Governor of Virginia allegedly turns up in old black face photo.

[TimothyC]

Scandals aren't just for Virginia Democrats anymore.

After a blackface photo was revealed to be on Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's (D) yearbook page, and after Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) was accused of sexual assault, the state's Attorney General Mark Herring (D) admitted he too wore blackface in college. And now, it seems the state's top Republican, state Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment, was in charge of a college yearbook similarly packed with racism, The Virginian-Pilot reports.

Norment attended the Virginia Military Institute and was the managing editor of its 1968 yearbook, which was published just before VMI's first black students were allowed to enroll that fall. The Pilot didn't find any explicit racist behavior from Norment on those pages. But there are several pictures of students in blackface inside, along with at least one use of the n-word and other anti-Asian and anti-Semitic slurs. When asked about the yearbook Thursday, Norment said "the only thing I'm talking about today is the budget."

Northam also attended VMI, and a yearbook from his time at the school listed one of his nicknames as "Coonman." Northam has not addressed that nickname, but has said he is not one of men in blackface or Ku Klux Klan robes on his medical school yearbook page, and has refused calls to resign. Fairfax has said the alleged 2004 sexual assault was "consensual."

Norment isn't in line for the Virginia governorship; If Northam, Fairfax, and Herring all step aside, House of Delegates Speaker Kirk Cox (R) will become governor. Cox literally got his speaker job thanks to a coin toss, and if it turns out he did something unsavory and resigns himself, the House of Delegates will have to pick a new governor.

Hahahaha.

The whole government is falling apart.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, I'm sure the "Burn it all" both sides crowd is giddy with delight.

Seriously, Virginia, get your fucking act together. Especially the Virginia Dems. At this point I don't even care if Governor Dipshit resigns, because everyone in the line of succession is as bad or worse. Virginia Democrats need to clean house on an epic scale, and its probably too late to do that before 2020. Which means that we may have just lost Virginia, and with it the country, to Neo-Fascism. The only solace is that Republicans aren't coming out of this cluster fuck with their hands clean either. Because apparently, Black Face is just what you do if you're a Virginia politician.

Meet the new South, same as the old South.

Excuse you. Mean to a rich white man who dressed in blackface 30 years ago. I'm not sure what him being rich or white has to do with anything either, but whatever. Being mean in this context is also running him out of office. Saying its only 'honorable' if he resigns. If that is the standards of accountability and morality that the democratic party considers to be just and right, then yes. Trump is a better alternative. Again.

And if you're going to claim that defending Northam will only enable what-aboutism, are you considering that condemning him will only turn the game into 'dig for old dirt because the dems will eat their own over shitposts?'

His being a rich white man is significant because it means that he is part of a relatively, for lack of a less loaded word, privileged group. Meaning that realistically, even if he loses his job, he will never have to worry about going hungry, or losing his home, or having his kids taken away, or being thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, or being gunned down by the police, or raped, or lynched. And yet because this rich white man might lose his job or his reputation, you would rather America reelect a man who actively seeks the destruction en mass of more vulnerable groups. It shows that your sympathies are with the upper classes in our society, rather than with the more oppressed groups- to the point that the destruction of a rich white man's reputation or career is such an unforgiveable sin that it warrants reelecting a man who destroys the actual lives of Latino immigrants and Muslims, and defends (and likely engages in) the rape of women. It shows that when push comes to shove, you will defend the rich white man first. It shows who you consider more valuable in our society.

If you would rather have Trump after the last four years because of this story, then I suspect that you had strong Trumpist/white supremacist leanings all along, and you are certainly functionally no different than any other insecure, resentful Alt. Reichists talking about a "war on white men" and cheering on the caging of little brown children at the border. And I will respond to you accordingly.

Do you think that you have to condemn the man when you condemn the old act? You can't compare actions done while in office (in the case of Bill) or an ongoing pattern actions (Weinstein) to something from 30 years ago. Not unless acting disingenuous is something that doesn't bother you, anyway.

