconduct.

Former Rep. Jacks resigned due to misconduct that involved staffers and alcohol.

This has been confirmed to me by multiple sources.

Jacks is a democrat, so naturally the local Goebbelian propaganda arm will do anything they can to protect him or any other democrat... after all, didn't they insist on endorsing a democrat for Assessor WHO HAD NEVER VOTED IN THE ENTIRETY OF HER LIFE?

The allegations concerning Jacks range from repeated sexual harassment episodes, to inappropriate physical contact to all hours "drunk calls" to at least one female staffer.

The democratian likely knows this. The information is, in fact, readily available, and the democrat's efforts to keep it covered up, while expected and supported by the rag is hardly the kind of transparency exhibited during the episodes concerning Jim Dunn and Richard Curtis... so the double standard is both obvious... and blatant.

Democrat State Rep. Jim Jacks (D 49) resigning effective immediately.

Due to some issue with a staff member. More as I get it.