Jon Tester’s shame
Democrat Senator from Montana, Jon Tester made baseless allegations against Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson last week which caused Admiral Jackson to withdraw his name from consideration as the director of the Department of Veteran Affairs. Now, it seems that Tester just made shit up, according to the far-right wing Associated Press;
The records, including police reports, show Jackson was in three minor vehicle incidents in government vehicles during the last five years, but none involved the use of alcohol and he was not found to be at fault. In one case, a side-view mirror was clipped by a passing truck. In another incident an enraged driver in Montgomery County, Maryland, allegedly punched out Jackson’s window during a morning drive to Camp David.
The White House medical unit that Jackson ran successfully passed regular controlled substance audits, according to the records for the last three years. The reviews did recommend improvements to the medical unit’s handling of controlled substances, but did not find misconduct.
The Associated Press reviewed the documents Friday. They were the result of an internal White House review of allegations raised against Jackson during his brief confirmation process. The White House says the records, covering recent years, disprove the allegations.
CNN alleged that Admiral Jackson, in a drunken episode, “very loudly knocked on a female colleague’s door. Secret Service agents allegedly had to calm him down so he wouldn’t disturb President Barack Obama.” According to Mediaite, the Secret Service could find no incident report;
“Over the last 48 hours, media outlets have alleged that U.S. Secret Service personnel were forced to intervene during a Presidential foreign travel assignment in order to prevent disturbing (former) President Barack Obama,” the body said in a statement to ABC News. “The Secret Service has no such record of any incident; specifically, any incident involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson.”
Additionally, the Secret Service claims that it reviewed internal documents pertaining to President Obama’s foreign travel in 2015 and interviewed personnel who went on those trips. They found no evidence that would indicate the events reported actually occurred.
Yet, CNN complains when the President calls them “Fake news”. According to Roll Call, the President is calling for Tester to resign;
President Donald Trump escalated his feud with Democratic Sen. Jon Tester on Saturday morning, using a tweet to call for the Veterans Affairs Committee ranking member to resign.
From Fox News;
Raj Shah, White House deputy press secretary, also blasted the claims against Jackson.
“Sen. Jon Tester engaged in character assassination against a decorated rear admiral in the United States Navy, and he didn’t have a shred of evidence to back it up,” Shah said, according to Politico.
Just like every other Democrat “Issue”, if the truth doesn’t bear them out, the Democrats just make shit up.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
Testee is the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. If that doesn’t instill confidence, I don’t know what would. What an asshole.
Agreed. IMO the “esteemed Senator” is a perfect example of an ambulatory verbal anus with flatus-breath.
Jon Testor…Dumocrap senator…IMPEACH THAT LYING, MISERABLE PIECE OF SHYT!!
Isn’t Montana a red state?
Why do they have a democrat senator?
If I recall correctly, the mining industry in Montana once was (and maybe still is) strongly unionized. I’d guess that might have something to do with it, Yef.
Understand Missoula (home of the U) is a smoldering cesspile of liberal excreta- follow the garbage.
Split ticket voting. Montana, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia are classic examples of loyally voting Republican in presidential races, but are more independent when it comes to governors & senators. Blue state Massachusetts have had a slew of republican governors.
Oddly enough, few of the larger Democrats are true liberals. Solid Democrats, yes. Liberals, no. The Democratic incumbent Governor won two very close elections and many “middle of the road” voters went his way, Veterans included.
The same for Tester as he was one of three (I think) Democratic Senators that voted against gun law reform as Montana is a 2nd Amendment state.
I usually vote red but sometimes will alternate but in the case of the above two, I voted for their opponents.
To another point, the state is mostly red east of Butte but since 70+ percent of the population lives along the interstate corridor in larger towns across the state that have with universities, they contribute a significant amount of blue votes as well.
As to Missoula being heavily liberal, yep. And it gets old and quick. You should have seen the house when Bernie came to town….
So this just goes to show that if it is a socialist democrat, sooner or later it will try to fuck you. This cocksucker is not to be trusted with ANYTHING. Maybe people will notice, but since very few folks have anything to do with the VA I am betting few will care. It is a sign of a larger issue though, this prick cannot be trusted now or ever.
We have 30,000 transient 20 year olds at the universities voting in a low population state and the Democrats make sure every last one of them gets a ride to the polls. It greatly affects the outcomes of national level elections. The rural population is mostly conservative, as the state legislature reflects.
Then maybe the GOP in that state needs to invest in some buses.
CNN confirmed with four sources, it reports, that Dr. Jackson banged on a door. I shit you not. Well, there you go. Put him on the FBI’s most wanted list.
Really? Then CNN will have no difficulty identifying those sources for the record so that they can confirm their accounts publicly, right?
Journalistic integrity. You have to protect the voices in your head.
That is pretty good.
Credit where credit is due.
Yef! Awesome job!
You’re right on the money, Yef!!!
