Bitter ex-girlfriend files phony “Sexual Harassment” complaint, ruins dude’s life. Sometimes, you wonder why anyone chooses to be straight.
Universities that caved to the Fascism of the Radical Feminist Left and the Obama Department of Justice and adopted the standard for rape conviction demanded by those parties — i.e. A man is guilty of rape if a woman accuses him of rape — are now being sued by men who’ve been wrongfully convicted and deprived of civil rights under that absurd standard.
As of this month, there have been 50 known lawsuits filed by men found guilty of rape looking for justice to clear their names and legal record, according to A Voice For Male Students’ website.
“Predictably, a wave of lawsuits soon erupted as young men wrongly accused of sex crimes found themselves hustled through a vague and misshapen adjudication process with slipshod checks and balances and Kafkaesque standards of evidence,” the men’s advocacy page reads.
Brown University settled one suit for a million dollars. Caving into radical feminism comes with w price tag, but at least innocent men are getting some compensation.
The accuser, who has not filed criminal charges, has called for administrators to issue a sharper punishment, ideally expulsion. He said he is considering filing a Title IX complaint against the school because, he said, administrators downplayed some of his concerns, were not sufficiently transparent about the process, and discriminated against him because he is a man and gay.
“There are parts of me that wish I didn’t go through this process because I feel like I’ve gone through a lot of re-victimization and re-traumatization,” the accuser said in an interview. “But I also feel like it’s something that needs to be talked about.’’
Meanwhile, the accused student has denied the allegations, which he called “ridiculous,” saying he and his ex-boyfriend had a typical romantic relationship.
I think most of us are familiar with how bitter and vengeful XBF’s can be after a bad breakup.
Under this standard, a sex act can only be presumed as consensual if both participants have explicitly consented. Even if no overt objections are raised at the time, if no explicit consent is obtained a sexual encounter may be defined as rape.
Henceforth, male students within California’s system of higher ed are advised to make their partners sign consent forms before each and every sexual activity; thus to please the misandrist puritans of the modern left.
So much for the fine art of seduction. That a woman should not immediately agree to a man’s sexual overtures has been quite customary throughout history; seduction has been a key ingredient in the sexual cocktail. No more, though. If a woman doesn’t immediately consent, I suppose the man is supposed to just walk away and never breach the subject again. Leave it to the left to turn sex into a bureaucratically-managed activity subject to strict oversight by the state… like everything else.
A lawsuit fired by a former gym teacher and coach at a posh New York private school alleges that the Athletic Director, a lesbian, discriminated against him for maintaining a traditional family life.
The discrimination suit claims that Krieger attempted to force Kenney to coach three sports — soccer, basketball and golf — even though his contract only mandated that he coach two teams.
When Coach Kenney protested about the burden of working extra nights and weekends because he wanted to spend more time with him wife and children, Krieger balked.
“We all make choices,” she said, according to the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Kenney’s complaint alleges, “a single, female teacher faced no scrutiny when she refused to coach a third season.”
The suit claims that Krieger ran off three other married coaches who have young kids and notes that Kenney’s replacement is a gay female.
I used to be friends with an uber-feminist who, after college, went to work for a non-profit organization run by a lesbian and her partner. She told me that the constant sexual politics in the office made the job intolerable. The organization’s mission was always secondary or tertiary to keeping up with the constantly shifting alliances and vendettas that the women brought to the office.
It also strikes me as a Sign o’ the Times that one teacher gets fired for having a traditional family, another gets defended for molesting one of his students.
This story has been around for years, but I’m just catching up. Perhaps some of you are, too. It’s a horrifying example of modern-day tyranny. (And, not to plug Chris Christie who is not perfect, but Christie is helpful in it.)
Brian Aitken is a law-abiding citizen who legally bought guns in Colorado, legally transported them to New Jersey when he moved there to be near his young son, never did anything wrong or harmful with them; and was nonetheless arrested on highly questionable grounds, charged with felony possession (an initial charge was non-existent under New Jersey law), convicted under highly questionable jury instructions, and imprisoned under a seven-year sentence.
