Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 16, 2017

A woman has accused Wyoming Secretary of State Ed Murray, a Republican considering a run for governor, of sexually assaulting her at a law office in 1982. According to Tatiana Maxwell, then an intern at a Cheyenne law firm that employed Murray, the young lawyer invited her to meet him at the office after hours with pizza and beer. "He was older, handsome and from an old Cheyenne family but I didn't really know him," she recalled on Facebook. But when she rejected Murray's sexual advances, Maxwell said, "Ed wrestled me down to the carpet in front of the receptionist desk, opened his pants, lifted up my blouse and --- on my stomach. I was disgusted and horrified.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That's one hair-trigger he's got there.

I think I see now why he went into politics and never played contact sports.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-12-16 08:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

A woman has accused Wyoming Secretary of State Ed Murray, a Republican considering a run for governor, of sexually assaulting her at a law office in 1982.According to Tatiana Maxwell, then an intern at a Cheyenne law firm that employed Murray, the young lawyer invited her to meet him at the office after hours with pizza and beer. But when she rejected Murray's sexual advances, Maxwell said, "Ed wrestled me down to the carpet in front of the receptionist desk, opened his pants, lifted up my blouse and ---------- on my stomach. I was disgusted and horrified.

The ------------------- would give Murray two tiny thumbs up for this assault.

#2 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2017-12-16 01:29 PM | Reply

Oh boy. Here we go again

This is just locker room hijinx

Insincerely

The GOPTP, 2016 presidential election

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-16 04:09 PM | Reply

I am all in on a limit on how many years these accusations can go back.

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-17 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am all in on a limit on how many years these accusations can go back.

#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Why? Should one "get away with it" just because time passes? If you can hide your guilt long enough you're off scot-free? When you look at how the women who have come forward are being treated, why would you expect women to subject themselves to that kind of vicious scrutiny when they have already been victimized once. There is no other crime where the victim is re-victimized by the justice system and public opinion.

#5 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-12-17 07:37 PM | Reply

Should one "get away with it" just because time passes?

No. The "accusers" should just shoot the accused ------- dead on the spot.

I'm sure they have that right in most states. Would that concept not change the dynamic a bit?

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-17 08:05 PM | Reply

#4

The same issue of elapsed time also came up in the exposure of the Catholic priest scandals, where adults were filing complaints on abuse that occurred when they were children. Are you similarly skeptical about that? Or is it just women who can't be trusted to be truthful?

#7 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-12-17 08:39 PM | Reply

Why? Should one "get away with it" just because time passes?

No, its because in this country, you are supposed to have proof to convict someone. The only evidence she had was on her stomach 30+ years ago...

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-17 09:24 PM | Reply

No, its because in this country, you are supposed to have proof to convict someone. The only evidence she had was on her stomach 30+ years ago...

Posted by boaz at 2017-12-17 09:24 PM | Reply

That didn't stop you from convicting Transgender Women regarding North Carolina's bathroom bills when they came up.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-17 10:14 PM | Reply

So women just have to accept the fact that they have to prove that they are victims of a crime or they can go pound sand. Because freedumb.

#10 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-12-17 10:41 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sometimes one woman coming forward starts a chain reaction of women coming forward. That happened in a story I posted last week about a judge. Since last week's article came out, more women came forward:

Prominent Appeals-Court Judge Faces Sexual-Harassment Probe

Court opens investigation of Judge Alex Kozinski following claims of sexual misconduct by former law clerks

www.wsj.com

If this turns out to be one accusation against the Wyoming Secretary of State, it probably won't gain any traction.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-17 11:00 PM | Reply

Posted by boaz at 2017-12-17 11:33 PM | Reply

Blah blah blah.

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-18 12:04 AM | Reply

This is starting to be a tactic in politics. Offer cash to women to accuse a candidate, make an accusation. Drum up the media. I have no idea if More was a sexual predator, but it seems convenient no one made an accusation until he ran for the senate, that after being in elected office for 30 years. Usually if a woman is assaulted, she will tell someone, usually friends or family. I think without that, we should be a little skeptical.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-18 09:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Usually if a woman is assaulted, she will tell someone, usually friends or family. I think without that, we should be a little skeptical.

#14 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2017-12-18 09:13 AM | REPLY

A couple of points about this statement.

