Jump to content

McGreevy's Lover's Statement


pierrot
This topic is 5369 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Have you read the statement Golan Cipel made today through his lawyer? It's disgusting. He is clearly a con artist of the first order. He makes the most pathetic claims about being a victim of sexual harassment, as if he were truly unable to deal with the gov's advances.

Come on. He's a 30s something man. totally capable of taking care of himself. In fact, I don't think there can be much doubt after reading the statement that he was using McGreevy. And his statement is probably an attempt to forestall getting prosecuted for blackmail -- which is what should happen.

McGreevy is certainly not guilt free -- but I don't for a second believe he harassed this guy. I DO think he surprised Cipel by resigning instead of submitting to the blackmail.

I'll be interesting to see how it all turns out, but I can't help feeling sorry for McGreevy and admiring his immense courage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree. How can it be harassment when McGreevey helped him to get into this country, got him a work visa, and gave him a big state job. If he was being harassed he could have stayed in Isreal or gone back to Isreal.

 

The blackmailer seems like the biggest slimeball to come around since Scott Peterson.

 

Too bad McGreevey was thinking with his dick. I mean you always wonder how otherwise smart men can be so stupid when it comes affairs like this.

 

But this is going to be a great Movie of The Week. It could even be a mini-series depending on how all of this plays out.

 

Who should play McGreevy? Maybe Charlie Sheen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>The blackmailer seems like the biggest slimeball to come

>around since Scott Peterson.

 

At least Peterson is a hottie!

 

>Who should play McGreevy? Maybe Charlie Sheen?

 

That would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is too early to make McGreevey the innocent victim. McGreevey's situation is very different than Barney Frank's. Frank did not marry twice and have two kids. McGreevey has shown as governor of NJ that he is not above playing the political patronage/big money donor games to the hilt.

 

Both McGreevey and Frank showed very poor judgement in picking their

sexual partners, but is that such a big surprise for closeted men in the 40s? As Frank said at the time, he did not have a lot of "dating experience." Finally Golan looks fairly hot in the picure with McGreevey that made the front pages of most newspaper on Saturday.

 

Since most people that post in the message center are clients, not escorts, it is not surprising that postings come from the

clients' point of view when a situation resembles an escort-client relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JustStarting

Boy this is a remarkable twisting of the facts! Of course Golan is after money. As citizens, however, our outrage should be directed at the Governor: He put on the public payroll a completely unqualified (no experience) and ineligible (not a US citizen) person. When I hire an escort, I pay for him myself. When the good governor does the same, he asks the taxpayers of New Jersey to foot the bill!

 

That's the scandal; that's the outrage. Has nothing to do with gay/straight/ or blackmail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of outrage to go around.

Neither is an innocent. McGreevey's efforts to put an unqualified "sex object" (as someone rightly put it) in a government position is reprehensible and the reason for his political undoing for his constituents that don't care/ already knew he was gay and his politcal opponents who will now call for his removal from office.

However I have to give Cipel the edge with the sleaze factor (which I think is why he is the favored target of outrage) because of his alledged blackmailing of a lover with outing him and assertion that he is/and always has been a victim of McGreevey...which, for me at least, is just about as low as you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It is too early to make McGreevey the innocent victim.

 

You are absolutely right. How anyone can purport to know whether or not the claims of sexual harrassment are true is absolutely baffling. And the level and intensity of hatred and disdain directed at Golan Cipel - who claims that he is straight and that he was the victim of unwanted sexual advances by Gov. McGreevy, on whom he apparently depended both for his immigration visa and his job -- is truly disgusting.

 

I have no idea whether or not McGreevy is telling the truth that they had a consensual sexual relationship or whether it is Cipel who is telling the truth that McGreevy used his considerable power over him in order to sexually assault him. But nobody else on this Board has any idea either - but somehow, that fact isn't stopping so many of them from pretending that they do know, and then calling Cipel all sorts of names and acting as though McGreevy - one of the most despicable and integrity-free characters ever to crawl across the political stage - is some sort of innocent victim.

 

>Since most people that post in the message center are clients,

>not escorts, it is not surprising that postings come from the

>clients' point of view when a situation resembles an

>escort-client relationship.

 

I believe you are correct that this, IN PART, explains why so many people here are empathizing with McGreevy and hating Cipel - because they, as clients, see themselves in the McGreevy role.

