Rep Jim Clyburn has taken some grief by noting when asked about John (Drop my Trow) Conyers that unlike a Matt Lauer or a Harvey Weinstein, they were elected and thus put there by the people and I had some fun teasing Ana Navarro when she lamented the fact that while many in the News and entertainment industry are out, pols she dislikes (Trump, Moore and Clyburn) are still either in office or running for one.

Ironically both Navarro & Clyburn are half right there seems to be a different standard for pols but that standard is different because their bosses aren’t a single board that can act at any time but the voters who only get to make a call every two to four years and thus only express their will at that time, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Yet unless if voters had no idea about this kind of thing going on or allegations of same then they didn’t make an informed choice.  This is exactly the situation with Senator Franken and Rep Conyers.

Fortunately there is an easy solution , if they maintain (as does Rep Conyers) that allegations are false or have expressed contrition (as does Senator Franken) the thing to do is resign AND run in the special election that follows.

By doing this they give the voters the chance to make an informed decision and decide if:

  1.  They think the charges are true and want him out
  2.  They think the charges are true but, for whatever reason think they’re not disqualifying
  3.  They’re unsure about the charges but prefer a change
  4.  They’re unsure about the charges but prefer to stand pat
  5.  They think the charges are false but prefer a change
  6.  They think the charges are false and are sticking with their guy.

Ironically this is exactly the position that both President Trump and Judge Roy Moore were put in. Unlike Franken and Conyers who as liberals were protected with all their might by the press, because of the “R” next to their names that same media made sure that voters were intimately acquainted with allegations against President Trump and Roy Moore come election time.

In the case of President Trump either rejected the charges as partisan BS (like me) or decided that Felonia Von Paintsuit was such a danger to the country that she must be stopped (like many others) and elected him anyways over Ana Navarro’s objections.

In Alabama voters are going to get that same chance with Roy Moore, if potential Moore voters think the accusations as they stand are disqualifying (I don’t as I’ve already explained here) or that Moore is lying and choose to reject him they can do so, but if they think the charges are either false, unproven, not disqualifying, or a political hit they can reject them and choose to elect him over Ana Navarro’s objections.

I think the voters they represent deserve that same chance, not only on Franken and Conyers, but on every single congressman who had a settlement paid by taxpayer funds for harassment. They should be exposed at once, resign and if they think they still deserve their seat run for it and make their best case to the voters they represent.

That way like NBC or Miramax or PBS those in charge are in a position to make an informed decision without waiting for November in an even-numbered year and if Jim Clyburn or Ana Navarro or even I don’t like that decision, well that’s just too bad because the call and the responsibility isn’t ours it’s theirs.

by baldilocks

Has anyone considered that the Democrats may be throwing certain members and prominent supporters under the bus on purpose? I mean they had to know what kind of lives men like Al Franken led and they certainly knew about John Conyers since one of his victims was paid off by The Old Dirty Congressmen Fund. Oh yes, and now Bill Clinton is no longer their bright shining prince and won’t be the First Dude anytime soon (ever), they’re suddenly noticing his general lechery and alleged violence against women? Gee whiz. No loyalty.

But what I’m asking is whether a Stalinesque purge is going on right in front of our faces. Are the old – who have outlasted their usefulness — being put away to make way for the new?

Stalin, of course, had an infinitely more radical method of housecleaning.

The purges in the USSR started in the mid-1930’s and continued throughout the late 1930’s. Joseph Stalin had shared power with Zinoviev and Kamenev in the time after the death of Lenin (1924) and he had no intention of ever being put in that position again. By the mid-1930’s Stalin believed that the Bolshevik Party ‘Old Guard’ represented a threat to him and unless he did something about them they would remove him from power. Stalin suspected everyone who had any semblance of power and he wanted them dealt with. (…)

It has been estimated that between 1934 and 1939, one million party members were arrested and executed. During the same period it is thought that 10 million were sent to the gulags with many of them dying – either in transit or as a result of the terrible living conditions they had to endure.

Since we live in a country where show trials, summary imprisonment and summary executions are frowned upon (mostly), if there is a real purge going on, it’s necessary to kill or damage something other than the bodies of the no-longer useful: their reputations, such as they are. And it’s better than Stalin’s method: reputations can be revived should a formerly useful idiot become usable again.

And so, while we laugh at the hypocrisy of the Democrats and lament the stupidity of at least one Republican, let’s remember that the Democrat-controlled mainstream press allowed the accusations about Franken, Conyers and various other Democrat Party suspects supporters into the public conversation. They want this out there; they want them gone from public life, along with the other yet-to-be-named members of the $15 million club.

Hold on tight!

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

Sylvester Stallone. Al Franken. Harvey Weinstein. Kevin Spacey. Roy Moore. These men and countless others are on a list that’s growing every day.

Our modern sensibilities can be blamed for a whole lot of bad in this world from abandonment of a Biblical worldview to embracing failed ideologies such as socialism. One thing that has progressed positively in some regards is a problem that has been around since man was first put on the earth: disapproval of sexual misconduct.

Up until very recently, crimes against women (and men) perpetrated by people in power had been “acceptable.” It’s not that it was right or not deserving of punishment, but it was accepted as a part of human existence. Powerful men got away with actions that other men couldn’t, particularly when it came to the treatment of objects of their sexual desires. Over the last few decades, this “acceptance” has been fading. Now, American society seems to be at a tipping point upon which the “acceptable” is no longer tolerated.

Women (and men) are coming forward with their stories. Most of them had valid reasons for not coming forward before, whether it was out of fear, shame, helplessness, or simply because they didn’t think anyone would believe them. Thanks to the floodgates Harvey Weinstein’s accusers opened and the support the accusers are getting in the media and on social media, courage is finally getting the better of the men who used their power to prey on people.

The problem isn’t solved. In fact, we’re now faced with the rise of an old but persistent problem: false accusations. It’s now required in our society to believe first and question the accounts only if there’s a clear reason to do so. That doesn’t mean every account is truly believed by everyone, but if you want to make enemies in the court of public opinion, call an accuser a liar without the ability to prove it.

What are we to do as a society? Do we believe every accusation? No. Some of them will be false and we must be discerning while being fair. Do we denounce all or most of them? No. The abundance of sexual misconduct accusations is a necessary polarizing force. It’s not what predators in power wanted, but it may have been necessary for us to finally overcome the biggest roadblock to redemption for the victims, the roadblock of “acceptance” of these predators as part of being human.

Standard operating procedure before the #MeToo uprising was for victims and those familiar with the crimes to report them, pretend they didn’t happen, or deal with them internally within an industry or other circumstance. Weinsten, for example, was known by a whole lot of people in Hollywood to do what he’s been accused of doing. Many actresses would warn other actresses about it, but until recently they wouldn’t speak out publicly. This is the thing that’s going to disappear in this brave new world of #MeToo. It’s no longer acceptable to just warn others in an industrial variation of internal housekeeping. Courage and support are now available to everyone. Suddenly, we’re expected to report every infraction.

Pandora’s Box has been opened on past and current sexual predators. As destructive as this will be on many industries and institutions from Hollywood to Washington DC, it’s absolutely necessary. In fact, it’s amazing that it’s taken this long to come to light. Welcome to the new sexual revolution.