First, your assertion that most woman report is wildly inaccurate. Assaults are likely the most under-reported crime in this country with less than 20% reporting in some jurisdictions/assault types.

Second, I've not heard of a single instance of a woman getting paid to come forward in a political case during the recent time period. Rather, I've heard of a number of instances where accusers were paid specifically not to speak out(Blake "PJs" Farenthold).

Third, you must be a special kind of stupid to post something this blatantly and easily debunked.

#15 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 10:00 AM | Reply

Boaz, you sound exactly like a person that has something you really, really don't want to get out. Anything you'd like to share with the group?

Has the statute of limitations not run out yet?

#16 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 10:02 AM | Reply

#15 | Posted by Reagan58, You misquote me, I never said that assaults were reported to authorities or law enforcement. What I would find hard to believe is a victim would not tell those closest to her. That is the sort of collaboration I find credible.(Women do speak about 3 times more than men and they share more with each other). And there have been a considerable number news items published about accusers receiving considerable compensation for their rolls in some of this sort of testimony recently. Cognitive dissidence builds character.

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-18 10:22 AM | Reply

Link to either of your new assertions of sharing with family or getting paid or STFU. As is the norm with most RWNJs you just make the crap up on the fly or equally likely, you're the fly on the crap.

#18 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 10:28 AM | Reply

Boaz, you sound exactly like a person that has something you really, really don't want to get out.

I'm just stating the obvious, that we should be convicting people just on someone's word about an incident that supposedly happened decades ago. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-18 11:02 AM | Reply

"that we should not be"

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-18 11:02 AM | Reply

I have no idea if More was a sexual predator

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-18 09:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The people at his local mall did.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-18 11:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

None of the cases that are currently under discussion involve the criminal or civil justice system. Your point, as usual, makes no sense.

The very basic point is that for the first time ever, women are seeing that they have an ability to talk about assaults without being nearly is mistreated or abused secondarily. So they're speaking up. The hope is that in the future they will be able to speak up before 10, 20, 30 years have gone by with them suffering in silence.

Does that explain it clearly or should I go back and use smaller words, I know that REMFs like you have difficulty with context and concepts.

#22 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 11:15 AM | Reply

"I'm just stating the obvious, that we should be convicting people just on someone's word about an incident that supposedly happened decades ago. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work"

reminds me of the time boazy would rail about birth certificates, whitey tapes, and the stupid ---- some reverend said

Heal thyself

#23 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-18 11:39 AM | Reply

That's not how our justice system is supposed to work.

This story has nothing to do with the justice system. Stop pretending that you think the standards of a court should apply to how a politician is judged by the public. You have proven time and time again that you don't.

Nobody uses "innocent until proven guilty" as a standard when deciding whether we support a politician. You didn't treat Hillary like she was innocent in 2016. You made a judgment based on the available facts.

There's nothing wrong with judging someone like Roy Moore or Ed Murray unworthy of public office based on accounts by women who say they were abused.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-18 11:39 AM | Reply

I have no idea if More was a sexual predator ...

If that is a true statement about your opinion, and I doubt it, you are engaging in willful ignorance. Even if you don't want to believe all those women and all the people they told -- around 30 people who went on the record -- Moore lied in his denials. He said at first he knew some of the women and dated girls with their mother's permission and later declared he never met any of them. People don't lie like that when they're innocent. They don't have a staggeringly large number of accusers and people those accusers told.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-18 11:42 AM | Reply

#21 | Posted by Zed, I have doubts about testimony without a name attached to it, such as these. Beyond that- I would wonder about the validity of any Mall Cop that could remember with anything reliability after 30 or more years. Busting gays for trysts in public restrooms perhaps, but girl watching? It wasn't like he was cursing around in a van offering candy to children. But some are always willing to believe anything if it reinforces their views. I do not know, That I admit, but neither do you or anyone else beyond those who are involved. No evidence, no collaborating witness from that time, nothing but an accusation. If that is the new standard of law, we are all in serious danger.

#26 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-18 11:46 AM | Reply

we are all in serious danger.

#26 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2017-12-18 11:46 AM | FLAG:

The only danger that you're in is forgetting to breathe. You're discounting ~30 people that corroborate Moore's accusers.

#27 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 11:50 AM | Reply

Does that explain it clearly or should I go back and use smaller words

You are too stupid to understand the words you are using now..

#25,

Rogers,

I could probably go with your statement. 30+ witnesses, ok. So what are we going to do? Let the mob court of opinion decide? That's called vigilante justice. What about those with only one or two "accusers"? Automatically believe them and ruin the accused without a court of law? Where is the justice in that?

And BTW, are you calling for "tingle up my leg" to be fired?

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-18 11:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

First, Your opinion (lacking any citation) is worth no more or less than the one you are refuting, here.

Second, I've not heard of Your ignorance of a subject is not debunking it.

Third, you must be a special kind of stupid to post something this blatantly and easily debunked.
#15 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-18 10:00 AM

If it was so easily debunked, why didn't you...you know...debunk it?

When people of lower IQ have their views challenged in ways they can't refute, they react by getting violent, abusive, and engage in childish name calling - #315 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-30 07:09 PM

#29 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-18 12:56 PM | Reply

I have doubts about testimony without a name attached to it, such as these.

You are mistaken. Roy Moore's accusers came forward and were named.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-18 01:18 PM | Reply

So what are we going to do? Let the mob court of opinion decide? That's called vigilante justice.

It isn't vigilante justice because it has nothing to do with the courts or law.

We're talking about whether or not someone should be in public office, not whether they should be in prison.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-18 01:19 PM | Reply

I could probably go with your statement. 30+ witnesses, ok. So what are we going to do? Let the mob court of opinion decide? That's called vigilante justice. What about those with only one or two "accusers"? Automatically believe them and ruin the accused without a court of law? Where is the justice in that?
And BTW, are you calling for "tingle up my leg" to be fired?

#28 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Do you dismiss the testimony of all witnesses to crimes, or just those who corroborate the stories of female victims of assault? Sounds like you just think that all women are liars. How do you suggest that women who are assaulted obtain justice? Maybe they should just shoot the SOBs in "self-defense". That apparently requires less proof (see G. Zimmerman). You guys always defend shooters.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-12-18 03:56 PM | Reply

"This is starting to be a tactic in politics. Offer cash to women to accuse a candidate, make an accusation. Drum up the media.
#14 | POSTED BY DOCNJO"

Starting?

It's what James O'Keefe has been doing from the get-go.

And you love him for it.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-18 04:17 PM | Reply

#11 Follow-up to this story:

"Prominent Appeals-Court Judge Faces Sexual-Harassment Probe

Court opens investigation of Judge Alex Kozinski following claims of sexual misconduct by former law clerks"

Matt Zapotosky‏ @mattzap

BREAKING: Judge Alex Kozinski, facing allegations of sexual misconduct, retiring effective immediately.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-18 04:18 PM | Reply

"Starting?"

In November, Johnson and Cernovich offered an entirely different kind of reward -- $20,000 for credible information detailing sexual harassment allegations against "any sitting United States Senator or swing-district Representative," according to a post on GotNews.com.

www.newsweek.com

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-18 04:23 PM | Reply

"I am all in on a limit on how many years these accusations can go back.
#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER"

You shouldn't be so worried, Snipe. The little boys you grew up with in the 40s probably know you don't have any money and aren't worth suing.

#36 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-18 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Usually if a woman is assaulted, she will tell someone, usually friends or family. I think without that, we should be a little skeptical.
#14 | POSTED BY DOCNJO"

"A couple of points about this statement.
First, your assertion that most woman report is wildly inaccurate. Assaults are likely the most under-reported crime in this country with less than 20% reporting in some jurisdictions/assault types.
Second, I've not heard of a single instance of a woman getting paid to come forward in a political case during the recent time period. Rather, I've heard of a number of instances where accusers were paid specifically not to speak out(Blake "PJs" Farenthold).
Third, you must be a special kind of stupid to post something this blatantly and easily debunked.
#15 | POSTED BY REAGAN58"

Fourth, several of Moore's accusers did tell people around them at the time, and those people have also come forward and corroborated the accusers' stories.

#37 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-18 06:40 PM | Reply

"Usually if a woman is assaulted, she will tell someone, usually friends or family"

You ever ask yourself "Why not the cops?"

Everyone should go ahead and ask themselves that question right now.

Though we all know the Un-Cucked Alphas will answer "Because she's a lying C---!"

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-18 06:50 PM | Reply

How do you suggest that women who are assaulted obtain justice?

Not wait 30 years to report it..

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-19 09:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort