Even prostitutes can be raped

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

---

Strauss-Kahn Case Seen as in Jeopardy

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.

Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

[...]

Prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim, plan to tell the judge on Friday that they “have problems with the case” based on what their investigators have discovered, and will disclose more of their findings to the defense. The woman still maintains that she was attacked, the officials said.

[...]

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

Once again we have a “he said/she said” case. I have no personal knowledge of the case nor do I know any of the people involved. When the story first broke many people jumped to the conclusion he must be guilty. Now many of the same people are saying he must be innocent.

Let’s assume the housekeeper is a really bad woman with lots of unsavory friends. Does that mean she couldn’t be raped?

Of course not. All this new information goes to her credibility, but does not directly contradict the basic allegations. If she was involved in unrelated criminal activity it’s not surprising that she would lie to the police about it.

We know the woman had a sexual encounter with Strauss-Kahn. The only issue is whether that encounter was consensual or not.

My question is this – who is leaking this information and why?

---

He’s not a dick, he’s a pussy

---

Toilet Paper Media:

White House spokesman Jay Carney may have played a direct role in MSNBC’s decision to sack — er, suspend indefinitely — Time magazine’s Mark Halperin for calling President Obama a “dick” on Morning Joe.

Carney said he personally told MSNBC that he didn’t appreciate Time magazine’s Mark Halperin’s obscene name-calling.

“The coment that was made was inappropriate,” Carney told reporters at a briefing Thursday. “It would be inappropriate to say that about any president from either party. On behalf of the White House, I expressed that sentiment to the network.”

You can bet Carney was acting on direct orders from his boss. Narcissists can’t handle criticism but mockery is even worse.

Remember when Jon Stewart had to reassure his audience that “You’re allowed to laugh at him?” It was like he went to mass and made fun of the Pope.

On the other hand Obama has no problem insulting other people. As my grandma would say, “He can dish it out but he can’t take it.”

---

---

Crack cocaine sentencing reforms made retroactive

---

Colorlines:

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted today to apply retroactively sentencing reform for crack cocaine convictions that Congress passed last year. This will give more than 12,000 inmates—85 percent of whom are black—the opportunity to go before a judge and seek a reduction in their sentences. The Commission estimates that the decision will reduce sentences by an average of more than three years, and could save the government $200 million in the next five years.

[...]

The Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law in August 2010, was an effort to reduce the huge disparity in punishment of those convicted with cocaine possession or use versus those caught with crack. The law gets rid of so-called “mandatory minimums” and knocks down the disparity in length of sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. So punishment for crack offenders is now 18 times as harsh as it is for cocaine offenders.

The “war on drugs” has really been a war on drug users. Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums for drug possession have worked a huge injustice, particularly in the case of crack cocaine.

Protecting people from drugs by throwing them in prison never made any sense to me anyway.

This is ridiculous

Is she running or not?

---

Andy Barr at Pathetico:

Palin fans tire of 2012 question

Bristol Palin says she knows her mother’s decision about whether she will run for president. But even as Sarah Palin spends the day in Iowa, that’s much more than the rest of the political world can say.

And the frustration is starting to build: key early state players are tiring of trying to read the tea leaves about whether she’s in or out. They’ve reached the point where they just want to know the answer.

First of all, Sarah Palin has supporters, not fans. Do you ever see a story mentioning Romney fans? I’m guessing the choice of words was intentional and designed to push the meme that Palin is “just a celebrity” and not a serious candidate.

Secondly, the Iowa caucuses aren’t scheduled until February 6, 2012 – over seven months from now. If Sarah waits until the end of August to declare that still gives her five months to campaign and raise money. In August 2007 Obama was running a distant third and the media were calling Mitt Romney the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

Initially (at least) she will be running an unconventional campaign, so she won’t need to worry about hiring professional campaign staff. If she makes it past Iowa there will be plenty of unemployed pros available as other candidates drop out.

Thirdly, there are perfectly good reasons why Sarah might want to wait. Once she becomes a declared candidate she will no longer be employed by FOX news and campaign finance reporting laws take effect. Not only that but as a declared candidate she will lose the last shreds of privacy she has remaining because the media will be on her like Charlie Sheen on a porn star.

Last and most importantly, Sarah does what she wants to do, not what the media says she should do.

---

Media Matters insults clowns

---

Media Matters put together the video clip above.

I took offense at what Mark Halperin said but I only know one dick. On the other hand I have lots of friends that are clowns.

