The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Can Somebody Sue to Get Jackie Coakley's Deposition Made Public?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

T. Rees Shapiro, who did good work back in 2014 breaking the U. of Virginia night of broken glass hoax, reports in the Washington Post:

Former U-Va. student ‘Jackie’ deposed in Rolling Stone lawsuit

By T. Rees Shapiro April 8 at 8:31 PM

The lawsuit against Rolling Stone filed by University of Virginia associate dean Nicole Eramo proceeded this week with the deposition of the central figure of the magazine’s discredited account of a fraternity gang-rape.

The former U-Va. student known as “Jackie” in the 2014 Rolling Stone article sat for a lengthy deposition Thursday at an undisclosed location. A judge has barred lawyers and those involved with the case from discussing details of what Jackie said under-oath about her account of being assaulted.

Eramo filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Rolling Stone for what she described in legal filings as the magazine’s portrayal of her as callous and indifferent to Jackie’s claims. Rolling Stone retracted the article in 2015 after the Columbia Journalism School confirmed that the account was deeply flawed.

[Attorneys for ‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone lawsuit protest under-oath deposition, say it could ‘re-traumatize’ her]

In court documents, Eramo’s lawyers described Jackie as a serial fabulist who made up her gang-rape allegations in a bizarre and unsuccessful scheme to win the pity and romantic interest of a classmate.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Eramo’s lawyers declined to comment on the details of the deposition.

“Although I’m not allowed to speak about the substance of what Jackie said during the deposition, I can say that we feel that Nicole’s case is very strong,” said Libby Locke, a lawyer for Eramo. “It got stronger after yesterday’s deposition. And we expect that it will continue to get stronger as we pursue discovery against Rolling Stone.”

Lawyers for Jackie did not return a request for comment.

It would seem to me that Americans have a public interest justification in getting these proceedings unbound.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some kind of quasi-coordinated effort to make coverage of his luridly hilarious story that is so representative of the lunacy of our age as dull as possible: don’t mention Jackie’s last name, don’t mention Haven Monahan, don’t mention catfishing. Dull, dull, dull … My guess would be that Rolling Stone’s lawyers are playing a game of keeping the whole story as boring as possible.

Could a public interest law group file a motion to put all this into the public record? One of the lessons of the Oscar-winning movie Spotlight was that reporters really need access to sworn testimony to fully expose scandals. Without official documents to quote, everything sounds too boring to matter.

 
Hide 115 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Could a public interest law group file a motion to put all this into the public record?

    Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @iSteveFan

    "Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican."

    If you are running for political office as a Republican, the Left Wing media will dig up and find out what you ate for dinner on April 8th, 2006.

    , @a Newsreader
    @iSteveFan

    Maybe we could form a grassroots effort to draft her for a congressional race.

    , @Anonymous
    @iSteveFan

    Or if her husband were to as happened with Mister Seven of Nine.

  2. You seem pretty obsessed.

    • Replies: @Wyrd
    @Anonymous

    Shut up, SJW.

    , @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    Steve was one of the first people to smell a rat. He's not so much obsessed as thorough. Besides, this is a delicious deconstruction of what the left now holds dear – the demonization of white men.

    I hope that Eramo gets her millions and that Rolling Stone, if not driven out of business altogether, is more circumspect in future, together with Gawker (in a similar boat) and other such organs following the globalists' agenda.

    , @Randal
    @Anonymous


    You seem pretty obsessed.
     
    "Obsessed" = "concerned about an issue I don't approve of", in your case, I suspect.
    , @Dirk Dagger
    @Anonymous

    Deflect much?

  3. Anyone at the law firms representing the parties can release the deposition transcript. Carefully, of course. But doubtless any paralegal, secretary, or interested lawyer can likely view the transcript and make a surreptitious copy. Let’s hope they are civic minded.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    @Big Bill

    When I think civic minded I think of biglaw, so we're good

    , @Colleen Pater
    @Big Bill

    while no ones should want rolling stone to suffer any less than possible this associate dean may have privately quietly ignored jackies tale she publicly allowed the evil white men meme to circulate unofficially and rolling stone and others acted on the fact the tale was not crushed by the school

  4. Lot says:

    You don’t need a separate lawsuit, you’d file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That’s easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition’s confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no “surprise” exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don’t have lawyers following the case, or don’t have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I’d look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she’d argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn’t want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie’s UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Lot

    Off topic, but point three of your post is also the reason that businesses like to use arbitration to resolve their disputes. Confidential business data is better protected in arbitration than litigation. A very senior British judicial official complained recently tht too much justice was being conducted behind closed doors and blamed arbitration.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @Brutusale
    @Lot

    In other words, a job for Gloria Allred.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Lot

    I'll bet you could raise $6k with a Kickstarter campaign.

    , @jimmyriddle
    @Lot

    But surely if, as seems likely, Jackie's testimony consisted of: "I made it all up. Oops!", then the fraternity has a right to be vindicated in public?

    , @AndrewR
    @Lot

    (((Shapiro))) lost his credibility with the Trump dump.

  5. @Anonymous
    You seem pretty obsessed.

    Replies: @Wyrd, @Thomas Fuller, @Randal, @Dirk Dagger

    Shut up, SJW.

  6. Lot says:

    Anyone at the law firms representing the parties can release the deposition transcript. Carefully, of course. But doubtless any paralegal, secretary, or interested lawyer can likely view the transcript and make a surreptitious copy. Let’s hope they are civic minded.

    Everyone at the law firms involved signed a confidentiality agreement when they were hired, and would make themselves unemployable if they leaked a confidential document, especially to serve our unpopular “far right” agenda. For this reason this is very unlikely to happen. Probably over 100 people will have access to it, but they probably all prefer continued employment.

    If Jackie has no lawyer or a bad one, she may not have conditioned her agreement to a deposition on a protective order. Or a hardass judge might have refused to provide one. In that case, leaking it would still be discouraged, but not violate any confidences, any more than leaking a transcript of a conversation two people had on a bus.

    Also, if this is the case, then the transcript can be filed with the court and would go online right away. To get access all you would need to do is pay the $3.00 download fee from the court website.

  7. @iSteveFan

    Could a public interest law group file a motion to put all this into the public record?
     
    Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @a Newsreader, @Anonymous

    “Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican.”

    If you are running for political office as a Republican, the Left Wing media will dig up and find out what you ate for dinner on April 8th, 2006.

  8. Modern american life is hard enough: let’s give troubled 20 year olds a break.

    • Replies: @e
    @vinny

    Bull shit.

    , @Michael Soren
    @vinny

    It's not about her, Vinny. It's about the risibly flimsy grounds upon which the media, academia, and government launched (and continue to perpetrate) the moral panic of a rape epidemic by straight white males. Yes, Jackie was played like a pawn and is--at least partially--a victim as well, but that also needs to be exposed,

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @vinny

    Has Jackie publicly acknowledged perpetrating this hoax and apologized to the many people and institutions damaged by it? If not, I don't see why she is entitled to a break.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @vinny

    She didn't give that fraternity at which the claimed the rape took place much of a break. I agree, however, that Jackie is not the principal villain--the author of the piece, Sabrina Rubin Erdely (I think) is either a psychopath or pure, distilled, from the pit of Hell evil, who should never be allowed near a writing instrument of any kind.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  9. If the public interest required unsealing Jack and Jeri Ryan’s divorce proceedings, then it certainly ought to extend to unsealing Jackie’s deposition.

  10. @Big Bill
    Anyone at the law firms representing the parties can release the deposition transcript. Carefully, of course. But doubtless any paralegal, secretary, or interested lawyer can likely view the transcript and make a surreptitious copy. Let's hope they are civic minded.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Colleen Pater

    When I think civic minded I think of biglaw, so we’re good

    • Agree: AndrewR
  11. You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Anonymous

    Twisted is a word better used to describe "this young woman". She's a really sick puppy who inflicted enormous suffering on a group of innocent young men. Only a fanatical, virtue-seeking SJW would even pretend otherwise. Since you have nothing of value to contribute, why don't you just STFU and crawl back into whatever den of stupidity you've temporarily vacated.

    , @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Anonymous

    If you're going to post fembot attacks on Steve's character, can you please hit him with the appropriate cliches? The script has already been written by feminists and SJWs. All you have to do is choose one of the following pre-fabricated lines:

    1). Guess your mommy didn't love you.

    2). I bet you live in your mom's basement.

    3). You have a small &^##.

    Of course, what's missing in this script is any attempt to actually engage Steve intellectually regarding what he wrote. Why would that be? Possibly because when a person knows they don't have a cogent argument they resort to personal insults.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous

    The usual response to a hoax like this that blows up in the face of the SJWs is to say, "Everyone was a victim in this unfortunate matter. Let us put it behind us and speak no more about it."

    Sorry, the people responsible for things like this are ruining other people's lives. As long as they suffer no repercussions, there's no reason for them to stop.

    , @MC
    @Anonymous

    Hi Jackie! Your comments could use some spicing up. Maybe instead of quoting "Dawson's Creek" this time, you could slip in some quotes from "Party of Five" or "One Tree Hill"

    Replies: @Ivy

    , @JEGG
    @Anonymous

    I think that it's important to expose the personal sickness and distorted cultural values that underlie this case so that other young females and SJWs don't get so out of control again.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Anonymous

    "You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted."

