This article from Fox News and footage from Libs of TikTok shows what perverted adults are doing to underage children in the public schools. This was a school sanctioned event. This is what the public schools are doing to underage children.
This news article is from Fox News. The footage is from Libs of TikTok.
As a libertarian, I support letting consenting adults do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.
But that’s not the case here.
This happened at a public high school in North Carolina.
The public high school is called Forsyth Technical Community College.
Paula Dibley is the school’s chief officer of student success and strategic innovation.
Underage minors were at this incident.
This was a school sanctioned event.
As this incident happens, the adults in the room cheer.
None of the adults does anything to try to protect the underage student.
I recommend homeschooling your children, or sending them to a Montessori School, a Marva Collins school, a Catholic school, or a Jewish school.
Because this is what’s being done to underage minors at school sanctioned events in the public schools.
All footage here is posted under fair use for the purpose of reporting and informing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsLdzyg2BM
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1641438499143565316
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nc-public-school-says-looking-161425523.html
By Jessica Chasmar
March 29, 2023
A North Carolina public school says it’s exploring ways to “revise campus policies” after children as young as 14 were invited to a drag queen show on campus.
Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem was thrust into the national spotlight Tuesday after a video published by Libs of TiktTok showed a drag queen straddling a young girl during an LGBTQ Pride Festival at the school.
The school confirmed in an earlier statement that students of all ages were allowed to attend, and photos posted by the school’s official Instagram account showed drag queens posing with young girls.
Promotional materials for the event, which was held at a restaurant on campus, featured photos of four drag queens and advertised a “drag performance” and “free food, drinks, music & activities.”
Paula Dibley, the school’s chief officer of student success and strategic innovation, confirmed to Fox News Digital that the girl being straddled in the video is a student, and that “parents of children under 18 were not notified of this event in advance.”
“Pride Fest is produced by the Pride Club, which is a student-led organization,” she said. “All events on campus are entirely voluntary.”
Dibley said the situation has prompted the school to review its policies for future events.
“We have been in close contact with our early college school leadership and are talking with both leaders and parents about how we can revise campus policies and procedures regarding early and middle college students’ attendance at campus events,” she said.
A program of the Forsyth County Health Department, Prevent Ongoing Spread of STIs Everywhere (POSSE), which set up a free HIV and STI testing station at the event and repeatedly promoted its participation on its Facebook page, has since backtracked on its support for the event.
“So excited to be apart (sic) of Forsyth Tech’s PRIDE Fest!” POSSE wrote last week.
Forsyth Public Health Director Joshua Swift issued a statement to Fox News Digital Tuesday evening saying POSSE had spent $58 in taxpayer funds for supplies for the event, but he disavowed “the actions that allegedly took place.”
“P.O.S.S.E, which stands for Prevent Ongoing Spread of STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) Everywhere is an outreach section of Forsyth County’s Department of Public Health,” Swift said. “Our staff is committed to meeting the people we serve where they are. We believe we assign an appropriate amount of attention on the LGBTQIA community around education and prevention of sexually transmitted infections.”
“Our staff was aware that there would be drag performances but was not involved with planning the event and had no information regarding the age of the attendees,” he continued. “We spent $58 on supplies from the department’s operational budget which is funded locally and in-part by the State of North Carolina. We do not condone the actions that allegedly took place during the event.”
Dibley told Fox News Digital that Forsyth Tech did not use any public funds for the event. She did not respond to a follow-up question asking where the funds came from and how much was spent on the event.
An individual claiming to have direct knowledge of the situation told Fox News Digital that all students, including the high schoolers, were notified via email that there was free pizza at the on-campus restaurant, and that it made no mention of drag queen performances. The individual said some of the kids were “tipping” the performers with cash during the event.
Forsyth Technical did not respond to Fox News Digital’s inquiry asking the school to verify the individual’s claims.
Rapist bailed out by Minnesota Freedom Fund after being charged in new cases now wanted on felony warrant [Kamala Harris encouraged people to donate to this bail fund]
Kamala Harris tweeted support for a bail fund that bailed out murderers, rapists, kidnappers, shooters, and looters.
This is from the Washington Post:
Kamala Harris tweeted support for a bail fund, but the money didn’t just assist protesters
September 3, 2020
One defendant, Jaleel Stallings, was charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting at police during protests on May 30, county records show. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail, according to MFF interim director Greg Lewin.