Tonight is Glenn Beck’s last show. Unless they syndicate reruns of it I will never see a single episode. (Probably not then either.)

I don’t think I’ve missed anything.

---

Mark Halperin insults dicks

---

“I thought he was a dick yesterday”

One of my oldest and best friends is a dick and on his behalf I find that comment insulting. Halperin should personally apologize to every dick in the country.

Hot Air:

Halperin should be apologizing for a lack of imagination. He’s right in that the President acted like a pouting, sullen adolescent during the press conference, whining about having to answer for the constitutionality of sending men and women into combat without asking Congress for authorization. Obama bizarrely blamed the fiscal crisis on a small coterie of corporate-jet owners, a heretofore unknown juggernaut of economic destruction. Instead of acting presidential, Obama gave us a hissy fit for over sixty minutes. And the best Halperin can do is “dick”?

---

UPDATE:

Pathetico:

Mark Halperin suspended over Obama remark on Morning Joe

MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin was suspended on Thursday by the cable network after he called President Obama “a dick” on a popular morning show and then quickly apologized.

From the comments at Hot Air (h/t WMCB):

He should have called Obama a slut. The going rate for that is only a week…

---

In re Lilly Ledbetter

---

I can’t believe I am citing with approval to a post at Cheetoville:

The president and Lilly Ledbetter

by Kaili Joy Gray

Lilly Ledbetter is a name that has become a convenient euphemism. It means “women’s rights.” It means “fair pay.” It means “victory.” When women want to know what the president has done for them, that’s the answer they get.

President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on Jan. 29, 2009. It was the first bill he signed as president. And since then, we have been reminded, by the president, his wife, and members of his administration, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, that he did.

[...]

The reality, however, is that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act doesn’t do much in the way of equal pay for equal work. A recent American Bar Association survey of cases under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act found 66 cases, most of which determined that the Act did not apply. In Rodriguez-Torres v. Government Development Bank, for example, the court held:

[The Act] does not create substantive rights, but instead clarifies the point of commencement of the statute of limitations in instances of wage discrimination.

And that’s it. That’s really all the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does. It does not create any new “substantive” rights; it merely addresses the timing of when a lawsuit can be filed. Has it made a difference in the dozen or so cases that would otherwise have been barred from proceeding? Certainly. But the right to proceed with a lawsuit for discrimination is not the same as ending discrimination. It does not guarantee equal pay. It does not protect against discriminatory practices that consistently promote men over women. It merely grants victims of discriminatory pay practices more time to sue.

To be sure, the Ledbetter Act would not be law today if a Republican occupied the White House. We know this for a fact, of course, because when the Democrats in Congress first passed the bill in 2007, President Bush vetoed it. When Obama became president, Congress passed the bill again, and he signed it into law.

But that’s it. He did not have to fight and compromise and expend political capital. No risks were involved. Democrats in Congress had already done the hard work of gathering enough votes to pass the legislation, before the president took office. Even a few (a very few) Republicans voted for the bill, both in 2007 and in 2009.

---

Kaili Joy Gray (aka “Angry Mouse”) is the interviewer in the video clip at the top of this post. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer proves her point when he whips out Lilly Ledbetter in response to questioning about a war on women.

Again and again we have seen Obama talk the talk but not walk the walk on issues dealing with women, LGBT’s and just about every constituency on the left. He does cosmetic things like issuing executive orders on ethics that he quietly gives waivers for, or signing bills that sound nice but don’t do much.

Sadly, Angry Mouse and the rest of the cheeto eaters still don’t want to take that big step of admitting they are powerless over Koolaid and that the country has gone to shit.

---

Chutzpah

chutz·pah also hutz·pah
n.
Utter nerve; shameless audacity; unbelievable gall

[from Yiddish]

---

The Foundry:

The chief economic culprit of President Obama’s Wednesday press conference was undoubtedly “corporate jets.” He mentioned them on at least six occasions, each time offering their owners as an example of a group that should be paying more in taxes.

“I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well,” the president stated at one point, “to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

But the corporate jet tax break to which Obama was referring – called “accelerated depreciation,” and a popular Democratic foil of late – was created by his own stimulus package.

---

This has to be the biggest display of chutzpah since Lyle and Erik Menendez asked for leniency because they were orphans.

Greg Sargent:

The primary goal of President Obama’s presser, which just wrapped up, was obvious: He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich. Obama mounted a surprisingly aggressive moral case for ending high end tax cuts, casting it as a test of our society’s priorities, and argued — crucially — that anyone who fails to support ending them is fundamentally unserious about the deficit.

