Author

ASHE SCHOW

Browsing

After President Donald Trump commuted the sentence of former adviser Roger Stone, Democrats went apoplectic.

On Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she would support a bill that would limit a president’s pardoning abilities. Stone had been sentenced to three years in prison for witness tampering and lying to Congress. He was also arrested in an infamous early morning bust with multiple armed police raiding the 67-year-old’s home as CNN filmed.

After commuting Stone’s sentence, the White House released a statement calling the former adviser “a victim of the Russia Hoax.”

“The collusion delusion spawned endless and farcical investigations, conducted at great taxpayer expense, looking for evidence that did not exist. As it became clear that these witch hunts would never bear fruit, the Special Counsel’s Office resorted to process-based charges leveled at high-profile people in an attempt to manufacture the false impression of criminality lurking below the surface. These charges were the product of recklessness borne of frustration and malice,” the White House statement read.

Pelosi and Democrats, however, want to make sure presidents can’t pardon allies, calling Trump’s actions “an act of staggering corruption.”

“Congress will take action to prevent this type of brazen wrongdoing. Legislation is needed to ensure that no president can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual who is engaged in a cover-up campaign to shield that President from criminal prosecution,” Pelosi said, as reported by The Times-Union.

The outlet noted, however, that such a bill would never become law with a Republican-controlled Senate and White House. “The bill would also likely face legal challenges were it to become law,” the Times-Union reported.

Trump had every right to pardon Stone, even if some don’t like it. Two former prosecutors – Brett L. Tolman and Arthur Rizer – penned an op-ed for Fox News saying Stone was “a relative bit player” sentenced to justify Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation.

“The Stone prosecution is just the latest example of a well-documented phenomena: the way special prosecutors, desperate to justify their commissions, end up charging marginal players with tangential crimes — often related obstruction of the investigation itself,” the two wrote.

Journalist and author Andrew McCarthy, too, defended Trump’s actions and pointed out multiple pardons from Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that Democrats defended.

President Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother for felony distribution of cocaine. And a key witness in the Whitewater scandal for which he and Hillary Clinton were under investigation. And three others convicted in independent counsel Ken Starr’s probe. And Marc Rich, in what was a straight-up political payoff. And his CIA director. And his HUD secretary. And eight people convicted in an investigation of his Agriculture Department,” McCarthy wrote.

“Obama also commuted the sentence of a U.S. soldier who passed top-secret information to WikiLeaks. He pardoned his former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, who’d been convicted of making false statements about a leak of classified information to The New York Times,” McCarthy added.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: After Stone Commutation, Pelosi Planning Bill To Limit Presidential Pardons

Suicide is a major, yet not often discussed, issue in modern society, and on Tuesday, the Trump administration took a step toward reducing high rates by launching a national campaign called REACH.

Fox News reported that digital ads will be appearing on the Internet Wednesday displaying a message that “suicide is preventable,” and that together, we can reduce the rates.

“As we face the tragedy of suicide in our nation, we must reach beyond what we have done before. We must change the way we think about, talk about, and address emotional pain and suffering. Suicide is preventable – but only if we empower ourselves and others with the knowledge, tools and resources we need to reach those who feel hopeless,” the website for the campaign says. “REACH is about preventing suicide. It is for and about everyone because we all have risk and protective factors that we need to recognize and understand.”

The website, which is maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, provides information about the risk factors of suicide and what can be done to prevent it, with a note at the top that includes the phone number to the Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

“Suicide is preventable. If you are struggling, or you are concerned about someone you know, please REACH out and call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (press 1 if you are a Veteran or service member), or chat online at suicidepreventionlifeline.org/chat/.”

Second Lady Karen Pence is leading the effort in the administration to reduce suicides.

“Working together, we can implement this road map and end this national tragedy of suicide,” she said, according to Fox.

“All of us have been facing anxieties and isolation,” Pence said. “It’s OK to not be OK. … The best thing is to talk about it more, not less.”

“No one should be afraid to ask for help,” she added.

The effort is aimed particularly at veterans, who, according to Fox News, commit suicide at “a rate about 1.5 times higher than those who have not served in the military.” The outlet reported that about “20 veterans, guardsmen and reservists die by suicide each day.”