MFF also paid $750 toward a bond for Chylen Evans, who was charged with looting a liquor store, clothing store and mobile store.
On Aug. 10, Minneapolis television station KMSP aired a report documenting how, after receiving the torrent of donations, MFF had bailed out a number of people charged with violent crimes, including posting $100,000 for a woman accused of killing a friend and $350,000 for a twice-convicted rapist charged with kidnapping, assault and sexual assault in two separate cases.
After Lyden’s report aired, Lionel Timms, a man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July, was charged with committing third-degree assault on Aug. 14, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull.
Now we have this newest violent scumbag who got bailed out by the same bail fund:
Rapist bailed out by Minnesota Freedom Fund after being charged in new cases now wanted on felony warrant
March 1, 2020
A twice-convicted rapist who was bailed out of jail by the Minnesota Freedom Fund last summer after being charged in two new cases involving sexual assault, kidnapping and assault is now wanted on a felony warrant for failing to comply with conditions of his release, according to court records.
Alpha News reported last March that level 3 sex offender Christopher Don Boswell was facing 10 felony charges in two new cases, both of which included kidnapping and third-degree assault. Other charges in the cases included second-degree criminal sexual conduct, second-degree assault and threats of violence.
Boswell, now 38, had been previously convicted in two separate sexual assault cases, one with an unknown female teen and another with a known adult female. Boswell used force, threats and weapons to gain compliance from his victims in those cases, according to information from the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Following charges last year in the two new cases, Boswell remained in custody for several months on high bail amounts until the Minnesota Freedom Fund paid $350,000 to bail him out, according to a Fox 9 report last August.
Recent court records indicate that a felony warrant was issued for Boswell’s arrest on Feb. 11 in one of the cases following a conditional release violation report and an order revoking Boswell’s interim conditions of release. At the time of this publication, Boswell remains at large on the warrant in that case in which he is charged with two counts of kidnapping, two counts of threats of violence and second and third-degree assault.
Records indicate the other case against Boswell involving four charges that included sexual assault and kidnapping was dismissed in October.
Minnesota Freedom Fund
The Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) gained notoriety during last spring’s fiery riots in Minneapolis after raising over $30 million. The organization solicited the donations during the riots on the premise that the money would be used to bail out protesters arrested during the demonstrations that followed the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last May.
The bail fund gained steam after it was promoted by then-senator Kamala Harris and several members of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign staff, as well as celebrities including Don Cheadle, Seth Rogan, Chrissy Teigen, Steve Carell, Cynthia Nixon and others.
Since that time, however, it’s been reported that only a miniscule amount of the funds raised by MFF have been used to bail out protesters. Instead, the organization has used the funds to bail out several Minnesota offenders charged with violent crimes. In addition to Boswell, the fund has reportedly bailed out suspects charged with murder, attempted murder, assault and child rape.
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman went so far as to make a public statement about MFF last month after it twice bailed out 29-year-old Thomas Moseley, a suspect Freeman described as raising “significant concerns for public safety.” Moseley was charged in October with bringing a gun into the Hennepin County Courthouse during a protest. Officers then executed a search warrant on Moseley’s vehicle where they found a cache of weapons, ammunition, tactical gear and narcotics. MFF paid $5,000 for Moseley’s unconditional release following the weapons charge.
Moseley was again arrested and charged with second-degree riot following a New Year’s Eve melee in downtown Minneapolis that involved vandalism and property damage. MFF again paid $60,000 for Moseley’s unconditional release following that charge.
Earlier this month, Rep. Paul Novotny, R-Elk River, introduced a bill designed to regulate “charitable bail organizations” like Minnesota Freedom Fund. Language in HF583 would limit charitable bail organizations from depositing cash bail for felony offenses and would also prohibit them from providing cash bail in excess of $2,000, among other provisions.
Novotny also introduced HF128 which would make information about persons or entities posting bail for defendants a matter of accessible public record.
Novotny told an Alpha News reporter in a phone conversation earlier this month that he doesn’t expect the bills to get a hearing in the Democrat-controlled public safety committee. However, language in the bills could make it into a public safety omnibus bill, Novotny said.
Biden cancels deportation of convicted sex offenders
https://www.wjtv.com/news/state/ag-fitch-urges-biden-to-reverse-cancellation-of-operation-talon/
AG Fitch urges Biden to reverse cancellation of Operation Talon
February 19, 2021
JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) – Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch joined a coalition of 18 state attorneys general asking President Joe Biden and other federal leaders to reverse the Biden Administration’s cancellation of Operation Talon. It was a nationwide ICE operation that focused on removing convicted sex offenders illegally in the United States.