He also went out of his way to highlight GOP opposition to raising revenues by ending a perk for corporate jet owners. This proposal would raise only $3 billion, which means it’s trivial in the larger scheme of things, and Obama’s mention of it seemed deliberately designed to provoke howls of outrage and cries of “class warfare” from Republicans — with the obvious goal of maneuvering Republicans into the role of arch defenders of the interests of the wealthy.

---

I’m all for taxing the shit out of rich people and corporations but this corporate jet thing is just a meaningless talking point. $3 billion is a lot of money to you and me but it’s not even chickenfeed compared to the federal budget.

---

Glenzilla plays “gotcha games”

---

Glenn Greenwald:

Yesterday, State Department adviser Harold Koh testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Libya. The Committee had also requested the appearance of top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments — who, contrary to Koh, told the President that he was violating the War Powers Resolution by waging war without Congressional approval — but the Most Transparent Administration Ever refused to produce them, instead sending only the State Department lawyer who told the President what he wanted to hear: that he did indeed have this unilateral power. Koh was confronted with candidate Obama’s 2007 statement that directly contradicts the White House’s current position, and Koh did the only thing he could do: insist that the Constitutional Scholar’s view back then were “not legally correct” and was “too limited a statement,” and that he’d be “very surprised if that’s [Obama's] position” today.

Silly Glenn, doesn’t he know that campaign promises and statements are just fairy tales? And pointing out the huge difference been Obama’s words and actions is playing “gotcha games.”

---

---

Obligatory Obamacare decision post

One of these things is not like the others

---

The Obamacrats are woo-hooing and high-fiving over the Sixth Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare. As usual their celebrations are premature.

I’m not going to go into detail about the decision for two reasons:

1. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings, and in this case the fat lady is SCOTUS. There is simply no way that the Affordable Care Act is going to escape their review. In fact, I’m gonna predict they take it up next term and deliver a decision next June, just as the 2012 general election campaign heats up. Considering the current make up of the court I’m guessing they will overturn all or part of it.

2. Obamacare is hugely unpopular and it hasn’t even taken effect yet. Assuming it hasn’t been struck down before then you can expect Republicans (and some Democrats) to run campaigns promising to repeal it. Vox populi, vox dei.

So any partying on the part of the Obamacrats right now is a big waste of time and champagne.

---

Why global warming made it rain last night in the Central Valley

---

If you live east of the Rockies you probably don’t see anything strange with rain this time of year. But here in the Central Valley of California summer rain isused to be an oxymoron.

In non-drought years (a whole ‘nother story) we would get plenty of precipitation, but 90% of it came during November through March, and 99% of it came between October and May. Back east dams are for flood control and hydroelectric power. We use them for that too, but they are also essential for irrigating crops and residential use as well.

Before the white man came the Central Valley was a mosquito filled swamp in the spring and a desert in the summer. The Native Americans would come down to hunt or gather acorns and then skedaddle back into the hills (proving that while they may have been ignorant savages they were no dummies.) When the white man arrived he started building dams and irrigation canals so he could farm during the dry summer months.

It’s summer, so why is it raining outside my house right now?

The answer is global warming. Yeah, yeah, I know the climate change deniers would say just the opposite, but they’re idiots. Let me give you a little geography lesson.

The Central Valley is separated from the Pacific coast and the San Francisco Bay by a low mountain range. If you’ve never been out here but you watch shows like Baywatch you probably think the Pacific coast is nothing but a series of sunny beaches filled with surfers and bikini-clad babes. That impression provides lots of entertainment for the locals when we get to watch scantily-clad tourists turning blue from the freezing winds.

Remember that alleged quote from Mark Twain?:

“The coldest winter I ever spent was the summer I spent in San Francisco.”

Mr. Clemens never actually said it but he could of. That’s because the prevailing winds here come from the northwest – from the Gulf of Alaska. Not only that but the water is pretty cold too.

When we move into summer the land heats up faster than the water. This warms the air over the land which causes it to rise. When the warm air rises it is replaced with cold moist air coming in from over the ocean.

That’s why most places along the west coast (like San Francisco and Monterey) are cold and overcast this time of year, with chilly gale-force winds blowing in from over the water. (Tourist tip: By late summer/early fall the water is warmer so the temperature differential is smaller and the coastal weather is much nicer.)