Surgeon General Jerome Adams is helping with the effort and explained that the stigma around mental health issues needs to disappear, saying it is a much bigger threat than cigarettes or even the coronavirus.

“When we feel comfortable seeking help, and unless more people feel comfortable offering help without judgment, we’ll never reach those who need it the most,” Adams said, according to Fox.

In 2018, NBC reported that mental health and suicide is an issue particularly affecting men and boys, who are taught not to share their feelings.

“While teenage girls attempt suicide more often than teenage boys, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, boys are more likely to die by suicide. Suicide rates for teenage boys and girls rose steadily from 2007 to 2015. In 2015, there were 1,537 suicides documented for boys ages 15 to 19 and 524 for girls, according for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” the outlet reported.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Trump Administration Launches Campaign To Reduce Suicides

Democrats are actively hoping for the economy to continue to collapse so that presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden can beat President Donald Trump in November.

In an article titled, “The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading,” Politico reported that multiple Biden campaign officials and Democratic strategists are dismayed at the possibility of an economic boom in the months before the presidential election. The coronavirus pandemic caused much of the country to shut down, which has led to the highest number of people filing for unemployment since the Great Depression.

Democrats – who have led the charge forcing people to lose their jobs and plummet the country’s economy – were hoping the economic downturn would get them back into the White House. But Jason Furman, one of the Obama administration’s top economists, threw cold water on their hopes during a Zoom conference call in early April, Politico reported.

Instead of validating Democrat hopes, Furman said, “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.” As Politico reported, the conference call included officials from both parties, including former cabinet secretaries and Federal Reserve chairs.

“Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman told Politico. He told the outlet he explained on the call how the months before the November election would see an economic boom that would allow Trump to boast about huge employment gains and GDP growth.

Furman, Politico reported, has been sharing this same prediction with others since that April call, including top members of Biden’s campaign.

More from Politico:

Furman’s counterintuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.”

And top policy officials on the Biden campaign are preparing for a fall economic debate that might look very different than the one predicted at the start of the pandemic in March. “They are very much aware of this,” said an informal adviser.

Furman said the economic collapse tied to the coronavirus pandemic was unlike the Great Depression or the Great Recession, after which recovery was slow. Furman predicted this economic downturn was more like what happens after a natural disaster, which is followed by a quick recovery. Furman said data already suggest this to be the case.

Consumption and hiring, he noted, began to increase “in gross terms, not in net terms,” after states and localities began reopening on April 15. Furman said that a “partial rebound” was already underway. This rebound “can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V.”

Trump’s White House economic advisers and the president himself have made the same argument. Kenneth Baer, a Democrat strategist who worked for the Obama administration, told Politico that the economy will still “look historically terrible come November.”

“But relative to the depths of April, it will be on an upswing — 12 percent unemployment, for example, is better than 20, but historically terrible. On Election Day, we Democrats need voters to ask themselves, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ Republicans need voters to ask themselves, ‘Are you better off than you were four months ago?’” he added.

Another Democrat operative worried about recent polling that shows Biden loses to Trump on who can better handle the economy.

“Trump beats Biden on the economy even right now!” the operative told Politico. “This is going to be extremely difficult no matter what. It’s existential that we figure it out. In any of these economic scenarios Democrats are going to have to win the argument that our public health and economy are much worse off because of Donald Trump’s failure of leadership.”

“Even today when we are at over 20 million unemployed Trump gets high marks on the economy, so I can’t imagine what it looks like when things go in the other direction. I don’t think this is a challenge for the Biden campaign. This is the challenge for the Biden campaign. If they can’t figure this out they should all just go home,” the former Obama White House official told the outlet.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Democrats Are Actively Rooting For Economic Collapse

Tara Reade publicly stated on March 25 that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Bide sexually assaulted her in 1993. She said Biden once “pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers,” according to an account in The New York Times

The Times took 19 days to report the allegations, even though the outlet immediately reported allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican.

