Justin Fairfax talks about suing
Fairfax claims he’s been falsely accused, and perhaps he has:
A statement released by the Democrat’s office said, “The Washington Post, acknowledging that it had no corroboration, just smeared an elected official. We reiterate that this allegation is false. At no time has the lieutenant governor assaulted anyone at any time or at any place.”
I have a few questions for Fairfax, questions that I think we can safely say won’t be asked of him by the stalwart members of the MSM. I bet they aren’t questions he’s asking himself, either.
Do you have the same opinion concerning the publication of the many smears published about elected officials or other public figures on the right? What is your opinion, for example, about what happened to Justice Kavanaugh? If you think that’s different, why? Is it because you know you’re innocent, and yet you’re willing to assume he’s guilty—when the allegations against him were older, vaguer as to time and place, uncorroborated, brought up only at a time when he stood to become a member of the Supreme Court and at no other time in his previous judicial life, given an enormous forum in Congress, and disseminated far and wide by your party, the Democrats? Did you ever speak out against that campaign by your party to destroy a man’s life on charges at least as flimsy if not flimsier than those made against you?
And what do you have to say about all of that now?
Forgive me if these words of yours just don’t ring true to me as a fair expression of your actual viewpoint on the subject no matter who the target may be:
“This type of smear is what we meant when we said that politics and the coverage of it needs to rise to a higher level that befits our country and the 400-year history of our Commonwealth,” the statement from Fairfax’s office read. “This is what we meant when we said that people who continue to spread these false allegations will be sued.
If the parties were to change, my guess is that you’d sing a different tune. I don’t sing a different tune, by the way, but then again I’m not a politician. I have the same rules for both parties, and I don’t #BelieveTheWomen unless the case being made is very strong.
Oh, and Justin Fairfax is a lawyer, graduate of Columbia. As such, he no doubt is aware of the law governing defamation of a public figure, where the bar is very high. Fairfax is a public figure. The woman did make an allegation, and the WaPo first tanked it and then reported it when another outlet had published it. It was reported as being an allegation rather than a proven fact.
I don’t see how Fairfax has a case against anyone, unless he happens to have a video of the encounter and can prove that every single thing in it was consensual—and even then, I believe that he’d only have a case against his accuser, not the newspaper who reported the accusation.
[NOTE: I did some research trying to discover if Fairfax had made any previous statement on the Kavanaugh accusations. I couldn’t find one, but if you can, please offer it.]
anytime i hear in a sexual assault allegation that the woman was being forced to perform Fellatio on the man I know that story is bogus. As a man I would never put my manhood into an abyss of shape teeth if i wasn’t 100% sure the lady was a willing participant and someone i could 100% trust.
Fairfax can’t sue successfully, it seems to me. He has claimed the woman kept in touch with him after 2004, but he has no proof of that. As to the incident itself, neither he nor she can prove what happened. He wouldn’t succeed even if he weren’t a public figure now.
I am sick of this lack of nonpartisan supports for this man right for due process from the republicans just because he is on the other team
Due process, Dave? Saying that the woman can’t prove anything seems to cover it. For the record, I don’t think Northam should resign over something that happened thirty-five years ago, and I don’t think Fairfax should resign over an allegation from about fifteen years ago which is uncorroborated.
I think both are immoral because of their support of late-term abortion/infanticide, but that’s another matter.
What possible motive might there be for a young Democrat (Vanessa Tyson, associate professor at Scripps) to fabricate a story after so many years with the intent of damaging a fellow black Democrat?
What possible motive might there be for a young Democrat (Vanessa Tyson, associate professor at Scripps) to fabricate a story after so many years with the intent of damaging a fellow black Democrat?
Fame? Attention? Mental illness? Personal grievance? The list is very long.
