Duke rape suspect is son of rich & powerful (Lobbyist linked to Bush)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/418544p-353382c.html

The latest Duke University lacrosse player accused of raping a stripper is the product of the rarefied air of Washington power and privilege.

Suspect David Evans is the son of Rae Evans, 50, a prominent lobbyist who boasts topnotch links to the Bush family, and David Evans, a partner at one of the capital's most prominent law firms.

Evans' preppie-looking parents stood stiffly behind him Monday as he forcefully rejected the explosive rape case that has ensnared the once top-ranked Duke lacrosse team.

David Evans, 23, grew up in the tony suburb of Bethesda, Md., and graduated from Duke a day before he was indicted.

<snip>

Rae Evans is a prolific campaign donor, stuffing a whopping $31,420 into mostly Republican coffers since 1994 and campaigning for President Bush's reelection in 2004 with the W Stands for Women committee.

include belief in traditional gender roles, and a sense of entitlement.

Fischer, A. R., & Hill, M. S. (2001).'Does Entitlement Mediate the Link Between Masculinity
and Rape-Related Variables'. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 1, 39-50

Does the Republican party preach anything but traditional gender roles and a sense of entitlement (to oil, exploit workers, control womens bodies etc.)?

The Party of Rape Values.

that he has a free pass few other people will ever acquire. He can get away with almost anything and never have to take responsibility for his actions. He's rich, white, and politically connected.

There can never be justice if some people are beyond the reach of the court.
:grr:

who he knows will never "win" against his insulated privilege. Why am I not surprised. Only the names change in situations like this. The woman he raped had no value in his eyes, and no right to say no, or to file claim against him. She was there for HIS privileged neeeds, and degradation only.

The "schooling" of a Sociopath. And he "graduated" the day BEFORE his indictment. 'Isn't it ironic....'

know better, feel so free to invoke stereotypes in predicting the outcome of the case.

We don't know the facts yet. Can't we hold off until we do?

Who are just as quick to follow the mob, as the ones in the photo below

And who apparently have as much fun as the smiling three on the lower left.



Lynching 1930

A mob of 10,000 whites took sledgehammers to the county jailhouse doors to get at these two young blacks accused of raping a white girl; the girl’s uncle saved the life of a third by proclaiming the man’s innocence. Although this was Marion, Ind., most of the nearly 5,000 lynchings documented between Reconstruction and the late 1960s were perpetrated in the South. (Hangings, beatings and mutilations were called the sentence of “Judge Lynch.”)

as if we are actually hanging anybody.

As if the rich, white boys don't have every means at their disposal to fight this in court.

But you knew that.

I resent your racist comment.

White privilage is well documented. So is male privilage, and the privilages that come simply from being wealthy. Pointing out the privilage that comes from being white and rich and male is hardly bias or prejudice.

But why don't you insert YOUR race instead of white and see how it feels.

The fact that you are offended means less that nothing. I don't care what rape-apologists think.

calling the accused "boys," and the woman "the stripper," and saying that she is lying. He got his marching orders from Karl! Well, besides from the fact that he is a racist, sexist pig.

I don't think the FOX POV is an accident in this case.

Shephard Smith acts as if he was one of those La Crosse players accused of rape. He comes across as totally racist too.

in this case.

The one who posted a $400,000 bail? I correctly guessed 'Republican' just by his looks and the way he spoke.

Duke lacrosse player David Evans (r.) stands somberly with mom Rae Evans (l.), a powerful Washington lobbyist, and dad David Evans at Monday news conference.

I am amazed at this wonderful skill you have! Tell me, what does your radar tell you when you see Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice?

I guess it must be like 'Gaydar' or something.

Clean shaven, standing up very tall, sticking out his chest and chin, with a vivid air of superiority about him.

Oh, yes, as soon as I saw him on TV last night, I KNEW he was a good Bush Youth Republican.

The looks down his nose at others look. The "I'm better than you" look. The "how dare that common black accuse me of raping her even though it is true" look. That is exactly how he was raised and how he acted in college.

But I'm a mom. What do I know.

just like he did when he was in court - on indictment or whatever.

Jeez what a stereotype, so what all college kids with long hair and beards are democrats. You've never been to the south have you?

How do you know I don't live in the South - talk about generalizing!! Sheesh!!

democrats look like? Just so that I may now make a distinction by just looking at them they way you do.

those Repub boys. (See below) Uh-oh.

and has excellent posture. He's an athlete, too. He's also very shy, so I tell him to try to smile more.

Now if you saw him, you would say you KNOW he's a good Bush Young Republican.

Because I've tried my best to teach him to be clean shaven and have good posture.

That's really lame.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He looks even more miserable than I thought. Really hates to have those cameras pointing at him; hence his head is tilted slightly back and away. Of course, the photo is taken from down below. Everybody looks scary when a picture is angled that way. (You should see some of mine.)

But superior and snobby, etc.? Some of you might be right, but I don't read that from this picture. Just plain old vanilla "unhappy-to-be-here-and-I-wish-you'd-put-all-those-cameras-away."

But maybe you all would have liked him more if he had sported one of those Tom Delay this-is-my-booking-picture-but-all-you're-going-to-see-is-me-smiling looks?

The beleaugured, miserable munchkin! Perhaps you should knit him a sweater, any minute now that pic will show that he looks chilly, too.

I just have an overwhelming urge to drive to North Carolina and hug him now.

Get real.

But I would be proud to see my son present himself as David Evans did. He was composed, well groomed, and articulate.

Flash: there are wealthy Democrats, too.

this tidbit is rich


"campaigning for President Bush's reelection in 2004 with the W Stands for Women committee."

the Salvation Army, & the American Red Cross.

Hey, Mom, pick up some Girl Scout Uniforms for me, will ya? The LAX team is havin a big party.

Let's see if Fox News keeps this story in rotation, or if maybe they just send more correspondents to Aruba looking for Natalie.





(Sorry... wrong Natalie).