 

But I think it goes even further than that. There are lots and lots of people on this Board who, like McGreevy, live pained, deceitful double lives, where they betray their wives and children by hiring gay escorts. Those kind of people - whose lives are based on continuous and despicable betrayal and dishonesty to those closest to them - have constructed a moral universe where they have somehow rationalized that lying to your wife and betraying your children is understandable and innocent. They see nothing wrong with it, and so they don't comprehend how disgusting and destructive and selfish McGreevy's deceit is - because their own lives are based on the same selfishiness and dishonesty.

 

To people who live this way, the worst possible sin is not to lie to your wife and betray your children or construct your life selfishly based on your own desires without regard to anyone else. To them, the WORST possible sin is for someone to EXPOSE THEM - to reveal the lying and deceit on which their lives are based. That is why, to them, Golan Cipel is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

 

He embodies their worst nightmere - someone who refuses to go along with their lying, cheating, deceitful scheme and who threatens to expose it. That is what accounts for so much of the outpouring of hatred here against Cipel - even though it may be the case (just as it may not be) that his version of events is true.

 

I also think some of the grossly misplaced sympathy for McGreevy is accounted for by his transparently manipulative and disingenuous line at his Press Conference: "I am a gay American." According to the New York Times, this line was given to him by gay groups with whom he consulted prior to his press conference, and that line has been tested in focus groups and proven to generate sympathy, which is why McGreevy used it.

 

Lots of gay people are falling for this manipulation by thinking that there is something noble or courageous about what McGreevy did, or that he is now somehow on "our side." There is NOTHING noble or commendable about anything McGreevy did here. He didn't "come out" because he finally realized he wanted to live honestly. He came out because HE HAD TO - because he was going to be outed if he didn't, and like the selfish cretin that he is, he wanted to make sure that these events served his interests as much as possible. And so he is exploiting his new identity as a "gay American" to generate sympathy for conduct which is about as unsympathetic as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>However I have to give Cipel the edge with the sleaze factor

>(which I think is why he is the favored target of outrage)

>because of his alledged blackmailing of a lover with outing

>him and assertion that he is/and always has been a victim of

>McGreevey...which, for me at least, is just about as low as

>you go.

 

But how do you know Cipel isn't telling the truth? He claims that he is straight, that he did not have any sexual relationship with McGreevy, and that McGreevy groped and sexually assaulted him numerous times. How do you know that it is he, rather than McGreevy, who is lying?

 

It is hardly uncommon for some older, married, closeted guy to take an intense interest in a younger, good-looking man, and as a result, to shower the younger, hot guy with favors and gifts. Anyone who reads this Board even casually knows how common that behavior is.

 

And it very well may be that Cipel, knowing that McGreevy was attracted to him, allowed him to do all sorts of favors, such as arranging his employment and visa to live in the United States, appointing him to a high-paying government job, etc. It would hardly be the first time that someone moved ahead or gained things because of their looks or sexual appeal.

 

But none of that means that Cipel is obligated to have sex with McGreevy or that he did do so. And it hardly requires a stretch of the imagination to envision that McGreevy -- knowing that Cipel was now dependent upon him for his employment and ability to stay in the U.S. -- would attmept to take advantage of that leverage by trying to force Cipel to provide sexual favors. If that happened, it would hardly be the first time.

 

It's certainly possible that Cipel agreed to have sex with McGreevy and then sought to get money by threatening to lie and say that it wans't consenqual. But it's at least equally possible that there was nothing consensual about it and it's just as I described it. How could you - or anyone else - possibly think you're in a position to know?

 

2 other points:

 

(1) Anyone who thinks that it's "blackmail" to demand money in exchange for agreeing not to bring a lawsuit has no idea what they are talking about. Those sorts of negotiations occur EVERY DAY. It is perfectly legal to threaten to bring a lawsuit and to demand money in return for not bringing it. It's also perfectly legal - and extremely common - to point out that the threatened lawsuit would yield all sorts of embarrassments and disclosures for the party who is to be sued. Every plaintiff's lawyer routinely points out the public relations harm that would come from a lawsuit when trying to negotiate a pre-filing settlement. It is only "blackmail" if there is the person making the threat believes he has no good faith basis for bringing the lawsuit. But that happens virtually never.

