Another person who has questions about the reporting and evaluating what was said in in those reports. Suris is trying very hard to be even handed and fair to all involved. He does point out some of the issues many people have with the entire affair. Again this is a serious accusation that is not only at this point. Again no one is under oath and some of the things reported have been found incorrect. Such as her telling her ex at the time it happened, but that is not true. Now she is not under any obligation to tell anyone. Every person who has been abused deals with it and opens up about it in their own time when they feel they can do so. Some never do. But if you are using the fact that you told someone and it turns out you did not, that is important information to know. I want to add two things. Suris is not a misogynist and is very openly pro-female and pro-LGBTQ+. He is really trying to just understand the facts and evaluate them without making a moral snap judgment or purity testing either party. But he has no advanced training in sexual abuse nor in court procedures of interrogation. He simply is listening and giving his best reasoning on it. Hugs
As Emma says in the intro what reporters including herself decide to include, leave out, or highlight can influence how a story is received and the reaction to it. I know my last post had raised some concern. I will be addressing all of that after I get tomorrow’s cartoon / meme / news post scheduled and the Sunday morning semi news shows watched. If you listen to this please note that neither one of the reporters is excusing what Platner might have done; they are discussing the omitting of details that could color the story in different ways and should reporters be concerned with that shading effect. The fact is in my opinion there are a lot of unknowns and unanswered question. This is not a court of law that a person’s life is being examined under; no one is under oath in any of this. It is being tried in the media of public perception. So in that case I want to be sure of the facts before I condemn a person and ruin their life.
I also believe strongly in redemption. We all have made mistakes and we all were young. I am not perfect. I have always had the idea of being a better Scottie today than I was yesterday. I had a temper in my 20s and have struggled most of my life to not just control it but to remove it and the triggers that ignite it. Should 20 year old me ready to battle and fight at the least provocation be the down fall of 40, 50, 60 year old Scottie now? Is there no redemption, compassion, or empathy for the experiences that lead to mistakes and wrong choices? But that is not what this post is about, it is about what facts should be included or omitted in reporting. Hugs
Please notice the brutality towards the ones they detail and those bystanders. They assault the people recording them and they threaten them with more violence and arrests. To the ICE no one has rights. How long will we tolerate this lawless militia type behavior towards the people? No law enforcement would get away with this. They do it because they are masked and Stephen Miller will do anything to protect the ICE thugs doing his dream of a country of only white people who follow every order of the authoritarian government. Warning it is a hard video to watch. But we must. Hugs
Again more information is coming out. Details that give credit to Platner’s side of the story. The news doesn’t excuse him, but it sets up why he was at her house and why he was touching her. Again the media has a bias and it is being reported with that bias totally one sided. This report says he was wasted out of his mind black out drunk but again no proof of that. Was the woman here drinking also like the first woman was? I think Saagar is trying too hard to brand Platner, again we need more facts. As he said the woman is accusing Platner of a serious felony and now we need to see if this is going to be a trial in the media which is a slander hit job or a trial in court. The question I have is more going to come out. I like that on morning Joe the host asks for colaberating evedince. She asks what do you have to show him raping the victim? Again if he did it he needs to pay for his crime, I just don’t like how it is coming out, being played up in media, and the timing. Again the reporter admits he can’t produce any evidence. The therapist did not verify that it happened, yet that was reported. The very account I had heard about the exchange between the therapist and the victim has been proven out, it was not about the assault or at the time or the assault. The therapist said she did not recall the victim’s account of the assault but said she vaguely supports women who say they are assaulted. Therrapest keep notes, mine always have so why did she blank on the case details. This is looking a media hit job to drive a progressive candidate out of politics. Hugs
NOTE: Politico’s response to Breaking Points and Drop Site News on the gaps in reporting follows: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews and reflects our editorial standards. In interviews with us and in accounts she gave to other outlets, Jenny Racicot said that she told Graham Platner not to come to her home and that he nevertheless showed up there uninvited. POLITICO gave Platner and his campaign ample opportunity to respond to our reporting and to provide any information or documentation they believed contradicted it. If presented with information that materially challenges our reporting, we will report it.” Ryan and Saagar discuss exclusive reporting on key details missing from the Graham Platner story.
I am very concerned about this situation. I have all ways said we need to listen to abuse victims and evaluate their accusations while giving every leaning to understanding the situation they were / are in. But an accusation is just that. It is not proof positive of an actual event happening or a crime occurring. I am concerned with the statements of the accuser since the Times article came out and why she said she came forward in the Politico article. I agree with Joe Scarbourghs thoughts on the timing and the fact that even though he denies it happened he doesn’t have time to clear his name before the election. With all the financial support being withdrawn he has no chance forward even if he is eventually cleared of these charges.
As the other reporter reports, there is a deep sense this is a coordinated attack by the establishment and the AIPAC big money. I do believe in redemption and the ability of people to change. However I don’t have the needed evidence to say for certain that these groups did organize this against him, I just know that in the Times article it was clearly a republican oppertive attacking and that she could only say she was drunk, he pushed her into a room with a bed, locked the door with him on the outside, and told her to calm down. She said he did not touch her sexually and did not hurt her. He did not bother her the rest of the night as she slept off being drunk.
The woman in the Politico report says she decided to come forward not because she had wanted or believed the Times article would showcase other women being sexually abused like she claims. But the times article was clear they did not find any such accusations and she at the time did not come forward with them. I have heard but not seen one of the “proofs” being used is she talked to her therapist about the assault. How ever the ones I have seen accredited to her show she did not talk to her therapist about the sexual assault but only dealt with her possible media exposure. She was asking if she should do it and if the therapist thought it would be good for her. Not questions that really back up the assault. She says it happened only five years ago, she could if she wants share emails with her therapist from earlier where she is concerned about her emotional state from the abuse.
At this time I believe it is a he said / she said situation. I am not willing to damn a person on hearsay. I will wait but if it comes out she was assaulted as she said I will back her completely and hope she holds him accountable. How ever if it does come out in a short while that she only did this for financial advantage or emotional payback to a former boyfriend then I will hold everyone who used this to attack Platner and smear him accountable as well. If it turns out his chance to serve the people who overwhelmingly like his political message was sabotaged by the corporate establishment and well paying lobbies for Israel then I think the man is owed far more than a chance to show his redemption should be accepted but it should also alert everyone to the power of the political establishment to do the bidding of the wealthy elite. Hugs
I love how the Rev. talks about the remarkable strength of trans people for just trying to live as who they really are, not as who some on the right want them to be. He sees trans people for the people they are. He is realistic about the circumstances for them and others in their lives. Hugs