My point in raising those examples was not to say that the acts are equivalent (in fact I believe I expressly said that they were not), but to a) demonstrate that the Democratic Party has a troubling history of talking the talk but not walking the walk, of condemning acts by Republicans that they defend when a Democrat is the guilty party. And b) to ask the question: where do we draw the line? Maybe its here. Maybe its not. But if the objection here is "We need to protect our own from the Republicans even when they have actually done something wrong", then how far do we extend that reasoning?

[Oscar Wilde]

His being a rich white man is significant because it means that he is part of a relatively, for lack of a less loaded word, privileged group.

I do appreciate you at least admitting its a loaded word, particularly in this context.

Meaning that realistically, even if he loses his job, he will never have to worry about going hungry, or losing his home, or having his kids taken away, or being thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, or being gunned down by the police, or raped, or lynched.

'Let me explain why this injustice HAS to happen and also excuse it by saying 'injustice happens worse to others.'

And yet because this rich white man might lose his job or his reputation, you would rather America reelect a man who actively seeks the destruction en mass of more vulnerable groups.

You're still making it an issue of 'rich white man.' I don't care what he earns, I don't care what color he is. He didn't do anything wrong thats relevant to today.

It shows that your sympathies are with the upper classes in our society, rather than with the more oppressed groups-

My sympathies are with the innocent.

to the point that the destruction of a rich white man's reputation or career is such an unforgiveable sin that it warrants reelecting a man who destroys the actual lives of Latino immigrants and Muslims, and defends (and likely engages in) the rape of women. It shows that when push comes to shove, you will defend the rich white man first. It shows who you consider more valuable in our society.

I'll admit that there's a bit of hyperbole in there, but well, I don't see myself identifying too well with a party that will run someone out over nothing, then pretend thats logical or moral.

If you would rather have Trump after the last four years because of this story, then I suspect that you had strong Trumpist/white supremacist leanings all along, and you are certainly functionally no different than any other insecure, resentful Alt. Reichists talking about a "war on white men" and cheering on the caging of little brown children at the border. And I will respond to you accordingly.

Woo, Godwin's Law. We got 'im boys, we got him!
I don't think that turning on a man over a 30 year old shitpost is logical, 14/88!

Y'know I'm not even sure that the alt-right thinks that the caging is a good thing. I doubt even white supremacists would anyway, considering thats probably taxpayer money thats going to run that. Mexico ain't paying for the wall and we're paying to put Mexicans up in the Ritz Shithole. I dunno, I'll ask /pol/ sometime maybe.

I'm also not sure that I made a case about race, because its not a matter of race. Jeez, at least let me engage in some ACTUAL white supremacy before you throw the label out.

My point in raising those examples was not to say that the acts are equivalent (in fact I believe I expressly said that they were not), but to a) demonstrate that the Democratic Party has a troubling history of talking the talk but not walking the walk, of condemning acts by Republicans that they defend when a Democrat is the guilty party. And b) to ask the question: where do we draw the line? Maybe its here. Maybe its not. But if the objection here is "We need to protect our own from the Republicans even when they have actually done something wrong", then how far do we extend that reasoning?

The objection isn't 'We need to protect our own even when they have actually done something wrong,' its 'we need to protect our own when they have done nothing wrong thats relevant to today.'

The difference between saying 'whats wrong with white supremacy' in an interview and 'hey this old yearbook photo MIGHT have you in blackface in it.'

[Bob the Gunslinger]

As much as I loathe modern Republicans, I don't see any success pursuing a scandal over a yearbook from 1968. They might find more traction arguing he's just too old to understand 21st century America.

[The Romulan Republic]

As much as I loathe modern Republicans, I don't see any success pursuing a scandal over a yearbook from 1968. They might find more traction arguing he's just too old to understand 21st century America.

Oh, we should absolutely push for his resignation, both on principle and because we can't be seen to be dealing more harshly with our own than with the other side.

But he's not going to resign, because Republicans know no shame, and because Republicans generally don't have to appeal to the black vote (just the resentful white male vote). Still, making the demand has symbolic value and can be rubbed in the Republicans' face when they try to use this story to attack us.