 

(2) Prior to the advent of sexual harrassment laws, it used to be common to hear, in response to complaints of sexual harrassment on the job: "Oh, if she was really being harrassed, she should just quit and get another job." Over the last 20 years, that notion has been wildly discredited, to the point where anyone saying this would - rightfully so - be the target of all sorts of scorn and derision.

 

Indeed, I recall quite vividly the scorn heaped upon those who suggeseted that if Anita Hill were really being sexually harrassed by Clarence Thomas, she should have just found another job.

 

And yet, remarkably, whenever the accused sexual harrasser is a Democrat (Bill Clinton), or better still, a newly discovered gay Democrat (Gov. McGreevy), the sympathy for the alleged victim of sexual harrassment rapidly disappears, and in its place one finds intense scorn and contempt. And so you even hear things such as: "Oh, if he was really being harrassed, he should have quit and left the country and gone back to Israel" - as though the solution for sexual harrassment is to require the harrassed victim to quit his job and flee the country, rather than punishing the harrasser.

 

The double standard is as transparent as it is grotesque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>McGreevy - one of the most

>despicable and integrity-free characters ever to crawl across

>the political stage

 

Doug, he's nothing compared to Rep. Tom Delay ® of Texas:

 

"He is at the center of a machine that launders corporate influence in our political process. And now his machine is at the center of investigations by a grand jury in Texas and the House Ethics Committee in Washington into ethics violations and criminal activity.

 

"The charges against DeLay filed in the Ethics Committee include trading favors for contributions, laundering illegal corporate contributions to influence Texas legislative races, and improperly directing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a political witch hunt against Texas Democrats.

 

"Tom DeLay has done more than any other person to construct a system where our representatives sell the privilege of writing legislation to the highest bidder. His contempt for his opponents and win-at-all-costs approach pollute our political life -- and may have broken the law.

 

"But the DeLay racket reaches even into the Ethics Committee itself. Four of the five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, which will review the charges against DeLay next month, have received over $35,000 from an arm of the DeLay operation." (-Howard Dean)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>McGreevy - one of the most

>>despicable and integrity-free characters ever to crawl

>across

>>the political stage

>

>Doug, he's nothing compared to Rep. Tom Delay ® of Texas:

 

Great point, Rick. Cheating on your wife; lying to her and your own children; living a double life based on deceit; letting down millions of people who voted for you; putting a totally unqualified person on the state payroll and forcing hard-working taxpayers to pay his salary all because he makes your dick hard; putting that person not just in any job, but in a job dedicated to protecting the security of the citizens of your state; and, if the allegations are to be believed, forcing someone to have sex with you because they are dependent upon you for their visa and their job. . . .

 

why, that's not really a big deal - why not?

 

Because Howard Dean said Tom DeLay is really bad, too.

 

Are you purposely trying to create a caricature with this post and to satirize yourself, or do you really not understand the rank stupidity of your response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>why, that's not really a big deal - why not?

 

I did not say it wasn't a big deal. I said that what Tom DeLay's corrupt machine has done is much worse.

 

>Are you purposely trying to create a caricature with this post

>and to satirize yourself, or do you really not understand the

>rank stupidity of your response?

 

I'll go with "I really don't understand the rank stupidity of my response." Did I get it right? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The synopsis based on the facts: Chip is a greedy ungracious untrustworthy and disloyal gay tart who has brought distain and pain to all us gays and cocksuckers who naturally and sincerely like younger guys, smooth, with thin lips.x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The synopsis based on the facts: Chip is a greedy ungracious

>untrustworthy and disloyal gay tart who has brought distain

>and pain to all us gays and cocksuckers who naturally and

>sincerely like younger guys, smooth, with thin lips.x(

 

Actually, the only "synopsis" which the facts support is this one: Based on your confessions in the other McGreevy thread, you are a person who has constructed your life based on the lie that you are not gay, and have even dragged your own family into that lie by marrying a woman and having children (by fantasizing about gay sex while with your wife).

 

And, like so many people whose lives are built around the attributes of lying and selfishiness, you have created an elaborate moral universe where you think that it's actually justifiable for you to live based on these lies -- because, you claim, you've made money and friends and think that these results entitle you to betray those closest to you and to lie every day of your life about the most central aspects of your life.