There’s plenty of stories of people being falsely accused by people who share their politics. Not everything that intersects politics is caused by political motives. The motive is likely intensely personal.
j e:
I can give you a possible motive: she is convinced her story is true, whether it is or isn’t. After all, at least how I read it, what he did rests on how forcibly he pushed her. Did he shove her there with great force, against her obvious wishes? Did he “guide” her in eagerness, thinking she was equally eager and unaware she was not? Or something in between? Did she have morning-after regret, and her perceptions of the incident ended up changing as a result of that? It’s sometimes quite ambiguous and people can have very different perceptions of the same interaction without either telling a concious lie.
internal power struggles within people supposedly on the same side can be just as fierce if not more so. Most of those who Stalin sent to gulag were his former comrades, have your popcorn ready, watching democrats tearing each others apart in the upcoming election cycle would be greatly entertaining.
I am against late term abortion as a birth control method or as a last minute way for an irresponsible mother wanting to back out of her responsibly of motherhood but I also acknowledge sometimes it is a necessary evil sort of last resort either for the health of the mother or a merciful end of suffering for the handicapped child. I do not support the hard line evangelical black or white with no gray view on abortion.
seem to me both sides are on the wrong on this issue. the right are using the irresponsibility of someone seeking late term abortion as birth control to deny the rights of someone who truly needs it and the left are using the sympathetic stories in which late term abortion was truly necessary to justify granting everyone the same right to late term abortion regardless of reasons.
Dave,
I view abortion as a homicidal act. One has the right to commit homocide if threatened with deadly force or realistic fear of severe physical harm. In those rare exceptions where the life of the women is in in danger, I can accept it in early pregnancy, although it does remain a homocide. Note, I am not a ‘religous’ person, I am an agnostic who claims no insight into such matters, but it is obvious to me human life begins at conception. Every living member of the fauna and flora starts at conception. From my pov it is a “duh” moment.
Health of the mother is the “infanticide get out of jail free” card. One can hope the Gov. of VA, will soon be in another line of work.
“If the parties were to change, my guess is that you’d sing a different tune.” neo
Of course he’d sing a different tune. He is of the left and conducts himself according to the Dialectic of the Left; “when I am the weaker, I ask for mercy because that is YOUR principle. But when I am the stronger, I show no mercy because that is MY principle”.
“I am sick of this lack of nonpartisan supports for this man right for due process from the republicans just because he is on the other team” Dave
Inherent to the term “team” is conduct consistent with a shared set of ‘rules’, customs, laws, etc. Those on the left are in constant violation of the very rules/customs/laws which they insist that we conduct ourselves by. They pay lip service to the rules but their actions betray that they hold those rules in contempt. That behavior is in fundamental opposition with being a “team” but it is consistent with that of an enemy in a war.
Which begs the question; when will you accept that the Left has declared war upon you? Hopefully, not before its too late and, it’s very late.
Totalitarian systems find dissent to be intolerable, an anathema. If you’re not with us, you’re against us is their default position. Since you’re a ‘deplorable’… indeed an “irredeemable” (beyond salvation) you’ve already been judged to be guilty as charged and thus have no right to due process.
I am uncomfortable with the justification of late term abortion as a “merciful end of suffering for the severely handicapped child” (Dave at 5:20 pm). We have friends whose first child was born with severe mental and physical disabilities. I don’t know if abortion was an option here in Michigan in those days or if the state of technology would have allowed them to know about her disabilities prior to her birth. At any rate when she was born the doctors gave her a few months to a couple of years to live. She is 43 years old now and in spite of her disabilities is an incredibly happy individual, surrounded by siblings, family and friends who love her. She is a joy to be around.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump
I do understand that the story was published by the guardian, a publication that couldn’t be more left in the political spectrum, and every article they have published was socialist propaganda written with the goal to push the leftist agendas. Every word was carefully chosen, every sentence was carefully arranged, and every angle and meaning of any story was distorted, spinned, twisted, manipulated to maneuver the reader into faithfully believing how the left want their readers to believe.
However, setting agendas aside, and giving them the benefit of doubt that the facts presented were generally true, if you were facing the same dilemma as these women were, how would u choose? I understand these may not be the norms, and most late term abortion requests were not for reasons with the same weight and urgency but darn it does make you question
Dave on February 6, 2019 at 12:40 am at 12:40 am said:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump
* * *
Those were wrenching stories, and (as you said) they were deliberately selected to be case studies of the situations that very few people, if any, are seriously trying to ban.