“Human trafficking and rape at the border are only part of the intensifying nationwide crisis of human trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, and forced prostitution of minors,” said Fitch. “By cancelling Operation Talon, the White House is encouraging sexual predators to seek illegal entry into the United States and ensuring these predators will exploit more victims in the process. I signed on to this letter to send a strong message. Sexual predators are not welcome in Mississippi, and they are not welcome in United States of America.”
The letter from the attorneys general argues that canceling Operation Talon could embolden sexual predators who seek to enter the United States illegally and exacerbate issues of sexual assault and trafficking in the immigrant community.
In addition to Mississippi, state attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia also signed on to the letter.
Secret Service inadvertently confirms Gateway Pundit story about Biden sexually assaulting agent’s girlfriend
Secret Service Inadvertently Confirms Gateway Pundit Story About Biden Sexually Assaulting Agent’s Girlfriend
By Cassandra Fairbanks
September 3, 2020
In 2017, the Gateway Pundit exclusively reported that a Secret Service agent was suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him.
The situation got so heated, a source who was a Secret Service agent at the time told TGP, that others had to step in to prevent the agent from hitting the then-Vice President.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the agent asserted that, “we had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.” The annual party was for agents and Navy personnel who were tasked with protecting the Biden family.
The Secret Service has now inadvertently confirmed our report to Judicial Watch, who has filed a lawsuit after the Secret Service failed to respond to a July 14, 2020 administrative appeal challenging its claim that all files related to the 2009 altercation, “ha[d] been destroyed,” due to “retention standards.”
Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, made on May 12, 2020, sought:
All records related to a reported incident in 2009 in which a United States Secret Service Agent reportedly was involved in an altercation with, or attempted to strike, then Vice President Joe Biden” during a photo opportunity.
The records sought shall include, but not be limited to, witness statements, the Agent’s statement, victim’s statement, alleged perpetrator’s statement, incident reports, investigative reports, communications among USSS personnel regarding the incident, and disciplinary records related to the incident for the Agent in question.
In a July 13, 2020 response to Judicial Watch’s request, the Secret Service appeared to confirm that a file on the alleged incident existed at some point, asserting, “[T]here are no responsive records or documents pertaining to your request in our files,” because “the above mentioned file(s) has been destroyed” due to “retention standards.” The Secret Service added that, “[n]o additional information is available.” It did not deny the incident had occurred. In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch intends to test the Secret Service’s assertion that it destroyed all records about the incident.
“We had not been able to confirm whether the report about the alleged altercation might be true until the Secret Service itself suggested it destroyed records about the incident,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Meet the rioting criminals Kamala Harris helped bail out of jail
Meet The Rioting Criminals Kamala Harris Helped Bail Out Of Jail
By David Marcus
August 31, 2020
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have a problem. They know it, the media knows it, everyone knows it.
For three months they have ignored the deadly rioting that spread across the nation’s cities on both coasts and in between. They insisted that what we were seeing was “mostly peaceful” protests and that Donald Trump and his evil allies were defaming decent Americans who just want social justice. Now they want to denounce these riots, but there is a problem: Harris is a financial supporter of the rioters she now claims to denounce.
Yes, that’s right, the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate was a huckster for a bail fund that sought to free violent criminals who were rioting on the streets of Minneapolis, and she was very effective at it. In the wake of deadly fires and looting, Harris asked her five million plus Twitter followers to donate money to bail out the “protesters” arrested in the riots. Let’s meet a few of the beneficiaries of her largesse, shall we?
Fox 9 News in Minneapolis did the research for us. Here are a few of the criminals they found Harris did a solid for.
Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice convicted sex offender, according to court records reviewed by the FOX 9 Investigators.
According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.
Darnika Floyd is charged with second degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.
Christopher Boswell, a twice convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 [sic] in cash for his release.
Kamala Harris and her friends in the corporate media, otherwise known as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, will pretend this never happened and they are counting on voters to be too ignorant to know that it did. Harris was so eager to be on the rioters’ team that she literally raised money for them in the hopes that they could be released and foster further mayhem.