It’s maybe time CNN gets the boot from the White House press core
That would be a good start!
No, I disagree. They distort everything. Barring them does nothing. Better to feed them half-baked stuff and report on that, and then give the more reliable news media – such as they are – the full story.
Embarrassing CNN by assisting it in its efforts to be jawbreakers is its own rewards.
As I see it, forget about if, it’s WHEN they’ll make another huge faux pas and fuck themselves in the public eye yet again.
CNN can’t help it, cuz cucks gotta cuck up. It is what they do when progging out their progaganda to get anyone who says or does anything favorable to this president.
Hmmm…. that gives me an idea, rgr769, but it has to be nefarious enough to bury them up to their earlobes.
Who would have ever thought a drunk sailor would embark in search of some strange. Totally outrageous. What is it that Hank Williams Jr. sings, “it’s an old family tradition”
Hey! Easy now. We don’t have to be drunk to, never mind.
“Tester’s”
Only one letter away from airplane glue.
He has likely been secretly huffing it for years.
Is the name Tester or Testes?
He’s in real trouble back in Montana. He’s behind in the polls, and Trump took the state by 20 points. What he was trying to prove with this stunt certainly isn’t obvious, except gifting his opponent an excellent talking point on his integrity.
That he’s an asshole for pulling this dick move really doesn’t need to be stated.
AW1Ed… hopefully the voters DORK HIM IN THE SQUEAKHOLE in the upcoming election.
COCKSUCKING ASSCLOWN…
LMAO! Man, Senior Chief, that never gets old!
Dork him in the squeakhole! Classic!
He is the poster boy for the Dork that is pounding his own squeekhole. Maybe he needs his turn with the Anal Intruder III, with the super fisting attachment.
I take it that you are talking about the ORIGINAL PHILDO, with ALP patented “Gorilla Fist” action, for that freshly violated feeling?
Fine by me, that bony eared assfish needs to be chased back down into the depths to be forgotten.
He has a weak staff comprised of mostly kids.
Curious as to comes out of the primary. Downing I think can beat him.
Words fail me. The other day I said that is the charges were groundless Tester should be thrown out. That may never happen but some smart Senator should at least put in a motion for censure.
What makes you think Either Crazy Bernie or Sen. for life Leakey Leahy would give a shit what I suggest? I wish they would both resign .
Jon Tester, further proof of what a filthy whorehouse Washington DC truly is.
If he made shit up, he’s a huge asshole. If he ran with anonymous sources devoid of any chain of confidence, he’s a stupid asshole.
I’ll still give it a few days to see what comes of the other reporting – I can see CNN running with four sources that didn’t have direct knowledge (just hearsay) of an incident, but I can’t see them just making up four sources out of thin air.
Remember, the C in CNN does not stand for ‘credible’.
Followup to my post above: I already contacted my Senator’s office suggesting a motion to censure, and suggest others do the same with their respective senators.
There is little point in contacting Cardin and Van Hollen, the senators from the PDRofMD. I’m sure they secretly applaud Tester’s despicable acts, and wish him well in the upcoming election.
Agree. Demanding an action that favors The People over Party from them is like talking to the dead.
But Sen. Tester now has NO credibility.
The first thing that popped in my head when I read David’s post. Cardin and Van Hollen would just laugh in our faces. Can’t wait to leave this state!
You and me both, brother.
That’s why I only stayed 2 months in MD when I moved East last year. Just long enough to close on a house in PA.
Ok, that’s a start. Now turn to heading 045 and keep going until you run out of mile markers.
Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris have both demonstrated their complete apathy towards the wishes of their constituents, especially if those constituents don’t sell their souls to the DNC agenda.
I thought that selling one’s soul to the D-rat party agenda was a prerequisite to being a D-rat Senator or Congresscritter, that and a frontal lobotomy!
Could be worse. Markey and Warren are “representing” me here in the DPR of MA. Other than Scott Brown’s short tenure (and he was just adequate), we have not had a decent Senator since……crickets.
“Markey”
Mr. Frosty. His only real job before politics was driving an ice cream truck around the neighborhoods. Great running mate for Bernie. It’s that disheveled look that brings in the votes.
Ditto Shaheen and Hassan. They drank so much of the Kool-Aid they have diabetes.
Murray and Cantwell are cut from the same cloth…
The independent Democrat Angus King. Carpetbagging opportunist got his start with Maine PBS.
I don’t find CNN as detestable as others here; making shit up isn’t something they tend to do. Present a particular slant and leave out contrary information? Sure, I could see that.
I can easily see RDML Jackson banging on a female colleague’s door for a variety of valid reasons. So did CNN find four sources that back that up, but one who added, based on hearsay, that the USSS had to restrain him and just took that as an added detail? Or did they find four people corroborating all the details? And would the USSS even record an incident that doesn’t involve a principal protectee?