After he served four months in prison, Gov. Christie commuted his sentence, achieving his release. And the charges have been partially overturned.
But the damage doesn’t stop there. As if to compound the tyranny, a family judge denied Aitken practical access to his son – partly on the convictions, and partly on the supposed grounds that a father who owns firearms (or who might; Aitken actually doesn’t own anymore) is an automatic danger to his family. Never mind that gun ownership is in the Constitution.
This man’s constitutional rights have been severely violated. And when you hear Aitken tell his story, you understand that such things could happen to any responsible parents or gun owners – like, say, gay parents, or gay gun owners.
If you’re inclined, a donation can still help Mr. Aitken to publish his book and continue his legal battle to clear his name. The remaining charge/conviction on him is that he transported ammunition; as Aitken points out, a law that lets you keep a type of ammunition in your home, but not move it when you move your home, is arguably nuts.
So, as I’ve said before, I’m mostly agnostic on gay marriage (I believe the entire institution should be left to personal/familial/community/religious devices and the government should remove itself entirely from the argument lock-stock-and-barrel). That said, you can’t be gay—well, or even straight it seems—in the United States today, according to the media, and not be completely and obsessively consumed by the issue (and, natch, your opinion can only be “FOR!”).
And since SCOTUS is hearing it this week, I suppose I might as well poke a stick into the monkey cage:
If we’re supposed to oppose DOMA on states’ rights grounds, should we then oppose the effort to overturn Prop 8?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HHQ
Excellent point made (and I don’t just say this because I have several captions vying for his “Best of” category) by VtheK from the comments:
This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.
Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t [matter], what’s so damned magical about the number 2?
(As for the first part, I have made this exact point many times myself, and I have much more to say about Viking’s second point, which perhaps I will anon…)
Perhaps like me, you’re enjoying this great new TV show I just found on C-SPAN2 called Mr. Paul Goes to Washington where my favorite Senator is currently filibustering President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. As I write this, he’s currently about to ring in his sixth hour. The goal of Senator Paul’s soliloquy is, as he has stated several times since I’ve been watching, simply to elicit one thing: A straight-forward answer to the question, (to paraphrase) ‘Does the president believe he has the legal authority to execute through drone strike non-combatant citizens on American soil?’
Brings up a very interesting point: For eight solid years, we heard screeching and gnashing of teeth from the Left about how George W. Bush wants to kill us all and eat our babies and of course shred the Constitution through wars based on lies and the horrible PATRIOT Act. But in the end, who is it who’s actually standing up for these ideals? Well, so far I’ve seen Senator Paul in exchanges with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Pat Toomey. Odd, don’t you think, that it’d be these ‘Tea Party right-winger knuckle-draggers’ who are actually doing the work that the Bush-haters allegedly wanted done while the leaders of their nominative party are lining up with their president in his expansion of Bush’s ‘unitary executive’ policies?
Clearly it’d be expecting waaay too much for the addlepated adherents to the Bush-is-Satan school of political thought to recognize the irony of the situation, let alone find that realization a great opportunity for self-reflection. Sad, that.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
NB: I had originally written the paraphrase of Sen Paul’s question as “power” to execute. Clearly that’s within the president’s power, but I’ve clarified (I hope) by changing my original post to read “legal authority”, which I think is likely more to his point.
A federal judge for the Southern District of California is allowing a woman to proceed with her case against Avis Rent-A-Care because the company “did not give her the gay and lesbian group member price discount.” In his ruling he cites “California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act” which “seeks to prevent any discrimination among people on the basis of listed characteristics.” (Via Instapundit.)
The plaintiff, he wrote, “has stated a plausible claim for relief, i.e., that AVIS violated the prohibitions of the Act regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” If she succeeds in her suit, private companies, like Avis, will no longer be able to offer discounts to members of gay and lesbian organizations.
If Avis wishes to offer discounts to members of gay and lesbian organizations as a means to promote their service, the company should be free to do so. And if this woman believes Avis is discriminating against her, she remains free to take her business elsewhere. Avis is not the only rental car company.
Yesterday, commenting on Politico’s coverage on “this Politico report on CNN’s ratings woes“, Ed Driscoll took issue with the notion of the network as a non-partisan purveyor of news:
And if you believe that CNN really is “committed to nonpartisan news-gathering” free of partisanship (cough —shilling for Saddam, getting cozy with Kim Jong Il — cough — Wright-Free Zone — cough — Anderson Cooper’s painful “teabagging” references, baking cakes for Obama and on and on and on) then you might be working for a “news” organization that is also a partisan shop pretending to be objective, and wondering why it’s losing audience as well.
Whatever Fox and MSNBC’s other issues, at least consumers know what sort of product they’re getting when tune into those networks. Trying to pretend to be objective is a long-outdated model that’s reached the end of the production line.
Today, while doing cardio at the gym, caught CNN’s coverage of the Obamacare decision. Wolf Blitzer was interviewing two beaming left-of-center pundits, the smarmy journolister Jeffrey Toobin and Dahlia Lithwick.
An objective news source would have included a conservative on this panel.
The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the mandate to purchase health insurance as a tax.
“As an exercise of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause,” writes the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso, “the individual mandate does not hold water. But under Congress’s taxing power, it is a legitimate provision.”
My quick analysis. Pyrrhic victory for Obama. He’ll have a few good days. Vote holding Eric Holder in contempt won’t get much media coverage. But, decision could prove to be political headache for the president. The court may have found the law constitutional, but it remains unpopular. Mitt Romney will be able to use this against him: the only way to repeal this law is to replace Obama.
So, if Obama celebrates the decision, he’ll be acknowledging that he broke this campaign promise:
Ann Althouse is more sanguine than are most conservatives, having “said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I’m really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.”
UP-UPDATE: From Ira Stoll, linked by Glenn above:
By calling the mandate a tax, the court made an official ruling that President Obama had violated his 2008 campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year. And the ruling also keeps ObamaCare alive as a political issue. A ruling that struck down the law might have energized Obama supporters. This ruling may make the law’s opponents even more determined to elect a Republican president and Congress so that they can repeal the law or, failing that, defund it.
UP–UP-UPDATE: “The Supreme Court,” quips Jim Geraghty, “just gave Mitt Romney a very, very useful line: ‘As President, I will repeal President Obama’s health care tax.’”
FROM THE COMMENTS: boatseller forecasts that “in about 4 weeks, liberal bloggers are going to start chattering about a conspiracy between Justice Roberts and the Romney campaign to uphold the law in order to hurt the President.” Heh.
A number of conservative bloggers have addressed the merits of the “administration’s assertion of executive privilege with respect to Fast and Furious documents”. In this post, my friend John Hinderaker called that assertion “frivolous”:
Holder’s letter is a remarkable document. Viewed from a strictly technical standpoint, it is a terrible piece of legal work.
If you have time, read the whole thing. In a followup post, he “pointed out that lawyers only assert lousy claims of privilege when they have something to hide“:
So the presumption that there is damaging information in the documents the administration refuses to produce is very strong. In his defense, Eric Holder merely asks that we trust him. But why should we? The administration’s track record with respect to Fast and Furious–and Eric Holder’s, in particular–is one of serial attempts to deceive. Let’s itemize three instances.
Once again, read the whole thing.
I couldn’t agree more with this post from Matthew Yglesias:
Something that I think most people don’t realize is that for the vast majority of American history, the judicial branch has been a very conservative elite-dominated institution. Most people’s view of the matter is distorted by the historical aberration that occurred roughly between the Brown andRoe decisions, with a lot of good criminal justice decisions in between. Even there, one has to recall that with its landmark civil rights decisions, the Supreme Court was in large part just reversing what the late 19th century Supreme Court did by throwing out the civil rights legislation of the Grant administration.
Emphasis added. Well said. Read the whole thing.