Normally the coastal range blocks that cold moist air from the Central Valley, and we enjoy sunny, dry days in the low nineties. But because of global warming we have been getting unusually high temperatures early in the year. (Last week it went over 100 degrees for several days in a row.)

This heats the air and causes it to rise which literally pulls the cold, moist air in over the coastal range. Once that cold mist air gets here it warms up, rises, and then cools. This causes the moisture to condense and turn into rain drops.

And that is why it is raining in the Central Valley again for the umpteenth time this month.

BTW – Usually by this time of year most of the wild grasses and weeds have stopped growing and turned brown. Farmers, homeowners and road & fire crews have cut them down or back to prevent fires. These late season rains will have them growing bigger and/or re-growing in places they were already cut down. August and September should be a real hot time around here.

Watch this climate change ad from Greenpeace (ironically, it’s via Hot Air):

---

---

Obama supports “states rights”

---

Think Progress:

President Obama was asked if he believes that civil marriage is a constitutional right during his press conference this morning. Rather than answering that question, Obama reiterated his record on LGBT issues and argued that marriage is best left to the states. What happened in New York “was a good thing,” Obama said. “I think that’s exactly how things should work. I think it’s important for us to work through these issues because each state is going to be different and each community is going to be different”

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised since Ronnie Raygun is his idol::

Ronald Reagan’s “states’ rights” speech given on August 3, 1980, was his first public address after the Republican National Convention officially chose him as the Republican nominee for the 1980 United States presidential election. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase “states’ rights” at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers. Reagan said:

“I believe in states’ rights…. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.”

He went on to promise to “restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them.” The use of the phrase was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs.

“States rights” was the term used during the civil rights movement by defenders of Jim Crow segregation. But Obama doesn’t believe that marriage is a civil right.

He believes LGBT’s should be separate but equal.

---

UPDATE:

Hot Air:

At first, I suspected that the Obamas intended on keeping quiet about support for same-sex marriage until a reversal could do them the most good. At this point, a reversal won’t cost them many votes among the base; black voters continue to oppose it, even in New York, but it’s not going to be a deal-breaker that moves them to the GOP column. A summer 2012 reversal could help stoke a resurgence of enthusiasm on the progressive Left and generate some badly-needed momentum for a general election. That was the only real reason for a repeated insistence that Obama’s thoughts were “evolving” on the issue.

However, Milbank’s column shows how weak that strategy will be. Endorsing a decision a full year later isn’t leadership — it’s pandering, and not terribly effective pandering at that. If Obama really opposes same-sex marriage, then he should be explaining that position and challenging those who disagree with him, whether it’s on the basis of tradition, federalism, or dice tosses. Instead, all the White House has managed to provide are mumbles about evolution and zero leadership in any direction, which is a pretty good description of the entire Obama presidency. Milbank just seems to have figured it out now.

It’s pretty sad when those evul wingnuts are more evolved than the so-called Democrat in the White House.

---

---

It doesn’t count because he had his fingers crossed

---

I want to talk about this post by Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

In January 2009, President Obama appointed National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Vice President for Research, Advocacy, and Legislation Cecilia Munoz to be his Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[...]

When Obama took office, he issued Executive Order 12490, which contained three provisions:

Lobbyist Gift Ban. No government appointee is allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists or lobbying organizations under this new pledge.

Revolving Door Ban — All Appointees Entering Government. This ban bars appointees from participating in any matter involving parties related to previous employers. The restriction was criticized as being too limiting, since it is necessary to appoint experts in their fields, and these experts would often have conflicts of interest under this condition.

Revolving Door Ban — Lobbyists Entering Government. Under this restriction, lobbyists are forbidden from participating in any matter they lobbied on within 2 years before their appointment. They are also restricted from participating in specific issues which they lobbied on, and may not seek employment with any executive agency they lobbied within.

Obama granted Munoz a waiver from sections 2 and 3, allowing her to work on La Raza-related matters despite moving streight from being a La Raza lobbyist to working in the White House on matters concerning La Raza. Some might deny that she actually influenced policy in these matters, but that begs the question as to why such waivers were granted. Surely if she intended to recuse herself, these waivers would have been unnecessary.

These shady ethics indulgences make a mockery of Obama’s vaunted ethics overhaul, and deserves more attention than they have received from the mainstream press.

I’m not suggesting that Ms. Munoz has done anything inappropriate, but what was the point of Obama’s much-ballyhooed “lobbyist ban” if he simply grants waivers whenever the ban is inconvenient?