I’m willing to believe either side at this point… I just think the real story always takes a bit longer to come out than the headlines.
LC, if you still think CNN have any shred of credibility, you haven’t been paying attention.
Yef, IMHO LC spends most of his time being buzzed on DNC Kool-Aid.
I abhor the DNC. I doubt I’ve made a single post in years saying anything positive for them or Clinton.
“making shit up isn’t something they tend to do”
Operation Tailwind
That’s funny, LC.
“ I just think the real story always takes a bit longer to come out than the headlines.”
Therein is the problem with all these anonymous complainants. They get given credence in the idea that we need to slow down and take a closer look. Which is perfectly reasonable.
In the meantime, the nominee gets dragged through the mud, their family gets pulled into it, and if they get Borked then their professional reputation is shot.
The problem with these anonymous leakers, sources, and complainants is they might not even exist! You can play this as a game of politics, which is certainly seems was done to the admiral here. Had a great service record, had served as the White House doctor to three presidents. That’s the resume of a future surgeon general. He gets nominated for a politicized position (VA being the second largest government agency) and suddenly a bunch of “anonymous” complaints come out, any one of which would have ruined him if brought up before the nom.
I wouldn’t be the lest bit surprised if these reports are either entirely made up (they’re anonymous, so nobody presses the senator for who the reporter is!) or are from people who the doctor has stepped on on his way to the top. In my reading I see he got his star because he as a CAPT he was butting heads with another CAPT in the White House medical unit. So there’s at least one with an axe to grind.
I’m thinking it’s too late to ask LC to put the koolade down.
I wasn’t aware drinking koolade made you want to hear the facts before deciding if allegations against someone are true or not.
If so, this country deeply needs a sale on koolade, and a life-time supply given to Congress.
It’s not that, it’s your wanting certified proof positive that something or other did NOT happen. There are some things–including purported late-coming accusations from unidentified sources–that just stink. You want facts? We can’t even learn who is making the accusations, let alone ask them (if they exist at all) why they did not report a doctor who they allege ran amok. But that’s okay. As I say, it’s a strange world and it takes all kinds.
Not at all – I just want more information. In situations like this, you’re not likely to get hard proof. But we either have a case of false allegations or a considerably more serious character assassination. Isn’t that deserving of additional investigation?
And the VA committee has additional details we don’t; my understanding is that the ‘anonymous sources’ are anonymous to us, but not the committee. If I’m wrong on that, well, the committee certainly needs to know who is making the allegations in order to determine conflicts of interest, personal or political differences, etc.
“anonymous sources’ are anonymous to us, but not the committee”
Now you just can’t get any more Orwellian than that right there.
Here is some proof for ya. If the admiral had done any of the shit he was accused of, he would long ago have been shitcanned and asked to retire.
The Navy is more than a bit nuts these days, but when a squid embarrasses them, they tend to cut them off at the knees.
Publicly reporting derogatory information from hearsay sources appears to be at best a severe case of dereliction of professional duty on CNN’s part – and at worst was deliberate character assassination.
Or, to use the POTUS’s own words: they reported fake news. And at the time they reported it, they either knew it was fake or didn’t give a damn whether it was true or not.
“And at the time they reported it, they either knew it was fake or didn’t give a damn whether it was true or not.”
Character assassination at its finest. And Hondo, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that also meet the legal definition of slander and/or libel?
TOW: as I understand it, it would – if RADM Jackson weren’t a public figure, which his nomination for a cabinet-level position probably makes him. However, the rules for libel are different in the case of public figures, with a much higher “bar” to clear to prove actionable defamation. I’ll let one of our resident lawyers spell out the details if they desire and have the time.
Hondo, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that public figures fall into a legal gray area. It’s more difficult for them to win a libel suit against the news media because of the concept of absence of malice. Unless a public figure can prove a publication specifically set out to use false information to damage his reputation, the court’s have apparently ruled that the public’s right to know supersedes public figure privacy, and a usual fair presumption of innocence. It’s almost like a reporter’s get-out-of-jail-free card.
Still, it can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation.
Public figures have to prove “actual malice” of the defendant in publishing the false defamatory material. Which translates to knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth at the time of publication of the defamatory statement. I recall the key case is New York Times v. Sullivan (U.S. Supreme Court). And Justice Kennedy taught my Con Law class, although, I am not so proud to say that now days.
rgr769, PG: thanks. Thought I remembered that “actual malice” was required for public figures, but also remembered it was a fairly complex area. I decided it was best to leave an explanation of the details to those who’d BTDT – or who’d at least studied the issue professionally. (smile)
Is he a public figure? Sure, he’s a public employee, but can he really be called a public figure until after he has at least had a public hearing for the position he was being considered?
And if he fleetingly became one, will he forever now be one??
One of our resident lawyers would have to confirm this, OWB – but I’m reasonably sure that being nominated by the POTUS for a cabinet-level position immediately makes an individual a public figure.