There is much, much more to this, particularly as it pertains to gays. I have always believed that social change comes from our communities, through private institutions and enterprises. It is not the government’s role to foster social change nor to prevent it from happening organically.
Had I not chanced upon this piece a few minutes before bed, I might have more to say on it, but for now, I think it’s important to alert our readers to the post, especially because a liberal blogger is putting forward a view in sync with conservative legal scholars.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Jim Hlavac offers:
Virtually all gains made by gay folks in the past 40 years towards our acceptance as decent people has been made without legislative or judicial help; and sometimes even despite laws and rulings against us. No court ruling is going to change anyone’s mind about us. Long before laws against us were removed we had already started the process of removing the negativism, person by person, mostly starting with our families and hetero friends. Even Bowers v. Hardwick did not dent the trend, nor did Lawrence push it. And the trend is still moving forward.
Exactly. Read the whole thing!
Last night, via this blog’s Facebook page, a reader alerted me to an article sure to cheer (momentarily) the hearts of all freedom-loving Americans: a federal judge has ruled that a gay softball league can set its own standards for participation.
“It is not,” U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling, “the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization’s chosen expression.” Nor should it be.
Three bisexual men filed a lawsuit in Washington state against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAA) after they had been kicked off the team for not being gay enough. Now, when I initially blogged about this suit last April, I called NAGAA’s rule limiting the number of heterosexual players “stupid” and found it “disgusting that a gay organization would not just countenance, but also conduct a public interrogation into individuals’ private lives.” (It did so to find out if they were gay enough.)
That said, it’s a private organization and private organizations should be allowed to set their own rules. Allowing it to do so, the judge
. . refused to enjoin enforcement of the two-player rule. “Plaintiffs have failed to argue that there is a compelling state interest in allowing heterosexuals to play gay softball,” Coughenour wrote.
“NAGAAA might very well believe that given the history of gay exclusion for sports, the only way to promote competition for all persons, and ensure that gay athletes have the same opportunities as straight athletes, is to create an exclusively gay community with exceptions for a small number of straight players,” the ruling states.
The ruling wasn’t entirely rosy though. “Coughenour also ruled that the athletic association failed to prove it should not be subjected to public-accommodation laws as ‘a distinctly private organization.” So, now we’ve got a federal judge determining such matters. That is a truly chilling thought. Shouldn’t the simple question be whether or not the group takes state money.
Let NAGAA set its own rules. Indeed, let all private athletic associations do the same. If a group of gay guys want to play softball with a group consisting primarily of their fellow gays, then more power to them. It’s their choice. Isn’t this land of the free? And isn’t that what freedom means?
Well, last night after returning from a wonderful dinner with my Dad and his wife (including the best dirty martini I’ve had in a long while (thank you, Maureen!)), I went through my e-mail and read articles I had previously just skimmed on the decision of the law firm King & Spalding to end its representation of the “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.” While I was aware of HRC’s involvement in the efforts to intimidate influence the law firm, dubbing them a “hissy fit” in a previous post, it seems the left-wing organization threw more than just a “hissy fit,” but instead mounted a concerted effort to get the law firm to drop this bipartisan group of federal elected officials as a client.
The latest round got started this morning, when the Weekly Standardpublished an internal email from the Human Rights Campaign detailing that HRC had “contacted many of the firm’s clients” as part of its campaign to get King and Spalding to drop the case. Right wing bloggers, such as Jennifer Rubin, are pouncing on this as proof that the left engaged in an “unprincipled campaign” of intimidation to deprive the House of Representatives of legal representation.
Far from being abashed about this campaign, Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, shared new details about it. He confirmed to me that his group did indeed contact King and Spalding clients to let them know that the group viewed the firm’s defense of DOMA as unacceptable.
You’d think they have better things to do with their time. Instead of developing strategies to reach out to social conservatives and offer arguments about treating gay individuals with dignity or work with gay Republicans to develop better arguments about the merits of state recognition of same-sex unions, HRC has been busying itself trying to deprive an elected branch of the federal government of legal counsel in its defense of legislation enacted in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution.