We shouldn’t be surprised – Obama and his followers have always treated principles as disposable. They claim to have principles and they’ll rub them in your face when they think it’s to their advantage, but then they cast them aside without a second thought when they get in the way.

Progressives used to have principles. Liberals still do.

---

---

Why they fear her – Palin in Pella

An unofficial video of the speech Sarah Palin made to the theatre audience right after the movie ended. No teleprompter, no notes, 6 minutes of passion and inspiration to her supporters.
“Share that message. Not about me, but about the values of America.”

This is what a populist looks like.

(This goes back to what I observed in her tv show — Sarah Palin’s political strength is that she is you.)

Because she’s black?

---

This story from ABC unintentionally reveals the racist attitudes of some members of the media:

Sarah Palin’s Unlikely Supporter

ABC News’ Sheila Marikar (@SheilaYM) reports from Pella, Iowa:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side.

“She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

I guess it never occurred to Ms. Marikar that all racial stereotypes are racist.

Adrienne Ross at C4P:

ABC really needs to get a clue. There’s a reason they, and others like them, are called the lamestream media. They named an article “Sarah Palin’s Unlikely Supporter.” Why this title? Well, the whole basis for the use of the word “unlikely” is based on race. Sonnie Johnson, interviewed in Stephen Bannon’s The Undefeated, is a tea party patriot who happens to be Black. According to the ABC title, this makes her some type of enigma. I continue to shake my head at the left who are so fond of projecting their own issues with race onto the right. They are the ones who view people of darker skin tone in the context of race alone, rather than as human beings who have the same reasoning capacity and love of country as others do.

Sheila Marikar wrote the story but it cruised right past her editors. As of the writing of this post (9:45 p.m. Pacific) no one at ABC seems to have noticed the use of racial sterotypes. Ironically, it was conservatives who first spotted the racism in the story.

---

WTF week continues

---

Opposing Views

A new book is out that purports to blow the lid off of the true conservative Republican lifestyle — a lifestyle of casual sex and “a seemingly endless supply of narcotics.”

The book is called “Life of the Party: A Political Press Tart Bares All.” It was written by Lisa Baron, who was a political press officer for several GOP figures during the Bush era.

(A 2009 report from Politico said Baron was shopping the book around with the title “My Burning Bush.”)

The book opens with a description of an “intimate encounter” between Baron and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a hotel room during the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary.

Baron said Fleischer never returned her phone calls afterwards, but they awkwardly ran into each other several times during the ensuing campaign. She wrote:

Note to self: If you’re going to sleep around, sleep around with Democrats.

According to the Vanity Fair podcast, the “intimate encounter” with the married Fleischer involved what used to be called a “Lewinsky.”

---

Weird times in Wisconsin

---

Via Hot Air, Christian Schneider at The Corner:

With the Wisconsin Supreme Court devolving into a storyline only Vince McMahon could love, rumors are still swirling about what actually happened when two justices engaged in a physical confrontation behind closed doors on June 13. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley claims Justice David Prosser “choked” her. Prosser denies he choked Bradley, and claims she initiated physical contact. In the past two days, multiple sources with first-hand knowledge of the incident have been able to provide more details as to what exactly happened behind closed chamber doors.

[...]

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

[...]

To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”

[...]

While Bradley has not filed any charges against Prosser, an investigation was initiated by the Capitol Police, who then quickly turned the case over to the Dane County Sheriff, David Mahoney — who once actually appeared in a campaign ad supporting the reelection of Chief Justice Abrahamson.

This is why I cautioned against rushing to judgment. The more information that comes out, the more this looks like a hit job on Prosser. Don’t expect any of the people who called for his removal to apologize or demand that Bradley be removed or resign though.

Ed Morrissey:

Sounds like Wisconsin needs to clean house in its Supreme Court. Rather than have the courts get involved, the state legislature should start probing this case to determine exactly what happened, and whether the Chief Justice has conducted a leak campaign against Prosser as payback. I’d say at least one resignation is due in this case — and maybe a few of them, whatever happened. It’s doubtful that Wisconsin’s citizens can put much confidence in a court that can’t behave itself in a mature and professional manner, and especially one where such poisonous partisan and personal politics are in play.

---

How do you act like a sexist pig without looking like one?

Hey Sweetie!

---

The NY Birdcage Liner:

Running Against Bachmann Poses Challenges for Male Rivals

Representative Michele Bachmann’s entry into the presidential race on Monday ensures one particular repeat of the 2008 campaign: another chance to test the impact of gender on American politics.