I have no idea if Jackson remains a public figure after declining consideration.
He would still be a public figure, because he remains “in the public eye.” If he entered a monastery for the next ten years and the media didn’t mention him in that timeframe, he might cease to be a “public figure” for defamation law purposes.
Short answer: Unquestionably, yes.
I would bet if it got to court and someone pointed to CNN, the jury would believe they were fucking with him.
If you “can’t see them just making up four sources out of thin air” you have not been paying attention for the last 30 years.
But thanks for playing the “who is a defender of fake news” game.
“I can see CNN running with four sources that didn’t have direct knowledge (just hearsay) of an incident…” I’m sorry to read that. The “incident” as you call it was–IF CNN’s unidentified sources are correct, which I doubt–that he banged on a door. The Secret Service has no record of that or any similar occurrence.
Wait. Let’s see what comes up in a few days. Let’s wait until all of the facts are in. Let’s give Testee and CNN another chance at getting it right. No, no, and no! CNN we know about. Their unidentified sources are comments on FB and Twitter. This gutless wonder, Testee, he’s new to us as a lying sac-o-shit, but we should have known: he’s a Democrat.
An anonymous source isn’t anonymous to the reporter, just to us – reporters almost always verify a source, but protect it in exchange for the information.
Comments on Facebook and Twitter from random accounts aren’t ‘anonymous sources’.
Reporters are *supposed* to verify sources, even anonymous ones. How often they actually do so is rather disappointing these days. Especially if the reporter in question serves a particular agenda.
Exactly. What is omitted from a story is sometimes more telling than what is included.
Yup, in the 24hr news cycle, they think “what a scoop” and run to press with it. Gotta get it in before the competition.
To be fair, they need all the help they can get. Their ratings have not been good.
Crap like this only sinks their ratings deeper once exposed. And this here interwebz thingie sees to it that that exposure comes quick.
What you wrote in your first line is how it’s supposed to work. Where we part company is that you trust CNN reporters to verify and I don’t. As for fake news that was generated by social media and blogs, examples abound. After the first report, all others say “CNN reported that…” THAT’S how it works.
And another thing. An anonymous source is not at all anonymous, is he LC? How can a source of information be anonymous if the reporter knows the name of the source? It would be more accurate to say that “A source that CNN will not identify said….”
Now you’re just arguing semantics. The general term for a verified but unnamed source is an ‘anonymous source’.
Also, while it depends on the severity of the story and the relationship between a reporter and an editor, there’s zero chance that CNN talking heads are going to know the identity of sources that some investigative journalist cultivated. The source is, effectively, anonymous as far as the network on the whole is concerned.
“Now you’re just arguing semantics.” No, I’m advocating for accuracy.
There is a substantive difference between anonymity and a reporter’s decision, presumably based on a promise to a source, not to identify the source. As for “investigative reporters” do you mean such as Heraldo/Jeraldo/Whatever?
No, Anonymous is not synonymous with Unidentified. Words have meaning, very specific meaning. Correct use of them is important in every day life, if you want to be understood.
So, are you saying that the reports that it doesn’t matter? That it is my responsibility to correctly guess what may have been meant and that the only thing I know for sure is that at least some of the words aren’t used correctly, but I also get to guess which ones those might be?
I’m saying that virtually anyone who follows news knows that ‘anonymous sources’ means the source isn’t being identified to the readers.
It’s incredible, isn’t it? And by ‘incredible’, I don’t mean “isn’t credible”, I mean amazing, that words and phrases can have a commonly-understood meaning apart from their literal definition.
Really? Do you actually believe that to be true? May we see supporting the docs?
Just where does one learn this alternate meaning of words?
In this case, the “alternate definition” of which you speak is the result of the press abusing the English language during recent years to suit their purposes (or perhaps out of laziness).
There IS a distinct difference between an “anonymous source” and “a source who has requested anonymity” (alternatively, an “unnamed source”). In the former case, the source’s identity is not known to the reporter – and yes, such sources DO exist. (An example would be someone who mailed documents to a reporter without using a return address or otherwise identifying themselves.) In the latter case, the identity of the source is known to the reporter but is not made public.
Years ago, the press was fairly good about using the phrase “a source who has requested anonymity” for the case you posit. They no longer are.
In the CNN article’s case, it’s an open question whether or not the reporter means “anonymous sources” or “sources who have requested anonymity” (they ARE different). He/she could mean either, and without further information we don’t know which he/she meant.
@ Hondo
We can agree that ‘anonymous sources’ might better be named ‘unnamed sources’, but on the rest I have to disagree.
An anonymous source is rarely fully anonymous – a source is (with rare exceptions) a person known to the investigator. If someone anonymously mailed documents to a reporter without any identifying information, it wouldn’t go to print until corroborated with additional information. I’ll grant you that in that case it would probably, lazily, be called an ‘anonymous source’, but that’s a small set of all source material for news these days. One word for two different things isn’t ideal, but given that the majority use is for sources who are known but ask for anonymity, I’m inclined to think that’s the primary definition now.