[Jub]

If you would rather have four more years of Trump because the Democrats were mean to a rich white man who dressed in blackface, then that says everything about where your sympathies and priorities really lie, and I don't think how the Democrats handle this one issue will make one jot of difference to you.

Frankly, you are increasingly coming off as someone who just hates the Democratic Party on principle, and is just using this as an excuse to attack them.

No, I want a party that's worth voting for on merits other than 'We're not literally Nazis'. Thus fars the Dems have done a fairly bad job at being significantly above that very low bar.

I haven't called you a Nazi or Alt. Reich or insulted you in any way in this discussion thus far that I can recall, but if you want to do it that way I can't stop you, and I really don't much care one way or the other.

I never said you've called me those things, but you do throw those terms around with less thought and care than is proper.

I am not unwilling to debate your points, if you insist on needlessly rehashing a tired, divisive old argument. Although honestly, I'm not sure what I can say that I have not already said. If I cite numerous examples of Democratic accomplishments and you handwave them as not counting because they were subsequently undone or just because you didn't like them or decided they didn't matter, then I'm not sure what more I can do. It is neither a concession nor a refusal to concede or defend my arguments if I post my arguments and you then choose to ignore them.

My issue is that the Dems are less effective at creating lasting change than their opposition and that this makes them a shitty political party. Yeah, they're better than the literal mustache twirling assholes they're up against, but that doesn't exactly win them any points in my eyes. I want them to have united ideals and be a proactive force for change and not this self-sabotaging reactive centrist mess that they have been for decades.

Ah, I show "blind loyalty" to the Democrats, do I? Go back and read some of my posts criticizing the Democratic Party during the 2016 primary. I'm not going to go after the Democrats on everything now because I believe we need a united front to stop the rise of literal Neo-Fascism, but apparently you think condemning them for not being nice enough to the rich white guy in black face is more important. Well, I guess we all have our own priorities.

That's not what my argument has been and you know it.

You are simply repeating an oversimplistic cliche. It doesn't matter what the Democrats do, some people will say that they "always fold" or "always compromise", whether because the Democrats didn't pass the entire socialist agenda in the space of a week, or simply because its been drilled into their heads so often that to them Democrats by definition fold.

So the version of ACA that passed is the one they wanted to pass, eh? Repealing DADT and not enshrining LGBT rights into law was a lasting step forward right? They keeping settling for tiny gains that don't actually do anything and it's maddening that people think this is good enough. I know the US doesn't exactly have a better option but that doesn't mean you should settle for the Dems you've been getting. The lesser of two evils isn't automatically good.

Show me where Pelosi "caved" on the shutdown again? I have yet to see one cent go to that fucking wall.

This recent change is good! If it had happened a decade ago Trump wouldn't have won and if it keeps up maybe some real change can finally happen.

[TimothyC]

Gov. Northam may yet survive this (probably not, but it could happen).

Lt. Gov Fairfax, not so much.

February 8 at 5:14 PM

A Maryland woman said Friday she was raped by Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) in a “premeditated and aggressive” assault in 2000, while they both were undergraduate students at Duke University. She is the second woman this week to make an accusation of sexual assault.

The woman, Meredith Watson, said Friday in a written statement through her attorney that she shared her account immediately after it happened with several classmates and friends. Watson did not speak publicly Friday and her lawyer did not make her available for an interview.

Fairfax denied the allegations forcefully.

“I deny this latest unsubstantiated allegation,” Fairfax said in a statement. “It is demonstrably false. I have never forced myself on anyone ever.”

Watson was friends with Fairfax at Duke but they never dated or had any romantic relationship, Watson’s lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, said.

“At this time, Ms. Watson is reluctantly coming forward out of a strong sense of civic duty and her belief that those seeking or serving in public office should be of the highest character,” Smith said in the statement . “She has no interest in becoming a media personality or reliving the trauma that has greatly affected her life. Similarly, she is not seeking any financial damages.”

Watson wants Fairfax to resign from office, Smith said.

Fairfax’s statement said he would not resign. “I demand a full investigation into these unsubstantiated and false allegations” the statement said. “I will clear my good name and I have nothing to hide. I have passed two full field background checks by the FBI and run for office in two highly contested elections with nothing like this being raised before. “

Watson’s claim comes at the end of a turbulent week that began when a different woman, Vanessa Tyson, accused Fairfax of sexually assaulting her in 2004 when both were in Boston attending the Democratic National Convention.

[Tyson has spoken for years about the sexual assault issue]

Fairfax denied that he assaulted Tyson, said he was the victim of a “smear” and has said repeatedly that they had a consensual encounter.

Smith said the details of Watson’s alleged attack are similar to those described by Tyson.

Kaneedreck Adams, 40, who attended Duke with Watson, said that in the spring of 2000, when they lived across from each other in on-campus apartments, Watson came to her crying.

“She was upset,” Adams, an attorney, said. “She told me she had been raped and she named Justin.”

“She said she couldn’t speak, but she was trying to get up and he kept pushing her down,” Adams. “She said he knew that she didn’t like what was happening, but he kept pushing her down.”

The alleged attack happened at fraternity house, Adams said.

She said both the women were friends with Fairfax, who was one year ahead of them in school. “We all knew he wanted to be in politics,” Adams said. “He had a reputation for being very friendly. Some of my friends, we called him sunshine. He was a nice sweet charming guy.”

Watson’s attorney provided an email exchange from 2016 between Watson and Milagros Joye Brown, a friend from Duke. Brown was inviting a group of Duke friends to a fundraiser for Fairfax, as he launched his campaign for lieutenant governor.

“Molly, Justin raped me in college and I don’t want to hear anything about him. Please, please, please remove me form any future emails about him please,” Watson wrote on Oct. 26, 2016.

[An isolated governor; all three officeholders under fire]

All week, Democrats and Republicans have been treading carefully regarding Tyson’s allegation, unsure what to believe because Tyson offered no corroborating evidence. Several have called for an investigation.

Watson’s claim is likely to further stoke chaos in Richmond, where one week ago, a racist photo on the 1984 medical school yearbook page of Gov. Ralph Northam (D) was unearthed, setting off calls for his resignation. On Wednesday, Attorney General Mark R. Herring disclosed that he wore blackface as part of a costume during college in 1980.

After Watson’s allegations became public Friday. former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe called for Fairfax to resign.

“The allegations against Justin Fairfax are serious and credible,” McAuliffe said in a statement. “It is clear to me that he can no longer effectively serve the people of Virginia as Lieutenant Governor. I call for his immediate resignation.” McAuliffe has similarly called for Northam’s resignation.

If Northam were to step down, Fairfax would be next in line. And he was preparing to do just that, after scandal enveloped Northam and before Tyson accused Fairfax of sexual assault.

Fairfax, a 39-year-old former federal prosecutor, has been a rising star in Democratic politics. The great-great-great-grandson of a slave, he is the second African American to hold statewide office in Virginia.

Until this week, Fairfax was best known for silently protesting the state Senate’s annual tribute to Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Aaron C. Davis, Neena Satija, Rachel Chason, Fenit Nirappil and Samantha Schmidt contributed to this report.

Put a fork in him, he's done.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its going to be pretty fucking ironic if Northrop ends up holding onto his job simply because his successor would be even worse.

[FireNexus]

The AG, at this point, is probably the only one who is viable. Unless some shit happened with him on this rollercoaster I missed.

[FireNexus]

Besides his (sincere-seeming and appropriately timed before he was outed, to me) apology for being a former piece of shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, as far as campaign slogans go, "I'm genuinely sorry I wore Black Face" is probably marginally better than "Northrop 2022: At least I'm not a rapist."

[Oscar Wilde]

Not accused of being a rapist.*

[Elfdart]

As a general rule, I don't believe in undoing elections unless there's plausible evidence that an official has committed a serious crime. So Northam shouldn't be forced out just for racist photos. If voters in that state want him out, they can wait til the next election. Fairfax is a different matter since now there are two women accusing him of rape and now he's hired Brett Kavanaugh's lawyers to do whatever. He needs to go away now, unless he's got some seriously exculpatory evidence that both of these women are lying.

