Recent Posts
But at the same time, in the current climate, when people are so willing to weaponize anonymous allegations against public figures…
markpkessinger (8,950 posts)
I have been furious for several days after hearing about the false allegations against Pete Buttigieg . . .
. . . of inappropriate conduct with his children.
As I understand the details of the case, some guy anonymously called either CPS or police, and claimed that some woman he knows told him that she had met Pete Buttigieg as some event in Alabama, and that Buttigieg confessed to her that he had committed "unspeakable crimes" against his children, which led to CPS separating him from his family overnight, while they looked into the allegations.
Look, I get that agencies such as CPS want to err, if at all, on the side of protecting children. But at the same time, in the current climate, when people are so willing to weaponize anonymous allegations against public figures, these agencies should have to do substantially more vetting of allegations before subjecting any family to something like this.
I mean, think about it: some guy calls CPS or other law enforcement, claims that a friend of his told him that she had met a public figure, and that said public figure had confessed to "unspeakable crimes" against his children. So the guy is reporting not what he himself has heard or witnessed, but what some third party told him she heard the public figure heard. That wouldn't even be admissible in a criminal court case!
And then there's the [im]plausibility of it all. I mean, how plausible is it that a public figure who was actually guilty of abusing his kids would confess this to some random woman who claims she met him at some event? That alone should have been enough for CPS to determine that there was no basis for going forward!
Protect children? Sure, but recognize that subjecting their families to this kind of treatment without first adequately vetting the allegations carries its own set of harms to those same children and their families!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221337257
kentuck (116,077 posts)
Katie f'n Phang!
She did what nobody else dared to do. She challenged Todd Blanche for illegally not following the Epstein Transparency Act. The Judge agreed with her in a 48-page ruling.
She is no Big Media name. She is an independent journalist. She argued that she had standing as a journalist and she could not do her job if the Epstein files, redacted and unredacted, were not released to the public.
She deserves our thanks and appreciation for a job very well done. The DOJ has until Tuesday to decide what they are going to do? They have been breaking the law since December of last year. The Court has ruled against them.
Katie Phang rules the day!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221336117
They're also being convicted and sentenced to long stays in the Grey Bar Hotel.
