Give Fairfax a Chance to Clear His Name

Lawyers for Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax have formally requested prosecutors in Suffolk County, Mass., and Durham County, N.C. to open criminal investigations into the sexual assault allegations made against Fairfax in February, reports WJLA.

The allegation of Meredith Watson, who accused Fairfax of raping her in 2000 when they were students at Duke University, should be fully investigated, argued Barry J. Pollack, Fairfax’s attorney, in the letter to the Durham County district attorney. Wrote Pollack:

If an investigation were to determine that the allegation is true, it should be criminally prosecuted. Conversely, if an investigation were to determine that the allegation is false, which Lt. Governor Fairfax is confident would be the conclusion of any unbiased and professional investigation, the matter could be closed and the public informed.

Fundamental fairness requires that when a person makes a serious criminal allegation in the most public way possible, as Ms. Watson has done, an objective and thorough investigation of that allegation should be conduced, and the results reported to the public. Just as no serious crime should go unprosecuted, no innocent person should have his reputation tarnished by a false allegation.

(Fairfax attorney Ian Polumbaum makes similar arguments in a letter to the Suffolk County, Mass., prosecutor here.)

These strike me as perfectly reasonable statements. If Fairfax wants his “day in court” to clear his name, he should be entitled to one. Likewise, if his accusers are willing to publicly accuse him of rape, common decency would insist that they present their evidence to prosecutors and submit to rigorous questioning.

Virginia’s political establishment seems determined to sweep the matter under the rug. This is a no-win controversy for Democratic Party leaders. If the women are vindicated, a popular African-American politician with a great political future ahead of him is politically ruined. If Fairfax is vindicated, a blow is struck against the #metoo presumption that all women should be believed when they allege sexual assault.

It will be interesting to see if out-of-state prosecutors with no skin in the Virginia political game are to willing oblige Fairfax and give him his investigation.

Of course, there is a third possible income. In a he-said/she-said situation, investigators may be unable to develop conclusive evidence to support either Fairfax or his accusers. What then? Is Fairfax entitled to a presumption of innocence? How would that play out in the Democratic Party less than a year after the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearing?

There are currently no comments highlighted.

13 responses to “Give Fairfax a Chance to Clear His Name

  1. If charges are brought against Justin Fairfax, he is presumed innocent under the law until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And despite the general application of the Bill & Hillary Rule to most, but not all, Democrats (Sorry Al Franken), whereby all women making allegations of sexual abuse must be believed unless the allegations are against Bill, when the accuser is lying trailer trash, outside the criminal process, Justin Fairfax’s accusers should be believed just as Bret Kavanaugh’s accusers were believed. But the Democrats will give Fairfax a pass just as they’ve given Bill Clinton and Ralph Northam a pass. And the MSM will follow along.

  2. “But the Democrats will give Fairfax a pass just as they’ve given Bill Clinton and Ralph Northam a pass. And the MSM will follow along.”

    TMT – this comment suggests the Democrats, and their media allies, are professional smear merchants. I am shocked! Shocked!

    • “… Of course, we know exactly how these two cases studies would have turned out if Morrissey and Moore swapped the “D” and the “R” near their names. But what really makes this story rich is that Morrissey is simply another politician in a long list of morally objectionable elected officials who currently hold office in the Commonwealth.

      At least Morrissey, who stepped into his son’s life after an unexpected pregnancy, chose life — unlike Northam, who supports late-term abortion and advocates for killing unwanted children after failed abortions. Of course, there is still time for racist photos of Morrissey wearing blackface or a Klu Klux Klan robe to emerge, like they did Northam, or for women from his past to step forward with accusations of sexual assault, like they did for Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

      But thanks to the new standards set by both Democratic leadership and the media establishment (but I repeat myself), the new state senator candidate will not have to worry for a second about his job security should any additional scandals emerge.” End Quote from article Democratic Candidate Who Had Sex With A Minor Has Plenty of Company, by Madeline Osburn. Madeline is a staff writer at the Federalist and produces The Federalist Radio Hour.

      For full story see https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/12/democratic-candidate-sex-minor-plenty-company/

      • You’ve got to give Morrissey credit for one thing: After having had sex with a minor, he married her. And had three children with her. From all outward appearances, they make a happy couple.

        I knew Morrissey pretty well at one time. He’s a contradiction: a very bright guy capable of spectacular lapses in judgment. It is absolutely amazing to me how he gets knocked down, but picks himself up and keeps on going. While I disagree with his politics, I can’t help but admire the guy’s shameless perseverance.

  3. The moves are as follows: 1) Accused demands investigation. 2) Local prosecutor declines or goes forward and announces no evidence or insufficient evidence (see McGuireWoods report for drafting ideas.) 3) Accused can at least try to make the case that constitutes exoneration. Hey, it really is the only chance he has to get back a political future, and it may also be playing into his employment situation. He is not denying knowing or “knowing” those women, so consent is the only issue. Will this get him to the point of having a strong political future? My guess would be no, because looking around the Democrats can find plenty of other candidates with similar appeal with no similar scandal. Likewise I still think Northam is holding his last political office (could be proven wrong, but IMHO his worth to society as a doctor outweighs six years napping in the US Senate.)

  4. Do I have to be the first person to mention Paul Goldman in the context of the Morrissey win? That tactic of going straight at Dance on her home turf is just classic. Unless he truly was not involved, it’s time somebody mentioned him.

    And yes, Reed, an interesting wrinkle in that campaign was Morrissey’s open pro-life stance.

  5. Look at it this way. The current procession of women making allegations against men, particularly against students and especially politicians, may have a beneficial impact: a less active hook-up culture. In my day, fear of pregnancy was a pretty strong deterrent. Maybe every generation needs its own deterrent.

    Consider the advice I give to any young college man, or high-school kid, who will listen: “You better be damned sure of the gal with whom you are considering the horizontal mambo. At the very least, get a signed consent form for any and all types of sexual contact. Read the definition of sexual contact in the Virginia state statutes. Otherwise, the hook-up scene could very well be the end of any meaningful life for you.”

    I advise parents “Think twice about sending your male offspring to anything other than your local community college while he lives at home (no matter how well he did in school, and no matter what a great guy everybody thought he was in high school), and especially don’t send him to an Ivy League or other high-end college.” Hillsdale or St.John’s, perhaps, but anything else is very high risk in the age of Title IX. Even getting your member cut-off will not avoid the risk.

    For a conservative, a diminution of the hook-up culture might be a very positive development for society today. Potential adverse impact: further retreat by the average young male into his parents’ basement and his video games.

    • “… a diminution of the hook-up culture might be a very positive development for society today.”

      Very insightful and important comment, CrazyJD. The hook-up culture likely is the most destabilizing and toxic development in America’s increasingly decadent society. This sick culture radiates out and poisons most everyone and institution it touches, destroying the fabric of western civilization itself.

      And, as you also suggest, the hook-up culture is only one of several toxic products of today’s American higher education, all of them spawned and long promoted by America’s elite colleges and universities to infect America’s youth.

      For example, recall the long festering mass hysteria of young women at UVA and how it exploded into full public view upon publication of the fraudulent Rolling Stone Jackie scandal in late 2014. This event illustrated only one aspect of the massive identity crisis that elite American colleges and universities now inflict on their students. Another is the race poison that US higher education regularly injects into American society such as the race riots Charlottesville Va in spring and summer of 2016. Much to this hysteria also had long festered on the Grounds of UVA.

      • Here is another example of how UVA undermines the identity of its students by erasing their history, so as to replace their students’ history and legacy with the grievance and hate of an alien and toxic culture of their professors:

        “Last week, Charlottesville, Virginia Mayor Nikuyah Walker proposed ending recognition of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday as an official city holiday. Instead, she wants the city to celebrate the emancipation of local slaves a month earlier, as “Liberation and Freedom Day.” The proposal will be brought before the city council at either its June 17 or July 1 meeting, reports The Daily Progress, a local newspaper.

        Charlottesville is the home to the University of Virginia, one of the United States’s premiere research and educational institutions, which Jefferson personally designed, founded, and led after serving as the U.S. president. It is Jefferson who wrote the words that became a promissory note of freedom for all people and that this nation cashed in its own blood. It is he who helped design a nation that has secured the most freedom for the most people in all of human history. All this means nothing, say today’s rageaholic iconoclasts, because he held slaves.

        Walker, an independent who campaigned against the previous Democrat incumbent from the left, appears not to have publicly stated her reasons for her proposal, but we all can guess. The heavily Democratic Charlottesville City Council “voted in 2017 to commemorate the second of October as Indigenous Peoples Day rather than Columbus Day,” notes The Daily Progress. We all know why on that one, too.

        This is resentment, envy, and ignorance, plain and simple. It assumes that someone who has done something terrible can never be recognized for what he has done that is great. It assumes that we should socially elevate those who have accomplished nothing over those who have built a great nation, simply because the former can land a valid criticism against the latter.

        Followed to its logical conclusions, this line of thinking bans the idea of greatness itself. It subsumes all good actions to any possibly connected evil actions. It insists that the most defining feature of any person is his sins. And it pretends that simply by virtue of understanding that slavery is wrong, we who live today in the West are perfectly holy, and may freely and smugly condemn every single person who has ever gone before us, and brush away every insight and achievement of human history …” End of Quote from article titled “Mayor In His Hometown Proposes Grinding Thomas Jefferson’s Birthday Into The Dust” written by Joy Pullman.

        For the entire article see:
        https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/14/mayor-hometown-proposes-grinding-thomas-jeffersons-birthday-dust/

  6. Geeze – we’re sorta acting like there is not a prior history of POTUS dalliance before Clinton – check the record…

    but also – it’s not just the “hookup culture” either, POTUS, corporate leaders, TV personalities, Higher Ed, the Military, you name it. It’s way more than those young-uns… who can’t seem to be in control.

    And no, Crazy – the real world is that young men (and women) have raging hormones – for centuries… it just expresses itself in different ways according to the culture of the times and places. They’re gonna do it but it does matter WHO you are if you’re going to be accused because it’s not just morality – it’s politics also.

    Even Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Eisenhower got exposed at some point for their wrongful dalliances though I never hear TMT grouping them up with Clinton!

    • The issue with Bill Clinton is not extra marital affairs. It’s rape and other forms of sexual assault. And his wife not only dismissing those allegations as false and labeling the accusers trailer trash. But for everyone else, Hillary Clinton stated many time and posted on her presidential campaign website, When a woman makes an allegation of sexual abuse, she should be believed.

      Is rape OK? Should every man except Bill Clinton be regarded as guilty until proven innocent based on an allegation? In which camp does Justin Fairfax fit?

  7. Rape is not okay but do you REALLY KNOW all the actual facts with not only Clinton but the others? If you actually DID KNOW ALL THE FACTS, I’d grant you your view but your view strikes me as biased – especially when combined with your other remarks you’ve made.

    John F Kennedy for another apparently had the morals of an Ally Cat. Eisenhower had a mistress in the open. Jefferson who said things like All Men Created Equal not only had slaves – how does a female slave say “no” to her Master – was that “rape”?

    I’m NOT justifying Clinton’s behavior and I’m not even trying to “normalize” it – I just point out that he’s got a lot of company and until recently – none of it was really exposed and condemned.

    Come on TMT – you’ve got a bias here… guy…

  8. Larry – it’s about a double standard. The Democrats and the left regularly attack men, most especially conservative men, who have been accused of sexual abuse as being guilty before any due process hearing has been held. Why? Because any woman making these allegations are to be believed. That is the standard of the left.

    Indeed, Obama went so far as to require colleges and universities receiving federal funds to hold hearings on these charge/allegations and to prohibit the accused (read male) from having access to counsel. Not access to free counsel but access to paid counsel.

    And, of course, SCOTUS nominee Brent Kavanaugh was to be evaluated by this standard, according to the Democrats in Congress and their allies. Allegations of sexual abuse are to be believed.

    Are we together? If this is the standard, why didn’t/doesn’t it apply to Bill Clinton? Juanita Broaddrick made and continues to make allegations that Bill Clinton raped her. Yet, not only did Clinton avoid charges but he is also still worshipped by many Democrats because of his aggressive stand on abortion. Are we still together. If you apply the Kavanaugh standard to Bill Clinton, he is guilty until he proves otherwise. Right? And shouldn’t the Democrats being calling for the government to take away Clinton’s pension and perks as an ex-president.

    Ditto for Justin Fairfax. Applying this standard to him should result in Democrats engaging in a continuous call for his removal from office.

    This has nothing to do with the facts of each case. Rather, it’s what standard applies to men who have been accused of sexual abuse? You tend to support fairness as most of us do. To be fair, shouldn’t the same standard apply to accusations of sexual abuse whether made against a Republican, a Democrat, and Independent, or any other male?

    This is just like having two people charged with robbing a bank. But A is presumed not guilty unless and until A is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. B, on the other hand, is presumed guilty unless and until B proves his/her innocence.

Leave a Reply