    Yes, only men should have to conform to the established legal & moral norms of our civilization. To expect that of a woman, let alone a young woman, is quite twisted indeed. Girls, after all, are not merely the lowbrow product of snips, snails, and puppy dog tails, and as such, deserve a plethora of rights and privileges not granted to us (male) commoners.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Anonymous

    Are you aware of what this woman, Jackie Last-name-redacted, is doing? She fabricated a story about herself being raped, accused other actual real people (the members of a particular fraternity) of having committed this non-existent crime, and now says that it would be too traumatic for her to dredge up the fake events that never happened which she used to attack the character of other people.

    , @dumpstersquirrel
    @Anonymous

    "You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted."

    Hi, Jackie!

  12. Either the judge ordered that the parties were not to release the deposition transcript, or the plaintiff’s attorneys agreed to do so, at least for the time being, so as to not have given Jackie’s attorneys other grounds to object to the deposition being taken. It’s not that unusual for parties in civil litigation to agree to keep discovery materials confidential, and will often over designate.

    A third party might have to intervene in the case to have the transcript released if the parties are unwilling to do so. Otherwise, unless the transcript or portions of it are part of a motion or are used at trial, it’s not really a public record, so there’s not a freedom of information act angle.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @blah blah teleblah


    Either the judge ordered that the parties were not to release the deposition transcript, or the plaintiff’s attorneys agreed to do so, at least for the time being, so as to not have given Jackie’s attorneys other grounds to object to the deposition being taken.
     
    There aren't any reasons to object to the deposition being taken.
  13. Jackie said all of her rapists have blond hair. Was she raped by The Hanson Brothers?

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Jefferson

    The Canadian goons who played for the Chiefs? Seems out of character.

    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Jefferson

    At 0:37 in the video at comment #14, a taxi door is seen bearing the lettering "[?]NITED TAXI San Fernando Valley". Why is the U blacked out? This seems like a not-very-effective way for a taxi company to go incognito. The taxi driver, who is a Method actor, says, "What's my motivation?"

  14. @Jefferson
    Jackie said all of her rapists have blond hair. Was she raped by The Hanson Brothers?
    https://youtu.be/NHozn0YXAeE

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    The Canadian goons who played for the Chiefs? Seems out of character.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Prosecutors offer details on Dennis Hastert’s alleged sexual abuse of teenagers”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/prosecutors-offer-details-on-dennis-hasterts-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-teenagers/2016/04/08/5a96bd68-fcc8-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

    Federal prosecutors on Friday detailed some of the lurid allegations of sexual misconduct against former U.S. House speaker Dennis Hastert and asked a federal judge to subject the Illinois Republican to a sex offender evaluation.

    In a memo in advance of an April 27 sentencing hearing, prosecutors spelled out in graphic detail how Hastert sexually molested or inappropriately touched five teenagers who trusted him as their wrestling coach. And as Hastert rose to power, believing that his wrongdoing would never be made public, his victims struggled with the effects of the abuse, prosecutors wrote.

    Prosecutors detailed remarkably similar stories from each of the now-grown men.

    One — who said he was a 14-year-old freshman when the abuse occurred — alleged that Hastert told him to get on a table so he could “loosen him up,” then massaged and performed a sex act on him. Another — who said he was 17 years old when the abuse occurred — alleged that Hastert offered him a massage to help him cut weight, then performed a sex act on him. That victim said Hastert kept a chair in direct view of the locker room shower stalls.

    A third man said that Hastert brushed his genitals after a wrestling practice and that it was “very weird,” though he was not sure whether it was done intentionally. The man whom Hastert paid off alleged that Hastert touched him inappropriately in a motel room on a trip. The fifth victim, prosecutors said, is deceased, but his sister has alleged publicly that her brother confided in her that his first same-sex experience was with Hastert.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

  16. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    Twisted is a word better used to describe “this young woman”. She’s a really sick puppy who inflicted enormous suffering on a group of innocent young men. Only a fanatical, virtue-seeking SJW would even pretend otherwise. Since you have nothing of value to contribute, why don’t you just STFU and crawl back into whatever den of stupidity you’ve temporarily vacated.

  17. @Anonymous
    "Prosecutors offer details on Dennis Hastert’s alleged sexual abuse of teenagers"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/prosecutors-offer-details-on-dennis-hasterts-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-teenagers/2016/04/08/5a96bd68-fcc8-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

    Federal prosecutors on Friday detailed some of the lurid allegations of sexual misconduct against former U.S. House speaker Dennis Hastert and asked a federal judge to subject the Illinois Republican to a sex offender evaluation.

    In a memo in advance of an April 27 sentencing hearing, prosecutors spelled out in graphic detail how Hastert sexually molested or inappropriately touched five teenagers who trusted him as their wrestling coach. And as Hastert rose to power, believing that his wrongdoing would never be made public, his victims struggled with the effects of the abuse, prosecutors wrote.

    Prosecutors detailed remarkably similar stories from each of the now-grown men.

    One — who said he was a 14-year-old freshman when the abuse occurred — alleged that Hastert told him to get on a table so he could “loosen him up,” then massaged and performed a sex act on him. Another — who said he was 17 years old when the abuse occurred — alleged that Hastert offered him a massage to help him cut weight, then performed a sex act on him. That victim said Hastert kept a chair in direct view of the locker room shower stalls.

    A third man said that Hastert brushed his genitals after a wrestling practice and that it was “very weird,” though he was not sure whether it was done intentionally. The man whom Hastert paid off alleged that Hastert touched him inappropriately in a motel room on a trip. The fifth victim, prosecutors said, is deceased, but his sister has alleged publicly that her brother confided in her that his first same-sex experience was with Hastert.
     

    Replies: @Anonymous

    It’s kind of odd that they didn’t fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn’t even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    @Anonymous

    Wikipedia posts Hastert's teaching career from 1965-81.

    One of the four victims was the equipment manager, Steve Remboldt, who died of AIDS in 1995. He graduated in 1971. His sister believes that "Individual A", the one who blackmailed Hastert, knew about Rembolt. (I don't know if sister has solid grounds to know that.)

    The others seem to describe a massage that ended with a "sexual act". There wasn't as much information about homosexuality in the 1960s--there wasn't as much information period. So a trusted coach giving a therapeutic massage; which turns into a "happy ending", it's not immediately obvious to a teenage boy how to feel. (Obviously having your crank yanked felt good, but other than that). Did he "do anything to you"? Well, he did something for you...

    Homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. My guess is that Coach didn't come across as mentally disordered. He wasn't crossdressing or kissing little boys. He was a big buff tough football/wrestling coach.

    So maybe that's part of the medical treatment? IS it any weirder than drinking raw eggs? (IF you don't know anything about how sexual predators operate.) But on the whole, no thanks coach, I don't think I want another massage.

    That's my uninformed guess as to why the kids didn't fight him off, or say anything.

    , @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    I always hate to sound like a feminist, but someone doesn't, and shouldn't, have to try to "fight back" in order to be considered a victim. There are too many variables in play to be able to say "this person didn't fight off the sexual aggressor therefore they weren't really a victim." This is especially true in cases where the offender has authority over the victim, and even more so when the victim is a minor.

    Now having said all this, I don't think a teenager getting a BJ from a young coach is the most heinous crime imaginable, and it is quite possible that the boys did in fact enjoy it. A coach crossing the line doesn't proclude the student from blackmailing the coach at a later date. Life is rarely black and white. I imagine we'll see a film about all this at some point. Maybe Seth Rogen could play Hastert.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Anonymous

    It was deeply shameful for them and they didn't want anyone to know what had happened. They probably just wanted to forget that the whole unpleasant experience had happened.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Portlander
    @Anonymous

    Gaydar.

    Which is to say it was consensual. Statutory rape, but consensual nonetheless.

    , @carol
    @Anonymous

    I suspect there is usually some aspect of mutuality, but legally we don't allow underage to make these decisions for themselves. So part of the problem is self-blame, guilt, then seeing the heinous act as the root of all later problems in life.

  18. • Replies: @jill
    @t

    Hastert was never on trial for sexual abuse. He was not indicted/convicted of any such crime. It is an absolute disgrace for the prosecutor to release such information to the public. The allegations were never proven in a court of law, civil or criminal.

    Hastert's bank withdrawals of his own dam money were flagged ( probably by his bank to FINCEN) because his was withdrawing numerous amounts under the 10k reporting requirement.

    To make matters worse, Hastert made statements to the FBI. You never talk the the FBI or any police person without a lawyer. It is insane if you do.

    Just ask Thomas Drake who reported a billion dollars of waste at the NSA and made voluntary statements to the FBI. The FBI with the help of the US Attorney used those same statements and charged Drake with espionage.
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4389857/thomas-drakes-npc-luncheon-speech

    Hastert pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators.

    Hard to wrap your head around a case where the victim of extortion goes to jail and the extortionist is lauded a hero.

    A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
    "Don't talk to the Police"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    Replies: @TheJester, @Diversity Heretic

  19. Off topic, but Comrades, I have found an intelligent, well written and important article on the Salon web site:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/04/08/nuclear_winter_on_a_planetary_scale_the_biggest_threat_to_mankind_virtually_no_one_is_talking_about_partner/

  20. @vinny
    Modern american life is hard enough: let's give troubled 20 year olds a break.

    Replies: @e, @Michael Soren, @Harry Baldwin, @Diversity Heretic

    Bull shit.