CNN waited an additional five days to finally publish something about the allegations, meaning the outlet waited a whopping 24 days to cover serious allegations against a prominent politician. In contrast, CNN published nearly 700 articles about the Kavanaugh allegations in the span of 19 days between the time the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public and the Senate confirmed him.

CNN has now published something about Reade’s allegations that Biden sexually assaulted her nearly three decades ago while she worked for his Senate office, but the story written by CNN has less to do with the allegations and more about how other Democrats are “grappling” with them.

“Top Democratic leaders and allies of Joe Biden are being asked to respond to an allegation of sexual assault leveled against the former vice president by Tara Reade, at a moment when many in the Democratic Party are eager to consolidate support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee,” the outlet wrote.

Notice how Biden doesn’t seem to be grappling with the allegations, as no one has asked him about them. His campaign has denied them, but Biden himself has not had to answer for anything.

CNN went on to quote Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who was asked about the accusations against the man she hopes will pick her as vice president.

“Well, I think women should be able to tell their stories. I think that it is important that these allegations are vetted, from the media to beyond. And I think that, you know, it is something that no one takes lightly,” Whitmer told NPR when she was asked about the accusations. “But it is also something that is, you know, personal. And so it’s hard to give you greater insight than that, not knowing more about the situation.”

NPR also asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Biden’s former primary opponent, about the allegations. Klobuchar explained that “all women in these cases have the right to be heard and have their claims thoroughly reviewed.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Biden’s biggest challenger to the nomination, said that “any woman who feels that she was assaulted has every right in the world to stand up and make her claims.”

As Fox News reported, Biden has done 10 TV interviews since Reade made her allegations, including three with CNN. Not once during those interviews was Biden asked about the allegations.

Many of the same anchors who ignored questions about Biden were adamant about accusing Kavanaugh of being a rapist and treating his accuser as a saint. When the Times defended its handling of the Biden allegation, Executive Editor Dean Baquet actually used the fact that outlets ignored Reade’s allegations as a defense for ignoring Reade’s allegations (emphasis added):

Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don’t mean in the public way of Tara Reade’s. If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment.

And none of this even scratches the surface of the hypocrisy surrounding the Left and the #MeToo movement, which claims to believe all women until a favored man like Biden is accused.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: CNN Finally Covers Sexual Assault Allegations Against Biden, Had Nearly 700 Articles On Kavanaugh Accusations

Way back in January, when Democrats only cared about removing President Donald Trump from office, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was sounding the alarm on the coronavirus, which at that time appeared contained to China.

Cotton kept asking questions about whether China was telling the truth about how the coronavirus outbreak originated.

“We don’t know where it originated, and we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” back in mid-February “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”

Cotton went on to acknowledge that the U.S. needs more information about how the disease originated in China.

“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”

The Washington Post and other media outlets “fact checked” Cotton’s statements, except they fact checked something Cotton never said. The Post’s fact check consisted of talking to a chemical biology professor at Rutgers University who said, “There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered.”

Another professor said it was “highly unlikely” the virus infected the general population due to an accident at China’s super lab, but then also said it was wrong to suggest China intentionally released the disease – again, something Cotton didn’t say.

Cotton responded to the “fact checkers” by saying he didn’t say the coronavirus was bioengineered. He then listed four hypotheses – not theories – about how the virus originated and again said China needed to provide more information. The four hypotheses were: 1) The virus came from natural causes, 2) it was accidentally released from the lab, 3) it was bio-engineered and accidentally released, and 4) it was bio-engineered and deliberately released. He said the third and fourth hypotheses were the least likely. He also listed these after so-called fact checkers claimed he suggested China deliberately released a bioweapon into the world.

Now, in early April, Post columnist David Ignatius begrudgingly accepts that maybe Cotton was right to suggest the coronavirus was accidentally released from the lab that studies the coronavirus. Of course, Ignatius couldn’t say Cotton was right, and instead downplayed Cotton’s early talk of an accidental release by claiming “Cotton’s earlier loose talk about bioweapons set off a furor, back when he first raised it in late January and called the outbreak ‘worse than Chernobyl.’”

Ignatius also worked in a dig at President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” and “Wuhan virus,” even though major media outlets – including the Post – were using those terms until the Chinese Communist Party said it was racist to use them.