It’s like how ‘soldier’ is used generically to include sailors, Marines and airmen. And, for that matter, ‘airmen’ includes women, too. Ideal? Maybe not, but it’s common enough to be accepted.
As for article, I recall the initial list was made in conversation with 23 colleagues and former colleagues of Jackson — to know that they were colleagues or former colleagues, their identity must be known. Their names are just not being released.
LC, things often depend on the ethics of the reporter and the source. They also depend on whether the source is independently confirming something, or is instead acting as a primary information conduit.
One of the bigger problems now is that anonymous sources are used routinely for primary information, and reporters are relying on them as a means of attribution without checking the validity of what the source is saying. If a source is telling a reporter what he wants to hear, there’s also a tendency to not check the gift horse’s dental.
A good example is the “A Rape on Campus” story published by Rolling Stone a few years ago in which a source named “Jackie” falsely claimed sexual assault at a UVA fraternity party. The magazine took a $1.65 million hit in the lawsuit that followed.
Sure, … which is why I’m happy seeing what unfolds. On the one hand, you have the USSS saying they have no record of Jackson wrecking a car – not quite the same as “it didn’t happen”, but enough to call into question the allegations Tester touted. On the other hand, there were apparently 25 people that came forward to the Veterans’ Affairs committee with complaints about Jackson.
It’s also worth pointing out that neither Isakson (R-GA) or Moran (R-KS) had any complaints about Tester’s release of the allegations. That could be because they were plausible, or could be because they wanted to give Tester enough rope to hang himself, but we just don’t know.
Personally, I don’t care one whit about Jackson letting high-level White House employees request Ambien even if it’s technically controlled. Long hours in a high stress job? I’m pretty sure people know what they need, and an examination would just be a formality. And there would surely be plenty of people who would complain about me in countless ways -some, possibly, even false- if I were up for a high level job. I have no skin in this game, I just think labeling these allegations false is as premature as labeling them true.
“On the other hand, there were apparently 25 people that came forward to the Veterans’ Affairs committee with complaints about Jackson.”
First, we have only a few Democrats word on that, so it’s questionable. Second, some, if not most, of the anonymous allegations go to illegal acts and certainly run afoul of medical ethics. Who, among the 23, reported Jackson to police or to a medical board? It was okay to endanger lives, allegedly, but the line was drawn at the Trump appointment, I guess. As for the question, how about this for an answer: none. How can that be? One explanation is that the allegations were manufactured by Democrats. Another is that complaints reportedly made to Testee’s committee were only made on condition that the source go unnamed. That’s awfully nice. No oath. No police. No opportunity to face one’s accuser. No nothing. It’s all bullshit.
We also don’t know how many of those
“allegations” were of the following form:
“I heard that (something bad happened). But didn’t see it myself, and I have no idea whether or not that’s true.”
Of course the R’s on the committee don’t have a problem with him releasing his memo. Imagine the vilification they’d get in the MSM if they suddenly were “trying to cover up wrongdoings in the Trump White House.”
It’s politics. As 2/17 points out, nobody wanted to report all these myriad questionable if not criminal acts BEFORE the appointment? Come on.
This is a perfect explanation of the power and corruption of the deep state or swamp that people (the newsmedia) keep saying doesn’t exist.
That’s one explanation. The other is the allegations were credible. And we don’t know which is the case.
As for things coming out now, that’s always the case – look at the Bill Cosby trial. How long has that shit taken to get out? It starts as a dribble and people dismiss it, and eventually there’s enough critical mass to warrant a real investigation / public allegation.
Hondo points out some of the sadly realistic issues with Jackson trying to defend his name, but again, I still wish he did / does. False allegations are a scourge upon any decent people, regardless of one’s politics, and people who make them deserve to have the book (and more) thrown at them.
But right it’s not clear how credible -or relevant- some of the allegations are. We need more info.
And to say this is indicative of a ‘deep state’ implies a) that the allegations are all false, and b) that even though Jackson served Presidents of both parties, they’re out to get him, which seems a bit unlikely. If the allegations are shown to be true in the weeks ahead, does that equally imply the ‘deep state’ exists but was for Jackson by successfully keeping the allegations hidden for so long?
Or, Occam’s razor: is this all just the fog of DC taking its time to sort out what’s real from what’s a political hit-job?
Here is a thought on that. No one cared about him when he was on the staff of the Mighty Mulatto. They care now simply because it is another way to impede Trump. That is what the deep state and socialist democrats, as well as never Trumpers, have been trying to do. A simple answer and the correct one.
Wow. “The allegations were credible.”
I am gobsmacked, LC, that you expect anyone at all, anyone with a working brain, to swallow a statement like that.