That on its own would be bad enough. But the fact that she is now attempting to pretend she was against all of this violence, and looting, and arson, and destruction from the get go is an insulting joke. Did Harris really think that peaceful protesters obeying the rules were the ones arrested in Minneapolis? Of course she didn’t. She just assumed that justifying the unrest would help Democrats’ political chances. Now that this has been shown to be false, she is trying to change her position. It’s way too late for that.
The American people aren’t stupid, they know exactly where Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party stood on the riots. They stood side by side with the rioters. That they have now cynically come to regret that position is, I suppose, a good thing. But it does not erase the harm done in lives, property, and opportunity that their approval of rioting did. We know whose side they were on, and it wasn’t the police. The American people will not forget that.
Video from Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone: Antifa thugs forcefully imprison a Christian man while a gay Antifa man hugs and kisses him without his permission
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
June 13, 2020
This is the kind of world that social justice warriors and progressives are trying to create.
I’m not sure exactly what specific crimes are being committed here. But it’s on video, and I hope all of these Antfa thugs get arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1271906706746826752
Note from Daniel Alman: If you like this blog post that I wrote, you can buy my books from amazon, and/or donate to me via PayPal, using the links below:
Note from Daniel Alman: I’d like to recommend that you visit Whatfinger News. It’s a really awesome website.
Clip surfaces of Biden accuser Tara Reade’s mother phoning into ‘Larry King Live’ in 1993 alluding to claim
Clip surfaces of Biden accuser Tara Reade’s mother phoning into ‘Larry King Live’ in 1993 alluding to claim
April 25, 2020
A resurfaced clip of “Larry King Live” from 1993 appears to include the mother of Tara Reade — who has accused Joe Biden of past sexual assault while in the Senate — alluding to “problems” her daughter faced while working as a staffer for the then-U.S. senator from Delaware.
In a telephone interview with Fox News on Friday night, Reade confirmed that her mother called in to the show. Biden’s presidential campaign has adamantly denied Reade’s allegations but the video could be cited as evidence supporting Reade’s allegation – even though her late mother, in the clip, does not specifically refer to a sexual assault claim.
The Intercept on Friday first reported the transcript of a broadcast from Aug. 11, 1993, of a woman from San Luis Obispo County, Calif., calling in to the show about her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill.
“San Luis Obispo, California, hello,” King begins.
“Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him,” the caller says.
“In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?” King inquires.
“That’s true,” the woman responds before King cuts away to a panel to discuss her claim.
That woman was Jeanette Altimus, Reade’s mother, Reade told news outlets, including Fox News.
Later Friday, the Media Research Center found the clip in its archives matching the information provided by The Intercept.
Reade took to Twitter to confirm that it was her mother who called in to “Larry King Live.”
“This is my mom. I miss her so much and her brave support of me,” Reade tweeted about her mother, who died in 2016.
Reade’s story first resurfaced in an article in The Intercept on March 24. Podcast host Katie Halper then interviewed Reade, who said that in 1993, a more senior member of Biden’s staff asked her to bring the then-senator his gym bag near the U.S. Capitol building, which led to the encounter in question.
“He greeted me, he remembered my name, and then we were alone. It was the strangest thing,” Reade told Halper. “There was no like, exchange really. He just had me up against the wall.”
Reade said that she was wearing “a business skirt,” but “wasn’t wearing stockings — it was a hot day.”
She continued: “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and he went down my skirt and then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers and he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying some things to me.”
Reade claimed Biden first asked if she wanted “to go somewhere else.”
“I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing,” Reade said. “He said: ‘Come on, man. I heard you liked me.’”
Reade said she tried to share her story last year, but nobody listened to her. Earlier this month, she filed a criminal complaint against Biden with police in Washington, D.C.
Fox News reached out to the Biden campaign on Friday for comment. The campaign referred Fox News to a statement earlier this month from Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield that said: “What is clear about this claim: it is untrue. This absolutely did not happen.”
“Vice President Biden has dedicated his public life to changing the culture and the laws around violence against women,” Bedingfield said. “He authored and fought for the passage and reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. He firmly believes that women have a right to be heard – and heard respectfully. Such claims should also be diligently reviewed by an independent press.
Speaking to Fox News on Friday, Reade recalled being “furious” at her mother for phoning in to CNN after having watched the clip on a recorded tape following the broadcast.
She told Fox News she “dreamt” about her mother on Thursday night. The following morning, The Intercept’s Ryan Grim told her that he found the transcript.
