Despite evidence to contrary, Fox News machine claims Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape"
Despite evidence to the contrary, Fox News -- led by Sean Hannity -- and other right-wing media have claimed that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape" and violated Massachusetts law by not reporting to authorities a 1988 conversation in which a high school student told Jennings about his relationship with an older man. In fact, Jennings' attorney wrote in a 2004 letter that the student was 16 years old, which is -- and was at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox, right-wing media claim Jennings covered up "statutory rape"
Sean Hannity: "As The Washington Times said, 'At the very least, statutory rape occurred,' and he didn't report it." On the September 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity said: "We have the safe schools czar, a guy by the name of Kevin Jennings, OK? And he writes this book, and he gives information to a 15-year-old -- ABC News and Jake Tapper write about this tonight -- a 15-year-old sophomore, and his advice to him when he's having a gay relationship is, you know, 'Did you use a condom?' He knew it was an older adult. Now, as The Washington Times said, 'At the very least, statutory rape occurred,' and he didn't report it. Now he's saying that he made a mistake, only because it's been reported on. My question is, where's the vetting process? Why was he even put in this position?" Hannity went on to call for Jennings to be "fired."
The Fox Nation: Jennings "Cover[ed] Up Statutory Rape." The Fox News website TheFoxNation.com posted the following headline on September 30:
Gateway Pundit: "Jennings hid pedophilia from authorities." In a September 30 post titled "Obama's 'Safe Schools Czar' Expresses Regret for Not Reporting Statutory Rape," the right-wing blog Gateway Pundit claimed: "Barack Obama's 'safe school's czar' Kevin Jennings hid pedophilia from authorities. Jennings violated a state law that required him to report the abuse."
Malkin: Jennings failed to report "homosexual child predator." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote a September 30 blog post titled "Safe Schools czar now 'regrets' failure to report child predator" in which she referred to Jennings' purported "failure as a young gay teacher to protect a 15-year old student from a homosexual child predator."
Jennings' attorney stated in letter that student was 16, which is, and was, MA age of consent
Jennings' attorney: Conversation was "with a sixteen-year-old student"; "no factual basis" that Jennings was "aware of any sexual victimization of any student." In an August 3, 2004, letter, Constance M. Boland of the law firm Nixon Peabody -- which represented the organization that Jennings ran -- wrote that the "conversation" Jennings had was with "a sixteen-year-old student" and that there "is no factual basis whatsoever for" the "claim that Mr. Jennings engaged in unethical practices, or that he was aware of any sexual victimization of any student, or that he declined to report any sexual victimization at any time." [Boland letter, 8/3/04]
Massachusetts age of consent is -- and was at the time -- 16. According to a footnote in the 1982 Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Calvin D. Miller, chapter 265, section 23 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended in 1974, at the time provided:
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years.
According to the legislative history available in the Lexis database, the provision was not amended after 1982 until 1998. It was amended again in 2008, and now provides:
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.
1. Hannity et all are much more motivated by this being a "gay" thing, especially since most of them think that homosexuals (especially men) are usually pedophiles.
2. This is sort of a slimy thing in general...not sure this would be any better in a lot of people's eyes (including reasonable, non-bigoted ones) if this was a 44-year old man and a 16 year-old girl. Not illegal, but slimy.
Tough spot.
Presidents get to appoint advisors. Some get confirmed by the Senate, and others don't. The press calls all of them czars. Obama, right now, has fewer than Bush did.
You might want to educate yourself on the topic.
FIRST - the only reason tehse appointments aren't being filled is because REPUBLICANS keep putting baseless 'holds' on nominees. FYI: It takes 60 votes to break a hold, and the Democrats just haven't HAD 60 votes at any time so far.
SECOND - "Obama" is not "going the Czar route." EVERY preident for the past 40 years has had Czars. It would be far more unusual if he DIDN'T have them!
THIRD - What is there to VET?! The guy DID NOTHNG WRONG!!! PERIOD! What is Obama supposed to do? Figure out if it's possible for the Right to LIE about the guy?! I have news for you: The Right lies about EVERYONE without an "R" after their name!