How were they credible? Because the badly misused jargon ‘anonymous sources’ was used in the article? That is not supportive of any kind of credibility under any circumstances. If, for example, one of those blowhards in Congress,either house, maligns me and says ‘anonymous sources’, I can and certainly will rightfully demand that s/he/it cough up the sources or face the consequences. If I am refused, then I have the right to pronounce it falsehood and proceed with whatever it takes to shut the yap of the person who said it.
I provided a link to a Jacksonville, FL, newspaper about a fired LEO who had 2 DUI charges against him, one of which included an accident, in addition to various external and internal complaints against him. His name was Ronald Jackson. Since you obviously did not bother to read that article, my use of that newspaper article as a possible/potential backup for the accusations against Ronny Jackson, the doctor (not cop) is far more credible than what you’ve said. Everything in that article is reflected by Tester’s own accusations against Jackson, none of which have any proof at all. Anonymous sources, my fat Aunt Harriet!
You have stretched your own credibility to the breaking point with that statement of yours.
How about you quote the whole bit? I didn’t say, “The allegations are credible.”, I said:
In other words, let’s get the facts. Such a horrifying proposal, I know.
Throw out bullshit, wait for facts.
Meanwhile, the reputation of a good man is destroyed.
Gotcha.
@ NHSparky
I’d prefer neither side throw out unsubstantiated bullshit. The reason we’re in this pickle is because people on both sides don’t wait for the facts.
Are you equally frustrated that President Trump alleged he knew bad things about Sen. Tester, without providing any proof? Or is that just fine because, hey, he’s on our side and against that mean Tester guy!
People shouldn’t throw out accusations without evidence. Period. Neither Sen. Tester nor President Trump.
You’re not a moron, LC. So you know damn well there’s a huge difference between Tester’s conduct and that of the POTUS.
Tester went public with derogatory content that by all indications was unsubstantiated rumor. The POTUS indicated he’d heard derogatory things about Tester, but did not elaborate on what they were.
The latter shows some restraint. The former is Tester showing the world his ass.
@ Hondo:
You’re not a moron either, Hondo. I’m sure you can see that Tester went public (and again, without complaints from his Republican colleagues on the VAC) with information given to the committee by 23 -now 25- current and former colleagues of Jackson.
That certainly doesn’t make it true, but it’s not unsubstantiated rumor, it’s the word of many people who worked with him. That’s pretty different than unsubstantiated rumor.
Do you think all those people are lying and Jackson’s name is being dragged through the mud unfairly? Or do you just dislike how allegations are enough to torpedo a nomination? That’s an honest question – I certainly dislike that, and I hope there’s a DOD IG investigation and justice is served either way. I just fail to understand why it’s fair to blindly choose Jackson’s word over that of 25 of his past and present colleagues.
I see you’ve changed the subject instead of replying to my previous comment, LC. But I’ll answer your latest questions anyway.
I give Jackson’s account far more credit than “anonymous” accusations because he’s (1) on the record as having denied them, and (2) until he withdrew his name from consideration, was subject to being questioned under oath about them. (If the allegations involve criminal conduct, he’s still on the hook to answer questions under oath about them.) When someone knows they could be questioned under oath about a public statement, they tend to be far more careful in making said public statements.
That is not true about those 25 alleged sources of derogatory information about Jackson. As far as I know, none of them have been publicly identified; none of them have publicly stated their accusations. As far as we know, it’s possible none of them have been questioned under oath – or even saw any alleged misconduct firsthand. All of those accusations could indeed be of the form, “I heard that X happened, but I didn’t see it myself.” We just don’t know the specifics of what’s been alleged; at this point, we only have secondhand accounts.
Since none of those 25 alleged sources have been publicly identified, it’s also possible they don’t exist and the “accusations” were fabricated out of whole cloth. Likely? Probably not. But that also can’t be dismissed out of hand at this point either.
If some or all of those 25 supposed detractors go public and are questioned under oath, I might revisit my opinion. But like many others, I have one helluva problem with anonymous accusations levied against anyone. Accusing someone of misconduct on the basis of anonymous accusations reeks of a star chamber proceeding – and IMO, it’s utter bullsh!t.
Anonymous accusations and accusations based on hearsay in general are not permissible in a court of law; rather, testimony is generally public, and the accusers themselves can be questioned and their claims examined in detail. Such anonymous or hearsay accusations shouldn’t be permissible in Congressional hearings, either.
@ Hondo:
That wasn’t a dodge of your comment; I just thought it answered it implicitly.
It seems our different take is that you feel the sources are anonymous if we don’t know who they are, even if others do.
I, on the other hand, feel that even if the Senate VAC committee doesn’t know their identities (it’s unclear if they do or not), someone has vouched for each and every of the 25 former and current colleagues -they had to know who they were to know they were colleagues!- and thus these are a far cry different than a nameless envelope slipped under a door with no record of who is saying what.