[Oscar Wilde]

Why does he have to prove his innocence? Isn't there an assumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty?
The number of accusers shouldn't matter, the truth should.
You bring up Kavanaugh, but I recall one of his accusers providing a sworn affadavit that turned out later to be false.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why does he have to prove his innocence? Isn't there an assumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty?
The number of accusers shouldn't matter, the truth should.
You bring up Kavanaugh, but I recall one of his accusers providing a sworn affadavit that turned out later to be false.

For the billionth time, presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in a court room (and one that I strongly support). There is, however, no obligation to assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty to courtroom standards of evidence when we are talking about actions taken in the arenas of business, politics, public opinion or personal judgement. A company can fire someone on suspicion. People can call for someone's resignation on suspicion. Maybe that's fair and maybe it isn't, but its not a violation of the right to presumption of innocence, because that's not how the law works. So stop repeating idiot talking points meant for people who don't understand the most basic aspects of how the law works (this one is right up there with "You're violating my constitutional rights by censoring me if you criticize something I say" for idiot misrepresentations of the law to shield abuses from social consequences).

And as much as conservatives and insecure men love to propagate the narrative of "the women are lying" (ignoring the public torture of harrasement, threats, humiliation and towering legal expenses to which accusers are frequently subjected), the statistical odds of two unconnected (I presume that is the case here) accusers telling the same lie (or sharing the same delusion) is... quite low. Unless you're alleging a politically-motivated hit-job, in which case the burden of proof is on you to support that claim.

So at the very least, the balance of probability is that he is a rapist. Am I certain of that? No (though his reported decision to hire Kavanaugh's legal team doesn't reflect well on him either). Is it enough to send him to prison? No, nor should it be. But its enough to make him a liability to his party and warrant calls for his resignation.

[aerius]

For the billionth time, presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in a court room (and one that I strongly support). There is, however, no obligation to assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty to courtroom standards of evidence when we are talking about actions taken in the arenas of business, politics, public opinion or personal judgement. A company can fire someone on suspicion. People can call for someone's resignation on suspicion. Maybe that's fair and maybe it isn't, but its not a violation of the right to presumption of innocence, because that's not how the law works. So stop repeating idiot talking points meant for people who don't understand the most basic aspects of how the law works (this one is right up there with "You're violating my constitutional rights by censoring me if you criticize something I say" for idiot misrepresentations of the law to shield abuses from social consequences).

Do you really want to go down that road? I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to Jub in a previous thread. Take this line of thought through to its logical conclusion. If you're happy with where that goes, well, I'll say this, don't be crying about it when the shoe's on the other foot.

[Oscar Wilde]

For the billionth time, presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in a court room (and one that I strongly support). There is, however, no obligation to assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty to courtroom standards of evidence when we are talking about actions taken in the arenas of business, politics, public opinion or personal judgement. A company can fire someone on suspicion. People can call for someone's resignation on suspicion. Maybe that's fair and maybe it isn't, but its not a violation of the right to presumption of innocence, because that's not how the law works. So stop repeating idiot talking points meant for people who don't understand the most basic aspects of how the law works (this one is right up there with "You're violating my constitutional rights by censoring me if you criticize something I say" for idiot misrepresentations of the law to shield abuses from social consequences).

And as much as conservatives and insecure men love to propagate the narrative of "the women are lying" (ignoring the public torture of harrasement, threats, humiliation and towering legal expenses to which accusers are frequently subjected), the statistical odds of two unconnected (I presume that is the case here) accusers telling the same lie (or sharing the same delusion) is... quite low. Unless you're alleging a politically-motivated hit-job, in which case the burden of proof is on you to support that claim.

So at the very least, the balance of probability is that he is a rapist. Am I certain of that? No (though his reported decision to hire Kavanaugh's legal team doesn't reflect well on him either). Is it enough to send him to prison? No, nor should it be. But its enough to make him a liability to his party and warrant calls for his resignation.