Even Attorney General Eric Holder is defending “former Solicitor General Paul Clement, after gay rights advocates criticized his decision to take on the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.” Clement quit his job at King & Spalding when the firm dropped the case.
That HRC would go to such great lengths to get a law firm to drop its defense of DOMA come as no surprise to us nor to other gay people familiar with the work of this left-wing outfit. They have long since stopped being, as Sargent styles them, a “gay advocacy group”. They’re not advocating for gay people, but instead seeking to deprive their adversaries of the opportunity to defend their positions. Indeed, they’re behaving as if their adversaries don’t even have a right to their defense.
As expected, some of our savvier readers understood why I posed the thought experiment about a hypothetical business decision in Wisconsin in a post yesterday. I was addressing both the failure of the state of California to defend Proposition 8 and of the federal government to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Not to mention the hissy fit HRC and its allies threw when the House of Representatives attempted to retain the law firm of King and Spalding to defend the constitutionality of a law overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by a (Democratic) President.
Now, I don’t like that law and grant that some of DOMA’s provisions may indeed violate the “full fail and credit” clause of the constitution. I think Congress should overturn it. But, it is the law of the land.
I have many more thoughts on this issue and expect to address them in due time. But, my father is in town and family takes precedence over politics. So, while he and his wife are taking a nap to recover from jet lag, I have a brief moment to blog — and to take care of other pressing tasks.
As always, Jennifer Rubin can be counted on for insightful observations on a controversial matter. She has posted, by my count, five pieces on the matter. Calling DOMA “rotten legislation“, she still believes its supporters have the right to defend it and faults the left for favoring “politically bullying to deter lawyers from representing clients it doesn’t like”. Also read her subsequent posts on why King & Spalding decided to drop their defense of DOMA here, here, here and here.
Glenn Reynolds has a mini-roundup here.
Stacey McCain wonders what happens “When You Give in to Thuggery” and places before us the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple that we all can understand what’s at stake:
It is important to understand that the heart of the question raised by the King & Spalding decision is not whether we approve or disapprove of homosexuality, or even whether we support or oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. What is at issue is whether the concept of “gay rights” should empower advocates of that agenda to bully and intimidate their critics.
In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to enact a non-discrimination law that prevented companies from firing individuals based on their sexual orientation.
Now, imagine if you will, a socially conservative business owner in rural Wisconsin who learns that a hard-working and very reliable employee is gay. In a misguided (but, from his point of view, well-meaning) action, this employer offers to enroll his worker in a conversion therapy program. He refuses. Their confrontation creates tension between the two, resulting in a decline in the employee’s work performance. The employer fires him.
With the help of the ACLU and Fair Wisconsin, the employee takes the employer to court, contending the employer discriminated against the employee because he was gay (in violation of the 1982 statute). The Alliance Defense Fund hears of the case and offers not just to defend the employer — but also to challenge the constitutionality of the Badger State’s 1982 law.
The Fund turns to the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to make a case for the employer’s rights of free association as well as his liberty and property interests. Seeing this case as an opportunity to strike down not just the 1982 Wisconsin law, but other state mandates on employers’ rights, a number of libertarian groups join the suit.
Accepting these libertarian arguments, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen elect not to defend the law.
Now, while I contend that the libertarian argument may well have constitutional merit, I believe Walker and Van Hollen would be wrong not to defend the state’s law.
Before I write a post on a related matter, let me ask you, our readers to guess that related matter and why I offer this hypothetical.
NB: Tweaked the piece since I first posted it in order to improve the flow and make my point clearer.
Kudos to Bruce Drake for another report getting at the real problem posed by the Tucson shooting:
A top official in the Pima County sheriff’s office said Sunday that his department did not begin an investigation or take earlier action regarding Jared Lee Loughner despite his history of erratic behavior because his contacts with police were “relatively benign” and did “not rise to the level of causing us to be necessarily concerned about him committing a violent act.”
Richard J. Kastigar, chief of the sheriff’s Operations Bureau, acknowledged the controversy over the question of whether authorities should have moved earlier to look into the case of Loughner, who gunned down 20 people Sept. 8 outside a Tucson supermarket, killing six and critically wounding Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
“A lot of folks have suggested that there were clues to his mental stability,” Kastigar said on ABC’s “This Week. “But we’re governed by laws. And the laws allow us to do certain things and restrict us from doing other things.”
Kastigar may well be right. (This bears investigation.) Do existing Arizona laws grant the sheriff’s department in Pima County (or other law enforcement body for that matter) the tools they needed to detain and/or incarcerate the disturbed young man who would become the shooter?
If this Pima County official is right, this then is the real problem for the Arizona legisalture: how to craft a law that would facilitate the detention of mentally unbalance individuals who pose a danger to society without threatening the liberty of eccentric or otherwise moderately troubled individuals who pose no such danger.
In Iowa, voters “removed three justices who participated in a ruling last year that made the state the first in the Midwest” to recognize same-sex marriages. While the governor appoints the justices in the Hawkeye State, they “have to stand for periodic retention votes, a system known as merit selection.”
It seems voters approve judges a matter of course, but this time, a coalition of outside advocacy groups pushed for their removal because of their vote on same-sex marriage:
The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.
Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.
“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”
“The risk of leapfrogging — or ignoring — public opinion on controversial issues was brought into sharp relief Tuesday,” New York Times writer A.G. Sulzberger observes, “when voters chose to remove all three justices who were on the ballot seeking new terms.”
“They are,” my former fellow Virginia Law Federalist Todd Zywicki writes, “the first Justices who failed to be retained since 1962, when the current system was implemented.” Todd offers a good discussion of voters’ use of the power of retention, so just read the whole thing. We could have avoided all this mess if judges deferred such matters to legislators who must answer to the people in biennial elections.
Todd’s post via Glenn Reynolds who offers, “I’m in favor of gay marriage, but I think it’s better that it happen legislatively. On the other hand, had these justices been retained it would have been democratic sanction for the decision. That’s a virtue of elected supreme courts.” (more…)
Let us hope that in the lame-duck session of the Senate, Harry Reid has a strategy to push through repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), given that the Ninth Circuit has extended the stay on the lower court ruling:
A federal appeals court on Monday indefinitely extended its freeze on a judge’s order halting enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, heightening pressure on the Obama administration to persuade the U.S. Senate to repeal the law before a new Congress is sworn in.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. government’s request for a stay while it challenges the trial court’s ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional.
A Jefferson County prosecutor was tipped off by Louisville narcotics detectives twice in the past two years that he was under investigation for possible drug use or trafficking, according to police records obtained by The Courier-Journal.
When investigators learned of the leaks and interrogated the two detectives and the prosecutor last March, all three initially gave false or misleading statements about what happened, those records show. The statements of Matthew C. Conway, the prosecutor, were made under oath.
Conway just happens to be the brother of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, you know the guy trying to make much about the (alleged) college antics of Ron Paul, his rival in the contest for one of the Bluegrass State’s seats in the United State Senate.
Detectives tipped Matthew off that his house was about to be searched for “drug use or trafficking”, giving the prosecutor time to remove any “contraband.” We don’t know who tipped Matthew off. We know someone tipped him off. And when your brother’s the state attorney general, you wonder if maybe . . .
Over at the Daily Caller, Alex Pappas is asking this very questions, suggesting that the candidate may have tipped his brother off. For the record, “Jack Conway’s office said in an e-mail to the [Louiville Courier-Journal] Thursday that his only involvement was to advise his brother to obtain legal counsel.”
One other thing. We know that Matthew lied about whether he had been tipped off. When Louisville police realized there had been a leak, they launched an investigation, calling in the younger Conway. He first denied being tipped off, then “went back and changed his story.”
The question remains open as to who tipped off Matthew. And if it wasn’t anyone in the state attorney general’s office, it would certainly behoove that Senate candidate to get to the bottom of this in the next nine days.