For the second time in four years, American voters will watch as a mostly male field of candidates engages, sometimes awkwardly and sometimes gingerly, with a female presidential candidate.

Already, there is evidence that those interactions are destined to produce memorable campaign moments like the one that forced Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” to apologize for asking Mrs. Bachmann whether she is “a flake” on national television.

“Is this how Chris Wallace would ask the same question of a man?” asked his Fox News colleague, Greta Van Susteren, on her blog on Monday.

Like Hillary Clinton before her, Mrs. Bachmann will dare journalists and bloggers to cover her campaign the way they would cover a male candidate’s. And she will put before voters the ultimate question they ducked in 2008: Are they ready for a female president?

It’s really not that hard. When dealing with women candidates don’t pat them on the ass, don’t call them “sweetie” or other demeaning names, don’t use sexist epithets like “bitch” or “cunt” when referring to them, don’t be dismissive, patronizing or condescending, and otherwise treat them with the same respect you would want someone to treat your mother, wife or daughter.

Above all, don’t act like having a penis makes you better than them.

The real challenge is keeping your followers in line, especially if your name is Barack Obama.

---

Take the money and run

---

Think Progress

Less than three years after receiving $10 billion in bailout money from American taxpayers, Goldman Sachs informed its employees recently that it will fire 1,000 workers in the United States and elsewhere, shifting their jobs to the cheaper Singaporean labor market.

[...]

With today’s news, Goldman joins the ranks of top U.S. corporations like GE, Chevron, Intel, and others who have collectively outsourced over 2.4 million American jobs in the past decade.

Notice the vagueness over exactly when Golden Sacks took the bailout money. The bailout took place just before the 2008 election and was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by George the Lesser.

But guess what company’s executives were big donors to Barack Obama?

BTW – for any CDS infested progressives, please note that Bill Clinton was NOT in office at any point in the last decade.

---

---

The best government that money can buy

It's all about the Benjamins

---

Obama pushing behind scenes to win over big-dollar donors

President Obama and top White House aides are waging a behind-the-scenes push to win over skeptical big-dollar donors — whose early money is needed to help fund a dramatic summertime expansion of his battleground-state machinery.

Campaign officials are working to broaden Obama’s network of “bundlers,” the well-connected rainmakers tasked with soliciting big checks from wealthy donors, while seeking to preserve the aura of a grass-roots movement by luring back the kind of small Internet donations that helped shatter fundraising records four years ago.

To do so, Obama and his aides are leveraging every asset available to a sitting president — from access to top West Wing officials to a possible food tasting with the White House chef.

Much of the fundraising in recent weeks has occurred at targeted events designed to appeal to specific groups, many of which have expressed frustration with administration policies, including Jews, gays and business leaders. Obama has attended 28 fundraisers from coast to coast — a pace that could continue, or even accelerate, over the next several months.

---

If you really want to know who’s running this administration, then follow the money.

That second paragraph is carefully worded – it’s not really a lie. Obama really does want to preserve the aura of a grassroots movement – but it’s one that never existed. Small donors may have “helped” him shatter fundraising records in 2008 but it was the big donors that made the difference.

---

UPDATE

Real Clear Politics:

White House Says Obama Fundraising Appeal Not Illegal

President Obama appealed to supporters and donors in a videotaped message emailed by his campaign team to millions of people Monday — a message filmed with the president inside the White House by a crew from the Democratic National Committee, according to a White House official who responded to RCP questions about the solicitation.

In the video, Obama tells supporters they can join him and Vice President Joe Biden for dinner if they win a contest offered by his campaign. “We’re both really looking forward to it. Hope to see you soon,” Obama says on camera. The script was written by the DNC.

The president’s video is accompanied by a donor solicitation form in which supporters of the administration can check boxes donating from $5 to $700 to the Obama-Biden re-election effort. This may, or may not, constitute fundraising by a federal employee in a federal office building, a practice that is generally prohibited. Even if it is fundraising, the statutory barriers regarding the White House itself are vague.

In response to questions about whether the president and his political team had stayed safely on the legal side of the relevant statutes, White House officials made three arguments. First, they said, an open process for small donors to essentially win a raffle is not the kind of fundraising prohibited under the law — and the president didn’t make a direct appeal for donations, anyway. Second, they pointed to a longstanding advisory opinion from the Justice Department that differentiates between the residence portion of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. — where the aide said Obama had been filmed — and official rooms in the White House. Third, they said, Obama’s approach is in keeping with the practices of his predecessors.

“If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”

---