 

Worse yet, in order to bolster your need to think that you are doing the right thing (a need that arises only because, deep down, you know how wrong your conduct is), you even encourage gay youth not to come out "too early" - because you want to convince them - so that you can convince yourself - that it's better to suffer in the dank and suffocating filth of the closest. Everything you say and do in your life has only one goal: to promote your own selfish, petty interests, even if it's at the expense of everyone else around you, including those closest to you.

 

So it's no wonder that you sympathize with the scummy lying Governor of New Jersey, and have such disdain for the person who exposed him. That's the real synopsis on which you should focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>But how do you know Cipel isn't telling the truth? He claims

>that he is straight, that he did not have any sexual

>relationship with McGreevy, and that McGreevy groped and

>sexually assaulted him numerous times. How do you know that

>it is he, rather than McGreevy, who is lying?

>

>It is hardly uncommon for some older, married, closeted guy to

>take an intense interest in a younger, good-looking man, and

>as a result, to shower the younger, hot guy with favors and

>gifts. Anyone who reads this Board even casually knows how

>common that behavior is.

 

Although this is common behavior, it is not necessarliy sexual harrassment. It is only harassment, if the advances are unwanted, and the harasser continues after being asked to stop. It appears like Golan was actually using McGreevey, rather than being harassed by him. He did not have to come to the U.S, and he certinly could have found other ways to do it. Certainly the timeline of events here is important (and we don't know that yet), it sure looks like McGreevey was a dumb ass who was thinking with his dick, and being used. I don't see where theother guy has been harmed by receiving job favors and immigration assistance.

>

>And it very well may be that Cipel, knowing that McGreevy was

>attracted to him, allowed him to do all sorts of favors, such

>as arranging his employment and visa to live in the United

>States, appointing him to a high-paying government job, etc.

>It would hardly be the first time that someone moved ahead or

>gained things because of their looks or sexual appeal.

>

>But none of that means that Cipel is obligated to have sex

>with McGreevy or that he did do so. And it hardly requires a

>stretch of the imagination to envision that McGreevy --

>knowing that Cipel was now dependent upon him for his

>employment and ability to stay in the U.S. -- would attmept to

>take advantage of that leverage by trying to force Cipel to

>provide sexual favors. If that happened, it would hardly be

>the first time.

>

>It's certainly possible that Cipel agreed to have sex with

>McGreevy and then sought to get money by threatening to lie

>and say that it wans't consenqual. But it's at least equally

>possible that there was nothing consensual about it and it's

>just as I described it. How could you - or anyone else -

>possibly think you're in a position to know?

>

>2 other points:

>

>(1) Anyone who thinks that it's "blackmail" to demand money in

>exchange for agreeing not to bring a lawsuit has no idea what

>they are talking about. Those sorts of negotiations occur

>EVERY DAY. It is perfectly legal to threaten to bring a

>lawsuit and to demand money in return for not bringing it.

>It's also perfectly legal - and extremely common - to point

>out that the threatened lawsuit would yield all sorts of

>embarrassments and disclosures for the party who is to be

>sued. Every plaintiff's lawyer routinely points out the

>public relations harm that would come from a lawsuit when

>trying to negotiate a pre-filing settlement. It is only

>"blackmail" if there is the person making the threat believes

>he has no good faith basis for bringing the lawsuit. But that

>happens virtually never.

 

Doug I am not a lawyer and I know that you are. And certainly the threat of lawsuits is used regularly as part of negotiations between parties. (The indignant "I'll see you in court!") However blackmail is defined as extortion, partiularly using public disclosure as a threat. This case falls into the category of blackmail and not legal negotiations. I think that this was extortion on the part of Cipel. And where did he thinkl that McGreevey was going to get $50 Million or even $5 Million? McGreevey doesn't have money. He did have friends and influence and political power, but no money.

>

>(2) Prior to the advent of sexual harrassment laws, it used to

>be common to hear, in response to complaints of sexual

>harrassment on the job: "Oh, if she was really being

>harrassed, she should just quit and get another job." Over

>the last 20 years, that notion has been wildly discredited, to

>the point where anyone saying this would - rightfully so - be

>the target of all sorts of scorn and derision.

>

>Indeed, I recall quite vividly the scorn heaped upon those who

>suggeseted that if Anita Hill were really being sexually

>harrassed by Clarence Thomas, she should have just found

>another job.