I think that given our society has a pretty dim view of rapists, a notion of presumed innocence is still important in this case. As it is, being accused is enough to make guilty. He was accused, 'we believe survivors,' so he did it. You're going to acknowledge that forcing him out of office on suspicion alone probably isn't fair, but also claim 'the burden of proof is on him to prove his innocence because its just safer that way?' I'm also not sure what hiring the same lawyers are Kavanaugh means in terms of his guilt or not. Considering there was actually proven bullshit in that case?

I mean, I get it. I do. It looks sus, it sounds sus, but if you're going to claim a motivation of 'Lets not give the Republicans any room to say 'well what about him,' I question the logic of saying 'accusations are enough to force someone out of office.'


I've also been meaning to ask you, back on the original subject
If Northam DOES resign or even ends up forced out, but we still end up with another four years of Trump, is it still worth it? Because I'm pretty sure that the standards of 'stuff thirty years ago should affect you now' isn't going to matter to a guy who will blow off things that happened last week and get cheered on by his base for it.

[Elfdart]

Why does he have to prove his innocence? Isn't there an assumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty?
The number of accusers shouldn't matter, the truth should.

He doesn't have to prove anything. He's free to stay in office until his term is up or he is removed. As a practical matter, good luck functioning in office (especially if Northam goes and Fairfax becomes governor) with two rape accusations hanging over him.

You bring up Kavanaugh, but I recall one of his accusers providing a sworn affadavit that turned out later to be false.

And? Does that mean they're all lying?

[Rogue 9]

Gubernatorial succession in Virginia goes from the Lieutenant Governor to the Attorney General to the Speaker of the House of Delegates. If that is exhausted, the House of Delegates convenes and chooses a governor.

Scandal has hit the Governor, Lt. Governor, and AG in the same week. All are Democrats. The Speaker of the House is a Republican, and the House of Delegates is under Republican control. I don't doubt Lt. Governor Fairfax's accusers, but the fact that all this came out at the same time is awfully convenient for Speaker Kirk Cox (R).

[Oscar Wilde]

And? Does that mean they're all lying?

I mean, if the shoe fits?
But eh, more or less 'accusations shouldn't be an end-all be-all.'

[The Romulan Republic]

And? Does that mean they're all lying?

I mean, if the shoe fits?
But eh, more or less 'accusations shouldn't be an end-all be-all.'

So in other words, yes, your view is "if one woman can be shown to have lied about something, the default assumption should be that all accusers are liars". Because apparently presumption of innocence, not just in a courtroom but in all aspects of life, is a privilege you only believe should be extended to those accused of rape.

And no, accusations alone are not enough. But several otherwise unconnected accusers, with no clear motive for lying, at the very least rises to the level of "credible and compelling evidence".

[Oscar Wilde]

So in other words, yes, your view is "if one woman can be shown to have lied about something, the default assumption should be that all accusers are liars". Because apparently presumption of innocence, not just in a courtroom but in all aspects of life, is a privilege you only believe should be extended to those accused of rape.

And no, accusations alone are not enough. But several otherwise unconnected accusers, with no clear motive for lying, at the very least rises to the level of "credible and compelling evidence".

The default assumption should not be 'he was accused, it should be treated as though he did it because its like its a trial, jeez. Its just someone's political career.'

You were the one who was going on about Republican whatboutism earlier, do you really want a message sent that 'accusations are enough to run someone out?'
Covering the case of Northam again, do you want the standard to be 'we aren't going to stand for the person that you are, we're going to stand against the person you were.'
With Fairfax its 'we're going to stand against the person that people are saying that you are because the chances that they're lying, I dunno man. Prove that its a smear or get the fuck out.'

[Lonestar]

Scandal has hit the Governor, Lt. Governor, and AG in the same week. All are Democrats. The Speaker of the House is a Republican, and the House of Delegates is under Republican control. I don't doubt Lt. Governor Fairfax's accusers, but the fact that all this came out at the same time is awfully convenient for Speaker Kirk Cox (R).

Sure, but sometimes there's just blood in the water and the sharks get into a frenzy