But I happen to have worked on a Hill-related project a few years ago where my client also used Rae Evans. She's no fundie asshole. In fact, she's got close ties to Ed Markey and John Dingell and has donated to their campaigns. My take was that she fits within the realm of a "moderate" repub woman, supporting to the likes of Susan Collins and Morella. I'm sure she also donated to chimpy, but I'd be surprised if she was a pioneer or ranger level donor.

on edit: I should note that $31,000 in contributions (not all to repubs) in 12 years is hardly "whopping". Its around $2600 a year. If that makes you a big shot donor, I guess I'm in the same league. Hell, I just wrote a check for $1K to a Democratic senatorial candidate and I expect I'll do the same thing 2 or three more times before November (along with several smaller donations).

even though under your own name. Because as a lobbyist, and particularly with the K Street project, you know that the Rs & Ds check out who you contribute to. Good for you for giving to Dems in the face of the K Street project, but don't try to kid us that regular folks have typically donated $31,000 over the past 12 years. It will take a trial to determine guilt or innocence of this young man, but odds are greatly in this young man's favor that the case will be plea bargained or settled - he'll never face a jury of his peers for a number of reasons. 1. He'll have the best legal talent money can buy; 2. People of his class are rarely seen on juries because they know how to avoid it and they have "other priorities" as the GOP says of military duty; 3. His lawyers will waive a jury trial and get a sympathetic judge. Whatever happens to this young man will not depend on an overworked, underpaid, inexperienced public defender who first consults with his client for 1 minute before the tipstaff says, "All rise."

But anyone who knows anything about the Washington lobbying community will tell you that $2600 a year is not a "whopping" amount and does not make the Evans' "prolific" donors. In fact, its a shockingly small amount. (Look up a couple of top Democratic or Republican lobbyists like Tom Downey (D) or Ken Duberstein (R). Also, according to opensecrets.org, Rae Evans and her husband each gave $500 to chimpy in 1999 and that's it. Nothing more in 2000 and nothing in 2004. I'm not suggesting that they aren't repubs or that they didn't work hard for chimpy's election/reelection. However, lumping them in with the big time chimpy support crowd is factually wrong. They've given as much or more to Ed Markey, John Dingell, and Carolyn McCarthy as to chimpy. The proclivity of some folks on this board to see things in all or nothing, good/evil terms is rather remarkable (and far too similar to the way that chimpy and his fundie faithful analyze the world).

And yes, the legal system is skewed (as is much else in our society) towards the rich. That's the case whether you're a rich repub or a rich Democrat.

In the interest of accuracy, I did a bit more checking on the Evans' political contributions. My original search failed to account for the fact that some of the donations are listed under a DC address (work) and some under a Maryland address (home). The total over the 1994-2006 period (12.5 years), is around $56,000 rather than $31,000. While I didn't check it precisely, it would appear that around $15-20K of that amount is PAC contributions rather than direct candidate contributions. While this is significantly higher than the original total, it is still less than $5K a year, which is pretty small potatoes by DC lobbyist standards. (By way of comparison, Democratic lobbyist Tom Downey gave over $85K just between 2002/2006, and Repub lobbyist Ken Duberstein gave over $71,000 during that same period. I didn't check to see if Downey or Duberstein made additional contributions in the name of a spouse). As a further correction to the record, in addition to two $500 contributions to chimpy in 1999, there was a $1000 contribution to chimpy in 2003.

Don't forget to look at capnet.com too, and in both places be sure to search under all of the following:

David C. Evans
Rae Evans
Evans & Black
Evans & Black Associates
Evans & Black Company
Evans Capitol Group
Rae Evans & Associates
Ctr F Civic Education 
Reed Smith LLC
Every variation possible of "Reed Smith Shaw & McClay"
... and a few others I can't find my reference to right off the bat.
Essentially, they donate under many different umbrellas.

I've been looking up their donation history today, and on just the capnet site alone -- under the heading "Political Contributions For Elections By Individuals In WASHINGTON,DC", I've found over $6500 in just 2003 and 2004 alone.


edited to clean up a sentence fragment.

I only know about opensecrets.org and can't seem to find the site you mention.

I thought it was just posting more info on one of the alleged rapists.

Sort of like the info dump on the alleged victim.

Sorry if its off message not to demonize every person that has supported a repub, but the story in the Daily News is hysterically overblown. As I posted above, I actually worked on something with Rae Evans a few years back and she wasn't some wild eyed fundie nut. And giving $31 K over the past 12 years (between her and her husband) make them very small players...as small as me! If you check the record at opensecrets you'll see that her contributions (and those of her husband) over the years have been mostly repubs, but a few Democrats, including Dingell, Markey, Carolyn McCarthy. A lot of her husband's contributions have been to his firm's PAC, which has given predominantly to repubs in some years, but in 1998 and 2006 (thus far) actually gave more to Dems.

I think over the two presidential races, she gave maybe $1K to chimpy, which is pretty much nothing (I gave that much to Kerry in 04)

qualifies one as a scumbag in my book.
Fuck her and her progeny.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.

Kudos to you!

Tell me just where the founders talked about the pressing need for paid wheedlers to influence the legislative process. I'll be waiting.

Didn't realize that we were into original construction here. I happen to read the First Amendment as allowing the citizenry to petition the government and I don't think that it means that you can only do that in person or directly. You think the founders expected that when the citizenry wanted to make their views known they would have to pack up, leave their farms, and travel all the way to the capital to individually express their wishes? Well, the practice has been going on a long time, and while there have always been abuses, I don't see any great effort by the founders to stop it.

"Lobbyists have been at work from the earliest days of the Congress. William Hull was hired by the Virginia veterans of the Continental army to lobby for additional compensation for their war services. In 1792, Hull wrote to other veterans' groups, recommending that they have their "agent or agents" cooperate with him during the next session to pass a compensation bill. In 1795, a Philadelphia newspaper described the way lobbyists waited outside Congress Hall to "give a hint to a Member, teaze or advise as may best suit."

(From a History of Lobbying http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm

By the way, in 2004 the National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation reported nearly $2 million in lobbying expenses. Guess you think they're scumbags too. And that prisoners should just individually come to DC (if they don't get shot leaving prison) to press their concerns.

in my opinion, ALL lobbyi$t$ are cancers on democracy.
And giving a penny to a republican is one penny too much.
Fuck them and their progeny.

hire lobbyists. I bet even the ACLU sends lobbyists. Why are all lobbyists scumbags?

Facts will never be brought to bear in any discussion about Republicans. onenote, what are you thinking?!?

;)

I just posted a new post that corrects the record on my earlier post. Just hung up on facts I guess.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

post #12: "And that proves he's a rapist how? n/t"

(reply to post #12)
post #16: "It doesn't, but it does prove that he is the product of scumbags

(reply to post #16)
post #45: "how nice of you ... everyone who disagrees with your Excellency is a scumbag, and more likely to commit rape."


Comprehension problem, or distortion effort?

Geez, are we heading for a return to the guillotines, or what?

...Give me a break already!

Next thing we will hear is that all progressives must side with the accuser, just as many rightwingers sided with the students.

How easily we forget due process and presumption of innocence when we embark on a crusade!

the presumption of innocents would have stood up better. As it stands, it's a two way street. They can't smear the victim and expect not to get smeared, and vice versa.

Basically this whole case was doomed from the start in the public eye.

Women need to be able to report rape, if they believe it has happened to them, not be smeared for it.

But his parentage could have a lot to do with why a lawyer might be happy to take on a civil case from an accuser looking for damages.

with his parentage.
The best justice that money can buy.

her, at least in the civil phase of the action. (If his family had no assets to go after, no civil attorney would be interested in taking her case.) So in this case, they're probably even.

against Duke.

Some of the parents are mighty unhappy over how Duke has handled this.
I'm betting that there will be "big money" civil action taken by the players/parents against the university later.

On the grounds that Duke owns the house that was supposedly purchased to move the partying off campus, that they're all Duke students in a Duke organization, that the Duke coach wasn't doing enough to curb the known excesses of the team, etc.

You know, the same grounds the "she's a liar" crowd like to believe she lied because of some mysterious pot of gold in a civil suit against the Duke "deep pocket".

Duke purchased the house mid-year, after it was rented by the players. It was part of a move by the university to address complaints from the permanent residents of that neighborhood who were unhappy with the parties at not just that house but several other rental houses in the neighborhood.

Duke's crackdown directed at on-campus parties was to ban kegs on campus, the result of which pushed the scene to the surrounding neighborhoods. Then, when the neighbors complained, they bought up the houses and the plan is to sell them to owners with a clause in the deed that the house will never be sold to anyone for rental purposes. You have to wonder how a university with all the academic prestige of Duke can't see that all they've done is move the party scene to another neighborhood.

As for the possibilities of a civil suit, Willie Gary is advising the alleged victim's parents right now. While that doesn't address the claims of a possible lie on the part of the alleged victim it is a pretty good indication that there's likely to be some serious money in play if a civil suit pops up. Willie's not the kind of guy who works a small room.

I knew about Gary wanting to meet with the parents but I thought they had turned him down. Has he been hired by them now or thinking about it?

Well, that's open for discussion I guess.

This article says that Gary was in town on Monday.
http://www.nbc17.com/news/9235603/detail.html

This article says he is advising the family.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195753,00.html


Either way the point remains that he does have an interest in the case which would indicate he sees potential in it.

I don't see the prosecutor's name on the byline of the article, or one of the detectives', either.

I don't see any attribution to the prosecutor's office as being a source for this article, nor any comments from that office.

Apparently some staff writers at the Daily News followed up on the already-reported well-to-do status of this man's parents and the already-reported lobbyist status of his mother. The DN staff writers included more detail. What's the problem?

$31,000 in donations to political candidates and PACs by a married couple over a 12 year period (i.e., around $2600 per year) is not a "whopping" amount in world of Washington and doesn't make the Evans' "prolific" donors. Not by a longshot. Hell, I've given more than $4K each of the past 3 years (not even counting contributions to candidates for state office), so I wonder where all my fancy invites are. (I do get a shitload of fundraising mail from the party and a few machine signed holiday cards every December).

Mischaracterizations like those in the article tend to make me suspicious of the whether the writer has an agenda or simply is being sensationalistic to make something into more of a story than it is.

regardless whether he is guilty or innocent. Rich folks get away with MURDER.

Guilt by association is not something we should dive in to. If he is guilty, then hopefully it will be proven in a court of law. If not, then I hope he doesn't have to wear this around his neck for the rest of his life.

You're the one bringing up the religion of the players and their families.

This discussion is about Evans' family connections to the right.
It is not about anyone's religion, you are the one using religion as flamebait.

If this is an attempt to get a thread that threatens your mental well-being locked, I hope that the mods will choose to delete the offensive posts (such as this one of yours that I'm replying to) and not lock the entire thread.

Debate is one thing. This is another.

I doubt the Seligmans are offended by either their faith or the numerous Seligmans in North Jersey that contribute to Democratic candidates.

The point of the thread is ridiculous. It is not a "debate" of anything.

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is pernicious. The notion that there is a social "type" which is responsible for the overwhelming level of violence against women simply allows people to get on with their prejudices.

It's those "other people" who need to think about the problem.

Amazing that you can't see that. On second thought, you probably do and that's why you posted it in the first place. You are being deliberately antagonizing and pushing the boundaries as far as you can, and why?

Why are you and some others here so damn threatened by the fact that this player's parents are Republicans? Or rather, the fact that it has been said out loud that they're Republicans.The very idea that it was even mentioned in public seems to have sent some posters over the edge.

Suddenly, repubs aren't so bad... and democrats are... there have been more warm fuzzies for the freeper crowd upthread and downthread here than one might find on Fox News. In fact, who needs Fox News when posters like this are available?

Rae and David Evans are Republicans, and not just garden-variety "moderate" Republicans, either. They're Bush supporters in a big way. That news is out, and it will stay out whether you like it or not.
For that matter, you will soon be hearing about Rae Evans' role in sabotoging the Patients' Bill of Rights, among other things. If it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that "your boy's" mother is a freeper, that's not my problem. I'll be damned if I'm going to be "shamed" into being quiet about her activities, or her husband's, with some cockamamie syrupy pap about how poor Dave looks like everyone's Democratic teenage boy and it's STEREOTYPING to say that his Republican parents are Republicans.

They are. Get over it.

parents are Republicans? That seems to be what's bothering people. This attitude 'his parents are Republicans, therefore he's guilty', I find that to be really disturbing, to be honest. I would expect better from so-called Progressives. The same thing happens on the extreme right whenever the child of a Democrat gets in trouble. No matter what, they are parents. Even very wealthy, Republicans love their children. If he is guilty, it will be heartbreaking for the parents. And if he's not, it will still be heartbreaking.

It is heartbreaking for the victim of rape, and for her parents also ~ I wish there was more compassion in this world, it would be a better place. All around this, and other crimes, are tragedies ~

I am really saddened by the sport-like, cheering on of either the accused or the victim, in any criminal case that seems so prevalent in this country. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think this type of glee each time there's a 'score' for one side or another will contriubute much to a better society, or world for that matter.

But before you go off about one of the familys' politics and beliefs, you MIGHT want to look at the other two families, since they are of ethnic backgrounds which have traditionally leaned democratic. Every "Seligman" campaign contributor I could find in New Jersey donates to Democrats.

Is Reade from the black sheep of the family?

If it turns out that two of three suspects are from Democratic families, then what?

It's a stupid point, and one that looks prime to blow the other direction at those who believe it is significant.

It is, in fact, the same stupidity which was hurled about when Ted Kennedy's nephew was indicted for rape.

It's Seligmann with two "n"'s at the end, not one. I think you'd have better luck looking up campaign donations of possible family members if you used the correct family name.

obvious.

It might be time to start poisoning the tips of they arrows o' yourn...

Maybe when these posts turn up, as they seem to, so regularly, we should all just post the simple agonised cry, "BURT! BURT!"

scions of prominent families and 3 guys, of comparable age, from the projects. Wouldn't that just be something special?

And these three "lads" would have to move into Cabrini Green for the summer, try to dodge the gangs, find a job at Burger King, etc. while the project kids could move into these folks summer houses in Newport or wherever, spend the weekends sailing and partying in the Hamptons. Sweet!

It would be much better than "community service!"

Whatever his legal culpability I'm glad this guy is getting a taste of what life is like when the world is not your oyster

wealthiest banks..

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay is the platinum law firm in Pittsburgh, and this sounds like their Washington office at which Dad is employed. This firm is the old boy/girl network personified, and their attys. whom I've had the misfortune to share cases with are about as arrogant as one could imagine. In Pittsburgh, their nickname is Bleed, Shit, Stall & Delay. It always particularly pissed me off that this is the firm used by my electricity provider, Duquesne Light, because of the firm's exorbitant fees,the unnecessary motions and delay, and the fact the Reed Smith never sends one attorney to sit through a deposition when they can send 2 or 3. There once was a little old Italian lady living in the Pgh. suburb of Penn Hills (Yes! the same little town where Rick Santorum rents out a tiny house and billed his kids education costs to the local school district.)

Little old Italian lady had a couple of big ovens in her basement kitchen where she baked bread 6 mornings a week to be sold at local groceries. One morning, she mixed all her dough and put her bread in to raise. Duquesne Light turned off the power in her neighborhood to replace a transformer, or some such piece of equipment. It was not an emergency, just a scheduled maintenance operation. Duquesne Light did not give customers advance notice. Little old lady opens her oven doors, and voila, the bread had not risen and dough was ruined. She calls Duquesne Light and asks for the $68.00 worth of ingredients she had used. Duquesne Light refuses. Little old lady goes to the local magistrate and sues for the $68. Duquesne Light has Reed, Smith defend the action with TWO lawyers. Little old lady wins; Duquesne Light ordered to pay $68 plus filing fee(some $30). Reed Smith's 2 lawyers request de novo hearing by arbitration panel. Little old lady wins again.
Reed Smith requests a jury trial! At this point Duquesne Light has been billed for minimally
32 hours of work by the two attys. This was back in the 80's - so the fee was probably $200 an hour, i.e., $6,400 to avoid a righteous claim for under $100. So at this point, good old Judge McGowan calls Reed Smith attys. into his chambers for an impromptu bench trial and orders them to pay the claim and tells them if they appeal his decision, they better never have anyone from their firm appear in his courtroom again. They finally paid. Reed Smith got by with bilking Duquesne Light customers out of their legal fees, and further cost Duq. Light because of taking time of Duq. Lt. engineers, reps to prepare them to testify, then actually testify; and bilked the county taxpayers by wasting the court's time. Now you know why they are known as Bleed, Shit, Stall & Delay.

That's what we called them here in Philly when I used to be a paralegal! I actually worked for them on a temp job but could only stand about a week of it. Bunch of arrogant, sexist, racist shits.

Wolf, Block, Schorr, and Solis-Cohen was called "Wolf, Block Sure Sucks and Cohen"

The Beasley Firm where that putz Mike Smerconish comes from (used to be Beasley, Casey & Erbstein) was called "The Beastly Firm"

Post & Schell was called "Piss & Smell"

McKissock & Hoffman was called "McKiss-Up & Hoffa"

Wooo boy, there were so many!

a friend of mine used to work for the Greeting Card Association, and she was Hallmarks' lobbyist, and apparently was a real bitch too.

and cinnamon cookies. How dare we?

of having young sons, and I suspect we're both kind of shocked at how easy it is for some of the so-called Democrats around here to leap to the conclusion of another boy's guilt based on his parents' money and a photo.

I thought people were presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of law.
Silly me.

Or was it the cinnaman cookies? Either way, I'll stop by the local bakery today and personally apologize.

Uh, whatever...


You become what you hate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...this type of kid is hardly representative of Duke from what I know of it -- they have a pretty diverse culture and the lacrosse team is hardly representative of it as a whole. He is probably more representative of lacrosse teams in general than the university itself. Aren't lacrosse players mostly well-to-do guys from the Northeast? Seems I read that somewhere but you can't believe all you read.

While I definitely think something happened that night, not sure this is one of the guys involved in whatever that was -- except that he was one of the ones leasing the house, was team captain, and was directly involved in hosting the party/procuring the dancer and encouraging underage drinking -- and that's bad enough. I'm just not ready to buy that he was involved in any rape that may have occurred.

I heard its pretty high. I also heard that many players graduate with honors. That doesn't represent the university well how?
I doubt if they do any community service project hours though

...I'm talking about how rich, white, lacrosse players don't necessary represent the general makeup of the Duke student body (ie: not that many of them are rich, white, etc.). Seems Duke has a reputation for being an "elitist" college that only rich, white folks go to and that's not true from what I've seen.

Wasn't talking about graduation rates at all.

this guy sure looked the part. Can someone post a pic, since I'm not that much of a tekkie.
Thanks:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is you.

Must be a young repub,right? I mean, blonde, rosy cheeks, pearls...

Nope, its the Programs Director for the College Democrats of America.

Not enough make up to be a repuke.

There is a lot of compassion in her face.

Hey - this could be a game show! *Guess the Party* - which of our lovely contestants are greedy, materialistic, militaristic republicans?

I know a couple democrat parents that have kids that are in jail or were in jail. They are good parents but the kids got caught up with the wrong crowd. That doesnt make them guilty of anything.

I think this case is very weak for the prosecution. Too many holes in the timeline and evidence. I would be amazed if they got a conviction.

how much effect her lobbying firm's representation of the Newspapers Association of America has had on the print reporting of this case.

You're the expert.

I'm certainly not about to disagree that I'm more of an "expert" than you are, but it really doesn't require any expertise. Just a connection with reality. In the real world, the NAA expends over a million and a half dollars in lobbying expenses each year. Rae Evans' firm gets around $120,000, or less than 10 percent of this sum. In the real world, the editors of the nation's newspapers probably have no freakin' clue who Rae Evans is. In the real world, if Rae Evans' son gets in trouble, she can't just pick up the phone and make the newspapers in this country do whatever it is that you think that they are doing with this story that works so well to her benefit.

Apparently in fantasy world, Rae Evans (who virtually no one on DU had ever heard of before this week) has so much influence on the media that she can, with a snap of her fingers, get the all-powerful NAA, whose membership includes newspapers of every political stripe, to place a call on a special "hotline" (sort of like the Batphone I guess) to every newsroom in the country telling them to spin the Duke rape story in favor of the players because, well, one of the kids' is Rae's kid.

Sound about right to you?

The newspapers in North Carolina (where many of the written stories originate before being copied ad nauseum) have probably never heard of her or her firm that represents them before either, is that right? She's just anonymous and invisible. Amazing that her lobbying firm has stayed in business, isn't it? She must be a piss-poor lobbyist. Silly to think that ANY slant has EVER been placed on any story at least in part due to her being his mother. Nah.

Truth be told, I don't know whether it has happened or not. Neither do you. It's a possibility. I will say that if Dave Evans and the other players had been poor white or black or Hispanic or Asian guys, they would have been treated very differently by "the system" and by the press. Wealth is power. And for quite awhile now, Republicans have most of the power in that way and others. If a college guy ends up in legal trouble (guilty or not), it sure doesn't hurt to have parents in high places. But since Rae Evans is your friend, which explains your position on all this, you suddenly have a kinder, gentler viewpoint of Republican wealth and influence, now that her and her husband's affiliations are known. You've spent a lot of energy on this thread trying to downplay everything connected to them. There's lots more to come, so you'll be busy. You might want to grab your Batphone and try to get a connection to reality.

The fantasy world isn't mine.

I don't "know" that all of the posters on DU aren't actually Martians create an Internet discussion board for me to play on. To quote a wise man: "Its a possibility." But I'm pretty certain that's not the case. And I'm just as certain that Rae Evans hasn't had a bit of influence on the newspaper coverage of the Duke rape case. In the great scheme of DC lobbying, Rae is a pretty small fish.

How small? Well, she doesn't represent the newspapers in North Carolina. She respresents a trade association that represents the newspaper industry as a whole. I know lobbyists that represent the National Association of Broadcasters. I can guarantee you that individual television and radio stations in NC have no idea who this person is and this person couldn't name the call sign of a station in NC on a bet.

But back to Evans. Not only does she not represent or have any reason to have dealings with any particular newspaper (as opposed to doing what she does, which is lobby Congress on matters of interest to the newspaper industry, like postal rates - you can look it up)-- she isn't even NAA's principal outside lobbyist. That would be Jack Ferguson...and I'd be willing to bet very few people have heard of him either. Yet his annual lobbying revenues were close to $3 million/year in 2004 (most recent available) while Evans Capitol earned $1.6 in its best year and, in 2004 (the most recent available) took in less than $1 million in lobbying revenues. While that might sound like a lot, its chump change in the DC lobbying world. PodestaMatoon, one of the better known firms, earns over $11 million/year. Anne Wexler's lobbying shop earns close to $8 million. Greenberg Traurig and Preston Gates, the two firms that have employed Jack Abramoff, reported $11 million plus and $7 million in 2004. By the way, I hate to break it to you: there are wealthy Democrats out there too.

So spare me the absurd speculation that Rae Evans can influence news coverage. THere is no reason to think that NAA can do that. Also spare me your fabrications about Rae Evans being my friend. Around five or six years ago, I represented a client on a project on which she also worked (it involved putting together a screening of a documentary (produced by the client) for members of a bi-partisan congressional coalition (whose members included Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, just to name a few). I probably met or spoke to Rae Evans a half dozen times on that project and haven't spoken with her or seen her since. I don't even know if I'd recognize her if I was in the same room with her. But I found nothing about my experience working with her -- despite our different political backgrounds -- that made me think she was a member of the lunatic fringe. Her contributions and friendships with Democrats like Dingell and McCarthy seemed to confirm that perception.

I will agree with you on one thing. If instead of an allegation of a sexual assault on an African-American woman performing as a stripper by a group of white athletes at one of the nation's premier universities, the young woman had claimed to be assaulted by a group of homeless guys in a bad part of Durham, this story would be covered differently. In fact, you wouldn't have heard about it all unless you happened to see the one-inch report something like that might get in the local paper. Presumably you don't think the lack of reporting about such a case is the result of some powerful people "getting" to the nation's newspapers and convincing them not to cover in order to protect the homeless guys. Or maybe you do. At this point, I don't know, and I don't care. Enjoy fantasy land. It suits you.

The posters on this board who don't like criminal justice matters being decided by anything other than facts presented in a court of law, to a jury of one's peers, are clearly and unmistakably paid flacks employed at Evans' mom's PR firm.

Why would they be posting their propaganda on DU? Well, that should be obvious: it's more than likely that potential jurors in this case are avidly following the case, not on the news, but on these particular boards.

:sarcasm:

Are we no better than the far right nutjobs?
Sure his parents giving money to bush shows they are idiots (or worst).

But we cannot condemn this young man based on political views!

And as far as the treatment of the alleged victim, the alleged criminals had their pictures splattered all over television SINCE DAY ONE before they even received a fair trial. Where is the justice in that?!


I detest that murdering son of a bitch in the white house as much as anyone here but I am not ready to play judge,jury and executioner before a trial just because of the families politics.

We can't let this bullshit, election stealing government take away our souls too. They already stole our democracy.

"I am not ready to play judge,jury and executioner before a trial just because of the families politics."

And I'm amazed, frankly, that so many people here seem willing to do just that.

On one side you have people ready to convict or condemn because this guy is the spawn of rich, white, Republican lobbyists.

On the other side you have people who won't objectively consider the possibility of guilt because the alleged victim is a sex worker.

so they must be there somewhere, but I haven't seen any.

There are a few people who will dance around the subject some.

In the bigger picture of course you can definitely find some of that on other boards not so concerned about using their "morals" as a fuel for their hate. That's one of the reasons I like it around here despite not being too political a person. For this type of issue there's such an intriguing balance.

fuel for their hate?

It was a poorly worded post on my part. What I was saying is that there are plenty of forums out there where people have no concerns about using their "morals" as fuel for hate, but I meant it 180 degrees differently than you interpreted it. By concerns I meant regrets or second thoughts. As in it doesn't bother them to stand on what they call a "moral" value to justify the ultimate immoral act of hate. Or another way of putting it is "it seems ironic that I'm hating someone because they don't conform to my moral standards, but I'm not concerned about that."

One of the things I'm really trying to work on is to be as open, understanding, supportive, and caring of everyone as I can. (I say I'm working on it because I really wasn't very good at it in the past and still have a long way to go.) Obviously there are limits to that because at some point people cross over the Rubicon of what you can tolerate as acceptable or forgivable actions. But each of us has our own list of unacceptable or unforgivable actions that resides on the other side of that line (or river to continue the analogy) and where you set that line is what defines you as a person. For some, being poor places a person outside their scope of understanding and caring. For others, being a Republican or Democrat puts someone there. And for some, being a sex worker puts a person beyond the line of caring or understanding.

My original point was that one of the reasons I find DU so interesting, particularly on this issue, is that there is a generally greater level of tolerance. Even on this thread which should punch the button pretty hard - the son of a rich, white, Republican supporter - there have been relatively few sickening comments when you think of it relative to the size of the community.

this little rich fucker's gonna squeal like the pig he is in prison.

and these fascist right wing dicks have always for centuries looked down on others as things to be used. This is why they think they can get away with this kinda crap.

provide the prosecutor with the evidence. He needs it.

tongue was firmly in cheek there, but...

a case could be made, probably has been; in another respect, the whole of human history is a story of families of great wealth and power using the rest of us for their purposes. The irish potato famine, slave trades, etc. That's one aspect of history, but not the only one.

or at least, I didn't see where it was planted

"According to research by Smith and Hattery, gang rapes at colleges break down this way: 55% involve fraternities, 40% involve men's teams, 5% involve others on campus. They presented their findings last week to a conference of The Drake Group, an organization of faculty and others that lobbies for academic integrity in college sports...."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/lacrosse/2006-04-07-violence-allegations_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA


That doesn't mean that all the frat boys do it of course... It does mean that society ought to be doing something about it - instead of looking away - allowing the "entitlement" to continue. Seems to me - on most issues - DU is pretty much in consensus about that. Why not be concerned about gang rape by entitled Republicans? Why the big defense? Makes no sense to me.

I would say that there is as much or more evidence for this crime than most crimes that we are concerned about. And I do see it as related. The rich parents who - if they are like other Washington Republicans aren't that concerned about the obeying laws they don't like. The sons of such rich parents. Sons who have different laws that they are interested in violating. Sons who are used to getting away with whatever they want.

Okay we have Evans figured out.

The other defendants:

Colin Finnerty - sounds Irish, probably Roman Catholic. One of the articles on his DC case referred to a "priest". Oooh, a priest, let's throw in some pedophile comments.

Reade Seligman - Are we also going to parade some anti-semitism around as well?

Now, there are certainly a number of Seligmans in New Jersey who have donated to Democrats. Anyone figured this family out yet?

Let's trot that out and assassinate some characters.

Can't believe how much I've been seeing of that in the Duke threads.

Nobody is interested in whether a player's name "sounds Irish".
Except you.

Nobody is interested in whether a player is Catholic.
Except you.

Nobody is interested in whether a player is Jewish.
Except you.

And nobody has mentioned pedophilia. Except you.

The rest of us are discussing Evans' family's republican connections.

Maybe you should find some like-minded people to engage in a flame-fest with -- I for one am not interested, and I doubt that most anyone else is, either.

Is it too much trouble for you to stay with the topic?

She donates to "mostly republicans"?

Translation please?

:shrug:

Evans' parents' contributions go principally to repubs, but seem to focus on a relatively small group, particularly women -- the repeat recipients included Nancy Johnson, Connie Morella, Susan Collins, Kay Baily Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe. Chimpy appears to have gotten $2000 ($1K in 1999, and $1K in 2003). The handful of Democrats that received money don't strike me as DLC-types -- Ed Markey, Barbara Mikulski, John Dingell, Ellen Tauscher, Tom Harkin, Karen McCarthy.

Sorry guys.

doesn't make this guy a rapist.

Ever seen this?



Know what it means?

And how dare you post a picture of a blindfolded woman.

and justice is blind, but why is she holding a knife?

Wears a blindfold and carries scales AND a sword.

The sword is for when she is finished with the scales.

Otherwise, she would just be from the Bureau of Weights and Measures, but she has quite a different job to do.

This thread is just as bad as the people in NC talking about Nifong and his affiliation for UNC and that's the reason he's going full throttle on the prosecution, just to get back at Duke. The two ideas are complete bullshit and not worth any more time spent on them.

The whole trial in the media and on these discussion boards of this incident is ridiculous... The matter has become a real-life bonfire of the vanities where people everywhere are just using the matter to make arguments on whatever platform it suites them with!

Assuming someone is guilty because of their economic status is just as bad as racism! People never cease to amaze me. It is a shame that people are content using this issue to widen the gulf between races and economic classes instead of finding ways to bring people together even if it is just for a reasonable discussion.

just another criminal that Bush will pardon in Jan.2009.1.Tom DeLay 2.his entire crooked,lying cabinet.

What it does is show that he was raised by chimpy supporters, and so just might be a young repug himself, making him a bit suspect in his views of the world. This could affect his thought processes as far as a sense of entitlement goes, which could have an influence on his behavior.
Not that it can be used in court or anything, but as a topic for discussion on this progressive website, his family's connections to the right are certainly within appropriate territory.

Discussion of his family's republican ties, and all that could be entailed therein, sure does bother a certain segment of posters around here. I wonder why?

are you sure your posting on the right site?

You must have me confused with someone else. Are you sure you're replying to the right poster?

all have some "common bond" and yes we are going to disagree on subjects but I would hope that we could discuss our different opinions instead of taking cheap shots and just being nasty. But I also think that the world can live in peace, guess I'm just a dreamer.

between posts #108 and #112. You must have been dreaming when you wrote one of them.

Well, no I can't. The only ones who can answer that question are the ones it applies to. Maybe you can answer it, since you said "we"?

Just more "hate-filled rhetoric" from me. I'm SUCH a rabble-rouser. ;)


BTW, were you going to answer your own question, or not?

If it was a meaningless, worthless question, that's your problem.

Now, this exchange between the two of us is getting tiresome.
Not just for me, but for everyone who scrolls through this thread, I'm sure.

Let's drop it, OK?

Peace.

he was raised in a ghetto, didn't have good male role models, was surrounded by violence all his life,AND LISTENS TO THAT AWFUL RAP MUSIC, so there's a good chance all this affected his thought processes and could have had an influence on his behavior? Or, all this doesn't "make him guilty of rape" but he was raised by those awful parents, and might be a young thug himself, and so be a bit suspect in the eyes of the world?

Nope.

What SHOULD be said isn't always what gets said, though, is it?

Should anyone have said the things about the AV that we've seen, because she's a stripper who reported a rape?

And just what is it you're arguing? That any discussion of a person's republican ties and/or behavior should be off-limits on a progressive political website? Okay....

Um....

Nice weather we're having in these parts, how about you?...

I thought we Democrats didn't believe in stereotyping people.

Or is a chimp-supporting repub a stereotype in itself/himself/herself?

Just wondering.

know about his parents.

see if, should either of them be Democrats (Jewish and Irish families often are, you know) your theory holds. If the Seligmans turn out to be Democrats, would that have 'an influence on his behavior'? And if some of us don't want to attribute his behavior to their politics, will we be in the 'certain segment of posters around here' who will be suspect?

Wait, that wouldn't make us all freepers would it? That we won't accept the guilt of the son of a wealthy Democrat, just because they're Dems? That is what you're saying, isn't it? That anyone who refuses to judge someone based on their status in society, rather than on the facts of the case, must be a freeper?

Try to understand, some people find it unconstitutional to jump to conclusions about the guilt of an accused person, simply because they are of a particular race, religion, status or gender. Is that so hard to comprehend? Do you really not understand that or are you deliberately twisting what many here are saying? I really can't tell what your point is.

I like the way our justice system is designed to work. I like the fact that justice is supposed to be blind to everything but the facts. But it won't work in reality, if so many refuse to be impartial until they know all the facts. And reading this thread, on a progressive site where I for one expect more of a sense of justice, is really pretty frightening in terms of being able to preserve that system. It's been very enlightening, but not in a good way.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is against the poor or the wealthy, black or white. Some rich people are actually decent. That seems to be beyond the comprehension of many here.

Reade Seligmann was is court yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/duke.rape/



As of now, one of the players has officially introduced "political capital" directly into the judicial proceedings. I'm sure it will soon be reported as to who the "senators and congressmen" vouching for Seligmann are. Will they be R's, or will they be Dems? Stay tuned...


edited to add link.

Character references are normal for bail hearings.

Playing the odds, the congressional delegation from the Seligman's home district are all D's.

from the same article...

Osborn said team members found the phone, along with the woman's purse, outside the house the day after she alleges she was raped. The team members turned the items over to police, he added.

There was no purse listed on the inventory of items seized from the residence. Osborn is either confused or full of it.

But getting back to privilege... it sure is hard to deny at least this guy is privileged when senators and congressmen write the court on his behalf. Like that ever happens for average non-privileged people. Rather proves the point that at least Seligmann has pull with people of influence, and his attorney recognizes that those senators and congressman have influence that will help him in court or he would have no reason to mention them.

There was no purse listed on the inventory of items seized from the residence. Osborn is either confused or full of it.

That inventory is from the search warrant executed two days later.

It wouldn't list anything given to police "the day after she alleges she was raped".

Why do you believe that would be listed on an inventory of items seized in a search conducted two days later?

It would be monumentally stupid to say they gave it to the police if they didn't do that, since the police would have had to have checked in anything given to them.

It just means he has rich republican relatives.

Does he look like your teenaged son or like the people who bullied you when you were a teenager?

WHAT?

I'm not even going to ask what you're trying to imply here.

I look at this picture and want the worst things to happen to him. I don't care if he's guilty or innocent of this crime, I wish him ill.

If anyone I loved or even liked looked vaguely like him, I would probably feel different.

A matter of perspective.

That jock is Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback, who is the Democratic candidate for Congress in the 11th District of NC, trying to unseat Charles Taylor and thus help the Democrats recapture control of Congress. Now, the 11th District, which is in the rural, western part of the state, is about as red as you can get. So its no surprise that Heath is a very conservative Democrat. But y'know what? I'll take him, and another vote for health care and jobs and for John Conyers as Judiciary Chairman, over Charles Taylor anyday.

http://www.heathshuler.com/

And here's another photo that might help:


This guy wasn't a jock. He was a geeky loner. His name is Jeffrey Dahmer.

I'm not saying I'm "right" I'm just saying how I feel. There's nothing a big-chinned arrogant musclebound jock could say or do to make me like him. On the other hand, I dislike most "geeky loners" as well. The guy up there would have my vote if I lived in his area, but he wouldn't be invited in my house. Democracy is, partly, the right to stay away from each other.

Or is any kind of jock offensive to you?

And what is it with big chins? Do you think that's a good indicator of personality type?

And I discriminate back. Sad, huh, and fuckin' hard. You will have to live with it because it is not going to change. I hate the whole culture that this person's image represents and I hope to watch it die a ghastly death. I've met a lot of people of every stripe and haven't met one to change my opinion.

I feel SO BAD for my dominators that they can't have my love and respect on top of all the power they wield over me.

:sarcasm:

if you have to.

That I am out here, hating people for being part of it. That's all I implied.

Couldn't have anything to do with the camera angle, could it?

which I've learned to rely on to survive.

I see a big beefy guy in a dress shirt and slacks, clean-cut, all-American looking, and I RUN LIKE HELL. Look on his face doesn't matter.

It's kept me mostly out of trouble. A lot of people would probably cross to the other side of the street if they saw me. Life is hard and society is a pretty cold place. I love the way the people who make it that way, ie jocks, rich people, politicians, preppies, the people in charge, have so much trouble DEALING with that shit than those of us holding the short end of the stick.

a better way to survive. And I'm sorry for whatever has happened in your life that left you in this painful situation.

I like my life. I live it FAR, FAR away from people who look like the young man in question. I have a fulfilling career and lots of great friends in my segregated world. Every once in a while something like this rape case reminds me of what else is out there and it brings back old, bad memories. Even if that guy is innocent I want to see him in prison. I want to see him in the position of fending for himself instead of relying on his status and whiteness and good looks. I want anyone who has these things to experience what I've experienced.

Maybe that makes me a bad person but there is absolutely nothing that can happen that will change the situation.

My political hope is that America will disintegrate possibly into a number of countries that will include one country where I feel at home. I also have thought of moving to several other countries where the mainstream is a little closer to me in terms of tastes, behavior, and culture. But I have been pretty successful at confining myself to the counterculture in America, it's only in the area of work that I interact with the mainstream, and I am pretty good at separating my personal feelings from what I do professionally.

In case you're actually wondering, I'm 32.

I'm glad to hear that you've made a life for yourself despite the hardships and I'm glad you don't need anyone's sympathy. I'm sorry if I came across as condescending.

My post with the pictures was meant to make a point about moving on and not viewing people based on stereotypes based on experiences of one's youth. However, you've explained your feelings with honesty and sincerity and I stand down from any suggestion of criticism of you personally. Despite our differences, we have some things in common, which are a desire for more equality and fairness in this country.

I have had power over jocks and their plasticky females when I worked as a college instructor. In my classroom they got the grades they earned. Of course, when they came to me for the special treatment to which they were accustomed they got what you might expect... The worst punishment for privileged people is being treated like everyone else. Which is, oddly enough, the only thing the disadvantaged want...

you become a father yourself . . . just a suggestion.

My father greatly resented my completely innocent brother for reminding him of the wrong people. It was awful to grow up with this.

Can't stand kids. So no worries.

one way or another.

Must be weird to deal with. Maybe the style represents something different from what it did in the place/time where you grew up?

think it's the style that has changed really. Having a daughter was easy for me. But when my son was born -- and I realized that the old issues were still alive for me -- I worked hard to purge them, for his sake.

There have always been clean cut jocks, and some have always been snots and some have always been okay. I just happened to know mostly the first variety when I was young. Through my son, and some of my friend's kids, I've become more acquainted with the other type. There are still plenty of snots, I'm sure, but I don't judge the book by the cover anymore.

And I'm not blaming you, really, Jed, for doing that, because you have your reasons. I'm just trying to suggest that you might be the one who ends up benefiting the most if you are able to conquer this.

Report or anywhere else on cable news tv. If a jury finds these guys committed a rape beyond a reasonable doubt then send them to prison; conversely, if the district attorney grossly overreached in bringing these charges then the he and the county should be sued. Either way, the judicial process will dispose of the matter whether or not the media plays backseat juror or lawyer. More importantly, we have a lap dog tabloid media fresh from it excursion to Aruba looking for more low impact journalism to feed its content instead of the worsening ongoing military, diplomatic, and economic catastrophe in Iraq, immoral current accounts deficit excacerbated by even more tax cuts without commensurate spending decreases, and the execute abrogation of the 4th amendment to name a few potential areas that might be of more national significance.

Is that true?

But the standard is very high; that's why I said gross overreaching (it can't be close at all); and there has to be an improper purpose. Bringing baseless charges to get yourself elected could qualify.

why the alleged victim is black!!








oh, uh, :sarcasm:

They look like Republicans!





:sarcasm:

Strom Thurmond!

two days ago... the duke boys were not guilty... case is nothing... now you know the parents and he's guilty.. is this room open to real discussion and thought????