Overreaction? Student Suspended for Dad’s Social Media Tweet of Him at Gun Range

Ken Bone arrives at the Los Angeles premiere of “Doctor Strange” at the TCL Chinese Theatre on Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

RedState readers are likely familiar with the story of Marjory Stoneman Douglas high student, Kyle Kashuv, who last week was questioned by School Resource Officers and a Broward County Sheriff deputy following a social media post of him at a gun range. Streiff detailed the incident here.

Earlier this week, and in the same vein, a Belleville, Illinois, student was suspended following his father’s tweet responding to Kashuv’s situation.

You might recall Ken Bone (a/k/a “Red Sweater Guy”), a power plant operator from Illinois, who gained a certain level of fame during the 2016 election season when he asked a pointed question regarding coal and energy question during the Presidential debate held in St. Louis.

In response to Kashuv’s tweet and account of his questioning by the officers, Bone posted the following:

Bone announced Thursday that his son had been suspended from school as a result of the tweet.

Per the Post Dispatch:

Bone said he talked to a detective with the Belleville Police Department, who told Bone that they would call the principal of his son’s school, St. Clair ROE Safe School, in the morning. Belleville police confirmed that they took a report about the incident.

“I’m not sure what the school wants investigated,” Bone said Thursday evening. “There’s no threat to the school — the picture is over a year old.”

Bone said he pointed out to the principal that his son hadn’t posted the photo.

“It’s mine,” Bone said. “(My son) doesn’t even have a Twitter account.”

In fairness, given the recent events in Parkland, it’s easy to understand school administrators being sensitive to social media posts and wanting to err on the side of caution. Particularly in the face of (well-warranted) criticism directed at school and law enforcement officials who failed to take meaningful action despite the numerous red flags raised by the Parkland shooter.

On the other hand, it seems like this might have been cleared up with a fairly quick conversation with the parents without need of a suspension of the student — who did nothing wrong.

Friday, Bone reported that the suspension had been lifted:

Still, one has to wonder if it was necessary in the first place?

 

The post Overreaction? Student Suspended for Dad’s Social Media Tweet of Him at Gun Range appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Show Me the Money: Judge in Governor Greitens Case Orders Attorney to Disclose Source of Mystery Funds

Attorney Albert Watkins works in his office Monday, May 4, 2015, in Clayton, Mo. Watkins has filed a lawsuit in an effort to obtain court files and adoption records that might shed light on what exactly happened in at Homer G. Phillips Hospital in St. Louis after nearly 20 women came to him expressing concerns that their infants who reportedly died at birth at the now-closed hospital, mostly from the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s, were actually stolen and adopted by others. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

The saga continues for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens (and the citizens of Missouri.) As we reported previously, the attorney for the ex-husband of Greitens’ mistress acknowledged earlier this week that he received $100,000 from a “mystery donor,” in January.

It was a busy day for Al Watkins, one of the lawyers at the center of the invasion of privacy case against Governor Eric Greitens.

Defense attorneys for the Governor dropped the bombshell that sources tell them Watkins, who represents the ex-husband of the Governor’s mistress, accepted a payment of $100,000 from an unnamed political group for representing the man.

James Martin, one of Greitens’ attorneys, never gave any evidence that the group was political in nature.

The defense has filed a subpoena of Watkin’s bank records to prove it.

Watkins told Judge Rex Burlison he will file a motion to quash the subpoena Tuesday. Shortly after the court appearance, Watkins confirmed to reporters that he did receive the payment, but said he didn’t even know the source of the money. He told the Associated Press a courier delivered two payment of $50,000 to his suburban St. Louis office in early January.

Today, the Judge overseeing Greitens’ criminal trial ordered Watkins to disclose the source of those funds:

Circuit Judge Rex Burlison on Friday ordered lawyer Al Watkins to be deposed next week about the source of two $50,000 cash bundles delivered anonymously at his Clayton law firm a month before Gov. Eric Greitens was indicted on a felony charge of invasion of privacy.

“I think that’s a relevant inquiry,” Burlison told lawyers toward the end of an hour-long hearing Friday. “The answer to that question needs to be tracked down.”

Further adding to the muddle, Watkins now claims to know the source of the money after all:

The governor’s defense team says they want to know what motivated the ex-husband to come forward to News 4 and other media outlets. Even the lawyers now have lawyers in the case that just keeps getting more complex.

Earlier in the week, Watkins stood on the steps of the courthouse and told reporters that he had recieved two anonymous cash payments. He’s now hired attorneys who told the judge Friday the payments came from one of Watkins’ clients, but they argued that Watkins shouldn’t have to reveal who it is, saying it’s not relevant.  The attorneys argued that Watkins wasn’t in the basement when Greitens is alleged to have taken a picture of a woman without her consent.

Burlison also ordered the woman’s cell phone turned over by Monday. A special master has been appointed to oversee the download and production of the data from the phone.

Today’s ruling comes on the heels of several other significant developments in the case:

Earlier this week, Burlison refused to allow defense lawyers to question Democratic Party Chairman Roy Temple about claims he provided money to Greitens’ accuser’s ex-husband. Temple denied providing any money to anyone.

….

 On Thursday, former FBI agent William Don Tisaby, a private investigator hired by Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner to lead the invasion of privacy investigation of the governor, refused to answer questions, leading defense lawyers to call for witnesses and evidence linked to the investigator to be excluded from the case.
The criminal trial is set to start on May 14th, with jury selection commencing on May 10th.

The post Show Me the Money: Judge in Governor Greitens Case Orders Attorney to Disclose Source of Mystery Funds appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Mystery Solved: Arrest Made in Vandalism of Jewish Cemetery

FILE – In this Monday, Feb. 27, 2017 file photo, toppled and damaged headstones rest on the ground at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Philadelphia. The Anti-Defamation League found an increase in cases of anti-Semitic intimidation and vandalism in 2016, evidence that anti-Jewish bias intensified during the election. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

Last February, there were a number of disturbing attacks and threats involving Jewish community centers and cemeteries.  Multiple bomb threats were called into Jewish community centers.  And over 100 headstones were toppled in a local Jewish cemetery.

I wrote about it at the time, applauding this tweet from Ivanka Trump:

I did — and do — consider anti-Semitic sentiments and threat abhorrent. However, some of the incidents which were thought to be born of such sentiments turned out not to be so much so.

The culprit in several of the phoned-in threats turned out to be a 19-year-old US-Israeli citizen, as my colleague streiff covered that here.  Several more were attributed to former Intercept reporter Juan Thompson, who was reportedly attempting to get back at an ex-girlfriend.

Now, an arrest has been made regarding the vandalism at the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery:

A 34-year-old Florissant man was drunk and mad at a friend when he toppled more than 100 headstones at a Jewish cemetery in University City more than a year ago, according to St. Louis County prosecutors.

Alzado Harris confessed to toppling the headstones at the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in February 2017, causing more than $30,000 in damage, according to court documents.

….

“He was drunk and mad at a friend,” Magee said. The friend had recently dropped him off near the cemetery, and he took out his anger there, Magee said.

That the destruction wasn’t prompted by anti-Semitism doesn’t render it any less awful. Nor does it negate the fear and apprehension instilled in the community at the time. But it is a relief to know the person responsible will be brought to justice.

 

The post Mystery Solved: Arrest Made in Vandalism of Jewish Cemetery appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


As If Things in Missouri Weren’t Weird Enough: Attorney for Ex-Husband in Greitens Saga Received $100,000 From Mystery Donor

Attorney Albert Watkins works in his office Monday, May 4, 2015, in Clayton, Mo. Watkins has filed a lawsuit in an effort to obtain court files and adoption records that might shed light on what exactly happened in at Homer G. Phillips Hospital in St. Louis after nearly 20 women came to him expressing concerns that their infants who reportedly died at birth at the now-closed hospital, mostly from the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s, were actually stolen and adopted by others. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Just in case you haven’t been following along, Missouri’s Republican Governor, Eric Greitens, is currently facing two felony indictments. Here at RedState, we’ve been following the saga.  (More here, here and here.)

The initial charge (for felony invasion of privacy) arises from the allegation that Greitens took a compromising photograph of a woman with whom he had an affair and threatened to publicize it if she ever disclosed their affair to anyone. Greitens has admitted the affair (which took place in 2015, just as he was beginning his run for Governor) but steadfastly denied the allegation regarding the photograph. That case is set to go to trial on May 14th in the City of St. Louis.

The story initially broke back in January. The ex-husband of the woman who was involved with Greitens had apparently recorded a conversation with her in which she confessed to the affair and described the details of their encounter. A local news station ran the story on the evening of Governor Greitens’ State of the State Address.

Since then, it’s been a veritable circus here in the Show-Me State. There have been allegations of irregularities and prosecutorial misconduct, multiple motions to dismiss and hearings thereon, and all sorts of political intrigue, including a press conference announcing an additional criminal referral (for improper use of a donor list during the campaign) from Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley just last week, just as his race against Senatorial incumbent Claire McCaskill is starting to heat up.

Now comes the news that the attorney for the ex-husband of Greitens’ mistress received $100,000 from a mystery donor in early January:

It was a busy day for Al Watkins, one of the lawyers at the center of the invasion of privacy case against Governor Eric Greitens.

Defense attorneys for the Governor dropped the bombshell that sources tell them Watkins, who represents the ex-husband of the Governor’s mistress, accepted a payment of $100,000 from an unnamed political group for representing the man.

James Martin, one of Greitens’ attorneys, never gave any evidence that the group was political in nature.

The defense has filed a subpoena of Watkin’s bank records to prove it.

Watkins told Judge Rex Burlison he will file a motion to quash the subpoena Tuesday. Shortly after the court appearance, Watkins confirmed to reporters that he did receive the payment, but said he didn’t even know the source of the money. He told the Associated Press a courier delivered two payment of $50,000 to his suburban St. Louis office in early January.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch had more details:

Watkins said “there’s no doubt” the cash was related to the Greitens case but he said he didn’t know who it was intended for, and the money came with no instructions.

His office later received “a call from an intermediary,” but he would not identify the source of the money or the intermediary. Watkins said in a press conference after the court hearing that he could not disclose the source.

While there was no explicit instruction on what to do with the money, Watkins said, “it’s really clear that this was given by virtue of what they anticipated to be the fallout from disclosure of these recordings.”

To further complicate matters, there were issues surrounding the deposition appearance and representation of the prosecution’s lead investigator, William Tisaby:

Defense lawyers were supposed to depose Tisaby for a second time Monday, and Greitens’ lawyers complained that Gardner had failed to arrange the deposition Monday. They claimed it was another tactic to delay the trial past May 14.

Gardner countered that she did her best to reach Tisaby over the weekend but couldn’t make contact. Tisaby’s deposition was later rescheduled for Thursday.

Watkins also briefly represented Tisaby until Burlison disqualified him from doing so Monday afternoon. Burlison said he was concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest and the potential impact on the public’s confidence in the proper administration of justice, because Watkins also represents the ex-husband and testified in front of the grand jury that indicted Greitens.

Stay tuned, folks. The trial doesn’t start for 20 more days. Who knows what other revelations are lurking?

The post As If Things in Missouri Weren’t Weird Enough: Attorney for Ex-Husband in Greitens Saga Received $100,000 From Mystery Donor appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Wait…Only Gay Men Take Care of Their Children?

The recent Senate rule change to allow babies on the Senate floor, prompted by the recent birth of Senator Tammy Duckworth’s second child, has caused a minor stir. Duckworth herself pushed for the proposed rule change.  Wednesday night, the Senate voted unanimously to implement it.

“By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies,” Duckworth said in a statement after the vote.

The Daily Dot took the opportunity to bash Republican men for their reaction to the news. (This despite the fact that Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar worked with Republican Senator (and Rules Committee Chair) Roy Blunt to get the proposal to the floor. And, as noted above, the rule passed unanimously.)

The Dot took issue with Senator Orrin Hatch’s initial response, which reportedly was, “But what if there are 10 babies on the floor of the Senate?” Senator Hatch’s office later tweeted:

And later:

But this portion of the Daily Dot’s coverage stood out to me as…a bit odd:

In better news, Duckworth also worded the proposal with gender-neutral terminology. That means gay male senators have room to take care of their children in the Senate chamber as well, assuring LGBTQ families aren’t left out from the change.

No — it isn’t odd to me that gay male Senators might wish to care for their young children in the Senate chamber. I think that’s fine — just as I applaud the rule change itself — and congratulate Senator Duckworth on the new addition to her family. What’s odd to me is that the observation implies that only gay male Senators might wish to do so. Straight male Senators wouldn’t want to care for their kids, too?  Only women and gay men take care of their children? That seems rather sexist. And heterophobic.

 

 

Follow @Smoosieq on Twitter

The post Wait…Only Gay Men Take Care of Their Children? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


More Bad News for Missouri’s Governor Greitens – Another Potential Felony Investigation?

As if a pending trial for felony invasion of privacy weren’t enough, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has another reason to be concerned:  The State’s Attorney General has just announced that his office has found additional evidence of potential criminal behavior on the part of Greitens in connection with his campaign.

At a press conference Tuesday morning, Hawley announced:

(T)hat during the course of an investigation into the charity Greitens founded, his office found evidence that Greitens allegedly obtained and transmitted the charity’s donor list for political fundraising.

 “And he did all of this without permission of the Mission Continues,” Hawley said Tuesday.

“This is known as computer tampering. And given the value of the list in question it is a felony.”

The investigation into the potential misuse of the donor list was launched in February.  Hawley has indicated he will be turning his findings over to the Circuit Attorney’s office to determine if a prosecution is warranted, as his office lacks jurisdiction.

This would be the same Circuit Attorney (Kim Gardner) who is currently prosecuting Greitens for allegedly photographing his then-mistress in a state of undress and transmitting it in some fashion and threatening to disseminate it if she ever disclosed their affair. (Greitens has acknowledged the affair, which occurred prior to his election, but continues to deny the allegations regarding the photograph and threat.)  As we noted yesterday, the Judge in that case is set to rule Thursday on the defense’s Motion for Sanctions/to Dismiss for the prosecution’s failure to produce certain evidence. Looks like even if the dismissal is granted, it may be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Also of note in this morning’s press conference, in response to a question as to whether this latest push on the Greitens matter was prompted by his U.S. Senate candidacy, Hawley responded:

“I’m doing my job, and my job is to enforce the laws of Missouri; to protect the people of Missouri and that’s exactly what I’m doing, and I’m going to go on doing it no matter who criticized me or tries to intimidate me. This office will not be intimidated and we will not be deterred. We will go on doing our job for the people of Missouri.”

This comes on the heels of this tweet (yesterday) from his anticipated opponent for Missouri’s Senate race this fall, Claire McCaskill (D-Mo):

Following the press conference, Governor Greitens released the following statement:

“Fortunately for Josh, he’s better at press conferences than the law. Anyone who has set foot in a Missouri courtroom knows these allegations are ridiculous. Josh has turned the “evidence” he claims to have over to St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner— a liberal prosecutor funded by George Soros who allegedly suborned perjury, falsified documents, and withheld evidence. We will dispense with these false allegations.”

Not to miss out on the fun, Claire McCaskill’s Communications Director issued one, as well:

“We’re glad that Hawley has come out of hiding to acknowledge the existing evidence of criminal behavior of the Governor. However, the sad truth is that this shows gross incompetence on the part of the Attorney General. The evidence in this case has been publicly available since October 2016 — what excuse could Josh Hawley possibly have for failing to pursue an investigation and allowing this evidence to languish for over a year? The only reason the statute of limitations is now a problem in this case is because Hawley was trying to protect his friend and large donor for as long as possible.”

Seems as though the long winter is just about over and things are really starting to heat up in the State of Missouri.

 

The post More Bad News for Missouri’s Governor Greitens – Another Potential Felony Investigation? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Missouri Governor Greitens Pushes Back, Issues Another Statement

Following the release late yesterday afternoon of the Missouri House’s Committee on Oversight’s report, there’s been a great deal of focus on what the future holds for Missouri’s embattled Governor, Eric Greitens.

As noted this morning, there have been calls — from Democrat and Republican quarters — for him to step down, or for impeachment proceedings to be brought.  There is some disagreement as to whether his alleged actions prior to his becoming Governor — no matter how distasteful one might consider them — constitute proper grounds for impeachment. Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution provides:

Impeachment–officers liable–grounds.

Section 1. All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.

The Governor, however, is pushing back. This morning, his legal team filed a Motion with the Trial Court in the ongoing criminal proceeding (for Felony Invasion of Privacy), alleging misconduct on the part of the prosecution:

Attorneys for Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens are asking a judge to dismiss a criminal indictment against him while accusing prosecutors of misconduct for withholding a videotaped interview of a woman with whom he had an affair.

In court Thursday, Greitens’ attorneys said prosecutors who initially claimed the recorder had malfunctioned finally shared a copy of the recording Wednesday night. They said that occurred only after a House investigatory committee had released separate testimony from the woman saying that Greitens had initiated an aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter in 2015.

Greitens attorneys say the woman’s videotaped interview from March backs up Greitens’ claim that the encounter was consensual.

A judge says he’s considering what he described as serious allegations of perjury and dishonesty against the prosecutors. He made no immediate ruling.

This afternoon, Governor Greitens released the following statement:

We told you yesterday afternoon that the House report would be incomplete. It was.

We told people that they needed to see all the evidence. And now, we have proof that Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and her team hid evidence from the people of Missouri and from the Missouri House of Representatives—evidence that undermined the narrative pushed in the House report.

Kim Gardner hid a video that she knew directly contradicted allegations in the House report, and she allowed her lead investigator to lie about it, under oath.

Just last night—as false stories were being pushed to press—the prosecutor turned over a videotape of her interview with the woman. This was evidence that the prosecutor was legally required to turn over months ago. She purposefully kept it hidden until one hour after the false report was released.

The House report contained explosive, hurtful allegations of coercion, violence, and assault. They are false. Those allegations can be refuted with facts. Despite the Circuit Attorney’s attempts to keep it from the people of Missouri, we have video evidence that contains some of those facts.

In the video, the woman talks for almost two hours, and never once mentions any coercion. In the House report, there is a false allegation that I slapped the woman. That allegation had been made once before, and it was disproven. The story changed, so I will say again: it did not happen. On this new video, she says that when this story broke in the media, she asked her two friends if they ever remembered her talking about a slap, and they both said “No.” The witness claimed to the House that she was coerced into sexual activity on the morning of March 21st. This is inconsistent with her statements in the video interview with the Circuit Attorney.

The report that was put out last night did not contain this evidence, and the allegations in that report will refuted by facts, including this video, depositions, discovery, and other evidence that will be subjected to the rigors of a courtroom analysis. In 32 days, a court of law and a jury of my peers will let every person in Missouri know the truth and prove my innocence.

We’ll continue to follow this story and update with developments.

The post Missouri Governor Greitens Pushes Back, Issues Another Statement appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Why the Reboot of Roseanne Resonates (It Isn’t Because She’s a Trump Voter)

I rarely watch sitcoms anymore. And I can’t tell you the last time I made a point to catch the premiere of one. But when I saw that Roseanne was returning to primetime, I was intrigued — eager, even, to catch up with the Conners after all these years.

Though my viewing of it tailed off in the later years (I’d forgotten there was a Jerry, or that Dan “died”), I loved the original. I have a vivid recollection of being in college, watching an episode where either Darlene or Becky — or perhaps both — were being particularly snarly toward their mother, and picking up the phone to call my own mom and apologize for having been such a snot to her in my middle teens. (A glimmer of hope to which I presently cling as the mother of a sixteen-year-old.) Roseanne had a way of connecting with middle-America; of portraying working class people realistically — and humorously — without being patronizing.

I’d seen some of the previews and was aware that the reboot would incorporate some of today’s polarizing politics into the storyline, but that didn’t put me off. Something told me Roseanne would find a way to handle it in playful, not preachy, fashion.

Tuesday night’s episodes did not disappoint. The characters have aged, but the set hasn’t changed much. The Conner family room still features the cluttered hint of Cheeto remnants, and familiar crocheted blanket draped over the dated couch. I watched and laughed and thoroughly enjoyed the show.

I wasn’t alone in that. As has been widely reported, the premiere racked up huge ratings:

The return delivered an incredible 18.2 million viewers along with an equally impressive 5.1 rating among adults 18-49.

And while it played best in “flyover country,” — places like Tulsa, Kansas City, Cincinnati — it struck a chord with liberals and conservatives alike.

Not everyone was enthralled, though. The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro cautioned yesterday that the show is problematic for conservatives:

Conservatives are celebrating because they believe that Roseanne is helping to cure the culture by depicting a Trump supporter as something other than a rube or an idiot. There’s some truth to this: Roseanne’s character is whip-smart and unwilling to take crap from anyone — she’s sort of a female mini-Trump in terms of personality.

But there’s something else going on in Roseanne that should disturb conservatives: the redefinition of Trump supporters as blue collar leftists rather than conservatives. Roseanne’s character is pro-gay-marriage, pro-abortion, feminist, and pro-transgenderism — and the implication is that she is a good person because of these views. The real difference between Trump voters and Hillary voters are economic in nature, not cultural.

I’m a fan of Ben’s — have been for years. I think he’s brilliant and I respect immensely his fearless defense of the First Amendment. But I believe he’s missing the point here. Many Trump voters were blue collar “leftists” — or, at least, people who aren’t social conservatives. And attempting to equate “Trump” with “conservative values” is misguided at best.

Yes, conservatives are celebrating the show’s depiction of Trump voters who aren’t knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers; who don’t have horns and aren’t made the butt of every joke.  Even those of us who weren’t Trump voters appreciate the textured approach. They’re depicted as “real” people with financial concerns, age-related ailments, family dysfunction, and everyday worries that many of us have or can relate to, regardless of our politics.

But it’s more than that. Millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Millions voted for Hillary Clinton. Some even voted for Jill Stein. Or Evan McMullin. Those votes don’t define us. They don’t even begin to tell the whole story — of any of us. We don’t fit neatly into little labeled boxes. We may be “conservative” in most respects, but have family and friends who live “non-traditional” lifestyles, or are non-binary, or are life coaches who sport p-hats. And we love them anyway. We may be  “liberal” in many respects, but have family and friends who are pro-life, or pro-traditional marriage, or card-carrying NRA members. And we love them anyway. We are so much more than who we voted for. And life is so much more than politics.

Conservatives — and liberals, and moderates, and people who aren’t particularly political — are celebrating because the show depicts “normal” (albeit quirky) people who may disagree with their loved ones on politics or political candidates but who love them nonetheless.  As a somewhat liberal friend of mine observed yesterday, “Real families argue and ridicule each other while still loving everyone.” Roseanne captures that well. And equally important — it’s funny.

In its premiere episode(s), Roseanne does a nice job of poking gentle, loving fun at both/all sides of the spectrum. It serves as a welcome reminder not to take ourselves so dang seriously all the time. It’s a breath of fresh air. And Cheeto dust.

 

The post Why the Reboot of Roseanne Resonates (It Isn’t Because She’s a Trump Voter) appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Another Big Name Accused of Sexual Misconduct: Steve Wynn Is the Latest Alleged Letch

Casino mogul Steve Wynn is the latest well-known figure to be accused of sexual harassment. According to the Wall Street Journal, Wynn paid a hefty sum to settle claims by a former resort manicurist for pressuring her to have sex with him.

LAS VEGAS—Not long after the billionaire casino mogul Steve Wynn opened his flagship Wynn Las Vegas in 2005, a manicurist who worked there arrived at the on-site salon visibly distressed following an appointment in Mr. Wynn’s office.

Sobbing, she told a colleague Mr. Wynn had forced her to have sex, and she repeated that to others later.

After she gave Mr. Wynn a manicure, she said, he pressured her to take her clothes off and told her to lie on the massage table he kept in his office suite, according to people she gave the account to. The manicurist said she told Mr. Wynn she didn’t want to have sex and was married, but he persisted in his demands that she do so, and ultimately she did disrobe and they had sex, the people remember her saying.

Per the Journal story, Wynn later paid $7.5 million to settle the woman’s claims.

After the news broke, Wynn, who also serves as the Finance Chair for the Republican National Committee denied the allegations, though there are multiple allegations outlining a pattern of such abuse:

Beyond this incident, dozens of people The Wall Street Journal interviewed who have worked at Mr. Wynn’s casinos told of behavior that cumulatively would amount to a decadeslong pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Wynn. Some described him pressuring employees to perform sex acts.

Following the story, shares in Wynn Resorts, Ltd. dropped by 9%.

Wynn Resorts were down 9% at $182.57 shortly before 11 a.m. Pacific time. It was the stock’s biggest drop since July 2017.

In response to the allegations, the company pointed to Wynn’s ex-wife, Elaine Wynn, accusing her of running a smear campaign.

“Mr. Wynn’s ex-wife has sought to use a negative public relations campaign to achieve what she has been unable to do in the courtroom: tarnish the reputation of Mr. Wynn in an attempt to pressure a revised divorce settlement from him,” it said in a statement.

The legal settlement detailed by the Journal in Friday’s report has become a major focus of a lawsuit between Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn, who is seeking to gain control of her 9% stake in the casino giant. Steve Wynn has long sought to maintain his hold over the company because he lost his previous business, Mirage Resorts, to an unsolicited bid from mogul Kirk Kerkorian.

Smear campaign or no, this revelation has undoubtedly cost Wynn a pretty penny.

The post Another Big Name Accused of Sexual Misconduct: Steve Wynn Is the Latest Alleged Letch appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Double Take: This Missouri Senate Candidate’s Take on Women’s Rights Raises Eyebrows

I must confess, I’ve not paid a great deal of attention to Missouri Senate candidate Courtland Sykes since he brashly announced his entry into the GOP fray last fall. Fair or no, my initial read on his candidacy was that it was a publicity stunt of some sort. I’ve never heard of the guy before and what little I did hear upon his announcement persuaded me that he’ll not be getting my vote come the primary in August, though I eagerly look forward to Claire McCaskill getting a run for her money in the general.

Turns out there’s a reason I’d never heard of him before. He’s not from Missouri, having only just moved here last fall. And his political experience appears to consist of working as a staffer for a U.S. Representative from Arkansas, Bruce Westerman — another name unfamiliar to me.

In fairness, the fault could lie squarely with me for being woefully uninformed. Be that as it may, I’ve paid little mind to Sykes up until today. Which may actually go a long way toward explaining this:

Hold the phone, there, fella. I may not be inclined to sport a vagina hat, and I happen to adore men, but this doesn’t sit well with this female Missouri voter. I suspect that’s the point, though. Sykes’ “statement” strikes me as rhetoric purposefully designed to ruffle feathers and get folks talking about him. (Hey, look – it worked!) It’s certainly not designed to endear him to moderate or independent women. And I’m not all that certain it will appeal much to even those who lean harder right. Particularly not when there are other more palatable — and viable — candidates from whom to choose.

I don’t get the impression that matters all that much to Sykes. Coverage from the time of his announcement sheds a bit more light on what’s going on here:

Sykes described himself as an admirer of former White House Strategist Steve Bannon, whom he met at an Eagle Forum event in St. Louis this past weekend. Bannon, who runs the website Breitbart, has made similar attacks on globalism.

….

Sykes’ candidacy announcement coincided with hardline conservative Judge Roy Moore’s victory in the Alabama Republican primary for Senate on Tuesday and comes at a time when Missouri’s GOP frontrunner for Senate, Attorney General Josh Hawley, has faced questions about whether he supports Trump’s agenda.

An admirer of who?  Coincided with who? Given the recent trajectories of his purported kindred spirits, it appears that Sykes’ candidacy might need a bit of a shot in the arm. And this statement appears designed to assist in that regard.

I doubt he’ll be interested in my advice but on the off chance he is, I’ll start by suggesting he retain a copy editor.  “Hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the tops of a thousand tall buildings they are [sic] think they could have leaped over in a single bound — had men not [sic] “suppressing them…” needs a little work.

The post Double Take: This Missouri Senate Candidate’s Take on Women’s Rights Raises Eyebrows appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State