Ignatius then said “China dished wild, irresponsible allegations of its own,” even though he provided no evidence the U.S. also dished “wild, irresponsible allegations.”

Still, Ignatius finally admitted that “the initial ‘origin story’ — that the virus was spread by people who ate contaminated animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan — is shaky.” He then spoke to the same Rutgers professor from the Post’s earlier fact check who now acknowledged that “the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident.”

More from Ignatius:

Ebright described a December video from the Wuhan CDC that shows staffers “collecting bat coronaviruses with inadequate [personal protective equipment] and unsafe operational practices.” Separately, I reviewed two Chinese articles, from 2017 and 2019, describing the heroics of Wuhan CDC researcher Tian Junhua, who while capturing bats in a cave “forgot to take protective measures” so that “bat urine dripped from the top of his head like raindrops.”

And then there’s the Chinese study that was curiously withdrawn. In February, a site called ResearchGate published a brief article by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao from Guangzhou’s South China University of Technology. “In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan. Safety level may need to be reinforced in high risk biohazardous laboratories,” the article concluded. Botao Xiao told the Wall Street Journal in February that he had withdrawn the paper because it “was not supported by direct proofs.”

Yet the Post refused to accept Cotton may have been right to suggest the virus came from that lab that was just down the street from the epicenter of the virus. Instead it used the opportunity to paint the Arkansas senator as a conspiracy theorist.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Washington Post Now Admits Maybe Tom Cotton Was Right To Suspect Coronavirus Outbreak Originated in Chinese Lab

Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.

Of course, that’s not how the senators worded their letter to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.

Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”

“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”

The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to punish men who rejected them, avoid getting kicked out of school, or for sympathy. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.

In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”

Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”

H/t K.C. Johnson

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

The New York Times editorial board, which claims to be “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values,” appears to have deliberately mislead readers on the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.

Wednesday’s editorial, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Tax Cut,” completely ignores the fact that tax revenue increased after the tax cuts were passed and blames the tax cuts when it should be blaming government spending.

Entrepreneur and best-selling author Carol Roth took the editorial board to task for its claims, writing on Twitter that the opinion article was “Incredibly misleading.”

“With the tax cuts, ‘revenue’ was up 4% – we collected more taxes w the cuts,” she tweeted. “The problem is increased spending- which is a huge problem that I have written on/talked about extensively- but should not be conflated w receipts.”

In a follow-up tweet, Roth explained that “while our population has grown 15% since 2001, Govt spending has grown 137%.”

The Times’ editorial board predictably leaves out any mention of how much revenue was brought in after the tax cuts, something one would expect to see in an article claiming the tax cuts weren’t helpful. Instead, the Times’ claims it was a “risible fantasy” for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to claim that the tax cuts would bolster economic growth, when the Times believes the government lost money by lowering taxes.

This is the Leftist premise on tax cuts on the whole: All your money belongs to the government, so anything you are allowed to keep costs the government. Therefore, tax cuts are bad for the government.

The problem, as always, is that the government continues to spend more than it brings in. Despite Republicans’ constant complaining during the Obama administration, the annual federal budget deficit is now over $1 trillion even though until early 2019, the GOP controlled the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.

The Times goes on to claim the tax cuts “were designed to provide the largest benefits to wealthy households and big companies.” As with any tax cut, the people who pay the most in taxes (the wealthy and large corporations) are going to get the largest cut. The Times then harps on Trump for predicting economic growth would reach 6% a year. That may not have happened, but the U.S. Real GDP growth rate under Trump has consistently been over 2%, approaching 3% at the end of 2017.

The Times simply fails to provide evidence counter to its claims that tax hikes are better than tax cuts. It even bemoans the alleged exacerbation of “economic inequality” created by the tax cuts, which, again, are going to be higher for people who pay more in taxes.

The Times tries to claim the tax cuts were akin to Keynesian stimulus, even though that kind of stimulus actually costs the government money, while tax cuts allow citizens to keep more of their own money.

The Times may want their readers to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy and the country, but real Americans saw more money in their pockets throughout the year, allowing them to spend more and feel more secure about their own budget.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: New York Times Editorial Board Predictably Misleads Readers About Trump Tax Cuts

At least 6.4 million students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities have their First Amendment rights restricted.