  21. @blah blah teleblah
    Either the judge ordered that the parties were not to release the deposition transcript, or the plaintiff's attorneys agreed to do so, at least for the time being, so as to not have given Jackie's attorneys other grounds to object to the deposition being taken. It's not that unusual for parties in civil litigation to agree to keep discovery materials confidential, and will often over designate.

    A third party might have to intervene in the case to have the transcript released if the parties are unwilling to do so. Otherwise, unless the transcript or portions of it are part of a motion or are used at trial, it's not really a public record, so there's not a freedom of information act angle.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Either the judge ordered that the parties were not to release the deposition transcript, or the plaintiff’s attorneys agreed to do so, at least for the time being, so as to not have given Jackie’s attorneys other grounds to object to the deposition being taken.

    There aren’t any reasons to object to the deposition being taken.

  22. @vinny
    Modern american life is hard enough: let's give troubled 20 year olds a break.

    Replies: @e, @Michael Soren, @Harry Baldwin, @Diversity Heretic

    It’s not about her, Vinny. It’s about the risibly flimsy grounds upon which the media, academia, and government launched (and continue to perpetrate) the moral panic of a rape epidemic by straight white males. Yes, Jackie was played like a pawn and is–at least partially–a victim as well, but that also needs to be exposed,

  23. The Washington Post came out with a brand new article today on the KKK. It must be an extremely slow news day.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2016/04/08/a-photographer-hung-out-with-the-kkk-in-tennessee-and-maryland-heres-what-he-saw/

    It is 2016, but in Left Wing America it’s still 1936 with their obsession with the KKK.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Jefferson


    The Washington Post came out with a brand new article today on the KKK.
     
    KKK? I don't see any KKK in those pictures... just a bunch of FBI informants and $PLC infiltrators.
    , @TWS
    @Jefferson

    What's the hardest part of joining the KKK?

    Passing the FBI background check.

  24. The way it will become public is this:

    Any lawsuit against the University of Virginia involving this case will subject UVA’s discovery, including all relevant deposition transcripts (which UVA will, of course, demand), to FOIA. So UVA will have to release them.

  25. According to this article, there are a lot more people who self identify themselves as a Jedi than there are people who self identify themselves as a Klansman.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/01/far-more-people-claim-alien-abduction-than-membership-in-the-kkk
    There are also a lot more people who claim they have been abducted by UFOs, than there are people who self identify with the Klan.

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Jefferson

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @Jim Don Bob, @Mr. Anon, @Michael Moore

  26. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    If you’re going to post fembot attacks on Steve’s character, can you please hit him with the appropriate cliches? The script has already been written by feminists and SJWs. All you have to do is choose one of the following pre-fabricated lines:

    1). Guess your mommy didn’t love you.

    2). I bet you live in your mom’s basement.

    3). You have a small &^##.

    Of course, what’s missing in this script is any attempt to actually engage Steve intellectually regarding what he wrote. Why would that be? Possibly because when a person knows they don’t have a cogent argument they resort to personal insults.

  27. @vinny
    Modern american life is hard enough: let's give troubled 20 year olds a break.

    Replies: @e, @Michael Soren, @Harry Baldwin, @Diversity Heretic

    Has Jackie publicly acknowledged perpetrating this hoax and apologized to the many people and institutions damaged by it? If not, I don’t see why she is entitled to a break.

  28. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    The usual response to a hoax like this that blows up in the face of the SJWs is to say, “Everyone was a victim in this unfortunate matter. Let us put it behind us and speak no more about it.”

    Sorry, the people responsible for things like this are ruining other people’s lives. As long as they suffer no repercussions, there’s no reason for them to stop.

  29. isn’t the frat and frat brothers past and graduated suing her and her legal leeches?

  30. She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub, not a Haven Monahan-esque stud:

    http://gotnews.com/breaking-wedding-photos-of-jackiecoakley-uva-rape-hoax/

    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    @Anonymous

    Good lord, Americans ... who the hell wears a lumberjack shirt on their wedding day?

    TBF though he doesn't look like a schlub. He could do better.

    Replies: @Discordiax

    , @Jonathan Silber
    @Anonymous

    She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub...

    Red flag: he appears to have married her in a plaid shirt.

    , @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Any man who marries a woman prone to making false accusations is heading for divorce. She's too nutty to provide the stability that a marriage needs. What's more, why did he marry her 'last year' with all this mess fresh on her personal resume? That guy was either fishing for any potential money that could come her way via the publicity (did the interviewer from Rolling Stone promise that Jackie's story could be turned into a book? Was Jackie thinking of suing her college?), or he's one of those masochistic white knights who specialize in rescuing extremely crazy chicks.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  31. I had an opportunity to follow the majority of the Zimmerman case court proceedings as a live net video feed … the disconnect between the surreal farce I witnessed with my own eyes and the “balanced” media reports was amazing …

  32. Meanwhile, Haven has struck again, this time in Texas:
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Teen-suspect-jailed-in-UT-murder-7236740.php

    And news broke today that Haven has been found guilty for Nashville rapes from 2013:
    http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2016/04/09/jury-cory-batey-guilty-vanderbilt-rape-retrial/82769934/

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @penntothal

    "Meanwhile, Haven has struck again, this time in Texas:"

    Even though Haven is a blond Northern European, he is able to get a darker tan than Mediterranean Southern Europeans. He sure loves to bask in that Austin, Texas sun.

    , @candid_observer
    @penntothal

    The first name of the "teen" is "Meechaiel" [sic].

    Might as well start the kid's life by hitting him on the head with a ping hammer. Naming as child abuse.

    And of course if this name were used on a resume in one of those experiments to investigate bias, the experimenters would be shocked, shocked at the level of racism found.

  33. @Anonymous
    You seem pretty obsessed.

    Replies: @Wyrd, @Thomas Fuller, @Randal, @Dirk Dagger

    Steve was one of the first people to smell a rat. He’s not so much obsessed as thorough. Besides, this is a delicious deconstruction of what the left now holds dear – the demonization of white men.

    I hope that Eramo gets her millions and that Rolling Stone, if not driven out of business altogether, is more circumspect in future, together with Gawker (in a similar boat) and other such organs following the globalists’ agenda.

  34. @Lot
    You don't need a separate lawsuit, you'd file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That's easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition's confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no "surprise" exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don't have lawyers following the case, or don't have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I'd look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she'd argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn't want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie's UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Brutusale, @Jim Don Bob, @jimmyriddle, @AndrewR

    Off topic, but point three of your post is also the reason that businesses like to use arbitration to resolve their disputes. Confidential business data is better protected in arbitration than litigation. A very senior British judicial official complained recently tht too much justice was being conducted behind closed doors and blamed arbitration.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Diversity Heretic

    It is true that arbitration is used to settle many business disputes. Contracts can say that both parties agree to abide by binding arbitration not just for secrecy, but also because arbitration is faster and cheaper than slogging through the courts for years. This is especially true in international contracts where you are, for example, building a billion dollar refinery and can't afford to have work stop for six years.

    What happens in that each party picks one judge, and then those two pick a third judge. The parties agree on where the arbitration will take place and what country's rules will apply. I know a guy who makes a lot of money doing this.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic

  35. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    Hi Jackie! Your comments could use some spicing up. Maybe instead of quoting “Dawson’s Creek” this time, you could slip in some quotes from “Party of Five” or “One Tree Hill”

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @MC

    Why not add on The OC, Blossom and any other show like that? She probably binged them all.

  36. @vinny
    Modern american life is hard enough: let's give troubled 20 year olds a break.

    Replies: @e, @Michael Soren, @Harry Baldwin, @Diversity Heretic

    She didn’t give that fraternity at which the claimed the rape took place much of a break. I agree, however, that Jackie is not the principal villain–the author of the piece, Sabrina Rubin Erdely (I think) is either a psychopath or pure, distilled, from the pit of Hell evil, who should never be allowed near a writing instrument of any kind.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Diversity Heretic

    The editors of Rolling Stone who accepted the story are also culpable. The rest of the media who run with it. The university which closed the fraternity, though eventually turned on Jackie. The feminists who used this and then later never said sorry, or even said that "the real victims were the women who will not be believed".

  37. @penntothal
    Meanwhile, Haven has struck again, this time in Texas:
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Teen-suspect-jailed-in-UT-murder-7236740.php

    And news broke today that Haven has been found guilty for Nashville rapes from 2013:
    http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2016/04/09/jury-cory-batey-guilty-vanderbilt-rape-retrial/82769934/

    Replies: @Jefferson, @candid_observer

    “Meanwhile, Haven has struck again, this time in Texas:”

    Even though Haven is a blond Northern European, he is able to get a darker tan than Mediterranean Southern Europeans. He sure loves to bask in that Austin, Texas sun.

  38. Off topic:
    Wouldn’t it be great to see who’d be more offended if the Cleveland Indians changed their name to the Cleveland Caucasians!

    caucasians_shirt_sales_jump(cleveland.com)

    • Replies: @tyrone
    @jack o'fire

    DON'T piss off the chechens!

  39. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    I think that it’s important to expose the personal sickness and distorted cultural values that underlie this case so that other young females and SJWs don’t get so out of control again.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @JEGG

    That's unrealistic. Young females and SJWs finna young female and SJW. The point of shining light on these hoaxes and hanging the con-people out to dry is to teach mainstream society whom not to trust. Lying leftists are always going to do what they do but a wise society will learn from these things and be more skeptical in the future.