I do agree with you that it’d be a whole lot nicer to see some of the accusations go public, but if they’re current colleagues that’s a bit difficult. Which is why I said above I’d like to see more – say, a DOD IG report.
I hate seeing an innocent man’s reputation unfairly tarnished too, but serious allegations warrant serious actions – like an investigation. Not positions about the accused that fall along political lines.
Of course they are not anonymous sources. The lying lame stream media just doesn’t want us to know from whence they these lies came.
ONe big point here falls on the admiral. He should not meekly have quit and skulked off. He should have told Tester to go fuck himself, demanded he prove it or shut up, and said he was not going anywhere.
Yeah, LC, you are so unbelievably naive about reporters and their sources, among other things, that I wonder how you can dress yourself in the morning without written directions.
Here’s a classic:
DEWEY WINS!!!
Look it up. I know what it was based on and it made the news people into laughingstocks for a long time. They need another lesson just like that one.
Yes, reporters can get it wrong – no need to go all the way back to Dewey v Truman for that, we can just look at the recent Seth Rich stuff or Clinton ‘pizza parlor’ stuff that Fox ran as very recent examples.
The catch is, just because they were blatantly running with crazy internet rumors as ‘investigative journalism’ doesn’t mean that when they report on an upcoming meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un that they’re ‘making shit up’. And the same applies to CNN. Most stories, on both networks above, are based on facts – even if a certain bias is given in each case. To say you can’t believe anything from whichever network you like less because on rare occasions they’ve not vetted sources properly is nuts.
The majority of the news is based on facts. Facts spun a certain way, but still facts. Even the things we disagree with.
True – and absolutely irrelevant. We’re talking about a particular story, not the “majority of the news” here.
Above, you hypothesized that CNN could have published their story based on 4 hearsay accounts. If so, that is not reporting based on fact – it’s reporting based on unverified rumor and innuendo.
That’s not reporting. Rather, it’s muckraking.
My comment was in response not to the single story in question, but to Ex-PH2’s general comment about ‘reporters and sources’.
Yes, if that’s the case. If, however, it’s based on first-hand accounts of multiple witnesses, that’s a whole different ballgame. At this point, we don’t have any information that goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Someone does – either the VA committee, some CNN reporters, maybe the Navy IG, but we don’t. So, waiting to see what happens when the dust settles just strikes me as more reasonable than proclaiming guilt or innocence.
Note that if we take Jackson at his word, and these are all false, I don’t think he should’ve withdrawn. People who’ll spread false stories and assassinate someone’s character should be held accountable.
In a perfect world, you are correct.
Last time I checked, the world ain’t perfect. And unless he’s independently seriously wealthy, as a public figure the odds are rather stacked against Jackson.
First, the bar to prove defamation is much higher for public figures than for “Joe Average”. Jackson would have to meet that higher standard to prevail.
Second, reporters are going to insist they’re “protecting their sources” – so it will take a substantial effort just to find out who those sources are. That won’t come cheap.
Third: you can bet your azz that CNN will fund their reporters’ legal fees in the matter to “protect the journalistic profession” (or some such inane bullsh!t). Jackson, in contrast, will have to fund his own legal fees. For a prolonged court fight against a large news agency with deep pockets, that means he’s looking at coming up with middling six-figures for starters, and more later – unless he can find someone willing to take the case on a contingency basis. Good luck with the latter.
A person who’s quite independently wealthy (like the POTUS, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett) can afford to hire high-end lawyers to go after a news agency or other large concern if/when such an entity defames them. But most people simply can’t afford that. I’m guessing that RADM Jackson can’t – and simply said, “This sh!t ain’t worth it. Bye.”
Exactly. Give the guy the option to continue his service by leading the second biggest government organization and remain in the medical field. He probably took it thinking he’d be a shoe-in. He worked for Presidents on both sides of the aisle. The confirmation should have been a rubber stamp like for a third or fourth star.
Then suddenly he gets half the Senate and most of the news media casting aspersions on his professional character and his personal character.
Wouldn’t be worth it to me.
In another time, he would have had the option of demanding that Tester, et al back up their false accusations with with their lives. I often wonder what modern politics, society, etc. would look like if claims such as this risked a challenge on the “field of honor.”
Bring back the duel, and these lying proggies would sing a different tune. No one wants to die for lies.
Hmm. For some reason, Ex-PH2, the year 2016 comes to mind. (smile)
Mmmmmmyeah, the year they couldn’t quit gloating about an imminent Clinton win and the election was just a formality…
Exactly what I was thinking, Hondo.
Newsweek’s “Madame President” magazine is a much more current gaffe. After the Dewey Defeats Truman one, you’d think they’d have learned to double check before sending it to the newsstands.
Vainglory, Mason. Vainglory will sink a financial empire if it’s done just so.
