Senator Ron Johnson knew since 2011 about Assemblyman Kramer's Sexual Assault

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Yes, I do think it is important to know if she asked him to be quiet or not, but if a friend of yours, someone who worked for you, etc was sexually assaulted would you just say quiet about it or would you go to the police?

I would lobby her to go to the police.  If I no longer sensed a threat to her safety, I would respect her wishes.  If the assaults were continuing or she was in some kind of danger, I would probably ignore her wishes and go to the police, but we do not have any indication that that was the case here.  Barring a continuing threat, I would have a hard time reporting a crime to the police when I had been expressly told by a friend that she did not want the police involved and my attempts to persuade her otherwise had been unsuccessful.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

This beyond suspicion of criminal misdeeds is a pretty loose standard.  By that standard, Al Gore is "guilty" of sexual assault for the allegation against him.

Your post also ignores the very real possibility that the staffer, of her complete own will, told Johnson not to go to the caucus or police.  If that happened, are you honestly saying that her wishes should be ignored?

How are you going to testify on behalf of the victim?  What hearsay exception do you think you're going to get that under?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

The legal standard of  the presumption of innocence is relevant only to whether people be incarcerated for long terms or not be so treated. When it comes to certain responsibilities -- any business will separate a money-handler suspected of embezzlement from the responsibility to distribute company cash or record transactions. Someone accused of child abuse will be suspended as a teacher.

Sexual assault may not be relevant to voting, but it is an absolute crime. It is an unambiguous warning of a sociopathic personality that nobody should trust in a position of responsibility. This is not commonplace adultery or fornication, either of which is consensual.

Someone accused of those things may be suspended, but they won't lose their job (likely) until they've actually been proven to have done the alleged act.  What would a suspension have accomplished here if there had been no charges filed to lead to a conviction, which could not have happened without the staffer's cooperation to testify.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will be weak charges -- some based on paranoid delusions or false identification as well as outright libel and slander. But those are cleared, often with the debunking of the accuser.[/quote]
But there's still a suspicion of a criminal misdeed, correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could the staffer be wrong? Could it be that the staffer is convinced that the assault was a one-time discretion of an otherwise-unobjectionable character? One sexual assault is one too many. Our legal system doesn't usually assume that a one-time drunk driver poses no menace to the safety of others who share the highway. [/quote]
Sure, the staffer could be wrong, but you didn't address my question.  If the staffer had told Johnson she did not want this going public, should Johnson have ignored her wishes?  Yes or no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Ask for a clarification of the situation.

2. Be prepared to ask for the resignation of that pol.

3. Warn fellow Republicans. Warn your staffers.
[/quote]
None of those address my questions.  And if you're going around saying, "Senator so-and-so" has sexually assaulted people, and the senator didn't in fact sexually assault the staffer, you've just committed defamation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?

Yes. Arrest is not conviction. It has no consequences other than offering a signal that someone needs change his behavior. Some people need the signal. If there is a contributing factor such as drug abuse or alcoholism, then such is a good time to deal with that aspect of life. Only rarely is there an excuse for domestic violence -- like self-defense.

It prevents an abuser from having the influence upon a victim that allows the victim to get lighter abuse in return for dropping charges.

Domestic abuse needs to be stopped as early as possible.

And if it doesn't result in a conviction, doesn't it have the increased possibility of making the victim's life a living hell post-arrest, or even worse, open them up to being more at danger of a future attack?

If an adult, mentally-competent victim of a crime makes a conscious, choice, free from undue influence from a biased party, not to report it, that should be their choice.  It should not be someone else's decision to second-guess their reasoned, rational choice.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Well, that's one opinion, which you are entitled to. Personally, I think that sexual assault is a serious crime, and if someone is alleging it, the proper authorities should be notified, regardless of rather or not confidentiality is requested, because other persons could be at risk of being attacked.

Without testimony from the victim, how would you make the charges stick?