A new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “surveyed publicly available policies at 366 four-year public institutions and 105 of the nation’s most prestigious private institutions.” The report, based on the policies of these 471 institutions, found that the vast majority of institutes either heavily restricted or marginally restricted students’ free speech rights.

FIRE uses a three-tier system to indicate how much a college or university respects the First Amendment. A “red light” means the institution has at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts students’ free speech rights in a way that is a clear threat to personal freedom without any need for interpretation. A “yellow light” means students have some free speech rights but may have vaguely worded policies that could restrict those rights, such as a policy banning “verbal abuse,” because of how subjective “abuse” could be. A “green light” is given to institutions that do not “seriously imperil speech.” It doesn’t mean the school is a beacon of free expression, but just that FIRE has not found any policies that present serious threats to free speech.

As is common in FIRE’s annual reports on free speech, only a small percentage of colleges an universities are given a “green light.” 2019’s report was the first time the organization gave a “green light” to more than 50 schools. Below are FIRE’s major findings:

The percentage of schools earning an overall “red light” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight database has gone down for the twelfth year in a row, this year to 24.2%. This is over a four percentage point drop from last year, and is exactly 50 percentage points lower than the percentage of red light institutions in FIRE’s 2009 report.

The percentage of private universities earning a red light rating, which stood at 47.1% last year, continued to decrease, coming in at 44.8% this year.

  • 63.9% of institutions now earn an overall “yellow light” rating. Though less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies restrict expression that is protected under First Amendment standards and invite administrative abuse.
  • This is the first year since FIRE began rating speech codes that the list of “green light” institutions reached a total of 50 schools. (Since this year’s report was written, two more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 52.) Policies earn a green light rating when they do not seriously threaten protected expression. Only eight institutions earned a green light rating in FIRE’s 2009 report.
  • 8.3% of institutions surveyed maintain “free speech zone” policies, which limit student demonstrations and other expressive activities to small and/or out-of-the-way areas on campus. A 2013 FIRE survey of these institutions found roughly double that percentage.
  • Sixty-eight university administrations or faculty bodies have now adopted policy statements in support of free speech modeled after the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago (the “Chicago Statement”), released in January 2015. (Since this year’s report was written, two more institutions have adopted a version of the Chicago Statement, bringing the total to 70.)
  • “Many college administrators are scrubbing the most egregious policies from the books, but they’re increasingly crafting subtler policies that still limit student expression,” FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, the lead author of the study, said in a statement about the report. “Yellow light policies aren’t good enough — they still restrict protected speech. Colleges must go green or go back to the drawing board.”

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: REPORT: More Than Six Million American College Students Denied Free Speech Rights

How bad is the Virginia GOP? So bad they didn’t even put up a candidate to run against a Democrat lawmaker who previously had been jailed for a sex scandal involving a teenage employee.

Joe Morrissey was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates when the scandal broke in 2015. As The Daily Wire previously reported:

Morrissey, now 61, was in his 50’s when he was accused of having sex with his 17-year-old secretary, to whom he is now married. He claimed he did nothing wrong, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2015 while admitting there was enough evidence to convict him. (This often happens to innocent and guilty defendants alike, they plead to a lesser crime to avoid worse consequences in front of a jury for a larger crime.) The girl and her mother also denied anything untoward was happening between the two, though he was initially indicted on charges of possessing and distributing child pornography (he had, according to prosecutors, a nude photograph of the girl and had sent it to a friend) and the electronic solicitation of a minor.

Morrissey spent six months in jail for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” but continued to serve as a state legislator while in prison.

Morrissey had resigned as a legislator but won it back in a special election. He sailed to victory in a primary for state Senate earlier this year, defeating incumbent state Sen. Rosalyn Dance by 14 points.

Now Morrissey has won that state senate seat. Morrissey received nearly 64% of the vote, facing Independent Waylin Ross, who received 36% of the vote. Republicans didn’t even offer a candidate in the race.