Reade said she “cried” when she watched the clip on Friday evening, telling Fox News it had been years since she had heard mother’s voice. She had urged Reade to file a police report at the time of the alleged assault, Reade said.
“Always listen to your mom, always listen to your mom,” an emotional Reade told Fox News.
Still, the mother’s interview doesn’t specifically corroborate Reade’s latest allegations of assault, and could be referring more to the bullying allegations she raised last year. In a 2020 interview, Reade laid more blame with Biden’s staffers for “bullying her” than with Biden himself, The Washington Post reported.
Reade has come forward before: Last year, when multiple women emerged claiming inappropriate touching by Biden.
Reade, at the time, claimed Biden put his hands on her shoulders and rubbed his fingers up and down her neck, but was unable to gain traction on her story aside from an article in a local newspaper.
But in recent weeks, Reade told a far more graphic account, with different and more serious details, raising the allegation to the level of sexual assault.
“Now we’ll see if a different set of rules still applies to Joe Biden,” Erin Perrine, the principal deputy communications for President Trump’s re-election campaign, said in a statement to Fox News. “Maybe now at least one reporter will ask him about it.”
Fox News has also requested comment from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who ran against Biden in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and recently endorsed Biden’s campaign after wthdrawing from the race.
Associated Press: Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-senate-staffer-accuses-joe-022955519.html
Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault
By Alexandra Jaffe
Associated Press
April 12, 2020
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former aide to Joe Biden is accusing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of sexually assaulting her during the early 1990s when he was a senator. Biden’s campaign denies the charges.
In two recent interviews with The Associated Press, Tara Reade alleged the assault occurred in the basement of a Capitol Hill office building in the spring of 1993. She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault by an unnamed person in 1993, a copy of which was obtained by the AP.
It’s not the first time Reade has made an accusation against the former vice president. Last year, Reade publicly accused Biden of inappropriate touching, but did not allege sexual assault.
In a statement, Biden deputy campaign manager and communications director Kate Bedingfield said the former vice president has “dedicated his public life to changing the culture and the laws around violence against women,” pointing to his work passing the Violence Against Women Act. She said “he firmly believes that women have a right to be heard — and heard respectfully,” but added: “Such claims should also be diligently reviewed by an independent press.”
“What is clear about this claim: it is untrue. This absolutely did not happen,” Bedingfield said.
Reade’s charge comes at a pivotal time for Biden. The former vice president is seeking to unify the Democratic Party behind his campaign as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee after Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the primary last week. Women are a crucial voting bloc for Democrats and any erosion of support for Biden could sink his candidacy in the fall.
The November contest between Biden and President Donald Trump will be the first presidential race of the #MeToo era, a movement that spurred numerous women to come forward with allegations of sexual assault, including against several prominent men in politics, entertainment and other industries. Trump has also been accused of assault and unwanted touching by numerous women, charges he denies. He was forced to apologize during the 2016 campaign after he was heard on a recording bragging about using his fame to assault women.
Earlier in the Democratic primary, Biden faced accusations of unwanted touching by several women, who said they were uncomfortable with hugs, hand holding and other actions. Reade was among the women who came forward at the time.
In recent weeks, she’s given a handful of interviews saying Biden’s actions went further than she initially disclosed. In an interview with the AP, she detailed a 1993 encounter that she says occurred when she was asked by a supervisor to bring Biden his gym bag as he was on his way down to the Senate gymnasium. She says Biden pushed her against a wall in the basement of a Capitol Hill office building, groped her and penetrated her with his fingers.
“He was whispering to me and trying to kiss me at the same time, and he was saying, ‘Do you want to go somewhere else?’’’ she said. “I remember wanting to say stop, but I don’t know if I said it out loud or if I just thought it. I was kind of frozen up.”
Reade said that she pulled away and Biden looked “shocked and surprised,” and replied, “Come on, man, I heard you liked me.”
Reade, who was a staff assistant in Biden’s office at the time, said she wasn’t aware of any direct witnesses to the encounter. She told the AP she did raise accusations of sexual harassment, but not assault, against Biden in multiple meetings with her supervisors, including Marianne Baker, Biden’s executive assistant; Dennis Toner, Biden’s deputy chief of staff; and Ted Kaufman, the senator’s chief of staff.
In a statement provided by the campaign, Baker said that in the nearly two decades she worked for Biden, “I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone.”