There's nothing "tough" about this. Obama needs to call out this out for what it is: B*LLSH!T. I'd even use that exact word. And they need to INSIST that these people keep their jobs, SUPPORT them fully, and call on Fox to stick to the facts and stop the insane witch hunt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All that remains to be seen is if they have the courage to do so. I'll lose a lot of respoect for them if they let him fall.
FWIW, even if I'm way off-base on the czar thing, I don't really care either way how Obama gets his agenda done, as long as it's legal, and as far as I can see it is.
They lied. Period. They are MAKING STUFF UP. What he may have said at some point is irrelevant. AND there's nothing actually wrong with what he said, AND it's being completely ripped out of context as it is.
I know, I know. And I get you. I just think you're giving the con's waaaay too many concessions on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
I realize that you have no evidence that the older man was 44, and therefore you just threw that age out as a random suggestion. But I suspect that 44 is what YOU perceive to be an older man.
Don't forget that at issue here is someone who, at the time, was a 16 year old boy. To a 16 year old boy, any high school graduate is an "older man", such as someone who is 22 or 24.
In fact, when I was an 18 year old boy, I had a boyfriend who was older man. That older man was 26.
Today, I am 51 years old and from my current vantage point, a 26 year old is just a boy.
stir up the differing sentiments of the people against each other, by making false statements or correct statements in a totally fabricated context and do not report the correction.
Well, no one forces them to correct what was obviously lies.
And I don't see millions of American lawsuits flying into Fox, Limbaugh and Becks offices, what could have possibly made a different. Smells like corporate fascism.
I would say the coup against Obama is already ongoing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/obama-coup-fantasized-abo_n_304231.html
that's the big reason the clintons have never sued anyone; it'd be a huge waste of time and money, and only serve to give the lying liars a huge forum for spewing even more lies.
I am not talking about joint lawsuits but hundreds if not thousands of individual private law suits?
Tsk... All those silent (cover up) conservative voices THEN.
Faux News.. if you have no evidence, make it up as you go, and BE SURE to act like you're boiling-blood angry. That's always a good cover for lack of evidence to the Faux News crowd.
MM hasn't disputed the facts regarding Jennings' past quotes.
Libs: Don't attack the media members who are quoting Mr. Jennings and are revealing his past associations.
No one is doing what you claim. You, on the other hand, are unfairly attacking liberals, and showing your knee-jerk reflexes for all to see. You have so much hate that you don't care if lies are told in a fight to discredit someone. You should care, and it should embarrass you to have to resort to lies, but it doesn't.
Are you aware that the Founding Fathers were, by and large, self-described Liberals? That the term is etymologically tied to the Latin liberalis, meaning "suitable for a freeman?"
But you really didn't want to know what the word meant, did you? What you wanted to do was to hurl it as a perjorative that symbolizes "not me" without acknowledging the xenophobic urge that precipitated the outburst. That's not really something of which you should be proud, my friend.
And why didn't anyone on the right do any research before they made this accusation? What dummies.
How would you like it if you were in an accident with another car that was 100% someone else's fault, and in that other car someone died, and I called you a murderer. I mean, someone died, and the car you were driving inflicted the damage, so you are a murderer, right? Of course not, since the accident was the other guy's fault. You didn't murder anyone. And this guy involved with the student wasn't a pedophile, therefore the teacher Jennings didn't aid and abet a pedophile, which has been one of the false accusations against him!
Your rant makes you look silly. Adult male sexual predators have long taken advantage of kids, both straight and gay and it is sad for the kids. But this teacher didn't violate the law, and the 16 yr old kid seemed determined to continue doing this, as evidenced by the comments about the futility of his life. The best advice at that point in time, to protect yourself with a condom, gets shot down by the kid. Jennings didn't cover up statutory rape. We are defending Jennings from that unfair charge. Not sure how you missed that here.
And the teacher has said that he had no reason to believe that there was abuse going on, which is the other requirement for a teacher to have to report something for a child under 18. Potential abuse is not enough to justify violating the kid's privacy.
There's sufficient evidence to believe the kid was 16, yet FoxNews never mentions it at all. That's the issue here, that they make blanket assertions which aren't backed up by the facts!
And no one says something magical happens between the ages of 15 and 16. Just like nothing magical happens between the last day one is 20 and the first day someone is 21, but it's illegal to drink in a bar when you're 20 and 364 days, but not when you are 21! What a lame excuse for a strawman argument. Bars shouldn't serve you when you are one day away from being legal, and you're guilty of a crime if you drink before you're 21.
Interesting choice of words there. As a gay friend of mine once said to me, the guy who screams, "Fag!" the loudest is usually gay.... Just sayin'.
The only evidence available indicates the kid was sixteen, which made his sexual activity consensual and legal. Even if he got freaky on his birthday at one minute past midnight, it was legal. That's how the law works. Deal with it.
I compared the Republican Leadership of the House covering up for someone doing something slimy with this teacher being an advocate for the kid.
As I said on another thread, the leaders in the House should have been looking out for the best interests of the pages, not their political brother. Jennings was looking out for the best interests of the student.
And the lawyer would be guilty of malfeisance if they only think she relied upon to make the assertion that the kid was 16 was Jennings word. She sent out a cease and desist letter based upon that kid's age.
And how can you rationally justify that saying nothing about a 16 yo being manipulated in a sexual relationship with an adult is "looking out for the best interests of the student." Only in the world of the democrats does someone defend a person who allowed a child to be sexually abused but said nothing.
What I compared was that it's legal one day to do something, and the day before it's not. It's legal to have your kids in a regular seat belt when they weigh a certain amount, but half an ounce less, and they have to be in a booster seat. Are those kids really that different? Of course not, but there is a line that is drawn, and on one side of the line there are different rules than on the other side of the line.
Looking out for the best interests of the child cannot entail a teacher prohibiting kids from having sex with whoever they want to if there is no abuse present! That's the truth, and as is so often the case, people of your ilk have this allergy to reality! There is no evidence that the kid was being sexually abused! How many times does someone need to explain this simple concept to you. Once the kid is 16, he is at the age of consent, and it's up to the kid to decide. The state has ruled that a 16 yr old should be given the responsibility to decide if the relationship is okay or not. Unless there's clear suspicions of sexual abuse up until age 18, the teacher has no obligation to stop the sexual contact because the kid is given the right, by the state, to have that sexual contact.
If you want to move to Mass, and change the law to make it so that kids have to be older in order to consent to sex, go there, and try it - you won't succeed, but be my guest. What we're talking about here is if the teacher was legally obligated to do something that he didn't do, and he was not obligated to do anything. He did provide advice, because he was looking out for the best interests of the student, to be careful in his sexual contacts, because he can't tell the kid to not have sex, despite your desire that he do so.
You've been wrong on this subject every time you've posted. You might want to stop digging now.
So, what you are saying is that if this kid had been haviing sex with an older woman, you would still be just as upset as what you are?
Teachers have an obligation to not violate a student's privacy unless there is sexual abuse or evidence of a crime. Just like lawyers can't violate their client's right to privacy unless they know a crime is about to be committed. Just like medical personnel cannot violate a patient's right to privacy unless there is a community health requirement or clear signs of physical or sexual abuse!!! This is not a rule that I just pulled out of my butt to get you irate!!!
I have not made a single sick or twisted argument. But thanks for letting us all know that you think that homosexual sex is sick and twisted.
it is people like you who are dangerous to children with your myopic views of the world.
You are a sick, sick man justjoe. Ironically, it is your mentality, that assumes pedophilia in the case of homosexuality, that is damaging towards kids. Specifically kids like the one from this story. Why is it that you think this kid wanted to die? Could it be because there are adults in his life that teach him that he is a pervert and unnatural because of the way he was born?
As far as on topic. How do you know he was manipulated?
Who's to say the kid wasn't the agressor, why was he hanging out in the rest room in the first place? How do you define what is perversion? Different strokes for different folks, different cultures, different morals. Just because YOU think something is wrong doesn't make it wrong.
As far as Jennings goes. From what I have read and heard, he made the best decision that he could, at the time, based on what he knew and his role as a teacher. As much as we want to look back and critique what he did, we weren't there and don't know the particulars.
Who's lying now?
Oh, I know, that doesn't really matter, right? Because all the conservatives are just attacking him because he's gay.
What's funnier still is the audio is from the same site that MMFA linked the letter from Constance Bolland
http://wthrockmorton.com/
This is a transcript of an audio file which can be found here (go down to the link to the mp3 file).