  40. @jack o'fire
    Off topic:
    Wouldn't it be great to see who'd be more offended if the Cleveland Indians changed their name to the Cleveland Caucasians!

    caucasians_shirt_sales_jump(cleveland.com)

    Replies: @tyrone

    DON’T piss off the chechens!

    • Agree: slumber_j
  41. @Anonymous
    You seem pretty obsessed.

    Replies: @Wyrd, @Thomas Fuller, @Randal, @Dirk Dagger

    You seem pretty obsessed.

    “Obsessed” = “concerned about an issue I don’t approve of”, in your case, I suspect.

  42. @Jefferson
    According to this article, there are a lot more people who self identify themselves as a Jedi than there are people who self identify themselves as a Klansman.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/01/far-more-people-claim-alien-abduction-than-membership-in-the-kkk
    There are also a lot more people who claim they have been abducted by UFOs, than there are people who self identify with the Klan.

    Replies: @neutral

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    @neutral

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.

    And I read somewhere that of those 3000, only a few are Black.

    That is, like, so racist!

    Replies: @Jefferson

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @neutral

    Right, and at least half of them are undercover cops and FBI agents.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @neutral

    "I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA."

    And how many of them are FBI or SPLC informants?

    , @Michael Moore
    @neutral

    Or more people in the 1%

  43. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

    Wikipedia posts Hastert’s teaching career from 1965-81.

    One of the four victims was the equipment manager, Steve Remboldt, who died of AIDS in 1995. He graduated in 1971. His sister believes that “Individual A”, the one who blackmailed Hastert, knew about Rembolt. (I don’t know if sister has solid grounds to know that.)

    The others seem to describe a massage that ended with a “sexual act”. There wasn’t as much information about homosexuality in the 1960s–there wasn’t as much information period. So a trusted coach giving a therapeutic massage; which turns into a “happy ending”, it’s not immediately obvious to a teenage boy how to feel. (Obviously having your crank yanked felt good, but other than that). Did he “do anything to you”? Well, he did something for you…

    Homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. My guess is that Coach didn’t come across as mentally disordered. He wasn’t crossdressing or kissing little boys. He was a big buff tough football/wrestling coach.

    So maybe that’s part of the medical treatment? IS it any weirder than drinking raw eggs? (IF you don’t know anything about how sexual predators operate.) But on the whole, no thanks coach, I don’t think I want another massage.

    That’s my uninformed guess as to why the kids didn’t fight him off, or say anything.

  44. @Diversity Heretic
    @Lot

    Off topic, but point three of your post is also the reason that businesses like to use arbitration to resolve their disputes. Confidential business data is better protected in arbitration than litigation. A very senior British judicial official complained recently tht too much justice was being conducted behind closed doors and blamed arbitration.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    It is true that arbitration is used to settle many business disputes. Contracts can say that both parties agree to abide by binding arbitration not just for secrecy, but also because arbitration is faster and cheaper than slogging through the courts for years. This is especially true in international contracts where you are, for example, building a billion dollar refinery and can’t afford to have work stop for six years.

    What happens in that each party picks one judge, and then those two pick a third judge. The parties agree on where the arbitration will take place and what country’s rules will apply. I know a guy who makes a lot of money doing this.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Jim Don Bob

    You're quite correct that there are a number of reasons other than confidentiality for parties, especially in commercial contracts, to specify arbitration as a means of dispute-resolution. And there are professional arbitrators--one small objection to arbitration is that the arbitrators have to be paid, judges don't. And arbitration is evolving into "litigation lite," as lawyers become increasingly involved. It's still generally preferable to litigation.

  45. @Jefferson
    Jackie said all of her rapists have blond hair. Was she raped by The Hanson Brothers?
    https://youtu.be/NHozn0YXAeE

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    At 0:37 in the video at comment #14, a taxi door is seen bearing the lettering “[?]NITED TAXI San Fernando Valley”. Why is the U blacked out? This seems like a not-very-effective way for a taxi company to go incognito. The taxi driver, who is a Method actor, says, “What’s my motivation?”

  46. @Diversity Heretic
    @vinny

    She didn't give that fraternity at which the claimed the rape took place much of a break. I agree, however, that Jackie is not the principal villain--the author of the piece, Sabrina Rubin Erdely (I think) is either a psychopath or pure, distilled, from the pit of Hell evil, who should never be allowed near a writing instrument of any kind.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The editors of Rolling Stone who accepted the story are also culpable. The rest of the media who run with it. The university which closed the fraternity, though eventually turned on Jackie. The feminists who used this and then later never said sorry, or even said that “the real victims were the women who will not be believed”.

  47. I’d not be surprised if, sixty years or so from now when she dies, even her tombstone identifies her only as “Jackie.”

    For sure will her obituary in the NYT.

  48. @Anonymous
    She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub, not a Haven Monahan-esque stud:

    http://gotnews.com/breaking-wedding-photos-of-jackiecoakley-uva-rape-hoax/

    Replies: @jimmyriddle, @Jonathan Silber, @Anon

    Good lord, Americans … who the hell wears a lumberjack shirt on their wedding day?

    TBF though he doesn’t look like a schlub. He could do better.

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    @jimmyriddle

    Who wears a plaid shirt to get married? Same dude who marries a rape-hoaxing psycho.

  49. @Lot
    You don't need a separate lawsuit, you'd file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That's easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition's confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no "surprise" exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don't have lawyers following the case, or don't have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I'd look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she'd argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn't want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie's UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Brutusale, @Jim Don Bob, @jimmyriddle, @AndrewR

    In other words, a job for Gloria Allred.

  50. @neutral
    @Jefferson

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @Jim Don Bob, @Mr. Anon, @Michael Moore

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.

    And I read somewhere that of those 3000, only a few are Black.

    That is, like, so racist!

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Jonathan Silber

    "I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.

    And I read somewhere that of those 3000, only a few are Black.

    That is, like, so racist!"

    The Nevada chapter of the KKK recently added 2 Black guys to their staff. They came out to proudly support Donald Trump.

  51. @neutral
    @Jefferson

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @Jim Don Bob, @Mr. Anon, @Michael Moore

    Right, and at least half of them are undercover cops and FBI agents.

  52. @Lot
    You don't need a separate lawsuit, you'd file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That's easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition's confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no "surprise" exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don't have lawyers following the case, or don't have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I'd look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she'd argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn't want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie's UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Brutusale, @Jim Don Bob, @jimmyriddle, @AndrewR

    I’ll bet you could raise $6k with a Kickstarter campaign.

  53. @Lot
    You don't need a separate lawsuit, you'd file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That's easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition's confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no "surprise" exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don't have lawyers following the case, or don't have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I'd look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she'd argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn't want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie's UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Brutusale, @Jim Don Bob, @jimmyriddle, @AndrewR

    But surely if, as seems likely, Jackie’s testimony consisted of: “I made it all up. Oops!”, then the fraternity has a right to be vindicated in public?

  54. @iSteveFan

    Could a public interest law group file a motion to put all this into the public record?
     
    Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @a Newsreader, @Anonymous

    Maybe we could form a grassroots effort to draft her for a congressional race.

  55. @Lot
    You don't need a separate lawsuit, you'd file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That's easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.

    A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.

    The deposition's confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.

    First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.

    Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.

    Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no "surprise" exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).

    Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don't have lawyers following the case, or don't have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.

    If I were Jackie, I'd look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she'd argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.

    To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn't want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.

    More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie's UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Brutusale, @Jim Don Bob, @jimmyriddle, @AndrewR

    (((Shapiro))) lost his credibility with the Trump dump.

  56. @Anonymous
    She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub, not a Haven Monahan-esque stud:

    http://gotnews.com/breaking-wedding-photos-of-jackiecoakley-uva-rape-hoax/

    Replies: @jimmyriddle, @Jonathan Silber, @Anon

    She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub…

    Red flag: he appears to have married her in a plaid shirt.

  57. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Yes, only men should have to conform to the established legal & moral norms of our civilization. To expect that of a woman, let alone a young woman, is quite twisted indeed. Girls, after all, are not merely the lowbrow product of snips, snails, and puppy dog tails, and as such, deserve a plethora of rights and privileges not granted to us (male) commoners.

  58. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    Are you aware of what this woman, Jackie Last-name-redacted, is doing? She fabricated a story about herself being raped, accused other actual real people (the members of a particular fraternity) of having committed this non-existent crime, and now says that it would be too traumatic for her to dredge up the fake events that never happened which she used to attack the character of other people.

  59. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

    I always hate to sound like a feminist, but someone doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to try to “fight back” in order to be considered a victim. There are too many variables in play to be able to say “this person didn’t fight off the sexual aggressor therefore they weren’t really a victim.” This is especially true in cases where the offender has authority over the victim, and even more so when the victim is a minor.

    Now having said all this, I don’t think a teenager getting a BJ from a young coach is the most heinous crime imaginable, and it is quite possible that the boys did in fact enjoy it. A coach crossing the line doesn’t proclude the student from blackmailing the coach at a later date. Life is rarely black and white. I imagine we’ll see a film about all this at some point. Maybe Seth Rogen could play Hastert.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @AndrewR

    "Preclude"

    Damn this site's unforgiving edit feature

    , @ScarletNumber
    @AndrewR

    I'm sure he was just lending a helping hand.