However, it seems to me that only the third case presents anything that was a danger to the health or life of someone (and then it was the twin in danger, not the mother). The second was borderline, depending on if the cancer could have endangered the mother somehow (I don’t know enough to speculate). The first was a case in which many mothers could have chosen, and often did choose, to deliver the child and accept whatever time they might have together.
“if you were facing the same dilemma as these women were, how would u choose?”
I only know about the women friends I have who chose to bear children with severe disabilities, and had no questions about making the choice: 1) a boy with severe autism (he is now about 36 years old), and despite the doctors’ warnings, the mother elected to have 2 more (perfectly healthy) kids; 2) spent 9 months with complete bed-rest and delivered a healthy boy, then DID IT AGAIN for the next (also fine) baby; 3) hypocephalic boy, who was a couple of years old when we moved away; 4) a darling, sweet girl who had dysfunctional legs, her brothers took her around the neighborhood in a little red wagon.
And that is all within one small congregation of about 150 families.
We got a long way off topic, so here is something to get back in line, from the earlier post’s comments:
Barry Meislin on February 5, 2019 at 4:41 am at 4:41 am said:
This is no laughing matter!(?):
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-suddenly-concerned-about-due-process
H/T Instapundit.
The correct question no one seems to be asking is why did Washington post chose to bury the story, if they had never conducted a through investigation to determine the story was unsubstantiated and unreliable? On what basis did they choose not to publish it, since their motto is truth dies in darkness and it was their common practice to just throw everything they got at the readers regardless of how uncorroborated and far fetched those stories were and let them decide if those stories were true, that has always been the way they treat allegations against conservatives and any leaks they obtained regarding trump and his admin.
Kavanaugh was falsely, and laughably, accused — with no date nor time nor any corroboration. No sex, no actual contact.
Fairfax had sex with the woman. She says she was “forced”, he says it was consensual.
The rules should be more along the lines of innocent until proven guilty, fairly difficult. But now the #MeToo movement is changing the rules to be: guilty upon accusation unless proven innocent. And the Dem media, and Dem colleges, are strongly promoting this non-legal rule for punishing men outside of legal courts — in the court of Public Opinion.
Because Dems are happy with “guilty unless proven innocent” when it punishes Reps, or men, or white people, I now recognize that Dem influenced social norms will only change when more Dems suffer punishment from these rules. Rules I don’t like, and want to see changed.
The “guilty upon accusation” rule is bad, and should be changed. It will change faster if more Dems, who can’t be proven guilty, get punished because they can’t prove themselves innocent.
As somebody who has changed from supporting to opposing “responsible promiscuity”, I advocate that men now avoid casual sex.
I hope Fairfax gets a bad reputation, gets pushed out of office, and no women vote for him in any future election. No criminal indictment, tho.
@Dave, ” Most of those who Stalin sent to gulag were his former comrades, ”
Pu-leze. The vast wide majority of those sent to the gulag under Stalin’s regime never met Stalin, and huge numbers were believers and anti-communists. If you meant “personally sent by Stalin”, then of course it would be the former comrades and others who were working with him. Sort of like “only a very high commie, like Brezhnev, could kill KGB chief Beria”.
Oh, boy. If Northam resigns, Fairfax becomes governor, with this in the news. Democrats would have to spend the next three years explaining how we have to believe the accuser if the accused is a conservative, but not believe her if the accused is a liberal Democrat (and black). [Fairfax’s accuser, who has no proof, is also black.]
So who’s next in line? Attorney General Mark Herring. Herring called for Northam’s resignation over the blackface/KKK photo. Now it appears that Herring himself is in a blackface photo from 1980, when he was in college.
Next in line? The Speaker of the House, who is a Republican.
These guys won’t resign, and the Democrats are stuck with reports and campaign ads they won’t like.
She told a couple of colleagues about this alleged assault, but only in the fall of 2018, fourteen years after the event. Not evidence.
Tom:
sorry, it was a bad reference, more like many of those who were persecuted or branded as class enemies and eventually bought down by the red guards during the first wave of cultural revolution were Mao’s former comrades, in fact the first who was bought down by Mao even before the actual cultural revolution began was Peng Dehuai who was the commander in chief of the army of china during the Korean war, whom Mao blamed for the death of his son.