The AP spoke to five current or former Biden staffers on Sunday, all of whom worked for him at the time of the alleged incident. None recalled such an incident or a report, and neither Toner nor Kaufman could recall Reade. Both said what she had described was out of character for Biden.
“She did not come to me. I would have remembered her if she had, and I don’t remember her at all,” Kaufman said.
Reade said she filed a written report with a Senate personnel office. But she didn’t receive a copy of it and has been unable to obtain one since because, she says, Biden’s Senate files are currently at the University of Delaware, which has not yet made them public.
The AP has been unable to verify whether a report was made.
Reade says after complaining to supervisors, her job responsibilities were scaled back and she was eventually told by Toner that she was not a good fit for the job and encouraged to find a new one. This contradicts her comments to The New York Times, which reported Reade said Kaufman told her she was not a good fit for the job.
Reade told the AP she spoke to at least four people about Biden’s conduct before she went public with her experience: two friends, her brother and her mother. Her mother passed away, and her brother did not respond to a request for comment.
One friend, who knew Reade in 1993, said in an interview Sunday that Reade told them about the alleged assault when it happened. The person, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, didn’t mention the assault allegation during an initial interview with the AP last year, but confirmed those details after Reade went forward with them. The person said they had initially advised Reade against sharing details of the assault because of the negative response to her less serious accusations of harassment.
The second friend met Reade more than a decade after the alleged incident and confirmed that Reade had a conversation with them in 2007 or 2008 about experiencing sexual harassment from Biden while working in his Senate office. But the friend, who requested anonymity to protect the privacy of their family, made no mention of assault.
In the course of reporting on Reade’s allegations, the AP also contacted 21 former Biden staffers from the time and spoke to several of them. While some remembered Reade, none recalled any instances of inappropriate touching or behavior on Biden’s behalf, or any complaints made by Reade.
Melissa Lefko, who worked as a staff assistant for Biden at the same time as Reade, said Biden had very little interaction with staff at their level, and that Reade’s recollection of Biden’s conduct didn’t match her own.
“When you work on the Hill, you know who the good guys are who the bad guys are and who you should avoid and Biden was a good guy, he was never, ever on that list of the bad guys,” she said in an interview.
Biden’s conduct towards women first came under scrutiny just before he announced his presidential campaign last spring. Eight women, including Reade, came forward with allegations that the former vice president made them feel uncomfortable with inappropriate physical displays of affection.
Biden acknowledged the complaints and promised to “be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future.”
The AP spoke with Reade about those complaints in April 2019. During that interview, Reade alleged that Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck, played with her hair, and that she was asked by another aide in Biden’s Senate office to dress more conservatively and told “don’t be so sexy.” The AP declined to publish details of the interview at the time because reporters were unable to corroborate her allegations, and aspects of her story contradicted other reporting.
In recent months, Reade came forward with the additional allegation of assault, speaking first to progressive podcast host Katie Halper, before The New York Times published an extensive review of her claims Sunday.
Reade’s story of sexual harassment had circulated for weeks in both conservative and progressive media outlets. While Reade said she supported Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary, she said that her decision to come forward with new details was not politically motivated.
In her Sunday interview with the AP, Reade said that she was reluctant to share details of the assault during her initial conversations with reporters over a year ago because she was scared of backlash, and was still coming to terms with what happened to her.
“Already I was being threatened and kind of smeared, and I just I wasn’t ready,” she said. “So I talked about the sexual harassment and what I was comfortable talking about, but I wasn’t ready to talk about sexual assault.”
Associated Press writers Steve Braun in Washington and Don Thompson in Nevada City, Calif., contributed to this report.
Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/
Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing
September 25, 2018
Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.
Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.
Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.
While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.
In Ms. Blasey Ford’s case she has received threats since she went public with her story, and her team has insisted the committee guarantee her safety as she testifies, as well as limited access to the hearing.
Ms. Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault at a party when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. He has vehemently denied the accusation, and as yet no contemporaneous witness has come forward to verify her allegations.
She has agreed to testify but has laid out a number of parameters and is objecting to some of Republicans’ plans.
One major sticking point is the GOP’s plans to use a female lawyer hired specifically for this hearing to ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators. That lawyer will question both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, according to one email from Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Debra Katz, another of Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, said in a Tuesday morning message they still haven’t been told who that outside lawyer will be.
“Please let us know if you have similarly withheld the name of this person from Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel. If you have not, which we assume to be the case, can you please explain the disparate treatment?” she wrote. “Please also advise whether Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel have been given an opportunity to meet with this individual. We would similarly like the opportunity to meet with her at her soonest availability.”
She said in the email that Mr. Davis was refusing to talk by phone, so Ms. Blasey Ford’s team was asking for an in-person meeting.
A spokesman for Mr. Grassley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/
10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.
By Adam Mill
September 25, 2018
I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.
My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.
Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.
I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.
When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.
Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.
1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.
Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.
For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.
The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.
The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.
5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.
Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.
6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.
In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.
7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.
It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.
8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.
In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.
9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.
10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.
It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.
These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.
Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.
Alan Dershowitz: Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings
Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings
By Alan M. Dershowitz
September 22, 2018
It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.
Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.
Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.
Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.
Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.
Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”
But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.
What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.
Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.
Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.
If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.
Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/rhode-island-kavanaugh-made-a-mistake/
Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’
September 26, 2018
A Rhode Island man who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his friend apologized on Wednesday and said he “made a mistake.”
The man called Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s office and claimed that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh, drunkenly sexually assaulted one of his friends, according to interview transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A committee investigator asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview on Tuesday, which he denied.
The man’s name was redacted in the transcripts released to the public but the investigator quoted verbatim several outlandish anti-Trump tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.”
“Dear Pentagon, please save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House,” Catalan wrote in one tweet. “Our [sic] you waiting until Russians parachute in like in Red Dawn? Please help!”
After Catalan started getting attention on Twitter, he publicly stated that he had recanted the accusation.
“Do [sic] everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” he wrote.
The committee is set to hear testimony on Thursday in a separate and unrelated accusation against Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school, will both testify before the committee. Kavanaugh has adamantly denied Ford’s accusation.
Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford
Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford
September 26, 2018
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.
The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee’s investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.
Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.
Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.
The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint,” the release states.
The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it’s unknown whether the men’s claims are being taken seriously.
One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.
Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. “He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter” to staff, the release states.
Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.
The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to “make sure no stone was left unturned.”
In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.
The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.
NBC almost broke Weinstein bombshell — but turned it down
http://nypost.com/2017/10/10/nbc-almost-broke-weinstein-bomshell-but-turned-it-down/
NBC almost broke Weinstein bombshell — but turned it down
October 10, 2017
Ronan Farrow’s bombshell investigation into Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was reportedly rejected by NBC over sourcing concerns before he took it to The New Yorker magazine.
Farrow had been working on the investigative piece for the peacock network — where he serves as a contributor, according to the Huffington Post.
Farrow and NBC even had incriminating audio in August where Weinstein admitting to groping a woman, the website said.
Farrow, who has a non-exclusive contract with NBC, asked to bring the story to a print outlet and agreed to return to the network and discuss it’s outcome, a source told The Post.
The New Yorker story included audio from an NYPD investigation while Actress Mira Sorvino and filmmaker Asia Argento were both on the record with their allegations against Weinstein.
An NBC source told The Post that Farrow did not have any accusers on the record while working on the story with them.
‘Harvey Weinstein’s media enablers’? The New York Times is one of them
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/
‘Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers’? The New York Times Is One of Them
The paper had a story on mogul’s sexual misconduct back in 2004 — but gutted it under pressure
By Sharon Waxman
October 8, 2017
A whole lot of fur has been flying since last Thursday, when The New York Times published a game-changing investigative story about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct that in lightning speed brought the mogul to his knees.
He apologized and took an immediate leave of absence from the company he co-founded, but that wasn’t enough. His board members and legal advisers have been resigning en masse. And as new, ugly details emerge of three decades of settlements for sex-related offenses, he’s quickly becoming a national pariah.
I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road.
But I simply gagged when I read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the “media enablers” who kept this story from the public for decades.
“Until now,” he puffed, “no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.”
That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times.
In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.
(more…)
Harvey Weinstein’s media enablers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/business/media/harvey-weinsteins-media-enablers.html
Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers
October 6, 2017
Now that The New York Times has put together a stomach-turning chronicle of alleged sexual harassment by the movie mogul Harvey Weinstein — complete with brave, on-the-record statements from, among others, the actress Ashley Judd — we’re hearing a lot about how the story of his misconduct was “the worst-kept secret” in Hollywood and New York.
But until now, no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.
For decades, stars of Oscar-winning movies produced by Mr. Weinstein appeared on the covers of glossy magazines, chitchatted with late-night hosts and provided fodder for gossip columns and broadsheet features while the uncouth executive partly responsible for their success maintained his special status in Beverly Hills and TriBeCa.
Somehow the whispers concerning his alleged hotel-room and workplace abuses never threatened his next big deal, industry award or accolades, which included an honorary Commander of the British Empire appointment.
The real story didn’t surface until now because too many people in the intertwined news and entertainment industries had too much to gain from Mr. Weinstein for too long. Across a run of more than 30 years, he had the power to mint stars, to launch careers, to feed the ever-famished content beast. And he did so with quality films that won statuettes and made a whole lot of money for a whole lot of people.
(more…)
Harvey Weinstein contract with TWC allowed for sexual harassment
Harvey Weinstein Contract with TWC Allowed for Sexual Harassment
October 12, 2017
Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein’s 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other “misconduct” that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company’s out, along with a fine, and he’s in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein “treated someone improperly in violation of the company’s Code of Conduct,” he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, “You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance.”
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a “cure” for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation — Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein — if he’s indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn’t apply here.
There’s another provision … he can be fired for “the perpetuation by you [Weinstein] of a material fraud against the company.” The question … where’s the fraud? Lance Maerov, the board member who negotiated Weinstein’s 2015 contract, said in an interview — and we’ve confirmed — the Board knew Weinstein had settled prior lawsuits brought by various women, but they “assumed” it was to cover up consensual affairs. The Board’s assumption does not constitute fraud on Weinstein’s part.
And here’s the kicker. Even if Weinstein had committed fraud by not fully informing the Board of Directors, the contract says before he can be fired he has a right to mediation and if that doesn’t work, he’s entitled to arbitration. He got neither. He was summarily fired, and sources connected with Weinstein tell TMZ he was never given a specific reason.
A source connected with TWC tells TMZ, the company had a right to fire Weinstein if he didn’t notify the Board of Directors of settlements. We’re told there have been no settlements since the contract was signed, so it would seem this clause does not apply.
Australian judge gives zero jail time to 17-year-old Muslim who sexually assaulted eight females
Teen who groped Surfers Paradise swimmers avoids jail
April 25, 2017
A teenager who groped eight women as they swam at one of Queensland’s busiest beaches has been placed on two years’ probation by a Gold Coast judge.
The Afghan-born 17-year-old, who cannot be identified because he committed the offences as a juvenile, spent two hours grabbing women, aged between 15 and 24 years, as he swam between the flags at Surfers Paradise Beach on January 16 last year.
The offending stopped when three of the victims approached the lifeguard on duty and he then notified police.
The teenager was initially charged as an adult because he had no birth records from Afghanistan.
He was sentenced today as a juvenile in the District Court at Southport after pleading guilty to nine charges of sexual assault and three charges of common assault.
Two of the victims, who were aged 15 years at the time of the offending, were present in court.
Victims approached in ‘predatory manner’
Judge David Kent heard the Victoria-based defendant grabbed his victims on their bottoms, breasts and, in three cases, their vaginas.
Crown prosecutor Nick McGhee said the defendant was seen swimming up to his victims “in quite a predatory manner”.
When questioned by the lifeguard on duty, the defendant allegedly said: “If I just say sorry, can we forget all about it?”
During sentencing, Judge Kent accepted the teenager grew up in difficult circumstances in Afghanistan and his father died in 2011.
He went on to say his behaviour, while holidaying on the Gold Coast with his family, was unacceptable.
“You indulged in behaviour which was essentially groping,” he said. “Essentially touching private parts.”
The judge placed the Victorian teenager on two years’ probation and no conviction was recorded.
Video shows the U.S. president groping a woman. But the President is Clinton, not Trump, so the political left is perfectly OK with it.
Here’s a video of the U.S. President groping a woman, when he mistakenly thought the camera was turned off.
If this was President Trump, the political left would, justifiably so, be very upset.
But it’s not President Trump. It’s President Clinton. And to those on the political left, that makes it perfectly acceptable.
Also, note the ABC News logo on the bottom right corner. The video’s description at YouTube refers to the video as “uncovered ABC footage,” which suggests that it was never aired at all, on any local or national news broadcast. If this had been Trump, the national mainstream media would be playing this clip all across the country, day and night, for a very long time. But since it’s Clinton, that kind of media exposure didn’t happen, so almost no one knows about it. Media bias at its finest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loRkVW0fys
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 