  60. @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    I always hate to sound like a feminist, but someone doesn't, and shouldn't, have to try to "fight back" in order to be considered a victim. There are too many variables in play to be able to say "this person didn't fight off the sexual aggressor therefore they weren't really a victim." This is especially true in cases where the offender has authority over the victim, and even more so when the victim is a minor.

    Now having said all this, I don't think a teenager getting a BJ from a young coach is the most heinous crime imaginable, and it is quite possible that the boys did in fact enjoy it. A coach crossing the line doesn't proclude the student from blackmailing the coach at a later date. Life is rarely black and white. I imagine we'll see a film about all this at some point. Maybe Seth Rogen could play Hastert.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    “Preclude”

    Damn this site’s unforgiving edit feature

  61. Seems like the fraternity was victimized both by Coakley and by Dean Eramo. I wonder why they aren’t suing.

  62. @JEGG
    @Anonymous

    I think that it's important to expose the personal sickness and distorted cultural values that underlie this case so that other young females and SJWs don't get so out of control again.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    That’s unrealistic. Young females and SJWs finna young female and SJW. The point of shining light on these hoaxes and hanging the con-people out to dry is to teach mainstream society whom not to trust. Lying leftists are always going to do what they do but a wise society will learn from these things and be more skeptical in the future.

  63. Reminder that a judge decided to release Cosby’s court depos because they didn’t like Cosby’s comments about black youth.

  64. @penntothal
    Meanwhile, Haven has struck again, this time in Texas:
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Teen-suspect-jailed-in-UT-murder-7236740.php

    And news broke today that Haven has been found guilty for Nashville rapes from 2013:
    http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2016/04/09/jury-cory-batey-guilty-vanderbilt-rape-retrial/82769934/

    Replies: @Jefferson, @candid_observer

    The first name of the “teen” is “Meechaiel” [sic].

    Might as well start the kid’s life by hitting him on the head with a ping hammer. Naming as child abuse.

    And of course if this name were used on a resume in one of those experiments to investigate bias, the experimenters would be shocked, shocked at the level of racism found.

  65. @t
    OT: Prosecutors offer details on Dennis Hastert’s alleged sexual abuse of teenagers

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/prosecutors-offer-details-on-dennis-hasterts-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-teenagers/2016/04/08/5a96bd68-fcc8-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

    Replies: @jill

    Hastert was never on trial for sexual abuse. He was not indicted/convicted of any such crime. It is an absolute disgrace for the prosecutor to release such information to the public. The allegations were never proven in a court of law, civil or criminal.

    Hastert’s bank withdrawals of his own dam money were flagged ( probably by his bank to FINCEN) because his was withdrawing numerous amounts under the 10k reporting requirement.

    To make matters worse, Hastert made statements to the FBI. You never talk the the FBI or any police person without a lawyer. It is insane if you do.

    Just ask Thomas Drake who reported a billion dollars of waste at the NSA and made voluntary statements to the FBI. The FBI with the help of the US Attorney used those same statements and charged Drake with espionage.
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4389857/thomas-drakes-npc-luncheon-speech

    Hastert pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators.

    Hard to wrap your head around a case where the victim of extortion goes to jail and the extortionist is lauded a hero.

    A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
    “Don’t talk to the Police”

    • Replies: @TheJester
    @jill

    I worked for a decade in the Middle East. You learn something very quickly in that world: Find yourself in legal problems and there is something wrong with your politics, nothing more. Otherwise, you would have continued to live exempt from the law.

    As we relentlessly drive to become a Third World Country, we are finding ourselves and our legal system in similar circumstances. There was something wrong with Dennis Hastert's politics, nothing more.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @jill

    The Hastert prosecution has politics written all over it. My theory, for which I admit I have no proof save for the timing, was that it was a warning to Chief Justice John Roberts to vote for an interpretation of Obamacare that permitted federal insurance exchanges. Roberts's votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat.

    Replies: @Keypusher, @dumpstersquirrel

  66. @neutral
    @Jefferson

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @Jim Don Bob, @Mr. Anon, @Michael Moore

    “I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.”

    And how many of them are FBI or SPLC informants?

  67. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

    It was deeply shameful for them and they didn’t want anyone to know what had happened. They probably just wanted to forget that the whole unpleasant experience had happened.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mr. Anon

    I mean fight back before the thing happened. As young athletes, they should have had the reflexes of a cat. They didn't have any involuntary reflex responses? When somebody invades your personal space like that, most people have an automatic reflex. They didn't even flinch? Smells fishy.

    Replies: @Discordiax

  68. @jimmyriddle
    @Anonymous

    Good lord, Americans ... who the hell wears a lumberjack shirt on their wedding day?

    TBF though he doesn't look like a schlub. He could do better.

    Replies: @Discordiax

    Who wears a plaid shirt to get married? Same dude who marries a rape-hoaxing psycho.

  69. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

    Gaydar.

    Which is to say it was consensual. Statutory rape, but consensual nonetheless.

  70. @MC
    @Anonymous

    Hi Jackie! Your comments could use some spicing up. Maybe instead of quoting "Dawson's Creek" this time, you could slip in some quotes from "Party of Five" or "One Tree Hill"

    Replies: @Ivy

    Why not add on The OC, Blossom and any other show like that? She probably binged them all.

  71. @Jim Don Bob
    @Diversity Heretic

    It is true that arbitration is used to settle many business disputes. Contracts can say that both parties agree to abide by binding arbitration not just for secrecy, but also because arbitration is faster and cheaper than slogging through the courts for years. This is especially true in international contracts where you are, for example, building a billion dollar refinery and can't afford to have work stop for six years.

    What happens in that each party picks one judge, and then those two pick a third judge. The parties agree on where the arbitration will take place and what country's rules will apply. I know a guy who makes a lot of money doing this.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic

    You’re quite correct that there are a number of reasons other than confidentiality for parties, especially in commercial contracts, to specify arbitration as a means of dispute-resolution. And there are professional arbitrators–one small objection to arbitration is that the arbitrators have to be paid, judges don’t. And arbitration is evolving into “litigation lite,” as lawyers become increasingly involved. It’s still generally preferable to litigation.

  72. Slightly off-topic, but former Vanderbilt football player Corey Batey was just convicted of an on-campus rape. This is the second time Batey has been found guilty of this rape. His previous conviction was overturned due to a juror lying during voir dire.

    Batey’s team mate, Brandon Vandenberg (who was the MSM’s face of the case), will be retried next.

  73. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    It's kind of odd that they didn't fight back, despite being strong athletes, which suggests consent or some degree of active participation. They didn't even press charges for decades, and it only got exposed after the payoffs drew too much heat from the banks.

    Replies: @Discordiax, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @Portlander, @carol

    I suspect there is usually some aspect of mutuality, but legally we don’t allow underage to make these decisions for themselves. So part of the problem is self-blame, guilt, then seeing the heinous act as the root of all later problems in life.

  74. @Jonathan Silber
    @neutral

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.

    And I read somewhere that of those 3000, only a few are Black.

    That is, like, so racist!

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA.

    And I read somewhere that of those 3000, only a few are Black.

    That is, like, so racist!”

    The Nevada chapter of the KKK recently added 2 Black guys to their staff. They came out to proudly support Donald Trump.

  75. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    She actually got married last year, to a normal looking schlub, not a Haven Monahan-esque stud:

    http://gotnews.com/breaking-wedding-photos-of-jackiecoakley-uva-rape-hoax/

    Replies: @jimmyriddle, @Jonathan Silber, @Anon

    Any man who marries a woman prone to making false accusations is heading for divorce. She’s too nutty to provide the stability that a marriage needs. What’s more, why did he marry her ‘last year’ with all this mess fresh on her personal resume? That guy was either fishing for any potential money that could come her way via the publicity (did the interviewer from Rolling Stone promise that Jackie’s story could be turned into a book? Was Jackie thinking of suing her college?), or he’s one of those masochistic white knights who specialize in rescuing extremely crazy chicks.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Or it's the first woman ever who showed him her pussy.

  76. OT – Apparently Tenahisi Coates was arrested in Austin Texas.

    According to police his Black Body was attacked by a pretty ballerina girl as he was Walking While Black near her.

    Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it wasn’t Coates. Instead it might have been one of Michelle and Barack’s imaginary sons.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-made-in-the-murder-of-university-of-texas-student-145108845.html

  77. Jack Hanson says:

    Other Great Moments of We Must Know Because The Public Must Know:

    The private talk of the LA Clippers owner (actually a crime in CA, for which no one was ever prosecuted afaik)

    Anytime someone cites a hatefact, the Left makes it priority 1 to dig up ten digit GPS coordinates to their front yard.

    Contra with No One Cares Its Not a News Story:

    Fast and Furious

    Anytime a murderer is a black or illegal alien

  78. @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Any man who marries a woman prone to making false accusations is heading for divorce. She's too nutty to provide the stability that a marriage needs. What's more, why did he marry her 'last year' with all this mess fresh on her personal resume? That guy was either fishing for any potential money that could come her way via the publicity (did the interviewer from Rolling Stone promise that Jackie's story could be turned into a book? Was Jackie thinking of suing her college?), or he's one of those masochistic white knights who specialize in rescuing extremely crazy chicks.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Or it’s the first woman ever who showed him her pussy.