It wasn’t their fault! Those damn voters didn’t do what they were told!
This is all part of that dreaded “blue wave”, which always makes me think of a flushing toiled with Ty-D-Bowl in it.
Creating lies that causes real damage like this should be grounds for a liable suit. Never happen, of course.
Tester is a fucking coward- in earlier times this would be pistols at dawn, and my money would be on the Admiral.
Numerous sources speaking on deep background have indicated Senator Tester has often indulged in inappropriate touching, and more serious acts, with the livestock on his farm. One victim, identified only as “Heifer X,” said such a toxic barnyard work environment included one incident when Tester was trying to force his attentions by banging on the wall of the barn.
So far, the Senator’s office has not responded to either confirm or deny the allegations.
See how that works?
X-actly. If Lack of Testes had an R after his name, CNN would already be running with that story and constantly replaying an assessment of these obscene happenings of animal abuse by the PETA spokeshole.
The really funny part of this? Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, that the sexual harassment/Secret Service intervention thing were true (and I don’t think it is, by the way). The Secret Service has no documentation on it and nobody remembers it, so it was covered up by…..the Obama administration, whom they still treat like the Second Coming of Christ. The (much, much) more likely explanation, of course, is that there’s no documentation and nobody remembers it because it didn’t happen, but even if it did, it would stain the former Glorious Leader at least as much as Trump, if not more.
What’s not funny is that RADM Jackson’s good name has been unjustly tarnished for petty political reasons.
No, cause they’ll find a bag of shredded paper in the dumpster or see smoke coming out of a chimney at the WH and say it’s PROOF Trump’s people were destroying all the evidence. 😉
What this “story” about Dr. Jackson simmers down to is whether or not Tester was acting ‘with malice aforethought’, which SOME people apparently believe does not happen.
Everyone, especially left-leaning reporters, is SO VERY honest, you know.
The media have, since the days of the NKVD, written whatever suits their needs, as long as it has the “ring of truth” to it. Gossip columnists in the heyday of Hollywood’s were experts at making stuff up to sell tabloid magazines. It used to be termed ‘yellow journalism’ – sounds plausible, so maybe it is.
I provided a link to a Jacksonville, FL, news story about a cop who was fired for many reason, among them DUI-involved accidents and a long history of internal and external complaints filed against him.
That ex-LEO had the same name as Dr. Jackson. The causes for the LEO’s dismissal were exactly the same things that Tester said about Dr. Jackson, which was a vapid, unsubstantiated and malignant attempt to sully the record of someone whose history is, as far as I can tell, blameless.
Tester is lying in his teeth and he knows it. The reporters who have spread this bit of hogwash are his enablers. There is ZERO proof of any of Tester’s allegations, and I do NOT believe that there are any anonymous sources making them. It is balderdash, hogwash, baloney, and bull shit.
Until proven otherwise, Tester is doing his best to destroy someone who has done nothing wrong. Let him go on. Karmic backlash is frequently painful.
And no, I do not give a flying fart in space about some slut porn star who wants big cash from Trump. None of this has anything to do with the government. Trump has accomplished far more than his slacker predecessor.
All of this is bullshit and we know it.
Enough said.
If malice means throwing a monkey wrench into what should otherwise be an easy confirmation, then malice most definitely exists here. Seems like malice would be a slam dunk, especially in this case.
Lefties, never Trumpers, and the DNC are throwing roadblocks in the way of anything which might make Trump look good, so why would this be any different?
Read my comment above about “actual malice” with regard to defamation against a “public figure.” And yes, ADM Jackson is a public figure. He would have become one simply as a result of Trump nominating him for VA Secretary. Although, he was in the public eye before that as a result of his work as the President’s physician and his public comments about Trump’s health. The legal standard is a function of knowledge of the falsity of the assertions or reckless disregard of whether they are true or not. And I am not a lawer now, but I played one for over 35 years.
Bottom line?
Simple.
Jackson was not qualified on his background, experience or medical specialty to run the VA. If you think otherwise, then you may need to look at your own education or qualifications within your realms of “effort”.
Flip side: Tester took a party line based on bullshit and became the spokesman for the effort to remove him (Jackson). By doing this (Tester), his lack of education and experience became very clear that his is a backwoods clown claiming others that he believes are more redneck than him. And he has say ion the VA?
I am curious to Bernie if he will step up. Is it Fact? Is it Fiction? Who knows? Hoffa?
And in then end?
??????
Not at all sure what qualifications are needed to run the VA, GT. Not being snarky there, just concerned that it is all those highly qualified experts who let the mess grow and fester to what it now is.
Can an outsider fix it? Another career bureaucrat? What we do know is that continuing to do what we have always done is what caused the problem and is not likely to change anything. And it will remain broken until those who make the rules modify the rules to allow it to be fixed. Only then can those with a will to make it work do so.
Heard on FNC RDML Jackson will be stepping down as the WH physician.