Now Jennings failure to report the incident to the authorities can certainly be justified, given the many risks Brewster might have been subjected to had his orientation been exposed at the time. But if Jennings himself says Brewster was 15, is it unfair to assume that he was?
And that's the fact checking that the FoxNews machine should have done also, but didn't. We'll give you a break, since you aren't a news source like Fox is supposed to be. They have an obligation to fact check before they make an accusation like this. They didn't. MMFA did. That's wrong.
Jennings is the one who would have informed the lawyer of the facts in a setting where the exact correct details were important, versus a slip of the tongue during a speech.
So no, I am not saying that Jennings was mistaken. I am saying that the best evidence we have, a lawyer's recitation of the facts in a legal cease and desist letter, is that the kid was 16.
And that's the letter that FoxNews should have looked for too, but didn't. FoxNews instead ran with an old, debunked smear from several years ago.
"So no, I am not saying that Jennings was mistaken.."
Doublespeak. You are also very trusting of lawyers.
I don't know what happened, and yeah, there's significant evidence that the student was 16 - a legal document is much more likely to have factual information backed up by documentation than a word in a speech. The lawyer is also bound by the canons of her profession to not misrepresent facts like this, and since the kid's age was relevant to this discussion, I don't know why you would assume that she would risk her law license to misrepresent the kid's age!
What a jerk you've turned out to be, and you keep proving it over and over again.
This has nothing to do with how you came to your conclusions, although we all know that it's because of your political partisanship rather than based upon reality. Remember, the topic here is about how FoxNews is alleging that Jennings covered up statutory rape and they are never mentioning the info that would lead a reasonable person to assume that the kid was actually 16 when the cited conversation happened! Remember that? How they're leaving out crucial info that might lead people to come to a different conclusion?
As I said, they had an obligation to do better fact-checking, but they didn't. What a jerk you continue to be.
I have a student that hooked up with someone he met in a bus station bathroom?? What the hell is wrong with what Jennings did or didn't do?
"What am I typing?"
"Oh, I'm defending a guy who is being paid by the federal governement to create safe schools who, while working in a school, counseled a 16 year old who met a man in a bus station bathroom and was having sex wih him to use a condom"
"Seems those right-wing crazies think that he should have tried to stop the realtionship because the young man was, well, so young. I'm typing that those right-wing crazies are wrong because he was 16 years old and not 15. See the law in Massachusetts allows for adult gay men to pick-up 16 year-old highschool sophmores in bus station bathrooms so the safe-schools guy was completely in the right!"
Tell you something (and I'm not a professional educator or the top federal expert on safe schools) - if a 16 year old kid came to me and said that hey were having a sexual relationship with an adult my reaction wouldn't be to google state laws about the "age of consent' or to advise the use of a condom. It would be to immediately contact the kid's parents. Immediately. Not because I'm a right-wing nutjob but becase that relationship is wrong. Simply wrong. Legal? Yes. Right? Wrong.
This hullabaloo coming on the heels of the Polanski stuff does you no good.
If one is in the business of defending a federal fugitive that drugs and then sodomizes a 13 year-old girl and defending teachers who help their sophomore students hide relationships with men met at bus station bathrooms then you might want to reassess a couple of things in life.
For what its worth I'm equally disgusted at the Larry Craigs and Mark Foleys in this world. I wouldn't type a single character on my keyboard in their defense.
We get nowhere (right or left) by defending some deplorable individual simply because they're "on our side".
I went into more detail in my post farther down and don't want to repeat it all here. Suffice it to say that there's too much we don't know for us to leap to judgment.
OK. I am missing something. He should not have told him to use a condom? He should have had the boy arrested? What is the issue here that I am missing? Larry Craig was attempting to have sex in a bathroom, Mr. Wizard. This guy was told a story by a student. You really do not see the difference there?
Q) Should he have told the boy not to use a condom?
A) No. If one is going to be a participant in either statutory rape (if he was 15 as Mr. Jennings stated) or simply having incredibly dangerous and inappropriate (if he was 16 as the attorney later stated) sex originating in a Boston bus station with an adult one should use a condom. He should also be told that condoms do not assure 100% protection especially in gay sex.
(see: sarcasm)
Q) Should he have the boy arrested?