  79. The social justice warrior feminists who say there is a war on women on college campuses, are awfully silent about the UT Austin incident involving the half Asian and half White female student who was murdered by Barack Hussein Obama’s son.

    The same Feminazis who think it is racist to notice the Black violence at UT Austin, are the same Feminazis who go around saying that 25 percent of all female college students will end up being raped at some point.

  80. In spite of the misogynist feminism of our age (women cast in the image of ersatz males), it is interesting to see movement in the opposite direction; that is, retro-casting females in the traditional role of the “weaker sex” … the perpetual victims of malicious males, the malicious circumstances of life, and, yes, even victims of themselves. Ergo, they need LOTS of protection.

    Consistent with this retro-thinking, “Jackie” is evidently calling on the courts to protect her from her own fantasies to save herself from a fit of, we can presume, hysteria, panic, and fainting. How could a sensitive, delicate woman such as “Jackie” otherwise survive such devastating trauma?

  81. Regarding UT Austin, Asian social justice warriors are awfully silent about one of their racial own being murdered by a Negro. But than again Asian social justice warriors are always silent about Black on Asian homicides and Black on Asian violence in general. Asian social justice warriors bow down to their Black masters.

  82. This is truly a bizarre lawsuit.

    The allegation that the U Va administrator was unsympathetic to Coakley should not be libelous at all. Coakley was a liar, whose story was an obvious lie! A story claiming that Eramo did not accept the story should not be damaging to Eramo, rather it is a compliment, a tribute to Eramo’s perspicacity.

    Only in this Bizarro world we live in, would a story claiming that someone was skeptical of a story that was an obvious lie, and that someone was unsympathetic to an obvious liar, be considered libelous.

  83. @jill
    @t

    Hastert was never on trial for sexual abuse. He was not indicted/convicted of any such crime. It is an absolute disgrace for the prosecutor to release such information to the public. The allegations were never proven in a court of law, civil or criminal.

    Hastert's bank withdrawals of his own dam money were flagged ( probably by his bank to FINCEN) because his was withdrawing numerous amounts under the 10k reporting requirement.

    To make matters worse, Hastert made statements to the FBI. You never talk the the FBI or any police person without a lawyer. It is insane if you do.

    Just ask Thomas Drake who reported a billion dollars of waste at the NSA and made voluntary statements to the FBI. The FBI with the help of the US Attorney used those same statements and charged Drake with espionage.
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4389857/thomas-drakes-npc-luncheon-speech

    Hastert pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators.

    Hard to wrap your head around a case where the victim of extortion goes to jail and the extortionist is lauded a hero.

    A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
    "Don't talk to the Police"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    Replies: @TheJester, @Diversity Heretic

    I worked for a decade in the Middle East. You learn something very quickly in that world: Find yourself in legal problems and there is something wrong with your politics, nothing more. Otherwise, you would have continued to live exempt from the law.

    As we relentlessly drive to become a Third World Country, we are finding ourselves and our legal system in similar circumstances. There was something wrong with Dennis Hastert’s politics, nothing more.

  84. @Mr. Anon
    @Anonymous

    It was deeply shameful for them and they didn't want anyone to know what had happened. They probably just wanted to forget that the whole unpleasant experience had happened.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I mean fight back before the thing happened. As young athletes, they should have had the reflexes of a cat. They didn’t have any involuntary reflex responses? When somebody invades your personal space like that, most people have an automatic reflex. They didn’t even flinch? Smells fishy.

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    @Anonymous

    You know he was their coach, right?

    You know he was giving them massages, right? Have you ever gotten a massage? Did you use your catlike, or slothlike reflexes, to jump up out of the way? No, it's a massage.

    I'm also guessing they had never gotten a massage before, or maybe they did at a local "massage parlor" complete with happy ending. Coach says that a good massage includes working the balls--he's the coach, I guess he knows.

    One of them died of AIDS, so we can assume he was gay. (Born gay or gay-by-trauma? Hell if I know. I tend to believe in a gay gene/virus, but that doesn't exclude gay-by-trauma.) The others? Maybe they are gay. Maybe they aren't. That doesn't make it okay for a coach, a teacher, to give them hand jobs.

    It is a crime for adults in positions of authority to fondle their students' genitals. Is this complicated?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  85. @jill
    @t

    Hastert was never on trial for sexual abuse. He was not indicted/convicted of any such crime. It is an absolute disgrace for the prosecutor to release such information to the public. The allegations were never proven in a court of law, civil or criminal.

    Hastert's bank withdrawals of his own dam money were flagged ( probably by his bank to FINCEN) because his was withdrawing numerous amounts under the 10k reporting requirement.

    To make matters worse, Hastert made statements to the FBI. You never talk the the FBI or any police person without a lawyer. It is insane if you do.

    Just ask Thomas Drake who reported a billion dollars of waste at the NSA and made voluntary statements to the FBI. The FBI with the help of the US Attorney used those same statements and charged Drake with espionage.
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4389857/thomas-drakes-npc-luncheon-speech

    Hastert pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators.

    Hard to wrap your head around a case where the victim of extortion goes to jail and the extortionist is lauded a hero.

    A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
    "Don't talk to the Police"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    Replies: @TheJester, @Diversity Heretic

    The Hastert prosecution has politics written all over it. My theory, for which I admit I have no proof save for the timing, was that it was a warning to Chief Justice John Roberts to vote for an interpretation of Obamacare that permitted federal insurance exchanges. Roberts’s votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Keypusher
    @Diversity Heretic

    There was nothing strange about Roberts' decisions on Obamacare. Did you notice that health stocks were getting killed when people realized that Obamacare might actually get struck down? Have you heard businesspeople complaining about how our complicated employer-funded system of health care makes it harder for them to compete with businesses from countries with functioning national health care?

    Roberts was nominated and confirmed in 2005, before Obamacare existed and when Obama was barely a glimmer on the horizon. Roberts was nominated because he was a sure vote for expansive government authority (particularly executive authority in aid of the GWOT), he would take the right side of the culture wars, and he would be hostile to campaign finance regulation. On all of those subjects, he's been as reliable as a Swiss watch. So far so good, but no one foresaw that Obamacare would be one of the biggest cases of his tenure. It shouldn't have stunned anyone, however, that a friend of letting the government do what it wants decided to let it have its way this time, too.

    Part of the foolishness of these kinds of theories is that they presume striking down Obamacare would have been bad for Democrats. On the contrary, it would have been catastrophic for Republicans and the Supreme Court. Same as the 1992 abortion case where Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy joined together to save Roe v. Wade.

    Replies: @jill, @Former Darfur, @Jack Hanson

    , @dumpstersquirrel
    @Diversity Heretic

    "Roberts’s votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat."

    My pedodar screams every time I see that pervert's face. The Bathhouse Regime has some serious goods on him: they known he downloads child porn and has taken numerous rapecations for the purpose sodomizing little boys. It's written all over his face.

  86. @Jefferson
    The Washington Post came out with a brand new article today on the KKK. It must be an extremely slow news day.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2016/04/08/a-photographer-hung-out-with-the-kkk-in-tennessee-and-maryland-heres-what-he-saw/

    It is 2016, but in Left Wing America it's still 1936 with their obsession with the KKK.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @TWS

    The Washington Post came out with a brand new article today on the KKK.

    KKK? I don’t see any KKK in those pictures… just a bunch of FBI informants and $PLC infiltrators.

  87. @Anonymous
    You really want this young woman's scalp. Kind of twisted.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Days of Broken Arrows, @Harry Baldwin, @MC, @JEGG, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Mr. Anon, @dumpstersquirrel

    “You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted.”

    Hi, Jackie!

  88. @Diversity Heretic
    @jill

    The Hastert prosecution has politics written all over it. My theory, for which I admit I have no proof save for the timing, was that it was a warning to Chief Justice John Roberts to vote for an interpretation of Obamacare that permitted federal insurance exchanges. Roberts's votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat.

    Replies: @Keypusher, @dumpstersquirrel

    There was nothing strange about Roberts’ decisions on Obamacare. Did you notice that health stocks were getting killed when people realized that Obamacare might actually get struck down? Have you heard businesspeople complaining about how our complicated employer-funded system of health care makes it harder for them to compete with businesses from countries with functioning national health care?

    Roberts was nominated and confirmed in 2005, before Obamacare existed and when Obama was barely a glimmer on the horizon. Roberts was nominated because he was a sure vote for expansive government authority (particularly executive authority in aid of the GWOT), he would take the right side of the culture wars, and he would be hostile to campaign finance regulation. On all of those subjects, he’s been as reliable as a Swiss watch. So far so good, but no one foresaw that Obamacare would be one of the biggest cases of his tenure. It shouldn’t have stunned anyone, however, that a friend of letting the government do what it wants decided to let it have its way this time, too.

    Part of the foolishness of these kinds of theories is that they presume striking down Obamacare would have been bad for Democrats. On the contrary, it would have been catastrophic for Republicans and the Supreme Court. Same as the 1992 abortion case where Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy joined together to save Roe v. Wade.

    • Replies: @jill
    @Keypusher

    Even CBS reported that Roberts changed his decision: I find that very strange

    "(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#22e590747c4c

    Did Roberts just wake up one morning and say to himself I think I'll change my opinion?