>

>And yet, remarkably, whenever the accused sexual harrasser is

>a Democrat (Bill Clinton), or better still, a newly discovered

>gay Democrat (Gov. McGreevy), the sympathy for the alleged

>victim of sexual harrassment rapidly disappears, and in its

>place one finds intense scorn and contempt. And so you even

>hear things such as: "Oh, if he was really being harrassed, he

>should have quit and left the country and gone back to Israel"

>- as though the solution for sexual harrassment is to require

>the harrassed victim to quit his job and flee the country,

>rather than punishing the harrasser.

>

>The double standard is as transparent as it is grotesque.

 

I don't think that there is a double standard in the McGreevy case. Sexual harassment ususally involves a yonger, less powerful victim. And yes Cipel is a bit younger than McGreevey, and certainly less powerful, but there is a point where an adult of age 37 can refuse sexual advances. He was no kid. In this case it looks to me as Cipel was using sex to get what he wanted, not McGreevey. Again, both of them are terribly guilty and McGreeevey acted the fool, and doesn't deserve mcu sympathy; but I still find the blackmail and extortion more reprehensible.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Although this is common behavior, it is not necessarliy sexual

>harrassment. It is only harassment, if the advances are

>unwanted, and the harasser continues after being asked to

>stop.

 

This is exactly what Cipel says occurred: after he got to the U.S. and began working in the job McGreevy appointed him to, McGreevy began groping him and trying to force sexual contact on him. Cipel says he resisted and repeatedly told McGreevy "no," but that he was scared to publicize the accusations because McGreevy is a powerful political figure and Cipel depended on him for his employment and visa.

 

HOW CAN ANYONE REACH THE CONCLUSION AT THIS POINT THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENNED?

 

It appears like Golan was actually using McGreevey,

>rather than being harassed by him. He did not have to come to

>the U.S, and he certinly could have found other ways to do it.

 

Cipel says he came to the U.S. at McGreevy's request when they met in Israel. At the time, Cipel worked for an Israeli mayor and had worked at the Israeli consulate in New York. McGreevy said he wanted Cipel to come to the U.S. to work on his gubenetorial campaign. Cipel accepted, and when he got to the U.S. and began working, McGreevy then began demanding sexual favors, and Cipel refused.

 

On what basis have you decided that this is not true?

 

> Certainly the timeline of events here is important (and we

>don't know that yet), it sure looks like McGreevey was a dumb

>ass who was thinking with his dick, and being used. I don't

>see where the other guy has been harmed by receiving job favors

>and immigration assistance.

 

Are you joking? The harm isn't that Cipel got a job and a visa. The harm is that, after he got a job, his boss began using the leverage he had over him to try to force him to have sex. Are you saying, as it seems that you are, that if a person gets a job and a visa from someone else, they sort of owe the guy a few blowjobs for the favor and shouldn't complain if blow jobs are demanded since, hey, after all, he got some pretty good stuff out of the deal?

 

I know this may be news on this Board, but guess what: not everyone is a who-re (I see that the forum has decided that you're not allowed to use the "Wh" word anymore and automatically converts the word into a bunch of symbols - how AOL-ish). Not everyone is willing to give up sexual favors in exchange for money and work and visas. And this notion that Cipel must be lying because McGreevy gave him a job is just fucking insane.

 

\>However blackmail is defined as extortion,

>partiularly using public disclosure as a threat. This case

>falls into the category of blackmail and not legal

>negotiations. I think that this was extortion on the part of

>Cipel.

 

But you are just wrong about the facts. Cipel didn't call up McGreevy and say: "Give me money or I will tell the world you are gay and we had sex." THAT would be blackmail. But even McGreevy doesn't claim that's what happened here.

 

Instead, what happened (according to McGreevy) is that Cipel's LAWYER called up McGreevy's aides and said: "We are about to file a lawsuit based on McGreevy's sexual harrassment of Cipel. We intend to claim $50 million in damages. Pay us $5 million (or $2 million) and we will settle the suit and not file it."

 

There is absolutely NOTHING even arguably illegal about that (assuming that Cipel believed he really had a lawsuit), and that happens all the time, every day, in the world of civil litigaiton.

 

 

And where did he thinkl that McGreevey was going to

>get $50 Million or even $5 Million? McGreevey doesn't have

>money. He did have friends and influence and political power,

>but no money.

 

Like most successful New Jersey politicians, McGreevy has lots of friends who have lots of money, and those friends have used a lot of their money to "help" McGreevy before. In fact, one of McGreevy's very best rich friends is currently under indictment for using his money illegally to influence to the political process.

 

>I don't think there is a double standard in the McGreevy

>case. Sexual harassment ususally involves a yonger, less

>powerful victim. And yes Cipel is a bit younger than

>McGreevey, and certainly less powerful, but there is a point

>where an adult of age 37 can refuse sexual advances. He was

>no kid.

 

Sexual harrassment is about an imbalance of power. The Governor of New Jersey is the most powerful individual in this nation's 9th largest state. By rather stark contrast, Cipel was an immigrant who could be deported and who depended upon the Governor for both his employment and his ability to stay in the U.S. The disparity in power - just as was true for Bill Clinton and Paula Jones - was enormous.

 

To be so dismissive of it is really to demean the entire premise of sexual harrassment laws - -something which good liberals like you would NEVER do - indeed, aren't allowed to do - unless the accused is a Democrat. Then, suddenly, you start sounding like Archie Bunker: "If she was really so harrassed, why didn't she just leave?"

 

That is the definition of a double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dougy;

 

I just saw on ABC News that Cipel and his lawyers missed the date for filing their sexual harassment suit. By New Jersey law, the statute of limitations on sexual harassment suits runs for one year after the employment ends. Cipel stopped working for McGreevey on August 12th, 2003. I think that if he had a good lawyer and had a good case, then he would have filed the suit. Otherwise this still smells like extortion.

 

I do not dismiss sexual harassment or sexual harassment laws. But just because someone charges someone with sexual harassment does not mean that is what really happened. Many of these cases degenerate into "he said/she said" battles. However if Cipel had a case, he should have filed it. By not filing the case, it looks like he probably didn't have one.

 

I just have my information from news sources, however this case still smells like blackmail and extortion rather than sexual harassment. Do you beleive that just bacause Cipel is crying sexual harassment that it is true.

 

There are no good guys in this story. Both of these guys are jerks. But McGreevey has lost too much to think that he would add a valid sexual harassment case on top of everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I just saw on ABC News that Cipel and his lawyers missed the

>date for filing their sexual harassment suit. By New Jersey

>law, the statute of limitations on sexual harassment suits

>runs for one year after the employment ends. Cipel stopped

>working for McGreevey on August 12th, 2003. I think that if

>he had a good lawyer and had a good case, then he would have

>filed the suit. Otherwise this still smells like extortion.

 

As is true for almost every legal principle, there are excpetions to this doctrine, i.e., ways to argue that the Statute of Limitations should be extended.

 

Additionally, it appears as though they intended to file but then decided not to go forward once McGreevy resigned.

 

>I do not dismiss sexual harassment or sexual harassment laws.

>But just because someone charges someone with sexual

>harassment does not mean that is what really happened. Many

>of these cases degenerate into "he said/she said" battles.

 

That's a great description of the Antia Hill/Clarence Thomas dispute - it was purely "he said/she said." There, people like you took the side of Hill and just assumed that Clarence Thomas must be a sexual harrasser. In fact, that type of thinking almost cost him a seat on the Supreme Court.

 

Somehow, though, when the EXACT same type of he said-she said accusations were made against Bill Clinton, or now, against Democratic Gov. McGreevy, the accusations are disbelieved and it is the accuser, rather than the accused, who is attacked. Gosh, I wonder what accounts for that difference in treatment?

 

>I just have my information from news sources, however this

>case still smells like blackmail and extortion rather than

>sexual harassment. Do you beleive that just bacause Cipel is

>crying sexual harassment that it is true.

 

I have no idea if McGreevy is telling the truth that they had consensual sex or if Cipel is telling the truth that they never had sex but that McGreevy tried repeatedly to force sex on him. How could I possibly know who is telling the truth at this point. I couldn't.

 

BUT NEITHER CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW. But that hasn't stopped you and most other people who have posted here from just assuming that Cipel is lying and McGreevy is telling the truth - and unleashing a stream of rather vicious and hateful invective against Cipel, who, for all you know, may very well be the victim some rather contemptible sexual harrassment.

 

The mob mentality seeking to lynch Cipel - and the desperate need to assume that McGreevy is telling the truth - is quite revealing indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>That's a great description of the Antia Hill/Clarence Thomas

>dispute - it was purely "he said/she said." There, people

>like you took the side of Hill and just assumed that Clarence

>Thomas must be a sexual harrasser. In fact, that type of

>thinking almost cost him a seat on the Supreme Court.

 

Not so fast. I don't know about the person you are addressing, but I and "people like me" did not "just assume" Hill was telling the truth. I listened to her testimony and to his testimony live and in full. And to the grilling each got from the committee members and their lawyers. And after listening to both of the persons concerned, I assessed their credibility -- exactly as I would have had to do had I been sitting on a jury in a sexual harrassment suit in which they were parties -- and decided Hill was the more credible of the two. Unlike Thomas, Hill had nothing to gain from her testimony. So far as I know she has never profited or attempted to profit from what happened. On the contrary, by coming forward she exposed herself to a torrent of ridicule and hatred from the Right that has not abated even to this day. That fact and her demeanor as a witness persuaded me.

 

I don't know whether there is any truth to Cibel's claims. If there is, let him make all the facts public and let the public decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make two concessions that I think are obvious. One, neither I nor anyone else is claiming to know everything about the case. But my original comment, and the following replies, are meant as a comment on a news story, which is a legitimate discussion I think. Two, McGreevey is certainly not innocent on all counts, and his appointing his lover to a state job is indefensible, and of course, pretty stupid.

 

Now, I think (my opinion) that Golan Cipel's story is absurd. We're expected to believe that he came to this country to take a job given him by the Gov, for which he had no qualifications (which Cipel knew very well) and did not suspect anything was up. Then he claims McGreevey made advances to him, including FORCING HIM to ACCEPT a blow job. He felt victimized, poor thing, and powerless. Despite the fact that he was 33 years old, and had done a tour in the Israeli navy, he didn't know how to tell a guy who wanted to blow him to fuck off.

So leaving this job, he went on to accept another job that McGreevey arranged for him. A couple of years go by, now he is no longer working for McGreevey, or even beholden to him, and he decides that he really should launch a lawsuit to make McGreevey admit his wrongdoing (not, for money he now says). Does this make any sense? He's out of the situation, and instead of getting on with his life, he wants to take the guy to court for the principle of it?

This is totally incredible to me. And I think (my guess) that he certainly came up with the lawsuit in hopes of getting paid off. When McGreevey came out and resigned, he called Cipel and his lawyer's bluff, so now they are backtracking about the lawsuit, and hoping not to get prosecuted for extorsion.

There's certainly more to come. Mainly we'll have to see if Cipel does sue, although someone posts it's too late now, I haven't seen that in the news media yet. And we'll have to see if Cipel and his lawyer get prosecuted for extorsion. McGreevey's lawyers and a New Jersey senator claim he made an offer.

 

P.S. Doug, despite the profile you have worked up in your mind for Cipel's detractors, I am an out gay man in an relationship for 23 years. I do not keep things from my partner, including my occasional hiring of escorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And after

>listening to both of the persons concerned, I assessed their

>credibility -- exactly as I would have had to do had I been

>sitting on a jury in a sexual harrassment suit in which they

>were parties -- and decided Hill was the more credible of the

>two.

 

Right. And the fact that the accused had a judicial philosophy which you can't stand, and that he was going to strike down laws you love and uphold laws you hate - and that you knew that was the case at the time - had absolutely nothing to do with your assessment of his credibility or that of his accuser. Is that what you really believe about yourself? That you're capable of completely separating your political passion and ideological convictions from you attempt to assess credibility in a political dispute?

 

And wait - let me guess - you also assessed the credibility of Paula Jones and Bill Clinton with regard to the former's allegations of sexual harrassment against the latter and, lo and behold, you found the credibility of the person whom you like politically to be higher, right?

 

The analogy you made to a jury negates everything else you said. Jury questioning would be designed in any dispute like this to make sure that full-fledged partisian loyalists would never sit on any jury in a case like this, or in one like the Hill-Thomas or Clinton-Jones disputes, precisely because one who is ideologically cemented on one side or the other would be precluded due to bias or likely bias. In other words, you would never be emapaneled on any such jury precisely because you couldn't be objective - or at least any decent lawyer would believe that to be the case.

 

Unlike Thomas, Hill had nothing to gain from her

>testimony.

 

But the same rationale being used to attack Cipel here - "if he was really being harrassed, he could have just quit" -- applied AT LEAST as much to Hill - indeed, way more so. Hill was a lawyer with impressive credentials. She was also a U.S. citizen. She didn't need Clarence Thomas for a job or to stay in the country.

 

By rather stark contrast, Cipel depended upon McGreevy for pretty much everything. So if - as feminists and liberals argued then - it's offensive and unpersuasive to say that Hill was likley lying because if she was really being harrassed, she would have sought other employment - it ought to be exponentially more offensive and unpersuasive to say that about Cipel, who was far more dependent on McGreevy than Hill ever was on Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> And after

>>listening to both of the persons concerned, I assessed their

>>credibility -- exactly as I would have had to do had I been

>>sitting on a jury in a sexual harrassment suit in which they

>>were parties -- and decided Hill was the more credible of

>the

>>two.

 

>Right. And the fact that the accused had a judicial

>philosophy which you can't stand, and that he was going to

>strike down laws you love and uphold laws you hate - and that

>you knew that was the case at the time - had absolutely

>nothing to do with your assessment of his credibility or that

>of his accuser. Is that what you really believe about

>yourself?

 

Since Thomas REFUSED to answer questions from the committee about his views on hot-button issues like abortion, how would I know whether he had a judicial philosophy that I can't stand? LOL! I'm afraid you lot have been hoist by your own petard on this one, Doug old boy. And how richly you deserve it! :)

 

>That you're capable of completely separating your

>political passion and ideological convictions from you attempt

>to assess credibility in a political dispute?

 

My posts on this board over the years have amply demonstrated that unlike so many of my fellow posters I do not reflexively take whatever position happens to be in my own self-interest. I have defended Bush's actions on numerous occasions, though I detest the man, and have acknowleged the validity of arguments that militate against my own positions, such as my support for the right of gays to serve in the military. No one who has read my posts could honestly question my ability to be objective.

 

 

>And wait - let me guess - you also assessed the credibility of

>Paula Jones and Bill Clinton with regard to the former's

>allegations of sexual harrassment against the latter and, lo

>and behold, you found the credibility of the person whom you

>like politically to be higher, right?

 

You guessed wrong. Again. Clinton has such a reputation as a boor and philanderer that I automatically assumed Jones was telling the truth even without hearing any testimony in the case. I've never doubted that whatever she said about his sexual advances toward her is true. But if you knew anything about the law regarding sexual harrassment, you would know that "sexual advances" and "sexual harrassment" are NOT necessarily the same thing.

 

>The analogy you made to a jury negates everything else you

>said. Jury questioning would be designed in any dispute like

>this to make sure that full-fledged partisian loyalists would

>never sit on any jury in a case like this, or in one like the

>Hill-Thomas or Clinton-Jones disputes,

 

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Had you ever been present at a voir dire proceeding in a federal court you would know that no such questioning is permitted.

 

 

> Unlike Thomas, Hill had nothing to gain from her

>>testimony.

 

>But the same rationale being used to attack Cipel here - "if

>he was really being harrassed, he could have just quit" --

 

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At the time Hill testified in the Thomas confirmation hearings she had long since moved on to another job that had no connection to Thomas. There was nothing for her to gain by coming forward and testifying at the hearings. On the contrary, since she was teaching at a law school in one of the most conservative states, a concern for her own interests might well have persuaded her to remain silent. So far as I know, she never attempted to capitalize on the fame she gained through her testimony by writing a book or in any other way, nor did she ever sue Thomas for damages. I know of nothing that she gained by coming forward.

 

The same is not true for Thomas, of course. His testimony was clearly motivated by his desire to win confirmation. Of the two witnesses, which one had a selfish interest in testifying? Well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug, no jury would be enpanelled in this country if it had to be made up of citizens with no partisan political beliefs. Look at the polls that show that most voters had made up their minds about this presidential election before they even knew who the Democratic candidate would be. The completely impartial, objective juror may be a necessary myth, but he/she doesn't exist.

 

Those who are commenting here are simply expressing opinions based on whatever information they have been able to glean through the media, and why shouldn't they? No lawsuits have been filed, and we are not deciding Cipel or McGreevey's fate, nor did woodlawn decide Clarence Thomas's fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...