A) No. If the boy was 15 (as Mr Jennings stated) then the "older man" should be reported to the police for investigation and possible arrest. The boy was the victim and not the criminal.
Q) What's the issue here that I'm (you're) missing?
A) I cannot imagine what it is.
Young, obviously depressed kid (my life is not worth living) confides to meeting an older man in a bus station bathroom and going home with him to his teacher (and now national safe school guy). His teacher (now national safe school guy) had a myriad of options:
1) Tell him to use a condom.
2) Tell him that anonymous sex with older men is illegal (if he was 15) and that the man he was with had comitted a crime. So that this man would not commit this crime again and there would be no further victims it would be important to tell the police. Since the kid had been to the man's house he could be found. He might also be preying on smaller and younger kids. (see: sarcasm)
3) Tell him that anonymous sex with older men met in big city bathrooms is extremely and extraordinarily dangerous. Don't ever let your desire for gay sex drive you to such a dangerous place to get it.
4) Suggest psychological counseling (not for being gay) but because this kid is obviously in a very bad psychological place. He tells Mr. Jennings that his life isn't worth living. He's either suicidal or close to it.
Mr Jennings (per his own words) chose option 1.
He didn't tell him not to do such an action again.
He didn't try to get the bathroom pervert identified and possibly arrested to protect further vitims and, possibly, help past victims.
He didn't tell the troubled kid to visit the school counselor.
Mr Jennings suggested a condom next time.
Mike,
I have no use for any hypocrite or liar - left, right, center.
I'm a libertarian who despised George Bush, couldn't care less what you do in your own bedroom, doesn't believe in God, teaches evolution. I don't vote in elections anymore because I believe corporations, the party elites and lobbyists predetermine the candidates. This past election cycle I did send $50 to Obama during the primaries. (Couldn't have survived a Hillary presidency - see: hypocrites)
Larry Craig is a sick, gross man (I hope that he wasn't taking a bus trip through Boston in '88). Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite - cheating on his wife. George Bush lied about WMD and got a bunch of my fellow Marines killed for no good use. Mark Foley was an icky creep....
I happened upon this story online and when I got here and saw people defending this gent's decisions because his attorney 14 years later said that the kid was 16 I simply couldn't believe it.
Its the exact same thinking as those on the right who refused to see that G. bush was a lying fool.
Winning an argument comes from the TRUTH.
Who is the "older man"? How was he going to have this "older man" arrested? Do we even know it was an "older man"? Or are we just assuming that homosexuality and pedophilia are related - which they are NOT.
I find it laughable that you think telling a teenager his sex is illegal will have any affect on him. He has already undoubtedly been told that it will send him to hell. That's never enough to control a teenager's hormones, but the threat of Dragnet busting you with your pants down will keep him from lusting for sex? Come on.
As far as counseling, I thought the man in question here - Jennings - was the counselor. That he did, in fact, counsel the young man and got him to fell better about himself to the point where he did not feel evil and a need to have dangerous sexual encounters. That is what I get from this story. I thought that was the whole point of the story as I read it.
Are you actually making the assumption that all he said was "use a jimmy hat" and then moved on to the next kid? And you think this is what Jennings is suggesting turned the kid around and had him smiling and feeling better about himself? I suppose you are free to assume that, but it seems like a bizarre assumption to me.
If after what I have written you and others on this board think that I'm mad at the kid for being gay or for having illegal sex then I am, obviously, incapable of clear communication through a keyboard . My point was exactly the opposite - I was worried and concerned for a kid who I thought had been victimized and was suicidally depressed. I was also concerned that there was a sexual predator somewhere in Boston ranging through various public restrooms looking for teenage sexual partners - I would want that man arrested and removed from society so that he would not harm other young, depressed gay kids.
I was mad at Mr. Jennings for not contacting the authorities and professionals (medical, psychological, legal) concerning this poor kid and what I saw as a dangerous and inappropriate sexual liaison.
I read Mr. Jennings various descriptions about his reactions and actions and found them wanting - as such he would not be someone I would choose for an important position regarding school safety. You disagree.
I'm going to send a copy of this email to my favorite jesuit professor at Holy Cross to see where I missed the boat on writing and logic because I've certainly missed it.
I wish you the best. I truly do.
Semper Fi...