    Replies: @keypusher

    , @Former Darfur
    @Keypusher

    There's little question that the (mainstream) GOP really does not want Roe v Wade done away with because it really does not want the political consequences of having either to effectively quash abortion or to lose the support of the pro-life crowd.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @Jack Hanson
    @Keypusher

    There's a pretty good theory going around that Roberts' adoption of his Irish twins wasn't on the up and up, and that's being held over his head like an axe.

    Replies: @Keypusher

  89. If the case is a libel case, relating to Eramo’s behavior and sympathy post- “rape”, the questions will be limited to how she acted with Jackie. Any questions related to the actual event will be ruled irrelevant and I bet they will not be allowed. Jackie could always refuse to answer them on fifth amendment grounds anyway, could she not? This deposition will be disappointing.

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    @Cwhatfuture

    But questions about Jackie Coakley's every-changing story of the rape will be relevant.

  90. @Diversity Heretic
    @jill

    The Hastert prosecution has politics written all over it. My theory, for which I admit I have no proof save for the timing, was that it was a warning to Chief Justice John Roberts to vote for an interpretation of Obamacare that permitted federal insurance exchanges. Roberts's votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat.

    Replies: @Keypusher, @dumpstersquirrel

    “Roberts’s votes on Obamacare have been very strange and difficult to explain save a potential blackmail threat.”

    My pedodar screams every time I see that pervert’s face. The Bathhouse Regime has some serious goods on him: they known he downloads child porn and has taken numerous rapecations for the purpose sodomizing little boys. It’s written all over his face.

  91. @Anonymous
    @Mr. Anon

    I mean fight back before the thing happened. As young athletes, they should have had the reflexes of a cat. They didn't have any involuntary reflex responses? When somebody invades your personal space like that, most people have an automatic reflex. They didn't even flinch? Smells fishy.

    Replies: @Discordiax

    You know he was their coach, right?

    You know he was giving them massages, right? Have you ever gotten a massage? Did you use your catlike, or slothlike reflexes, to jump up out of the way? No, it’s a massage.

    I’m also guessing they had never gotten a massage before, or maybe they did at a local “massage parlor” complete with happy ending. Coach says that a good massage includes working the balls–he’s the coach, I guess he knows.

    One of them died of AIDS, so we can assume he was gay. (Born gay or gay-by-trauma? Hell if I know. I tend to believe in a gay gene/virus, but that doesn’t exclude gay-by-trauma.) The others? Maybe they are gay. Maybe they aren’t. That doesn’t make it okay for a coach, a teacher, to give them hand jobs.

    It is a crime for adults in positions of authority to fondle their students’ genitals. Is this complicated?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Discordiax

    It's not normal for coaches to give their players massages. Sports massages weren't even common in the past.

    I've gotten massages before, but I haven't had to get out of the way or had my reflexes triggered. If the masseuses had, say, choked my throat or my privates, I would have had a reflexive response.

  92. @Cwhatfuture
    If the case is a libel case, relating to Eramo's behavior and sympathy post- "rape", the questions will be limited to how she acted with Jackie. Any questions related to the actual event will be ruled irrelevant and I bet they will not be allowed. Jackie could always refuse to answer them on fifth amendment grounds anyway, could she not? This deposition will be disappointing.

    Replies: @Discordiax

    But questions about Jackie Coakley’s every-changing story of the rape will be relevant.

  93. Extreme case of “sexual assault” college campus prosecution…

    “Now comes a story out of California, in which a male student (referred to in court documents as John Doe) was expelled for consensual sex because the accuser did not like what other men involved in the group sexual activity did to her. The University of Southern California determined Doe was somehow responsible for preventing and stopping what the other men did, even though his accuser gave no indication she didn’t like the contact. When she finally did show displeasure with the activities, by all accounts, Doe immediately stopped engaging in sexual contact with her and left.”

    Even stranger, Doe was found in violation for sexual assault because he allegedly left his accuser after the sexual activity, which may have endangered her. So here a student is being branded a rapist because he didn’t sufficiently protect a woman from other people or from what could have happened after the sexual activity.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-expelled-for-sexual-assault-for-something-other-people-did/article/2588023

  94. @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    I always hate to sound like a feminist, but someone doesn't, and shouldn't, have to try to "fight back" in order to be considered a victim. There are too many variables in play to be able to say "this person didn't fight off the sexual aggressor therefore they weren't really a victim." This is especially true in cases where the offender has authority over the victim, and even more so when the victim is a minor.

    Now having said all this, I don't think a teenager getting a BJ from a young coach is the most heinous crime imaginable, and it is quite possible that the boys did in fact enjoy it. A coach crossing the line doesn't proclude the student from blackmailing the coach at a later date. Life is rarely black and white. I imagine we'll see a film about all this at some point. Maybe Seth Rogen could play Hastert.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    I’m sure he was just lending a helping hand.

  95. @Keypusher
    @Diversity Heretic

    There was nothing strange about Roberts' decisions on Obamacare. Did you notice that health stocks were getting killed when people realized that Obamacare might actually get struck down? Have you heard businesspeople complaining about how our complicated employer-funded system of health care makes it harder for them to compete with businesses from countries with functioning national health care?

    Roberts was nominated and confirmed in 2005, before Obamacare existed and when Obama was barely a glimmer on the horizon. Roberts was nominated because he was a sure vote for expansive government authority (particularly executive authority in aid of the GWOT), he would take the right side of the culture wars, and he would be hostile to campaign finance regulation. On all of those subjects, he's been as reliable as a Swiss watch. So far so good, but no one foresaw that Obamacare would be one of the biggest cases of his tenure. It shouldn't have stunned anyone, however, that a friend of letting the government do what it wants decided to let it have its way this time, too.

    Part of the foolishness of these kinds of theories is that they presume striking down Obamacare would have been bad for Democrats. On the contrary, it would have been catastrophic for Republicans and the Supreme Court. Same as the 1992 abortion case where Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy joined together to save Roe v. Wade.

    Replies: @jill, @Former Darfur, @Jack Hanson

    Even CBS reported that Roberts changed his decision: I find that very strange

    “(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#22e590747c4c

    Did Roberts just wake up one morning and say to himself I think I’ll change my opinion?

    • Replies: @keypusher
    @jill

    It happens. Notably in the very abortion case I was talking about, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/04/02/do-supreme-court-justices-ever-change-their-mind-on-a-case-between-the-initial-vote-and-a-decisions-publication/#7ecad1001561

  96. > That doesn’t make it okay for a coach, a teacher, to give them hand jobs. <

    sure. and jackie's story is true too. and nutcases "remembering" last week or 20 years ago are still nutcases.

  97. @Anonymous
    You seem pretty obsessed.

    Replies: @Wyrd, @Thomas Fuller, @Randal, @Dirk Dagger

    Deflect much?

  98. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    I hear hastert gave a good foot massage…had his technique down and everything, he wouldn’t be ticklin’ or nothin’.

  99. @Keypusher
    @Diversity Heretic

    There was nothing strange about Roberts' decisions on Obamacare. Did you notice that health stocks were getting killed when people realized that Obamacare might actually get struck down? Have you heard businesspeople complaining about how our complicated employer-funded system of health care makes it harder for them to compete with businesses from countries with functioning national health care?

    Roberts was nominated and confirmed in 2005, before Obamacare existed and when Obama was barely a glimmer on the horizon. Roberts was nominated because he was a sure vote for expansive government authority (particularly executive authority in aid of the GWOT), he would take the right side of the culture wars, and he would be hostile to campaign finance regulation. On all of those subjects, he's been as reliable as a Swiss watch. So far so good, but no one foresaw that Obamacare would be one of the biggest cases of his tenure. It shouldn't have stunned anyone, however, that a friend of letting the government do what it wants decided to let it have its way this time, too.

    Part of the foolishness of these kinds of theories is that they presume striking down Obamacare would have been bad for Democrats. On the contrary, it would have been catastrophic for Republicans and the Supreme Court. Same as the 1992 abortion case where Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy joined together to save Roe v. Wade.

    Replies: @jill, @Former Darfur, @Jack Hanson

    There’s little question that the (mainstream) GOP really does not want Roe v Wade done away with because it really does not want the political consequences of having either to effectively quash abortion or to lose the support of the pro-life crowd.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Former Darfur

    Absolutely. Politician at all levels were very relieved when the Supremes made gay marriage the law of the land. Otherwise, they might have had to, you know, vote on it, which, just like abortion, was gonna piss off half the electorate no matter how they voted. Now they can say, sorry, nothing I can do.

  100. Just another example of how the real America is getting gang raped on a pile of broken glass while the story is kept dull, dull, dull…

  101. @Former Darfur
    @Keypusher

    There's little question that the (mainstream) GOP really does not want Roe v Wade done away with because it really does not want the political consequences of having either to effectively quash abortion or to lose the support of the pro-life crowd.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Absolutely. Politician at all levels were very relieved when the Supremes made gay marriage the law of the land. Otherwise, they might have had to, you know, vote on it, which, just like abortion, was gonna piss off half the electorate no matter how they voted. Now they can say, sorry, nothing I can do.

  102. @Keypusher
    @Diversity Heretic

    There was nothing strange about Roberts' decisions on Obamacare. Did you notice that health stocks were getting killed when people realized that Obamacare might actually get struck down? Have you heard businesspeople complaining about how our complicated employer-funded system of health care makes it harder for them to compete with businesses from countries with functioning national health care?