Morrissey ran a failed bid for Richmond mayor in 2016. In 2018, his law license was revoked. He has actually been disbarred twice, but he appealed the second disbarment. Morrissey’s law license was suspended in 1993 and in 1999. In 2001, he was disbarred due to frequent “episodes of unethical, contumacious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The court ruled in that cast that Morrissey had a “15-year history of contempt citations, reprimands, fines, suspensions, and even incarcerations arising from unprofessional conduct mostly involving an uncontrollable temper, inappropriate responses to stress and dishonesty.”

Morrissey was reinstated to the bar in December 2011, but was revoked a second time in June 2018. Morrissey appealed and lost in July 2019.

None of this has hurt his political career, judging from his recent win. WJLA reported that Morrissey will represent residents in “parts of Richmond, Chesterfield County, Petersburg, Hopewell, Prince George County, and Dinwiddie County.”

Virginia Republicans were trounced Tuesday night, losing control of the state legislature for the first time in decades. In many races across the state, Republicans didn’t even put up a candidate. That’s despite a state Democratic party grabbling with racism and sexual assault scandals. Gov. Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook photo was revealed earlier this year, showing him either in blackface or wearing a KKK robe at a costume party. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax has been accused by two women of sexual assault, though there’s no evidence outside of their statements to condemn him. Attorney General Mark Herring also admitted to wearing blackface while in college.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Virginia Democrat Previously Jailed For Sex With A Teenager Wins Election

Democrats on Tuesday spent most of the day excoriating President Donald Trump for calling the impeachment inquiry against him “a lynching.” Former Vice President and current Democrat 2020 presidential nominee Joe Biden joined in the criticism, scolding Trump for referencing America’s “dark, shameful history with lynching” and calling the comparison “abhorrent” and “despicable.”

But as The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra reported, Biden had a different view of that exact comparison when President Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, was the one getting impeached.

Back in 1998, during an interview on CNN, Biden described the impeachment of Clinton as a “partisan lynching.”

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden said at the time.

After this video surfaced, Biden tweeted a half-hearted apology for his decades-old remarks.

“This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that,” Biden wrote. “Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.”

Biden is apparently claiming he did not choose his words carefully in 1998. He is also imparting a negative motive onto Trump’s comments while claiming his motive was pure. This is a common partisan tactic.

It is also not the first time Biden has apologized for his comments in the 1990s. Biden practically began his presidential campaign by apologizing to Anita Hill for the way her accusations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas were handled. In 1998, Biden apparently told former Sen. Arlen Specter that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, she was lying.”

But when Biden was about to run for president, he called Hill beforehand to express “regret for what she endured,” according to his campaign. The call “did not go how he had hoped,” The New York Times reported.

Those who watched the Hill hearings in the 1990s saw the allegations for what they were, just as Biden had said in 1998. Hill claimed Thomas sexually harassed her, yet she followed him from job to job. Now, in the era of #MeToo, where every allegation must be believed, in large part due to Biden, the Hill issue would have become a problem for the former vice president’s campaign.

Biden also has previously apologized for drafting a landmark crime bill in the 1990s that helped reduce crime in the country. The bill is now considered racist, so Biden apologized for supporting it, even though he previously expressed support as recently as 2016.

Biden later, kind of, apologized for invading women’s personal spaces when interacting with them, like kissing them on the cheek or putting his hands on their shoulders without asking first. In a normal society this wouldn’t be an issue, but Biden has championed a broadened definition of sexual assault and harassment that would include his own behaviors. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro noted after Biden made several apologies for policies he supported decades ago:

Amazingly, though, all of the things for which Biden is apologizing are things for which he should not be apologizing. The early 1990s saw a spike in crime that largely affected minority communities; Hill was probably prevaricating; Biden’s invasion of personal space is awkward, but it was never harassment. But in our new political world, running means having to say you’re sorry for having a record at all. That’s why it was easier for Barack Obama to run than Hillary Clinton — and, in many ways, it was easier for Donald Trump to run than Sen. Ted Cruz. Having a record is a burden.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Biden Apologizes For Calling Clinton Impeachment A ‘Lynching’ After Blasting Trump Over ‘Lynching’ Comments

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!