Of course 95% of the viewers would think I'm a liar since I have no conservative credentials.
I'd politely and simply ask if you had listened to this gentleman's words in his own voice where he describes the kid as 15.
You'd then answer that in 2004 his attorney (a paid, personal advocate who knows the statutory rape laws) said that the kid was 16.
To be fair and unargumantative I'd say, "Fine, 16!" and then I would say... "So?".
If any 16 year old comes to me to tell me that an adult met them in a bus station bathroom and that he/she then went home with that adult. I would hit the roof!
I'd ask the name and address of this "adult" and would pay them a visit to tell them that legal or not what they were doing was wrong and that if they got near any 16 year old in my care again we'd have a less civil meeting the next time.
Quick question...
You're sitting at home some night and your 16 year old son comes home with a 30 year old guy he met at the bus station bathroom. What would you say/do?
I'd be very interested in your reaction...
I'd ask the name and address of this "adult" and would pay them a visit to tell them that legal or not what they were doing was wrong and that if they got near any 16 year old in my care again we'd have a less civil meeting the next time." - stonedcat
Ah, so this what Jennings should have done. Now, I get it. The right thinks the choice was clear. Jennings should have somehow gotten the address of the other man in this bathroom hookup and tracked him to his home. Once there, he should have threatened this man (or boy) and played the macho, tough guy. A Charles Bronson of bathroom hookups, if you will. He should have told this other man that next time I hear about you hooking up anonymously with another man in a bus station bathroom, "we'd have a less civil meeting". Of course. Now it all makes perfect sense what Jennings did wrong. You guys are losing it.
Quick question...what the hell would this accomplish in your mind? I'd be VERY interested in YOUR reaction.
Quick question...
Why do you conservatives always try the appeal to consequences fallacy in this kind of conversation? Is that the key to understanding your outlook? This could happen to me! I think it's safe to say that both liberals and conservatives would decry this sexual encounter, but for very different reasons. Tell you what the difference between a proper liberal and your average conservative? Conservatives find fault with this kids homosexuality and would have him repress it and keep it out of their sight. Liberals hate the notion of a sixteen year old homosexual so convinced of his own wickedness that he hooks up in bus stop bathrooms and says things like, "my life isn't worth anything anyways."
Great point, Bob. The saddest part, of course, is that the idea that this young man has some sexual perversion that should be repressed is what actually leads him to think his life is not worth living.
Common sense tells us that there was a conversation that followed and probably actions to help the young man. There was likely no "relationship" to report; it was almost certainly a one night stand. We don't know if the man from the previous evening could have been found if he had been reported and we don't know if the young man would have cooperated or denied everything. That was all probably part of the ensuing conversation.
We had a new, young, 24 year-old teacher who was also a closeted gay. He probably feared that running to the authorities would prevent the young man from ever confiding in anyone else again, shutting him off from help and guidance he might receive. The conversation that followed very likely reinforced that likelihood. Should he have informed parents or police? It's not a question you can answer with a definite yes or no. There's so much we don't know about his family situation and emotional state. Remember, this young man held his life in very low regard. That was the most important thing that had to be immediately addressed.
Jennings left all of that out of his 2000 speech because it wasn't relevant to the point he was making by relating the anecdote. It probably never occurred to him that it would be mined years later in a determined effort to tear him down.
I'm very bothered by people who see every decision as black and white.
What if it changed the life of Jennings, or made the kid no longer confide in anybody, or make the student hold his life in lower regard???
Or that, this happened over 20 years ago and that his speech later didn't relate those 'what if' details. Or that he shouldn't have been worried that his words would be mined:
I have worked in education since the 80's and even way back then, we knew the responsibility we had to protect children and report victimization to the proper authorities. Mr. Jennings was never acting to protect the child.
So again back to my question, "What if (the girl doesn't want to prosecute now, family received a huge financial settlement, or it's been over 30 years that this happened or anyother 'what if'), should Polansky still skate?
Polanski had illegal sex with the young girl.
Big difference. Not comparable. Apples and oranges.
Get it yet, or are you still lost in the sauce?
This isn't a defense of Jennings, because the facts we know don't tell us enough to know if he needs defending or condemning. What it is is an attack on those who are dishonestly smearing him, making assertions that the facts don't support.
And finally, the Jennings situation has absolutely zero relevance to Polanski. There is no resemblance at all between the two and I still maintain that it's idiotic to take what I've said about Jennings and apply it to Polanski. All of the events are very different. All of the people are very different. The alleged offenses in each situation are very different. The histories are completely different. It strains rational thought to come up with the weak parallel you've attempted to draw.
Who's surprised? Anyone?
Consensual sex in one case.
Non-consensual sex in the other. Polanski did plead guilty but; fled the country when the judge threw out the plea agreement.
I can’t believe we are allowing our democracy to be undermined by some douche bag from Australia like this.
Murdoch made his billions by buying up and destroying our media outlets. It is all so unacceptable. We have simply got to put a stop to this.
His behavior was reprehensible on human terms. Polanski's behavior was grotesque and unjustifiable, regardless of the sexual orientation of perpetrator or victim. This has nothing to do with Jenning's sexuality, although one could wonder why a hetero republican teacher describing 'fisting' to teenagers would not have already been condemned to death.
Even those in the GL fold have found him to be providing a poor defense for actions and also wonders if there is a double standard.
Republicans no longer give a damn about their image, integrity or democracy; that makes them dangerous. Their actions are those of a desperate man.
Republicans are using the media to help distract, distort and mislead and the American people despite the failures of the last eight years in office.
Republicans throw dirt and lie the way they do believing they have nothing more to lose (after the election).
If Republicans bring down this President in their current state of mind and regain power America, the great, is DOOMED!!!
BOTTOM LINE: FOX SNOOZE FIND OUT THE TRUTH AND QUIT GETTING HALF OF THE FACTS! Of course alot of people will get angry along the way, but hey Fox Snooze does not care, because it is all about being FAIR AND BALANCED! (Facepalm)
The man is cunning and will say anything to keep his numbers up. His genius is that he keeps the left or those he has targeted on their heels and unable to see the big picture. Levine, hannity, limbaugh or any of these conservative apologists have the nations best interest in mind if you zero in on their rhetorical "puking"... the conservative agenda is all that counts.
hannity and limbaugh in particular have been singed by recent elections. In the 2004 election they both staked their reps on the victory and after the results for several days trashed the so called conservative crowd for not following their 'clarion call'. Same for 2008. The spat between McCain and Palin distracted the light from them and the loss.
I don't have to get down too deep in their trash, no further than when they use the phrase "democrat this" or "democrat that", "liberal this" or "liberal that". In my life time I have come to see that there can never be and all inclusive they which takes in the sum total and leaves out the fact that there are democrats and liberal who are sane and lucid just as there are those who call themselves conservatives.
That is the greatest lie that they have gotten into the minds of people...more later...
What we know: Jennings believed the child was 15 (as stated here) thanks for the link frankly0. Regardless of whether his lawyer found out years later the child was in fact 16, Jennings thought he was 15. No ID check required. At the very least, Jennings should have told the childs parents about the him "missing a ‘lot of classes and avoiding school". Instead, he ignores the law and fails to mention it until he can make it a point in a book, speech or i.e. make a buck. Disgusting!
Anyone know if there were sodomy laws in MA in 1988?
Read it you fools. I am gay, and from Massachusetts. It has been 18 my entire adult life. Get YOUR facts "straight"
He said "As the Washington Times said, At the very least, Statutory rape occured."
Hannity never claimed it was statutory rape. He was quoting the Washington Times.
But here is MMFA's headlines;
Despite evidence to contrary, Fox News machine claims Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape"
In this video Fox didn't claim it was statutory rape. They quoted someone else who did.
Talk about being disingenous.
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse
Section 4. Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-4.htm
Sjch - you are obviously a homophobic racist. Probably own guns, pay your very own bills, pay your taxes, go to work everyday, save money, live within your means and remain faithful and married to one woman.
Your a sick, sick man....
Sorry you have such a need to demonize people you don't even know, after an attack squad has misinformed you. Get better soon.
1. An adult in Mass. having sex with a minor aged 16-17 years of age is defined as "Statutory Rape" and is ILLEGAL. Sex with a minor under the age of 16 is defined as just "Rape" and is also illegal.
2. A teacher made privy to this crime by the victim is OBLIGATED by law to report the incident.
Why is this hard to understand?