    Roberts was nominated and confirmed in 2005, before Obamacare existed and when Obama was barely a glimmer on the horizon. Roberts was nominated because he was a sure vote for expansive government authority (particularly executive authority in aid of the GWOT), he would take the right side of the culture wars, and he would be hostile to campaign finance regulation. On all of those subjects, he's been as reliable as a Swiss watch. So far so good, but no one foresaw that Obamacare would be one of the biggest cases of his tenure. It shouldn't have stunned anyone, however, that a friend of letting the government do what it wants decided to let it have its way this time, too.

    Part of the foolishness of these kinds of theories is that they presume striking down Obamacare would have been bad for Democrats. On the contrary, it would have been catastrophic for Republicans and the Supreme Court. Same as the 1992 abortion case where Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy joined together to save Roe v. Wade.

    Replies: @jill, @Former Darfur, @Jack Hanson

    There’s a pretty good theory going around that Roberts’ adoption of his Irish twins wasn’t on the up and up, and that’s being held over his head like an axe.

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    @Jack Hanson

    No, it's a terrible, stupid theory, founded on a lack of understanding how the Supreme Court really functions and how much it defers to Congress and the president (as opposed to the agencies, departments, and state and local governments).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  103. Everyone knows what Jackie was up to. She created Haven Monahan to catfish Ryan, when that didn’t work, she invented a sexual assault, because she wanted Ryan to be her boyfriend (or do her chemistry homework, or both), when that didn’t work, she got depressed because her grades were failing, then she used the sexual assault to explain her poor grades and change of major, then she used that and other imagined assaults to gain street cred with the campus feminists and/or explain poor performance, until finally someone showed up who actually took it seriously (Sabrina) and Jackie was shocked that anyone would want to use it for a major write up, and then spent most of her time trying to get Sabrina not to do it. And Sabrina did it anyway.

    It’s true that Jackie is to blame for being a foolish young woman and creating phony stories to advance her college career. But the burden really falls on Sabrina and Rolling Stone for making this an issue. There’s no question that Jackie did not want this story published.

    I realize that everyone wants certainty and closure in this case, and that includes an admission of guilt from Jackie. But, actually, anyone who needs that at this point wouldn’t be persuaded by a confession anyway. Put another way, the “fact” of the sexual assault is not really an issue here. The issue is Sabrina/RS’s willingness to run with a story for which they had no corroboration except the word of a complainant who was reluctant to help with the write up.

    I expect that Jackie’s unwillingness in that regard is the major component of the deposition.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  104. @iSteveFan

    Could a public interest law group file a motion to put all this into the public record?
     
    Only if Jackie were to run for political office as a republican.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @a Newsreader, @Anonymous

    Or if her husband were to as happened with Mister Seven of Nine.

  105. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Discordiax
    @Anonymous

    You know he was their coach, right?

    You know he was giving them massages, right? Have you ever gotten a massage? Did you use your catlike, or slothlike reflexes, to jump up out of the way? No, it's a massage.

    I'm also guessing they had never gotten a massage before, or maybe they did at a local "massage parlor" complete with happy ending. Coach says that a good massage includes working the balls--he's the coach, I guess he knows.

    One of them died of AIDS, so we can assume he was gay. (Born gay or gay-by-trauma? Hell if I know. I tend to believe in a gay gene/virus, but that doesn't exclude gay-by-trauma.) The others? Maybe they are gay. Maybe they aren't. That doesn't make it okay for a coach, a teacher, to give them hand jobs.

    It is a crime for adults in positions of authority to fondle their students' genitals. Is this complicated?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    It’s not normal for coaches to give their players massages. Sports massages weren’t even common in the past.

    I’ve gotten massages before, but I haven’t had to get out of the way or had my reflexes triggered. If the masseuses had, say, choked my throat or my privates, I would have had a reflexive response.

  106. @neutral
    @Jefferson

    I read that there are about 3000 KKK members in the USA. With such a small number you will find more of almost everything else. You will find more people that believe they are Napoleon, more people that eat glass, more people that eat spaghetti through their noses, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @Jim Don Bob, @Mr. Anon, @Michael Moore

    Or more people in the 1%

  107. “Last summer, while media clamored for him to comment on a scientific scandal he had helped reveal, David Broockman was keeping an explosive secret of his own. Just months earlier, he and Joshua Kalla, political scientists now at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and the University of California (UC), Berkeley, respectively, had revealed a study published by Science in 2014 as likely resting completely on fake data. Now, however, Broockman’s own work was confirming that the effect claimed by the fraudulent study was real after all.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/talking-people-about-gay-and-transgender-issues-can-change-their-prejudices

    Phoney story now real?

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Kent Brockman

    Broockman is now in residence at the Ouroboros Institute, where the time saved on self-writing papers allows enjoyment if self-licking ice cream cones.

  108. @Jefferson
    The Washington Post came out with a brand new article today on the KKK. It must be an extremely slow news day.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2016/04/08/a-photographer-hung-out-with-the-kkk-in-tennessee-and-maryland-heres-what-he-saw/

    It is 2016, but in Left Wing America it's still 1936 with their obsession with the KKK.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @TWS

    What’s the hardest part of joining the KKK?

    Passing the FBI background check.

  109. @Big Bill
    Anyone at the law firms representing the parties can release the deposition transcript. Carefully, of course. But doubtless any paralegal, secretary, or interested lawyer can likely view the transcript and make a surreptitious copy. Let's hope they are civic minded.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Colleen Pater

    while no ones should want rolling stone to suffer any less than possible this associate dean may have privately quietly ignored jackies tale she publicly allowed the evil white men meme to circulate unofficially and rolling stone and others acted on the fact the tale was not crushed by the school

  110. @Jack Hanson
    @Keypusher

    There's a pretty good theory going around that Roberts' adoption of his Irish twins wasn't on the up and up, and that's being held over his head like an axe.

    Replies: @Keypusher

    No, it’s a terrible, stupid theory, founded on a lack of understanding how the Supreme Court really functions and how much it defers to Congress and the president (as opposed to the agencies, departments, and state and local governments).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Keypusher

    "No, it’s a terrible, stupid theory, founded on a lack of understanding how the Supreme Court really functions and how much it defers to Congress and the president (as opposed to the agencies, departments, and state and local governments)."

    And why was it that Roberts wrote both the majority opinion to uphold the individual mandate and the minority opinion to strike it down? Did he change his mind? Or did someone change it for him? It's not as if he had never given any thought to the question of whether the government can force someone to abstain from buying something.

    I don't think he was blackmailed over some adoption issue. But it is entirely possible that he was blackmailed. The NSA spies on everybody in America. Do you imagine that they refrain from spying on the most powerful and influential people - on the people who matter most?

    That is the consequence of the government spying on its populace. We now have to assume that a lot of government business is conducted by blackmail. It undermines trust in and belief in the legitimacy of the government. Good. The people should not trust the government or believe it to be legitimate. If the government doesn't like that, then they can f**king well stop spying on us.

  111. >>> Can Somebody Sue to Get Jackie Coakley’s Deposition Made Public?

    If it was in your hands at this moment…. what decision would you make?

    Jackie Coakley is merely a useful idiot for those who attack white men. The focus should be on those who attack white men.

    For example, Jane Eisner. Editor of _The Forward_ . She deserves to be as un-employable as Sabrina Rubin-Erdely

    There is also the young woman (what’s her name?) who was the paid employee of UVA, who brought Jackie to Sabrina. That young woman also needs to be made un-employable.

  112. @Kent Brockman
    "Last summer, while media clamored for him to comment on a scientific scandal he had helped reveal, David Broockman was keeping an explosive secret of his own. Just months earlier, he and Joshua Kalla, political scientists now at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and the University of California (UC), Berkeley, respectively, had revealed a study published by Science in 2014 as likely resting completely on fake data. Now, however, Broockman’s own work was confirming that the effect claimed by the fraudulent study was real after all."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/talking-people-about-gay-and-transgender-issues-can-change-their-prejudices

    Phoney story now real?

    Replies: @Ivy

    Broockman is now in residence at the Ouroboros Institute, where the time saved on self-writing papers allows enjoyment if self-licking ice cream cones.

  113. @Keypusher
    @Jack Hanson

    No, it's a terrible, stupid theory, founded on a lack of understanding how the Supreme Court really functions and how much it defers to Congress and the president (as opposed to the agencies, departments, and state and local governments).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “No, it’s a terrible, stupid theory, founded on a lack of understanding how the Supreme Court really functions and how much it defers to Congress and the president (as opposed to the agencies, departments, and state and local governments).”

    And why was it that Roberts wrote both the majority opinion to uphold the individual mandate and the minority opinion to strike it down? Did he change his mind? Or did someone change it for him? It’s not as if he had never given any thought to the question of whether the government can force someone to abstain from buying something.

    I don’t think he was blackmailed over some adoption issue. But it is entirely possible that he was blackmailed. The NSA spies on everybody in America. Do you imagine that they refrain from spying on the most powerful and influential people – on the people who matter most?

    That is the consequence of the government spying on its populace. We now have to assume that a lot of government business is conducted by blackmail. It undermines trust in and belief in the legitimacy of the government. Good. The people should not trust the government or believe it to be legitimate. If the government doesn’t like that, then they can f**king well stop spying on us.

  114. @jill
    @Keypusher

    Even CBS reported that Roberts changed his decision: I find that very strange

    "(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#22e590747c4c

    Did Roberts just wake up one morning and say to himself I think I'll change my opinion?

    Replies: @keypusher

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS