Assault

The Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017, Story 1: The Great Outing of Sexual Abusers in Big Lie Media and Congress — The CREEP List Grows Longer and Longer — Abuse of Power — Videos — Story 2: A Two Charlie Day — Charlie Rose, Should Be Fired By CBS, and Charlie Manson, Dead At 83, Should Have Been Executed By State of California — Videos

Posted on November 20, 2017. Filed under: American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Desertion, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Employment, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Movies, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Story 1: The Great Outing of Sexual Abusers in Big Lie Media and Congress — The CREEP List Grows Longer and Longer — Abuse of Power — Videos —See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Sean Hannity 11/20/17 – Hannity Fox News Today November 20, 2017

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/20/17 – Tucker Carlson Tonight November 20, 2017 Fox News

The Amoral Predatory Professional Left Have the Sexual Hangups, Not the Right and Lawful Gunowners

The Deluge and Explosion of Sexual Harassment Claims Hits Epic Proportions With No End in Sight

Secret Congress Sexual Scandal, Rep. John Conyers Implicated | True News

She Said A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.

“When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”

Originally posted on 
Updated on 

BuzzFeed: John Conyers secretly settled sex harassment complaint by ex-employee

A stunning new BuzzFeed account throws Michigan Democratic Congressman John Conyers onto the growing roster of beloved public figures suddenly faced with accusations of sexually inappropriate behavior toward women.

BuzzFeed, in an article by Paul McLeod and Lissandra Villa posted late Monday, reports that Conyers settled a wrongful dismissal complaint with a former employee who charges she was fired because she wouldn’t “succumb to (his) sexual advances.”

Citing a complaint obtained by BuzzFeed including four signed affidavits from former staff members, the report says the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee made repeated sexual advances to female staff.

They allegedly included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, and rubbing their legs and backs in public.

The report goes on to bare “the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: A grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling … that she had no other option other than to stay quiet and accept the settlement …”

The article is entitled: “She Said That A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.”

Read more:

To learn more, read the BuzzFeed article.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/21/john-conyers-sexual-harassment-buzzfeed/883868001/

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Broaddrick, Willey, Jones Praise ‘Hero’ Drudge, Slam Mainstream Media

In an exclusive video interview recently recorded at the presidential suite of the historic Watergate Hotel, the victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults – Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones – blasted the mainstream news media while praising Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, as well as Breitbart News for fairly reporting on their stories.

Watch the video below:

The women recalled how Drudge on January 17, 1998 broke the story alleging Newsweekwas sitting on a bombshell news item that White House intern Monica Lewinsky was having an affair with President Clinton.

Stated Broaddrick: “Drudge was my hero. Absolutely my hero during all of that time. I could go to Drudge and know what was going on or you could go to the mainstream media, which Drudge now is. I mean they blasted him. This man stood up for us. Matt Drudge is our hero.” Willey and Jones expressed agreement.

“No, they are saying crawl back in the woodwork where you belong,” stated Broaddrick.

“Exactly. You are just women,” continued Willey, referring to what she said was the media’s poor treatment of Clinton’s sexual assault accusers. “And you are bimbos. And you are trailer trash. And you are sluts. And nobody cares what you have to say.”

“You do not matter,” stated Broaddrick. “Go back where you were.”

The three women made the statements during an until now unreleased section of an extensive video interview recorded last month.

Willey’s words about the media allegedly calling Clinton’s female accusers “sluts” were recorded weeks before “The View” host Joy Behar landed in hot water by seemingly referring to Clinton’s accusers as “tramps.”

“I want to apologize,” Baher said earlier this month, the day after she made the controversial comments. “I never, ever intend to belittle sexual assault and the women who are victims of it ever… I made a joke… I’m sorry.”

Baher made the remarks in question during a discussion about Donald Trump bringing Willey and two other Clinton sexual assault accusers, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, to the second presidential debate earlier this month.

Fox News reported on the televised conversation:

“The View” host Sunny Hostin suggested that Hillary Clinton may have missed an opportunity to address the controversy during the second presidential debate.

“This is the thing though… If a woman sleeps with your husband, you’re not going to necessarily embrace them… That’s why when he brought up these allegations, I wonder if she missed the opportunity to address it in a way that the public would understand…” Hostin mused.

Behar disagreed, joking that there wasn’t much Hillary Clinton could say to the women.

Behar suggested the Democratic nominee could say: “ ‘I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.’ Maybe she could have said that.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/02/exclusive-video-broaddrick-willey-jones-praise-hero-drudge-breitbart-slam-mainstream-media/

Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls

 November 20 at 4:43 PM
Charlie Rose accused of making unwanted sexual advances

Charlie Rose accused of making unwanted sexual advances by multiple women 

Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the “Charlie Rose” show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS, also co-hosts “CBS This Morning” and is a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes.”

There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.

Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.

“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.

“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.

“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”

Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.

Reah Bravo was an intern and then associate producer for Rose’s PBS show beginning in 2007. In interviews, she described unwanted sexual advances while working for Rose at his private waterfront estate in Bellport, N.Y., and while traveling with him in cars, in a hotel suite and on a private plane.


Two women who worked for Charlie Rose say he emerged from a shower and walked naked in front of them while they were working at his home or traveling with him for business. Above, Rose at home in Bellport, N.Y. (Ben Baker/Redux)

“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” she told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, one of Rose’s assistants in the mid-2000s, recalled at least a dozen instances where Rose walked nude in front of her while she worked in one of his New York City homes. He also repeatedly called the then-21-year-old late at night or early in the morning to describe his fantasies of her swimming naked in the Bellport pool as he watched from his bedroom, she said.

“It feels branded into me, the details of it,” Godfrey-Ryan said.

She said she told Yvette Vega, Rose’s longtime executive producer, about the calls.

“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’ ”

In a statement to The Post, Vega said she should have done more to protect the young women on the show.

“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

Godfrey-Ryan said that when Rose learned she had confided to a mutual friend about his conduct, he fired her.

Megan Creydt worked as a coordinator on the show from 2005 to 2006, overlapping with Godfrey-Ryan.

“It was quite early in working there that he put his hand on my mid-thigh,” said Creydt, who agreed to be interviewed on the record to support other women who were coming forward with what she deemed to be more serious claims concerning Rose.

She said that during the incident, Rose was driving his Mini Cooper in Manhattan while she was sitting in the passenger seat.

“I don’t think I said anything,” she said. “I tensed up. I didn’t move his hand off, but I pulled my legs to the other side of the car. I tried not to get in a car with him ever again. I think he was testing me out.”

Her then-boyfriend confirmed to The Post that she told him the story at the time.

In addition to the eight women who say they were harassed, The Post spoke to about two dozen former employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Six said they saw what they considered to be harassment, eight said they were uncomfortable with Rose’s treatment of female employees, and 10 said they did not see or hear anything concerning.

“He was always professional with me,” said Eleonore Marchand Mueller, a former assistant of Rose’s who worked for him from 2003 to 2005. “I never witnessed any unprofessional incidents.”

The show’s small, informal structure, with roughly 15 employees, and the centrality of Rose’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the women who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said.

The employees worked for Charlie Rose Inc., and not Bloomberg LP or PBS, which said they did not provide human resources support for the show.

The environment brimmed with the young and potentially vulnerable, hungry for scarce television jobs. “There are so few jobs,” said one of the women who said Rose groped her. “You know if you don’t behave a certain way, there’s someone else behind you.”

Rose traveled frequently, jetting off to interview world leaders across the globe and splitting time between two New York City residences and homes in Bellport — on Long Island — and North Carolina. Often at his side was a rotating cast of young assistants and producers.


The informal structure of Rose’s small show — with roughly 15 employees — and the centrality of the veteran journalist’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the woman who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said. Above, Rose at a gala in New York on Oct. 30, 2017. (Mike Coppola/Getty Images for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy)

The young women who were hired by the show were sometimes known as “Charlie’s Angels,” two former employees said. Rose frequently gave unsolicited shoulder rubs to several of them, behavior referred to among employees as “the crusty paw,” a former employee said.

Rumors about Rose’s behavior have circulated for years. One of the authors of this report, Outlook contributing writer Irin Carmon, first heard and attempted to report on the allegations involving two of the women while she was a journalist at Jezebel in 2010 but was unable to confirm them. In the past several weeks in the wake of accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Carmon and Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain jointly began contacting dozens of men and women who had worked on the “Charlie Rose” show or interviewed for jobs there.

A woman then in her 30s who was at the Bellport home in 2010 to discuss a job opportunity said Rose appeared before her in an untethered bathrobe, naked underneath. She said he subsequently attempted to put his hands down her pants. She said she pushed his hands away and wept throughout the encounter.

A woman who began as an intern in the late 1990s and was later hired full time described a “ritual” of young women at the show being summoned by Rose to his Manhattan apartment to work at a desk there. The woman described a day when Rose went into the bathroom, left the door open and turned on the shower.

She said he began to call her name, insistently. She ignored him, she said, and continued working. Suddenly, he came out of the bathroom and stood over her. She turned her head, briefly saw skin and Rose with a towel and jerked back around to avoid the sight. She said he said, “Didn’t you hear me calling you?”

She said she told someone in the office, and word got around. A few days later, she said, a male colleague approached her, laughing, “Oh, you got the shower trick.” The woman’s sister confirmed that her sibling had told her about the shower incident soon after it occurred.

Another woman said that during her internship in the early 2000s, Rose groped her breasts and stomach as she drove him from Bellport back to Manhattan. Her then-boyfriend, now husband, confirmed that she described the incident to him immediately after it occurred. When Rose invited her to work regularly and stay overnight at Bellport, her boyfriend told her to refuse the offer, and she did, both told The Post.

Prestige and fear

Rose’s eponymous show, with its trademark black background and round oak table, has been in production since 1991. What it lacks in mass viewership, the “Charlie Rose” show makes up for in prestige and high-profile bookings of the likes of former president Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett. Rose’s show is produced by Charlie Rose Inc., an independent television production company, and distributed by PBS. It is filmed at Bloomberg headquarters in Manhattan.

Rose’s stature has only grown in recent years.

CBS tapped him in 2011 to help revamp its ailing morning show, now called “CBS This Morning,” expanding his audience. He has also been a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes” for nearly a decade. His 2013 interview of Syria’s president won Emmy and Peabody awards. (None of the women who made accusations against Rose to The Post worked for PBS or CBS.)

Representatives from PBS, CBS and Bloomberg said they have no records of sexual harassment complaints about Charlie Rose.

When Time magazine named Rose one of its 100 most influential people in 2014, billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described him as “one of the most important and influential people in journalism.”


Rose joined “CBS This Morning” in 2011. Here, he’s seen with co-anchor Norah O’Donnell, left, and Gayle King on March 13, 2017. (Michele Crowe/CBS via Getty Images)

Rose, who was divorced in 1980, has long had a reputation as a ladies man. His “CBS This Morning” co-host, Norah O’Donnell, introduced him at a 2014 fundraiser dinner by joking, “We’re all here because with Charlie Rose, one woman is never enough.” Rose graciously accepted honors that night by saying that he was lucky to have worked throughout his career with “women who were smarter, more thoughtful and more eloquent than I was.”

There was also less flattering coverage. The now-defunct Radar magazine in 2007 called him a “toxic bachelor” and repeated an unnamed woman’s claim that Rose had “palmed her buttock like a honeydew.” His then-attorney, David Boies, who has recently drawn criticism for his representation of Harvey Weinstein, demanded a retraction. The magazine refused.

The “Charlie Rose” show prides itself on its highbrow intellectual ambition, but his life is glamorous, full of black-tie galas and famous friends. He can be charming and generous, consulting favored employees for their opinions on what to ask heads of state or whisking them off to exotic locations for interviews. But his wrath was swift and often fiercely personal, according to interviews with multiple former employees.

“Everybody is terrified of him,” said one of the women who said that Rose groped her when she was an intern. “He creates this environment of constant fear. And then he’ll shine a spotlight on you and make you feel amazing.”

Multiple women said they had at first been reassured by the presence of Vega, Rose’s executive producer, who has worked with him for decades. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega.

‘His poor judgment’

Working for the “Charlie Rose” show was a longtime dream for Reah Bravo, who in 2007 was a 29-year-old graduate student studying international affairs at Columbia University. She struggled to make ends meet during her unpaid internship, accruing credit card debt and eating free cereal in the Bloomberg food court.

One day, several months into the internship, Rose offered her a side gig at his home in Bellport on Long Island.

“Here is the deal: I’ll pay you $2,500 for the week plus all expenses for food, movies etc.,” he wrote to her on Aug. 9, 2007. “You will be there from Monday August 13-Friday afternoon, August 17. Your primary responsibilities are to organize and catalogue all my books and tapes and files … It will help me a lot, be fun for you, and you will have a car all the time for whatever you need to do.”

Before she left for Bellport, Bravo said Vega told her that personal time with Rose was a key to becoming part of the team.


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Bravo said she took the train to Bellport, where she said Rose met her at the Ronkonkoma station and took her to a bank to withdraw money to cover her expenses. She stayed at the Bellport home for about a week, sleeping in a bedroom in the main house. Rose was gone much of the time.

While she was there, Bravo said she received a message from a male producer. If Rose did anything “sketchy,” she said he told her, she should not hesitate to call the show’s car service to return home.

Late one night, Bravo said, Rose returned home after a night out. She said she tried to hurry out of the library in the guesthouse to return to her bedroom in the main house before Rose came in, but he intercepted her. She said he insisted that they have a glass of wine at the dining room table in the main house.

Then, he suggested they walk out to his dock and look at the moon, Bravo said. Once there, “he came up from behind me and he put his arms around me,” she said, remembering that she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.”

Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.

A day or two later, Bravo said, Rose drove her back to Manhattan. She said he began to tell her that he felt very alone in life, despite his wealth and success. He recalled a brush with death a year earlier during heart surgery in Paris and began to tear up, and she said she patted him on the shoulder to console him.

“I didn’t necessarily buy it,” she said. “I thought, ‘I’ll keep my distance and I feel sorry for him.’ But I didn’t think of him as a predator at that time.”

Bravo soon returned to Bellport for a second trip. She was working in the guesthouse and caught a glimpse of Rose rinsing off nude in an unenclosed outdoor shower. She said she quickly averted her eyes and moved away from the window.

Later, he asked if she had seen him showering, she said, and seemed disappointed when she said no. While at Bellport, Bravo said Rose repeatedly insisted that he needed to hear that she was comfortable at Bellport and how much she enjoyed it there.

She emailed him about her work ideas and also mentioned Bellport.

“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort…that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”

That fall, she traveled with Rose to Aspen for a conference. On Oct. 1, after the trip, Bravo wrote an email to Vega, alluding to earlier issues with Rose:

“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”

Vega responded the same day:

“I have some concerns for you especially in what you are trying to tell me in this email. Please know the following about me, I have worked with Charlie for 16 years, so there is nothing that I haven’t heard or possibly experienced – and that anything you ever reveal to me would be kept in confidence from anyone and from the top down, so that you can feel comfortable in that confidence…”


From left: Rose, “Charlie Rose” show executive producer Yvette Vega and Beth Hoppe, a PBS executive, speak at the 2013 Summer Television Critics Association tour in Beverly Hills, Calif. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega. In a statement, Vega says she regrets not doing more to protect the young women on the show. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)

Toward the end of 2007, Bravo was given more responsibilities and Rose occasionally paid her for helping him prepare for interviews, speeches and conferences. Her new duties required more travel with Rose, and he frequently requested her company for working dinners, she said.

Rose would regularly hire drivers to take them around town. On more than one occasion, she said, he groped her in the back seat. One time, she said, he “grabbed me by my hair, holding a fist of it at the base of my scalp.” More than once, “he would grip my head tightly while talking to me. He held it so tightly that I couldn’t turn my neck in any direction. I was forced to look at him or to let him talk directly into my ear.”

In Indiana for a speaking engagement in March 2008, Rose summoned Bravo to his hotel suite to work on his speech. While she was working at a desk in the room, she said, he emerged naked from the shower and stood before a mirror where she could see him. She said she ignored him and kept working.

Later, flying on a small private plane alone with Rose, she said he requested that they watch a documentary about Algeria on a portable DVD player. Suddenly, she said, Rose got out of his seat and pressed his body onto hers.

“I felt at a loss. I mean, what am I going to do? We were how many feet up in the air?” she said, adding that they remained clothed. “I remember him being on top of me.”

Bravo said Rose’s advance was bizarre, brief and “animalistic.” Then he returned to his seat.

“I felt an immense sense of shame that I had greenlighted his actions because I didn’t fight back,” she said.

Bravo said she locked eyes with one of the two pilots as she disembarked. She said she interpreted his expression as one of “sympathy or maybe disgust.”

Later in 2008, she was hired as an associate producer but was already looking for another job. The same year, Bravo was offered a job that paid three times as much as the one at the “Charlie Rose” show. In response, Rose took her to the Spotted Pig, a well-known restaurant in Manhattan, and dangled a position as a producer in Washington. She could even live in a Georgetown residence where he sometimes stayed, she said he told her.

She said she declined.

“I was leaving because I was getting away,” she said. “I would never want to live someplace where he had keys.”

Since then, Bravo has worked as a corporate speechwriter and now lives in Europe with her husband and their young son.

In retrospect, Bravo said she feels shame and embarrassment about her warm correspondence with Rose.

“I read old emails, and I sound so sycophantic, it makes me sick,” she said. “But it was what he wanted, it made my work easier, and to an extent, it was the same game most staff members played. Male staffers did it, too. They just weren’t feeling as pathetic about it.”

Looking back, she is struck by how calculated Rose’s approach seemed.

“He most definitely said, on numerous occasions, ‘I’ve never forced you to do something you didn’t want to do,’ ” she said. “He would say this forcefully and wait for my confirmation after he said this. I remember once wondering if I was being recorded.”

Blurred lines

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was in her early 20s and had taken time off from her college studies in the mid-2000s when a friend offered to introduce her to Charlie Rose. She was unfamiliar with his show but was soon hired to be his assistant.

From the beginning, there was a blurring of the boundaries between Rose’s professional and private life, she said. On her first day on the job, Rose injured his foot. She tended to him as he recovered.

But soon, Godfrey-Ryan said, he began yelling at her, calling her stupid and incompetent and pathetic.

“He repeatedly attacked her in front of other people,” recalled a former producer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He once said that because she hadn’t gotten a college degree she would never amount to anything better than his secretary.”

After the bouts of rage, Godfrey-Ryan said, Rose would often be conciliatory.

“It would usually entail some version of him also touching me,” she said. “A hand on the upper thigh. He’d give a hug but touch the side of the breast.”

She said she ignored his actions. Then he began calling her as late as midnight and as early as 6 a.m.

“It would be wanting to know details of my sex life,” she said. “ ‘Who’s next to you? What do you do? Is he touching you?’ And I was like, ‘Okay, Charlie, I’ll see you tomorrow.’ I just acted like it wasn’t happening.”

She said other calls involved a “very specific, repetitive fantasy” of her disrobing at the Bellport home and swimming “back and forth in the pool in the moonlight” as he watched from his bedroom.

Her boyfriend at the time, now her husband, told The Post that he was often present for these calls but said he did not know what was being discussed. The content of the calls, however, was openly discussed in the office and even joked about, according to Godfrey-Ryan and the producer who worked there at the time.

Godfrey-Ryan also said Rose would repeatedly walk in front of her naked at one of his New York City residences. Her husband confirmed that she complained to him about it at the time.

She said she ignored the nudity. “He was getting more and more frustrated that I wouldn’t engage,” she said.

Godfrey-Ryan said she reported the touching and the calls to Vega, but nothing happened.

“She just made me feel like I was being a dramatic little girl,” Godfrey-Ryan said. She stopped reporting the behavior.

Godfrey-Ryan said she eventually confided to a mutual friend outside the show about Rose, and the friend told Rose.

She said Rose fired her.

“He took me out to lunch and told me how embarrassed he was, how he didn’t treat me like that,” she said. “It was really about how I got it wrong, and, obviously, I couldn’t work there anymore.”

She later went back to school at Columbia. She has since launched her own business, Tune.Studio, which uses infrasonic wave technology to treat stress and improve moods, leading to “peace and happiness.”

“It makes me a little upset to see him on television,” she said. “Everything I experienced with journalism there made me not want to stay.”

A job interview, then denial

Another woman gave multiple interviews to The Post about her experience with Rose but requested anonymity out of concern for her privacy.

In 2009, she was in her mid-30s, looking to break into broadcast journalism after studying politics and earning her graduate degree in Europe. While working at a cultural foundation in New York City, her boss offered to put her in touch with Charlie Rose.

Rose responded with interest.

The meetings that followed, she said, were unconventional: a dinner at a restaurant, late at night with Rose’s prominent friends, where he drank a lot of wine. A sudden weekend invitation to lunch continued with her tagging along as Rose shopped for furniture. When he drove her home, she said she listened in alarm as he berated a producer over the phone.

Then he turned to the job applicant. “He put his hand on my knee and said, ‘Oh, I’m sorry about that,’ ” she said. “He said, ‘I hope you don’t mind, I’m from the South, we’re touchers.’ ”

No job offer came, but on June 8, 2010, Rose got back in touch, according to an email the woman provided. She was still unemployed and the job Rose described sounded ideal.

“He talked about this position, which he referred to as being his intellectual partner, that I would be the executive producer for global content,” she recalled.

By now, she had been told the unorthodox interview process was standard because of Rose’s packed schedule and desire to do the hiring for all positions by himself.

As part of the process, she visited Bloomberg’s Manhattan office and also discussed the job with Rose at his apartment.

“My producers come here all the time to work,” she said he told her.

She said Rose mentioned a salary of $120,000, described the job as involving frequent international travel and asked for references. Rose soon suggested they see how they traveled together by having her visit his Bellport house, she said.

On June 18, Rose sent her an email inviting her to the house that evening.

“As I mentioned, I’m going to my place on long island tonight to write…and then coming back tomorrow for a dinner. This is to invite to visit…

“You have your own wing of the house, or even a guesthouse, It’s on the water, plus Olympic pool, tennis court, plenty of movies and books and sailing and I run on the beach at sunrise and sunset…This has no influence on our dialogue about work projects.”

He added near the end of the email: “Bring someone if you like. I’m on deadline, so i will be writing all the time and will not be entertaining except breaks for exercise and meals. Let me know…before noon.”


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Eager to land the job, the woman agreed to travel with Rose to Bellport, which is about 60 miles from Manhattan.

She gave the following account:

That evening, after stopping for dinner and getting lost, they arrived at the house after midnight. She did not see anyone else there. Rose proposed she choose a DVD of his show that they could watch together. After the show, Rose gave her a tour of the property. The guesthouse, she noticed, was packed with clutter, uninhabitable.

At the pool, Rose dangled his legs in the water and then said that he needed to change because his pant legs were wet. He returned wearing a white bathrobe, which was open; he wore nothing underneath.

“I thought, I’m doomed,” she said. “I was completely panicked. In retrospect, I thought of a million things I could have done.”

She said she was not intoxicated — Rose had drunk his wine and then hers at the restaurant — but said he appeared to be. It was nearly 2 a.m. and she was exhausted, she said. She also said she felt alone and powerless. It was the middle of the night, they were on his secluded property, and she did not know how to drive.

“I started talking in this feeble and compulsive way,” she said. “I started talking about power, how the abuse of power can be. He completely lost it. ‘What are you talking about? That’s certainly not the case.’ ”

She said he then tried to put a hand down her pants.

“By the time he touched me the first time, he was already very angry,” she said. “I was scared, and I was also kind of frozen.”

After that, her memory is “hazy,” she said. They ended up in his bedroom.

“I really, honestly, I’ve tried so hard, especially recently, since I’ve been thinking about this, to try to remember what happened between sitting by the pool and being in his bed,” she said. “I have no recollection of how we went from here to there. I do remember I was crying the entire time.”

He reached down her pants again, she said, and she pushed his hands away. As she wept, she said, Rose asked her, “Baby, oh baby, why are you crying?”

The encounter ended when he appeared to be asleep and she felt she could leave the room, she said.

The next day, she said there was little mention of what had happened. She described the previous night to him “as a bit of a disaster” and he said, “What do you mean?”

A few days later, she followed up about the job.

In retrospect, she said, “Remaining silent allowed me to continue denying what had occurred. It was in that state of denial that I wrote to him asking about the job.”

He replied with his regrets.

“The whole thing was really the most humiliating and most degrading experience I’ve ever had,” the woman says now. A friend she confided in at the time described her as having been “distraught” in recounting what happened.

“To have been used in the way she was left her feeling really confused and really distressed,” the friend told The Post. The friend encouraged her to write about her experience, and she chose to do so as a short story.

In one of the drafts that she shared with The Post, a tall, drawling television host named “Johnny Pose” brings a young woman to his country home on Long Island to discuss a job opportunity.

The woman said she changed some key details about what happened by the pool. And in the story, unlike in real life, she said, she viewed the host with contempt rather than fear.

She said she submitted the story to several magazine editors in 2010 and 2011. Paris Review editor Lorin Stein declined to publish the story but wrote to her in March 2011, “It has the ring of truth (alas).”

The woman titled the story, “The Hunt.” The double entendre, she said, was intentional.

“I was hunting for a job,” she told The Post, “and he was hunting for me.”

Julie Tate and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eight-women-say-charlie-rose-sexually-harassed-them–with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.555970bb7b10

New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush in the White House briefing room on February 24.
 Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Sexual harassment claims against yet another powerful man in media inspired New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush to post an impassioned note on his Facebook page in October, calling on his fellow journalists to stand by women entering the field.

In the post, which linked to an article about the latest accusations against political journalist Mark Halperin, Thrush wrote, “Young people who come into a newsroom deserve to be taught our trade, given our support and enlisted in our calling — not betrayed by little men who believe they are bigger than the mission.”

It was a noble statement — but some Washington journalists I spoke to say it rings hollow, given Thrush’s own behavior with young women in the industry.

“He kept saying he’s an advocate for women and women journalists,” a 23-year-old woman told me, recounting an incident with Thrush from this past June. “That’s how he presented himself to me. He tried to make himself seem like an ally and a mentor.”

She paused. “Kind of ironic now.”

Thrush, 50, is one of the New York Times’s star White House reporters whose chronicles of the Trump administration recently earned him and his frequent writing partner Maggie Haberman a major book deal.

Thrush and the young woman met at her colleague’s going-away party at a bar near the Politico newsroom, she told me,and shared a few rounds of drinks in a booth. The night, she said, ended on a Washington street corner, where Thrush left her in tears after she resisted his advances.

The encounter was troubling enough to the woman that her friend Bianca Padró Ocasio, also 23 and a journalist, confronted Thrush about his behavior via text message the next day.

“I want to make sure you don’t lure young women aspiring journalists into those situations ever again,” she texted. “So help me out here. How can I do that?”

Bianca Padró Ocasio confronted Glenn Thrush over text message about his behavior the night before with her friend, a 23-year-old journalist. Some messages have been redacted to protect the friend’s privacy.
Screenshots courtesy of Bianca Padró Ocasio

Thrush was apologetic but defensive.

“I don’t lure anybody ever,” he wrote, according to screenshots provided by Padró Ocasio. “I got drunk because I got some shitty health news. And I am acutely aware of the hurdles that young women face in this business and have spent the better part of 20 years advocating for women journalists.”

If Thrush is acutely aware of what young women face in the business of political journalism, he should also know it’s because he himself is one of the problems women face. Five years ago, when Thrush and I were colleagues at Politico, I was in the same bar as Padró Ocasio’s friend — perhaps the same booth — when he caught me off guard, put his hand on my thigh, and suddenly started kissing me. Thrush says that he recalls the incident differently.

Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differentlyabout these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.

Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.

“I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable,” Thrush said in a statement emailed to me on November 19.

In interviews with about 40 people in and around media who know Thrush, I got a picture of a reporter whose title doesn’t capture his power and stature. People who’ve worked with him say he can get a writer’s name in front of the right editor, if he wants. Newsroom leaders care what he thinks. Some reporters said Thrush had usedhis connections to help them land jobs or develop new sources.

When just sitting at a bar with a powerful man comes at a price

The downfall of Hollywood titan Weinstein has been a catalyst for a movement to stamp out workplace harassment, particularly the variety to pits powerful men against much less powerful women. They are facing consequences for their behavior like never before, including men in media. Halperin lost a coveted book deal. NPR news chief Michael Oreskes resigned. Leon Wieseltier lost funding for his new magazine. And Lockhart Steele, the editorial director of Vox Media, Vox’s parent company, was firedfor misconduct.

Thrush wasn’t my boss at Politico. He was a reporter and I was an editor. We were on different teams and hardly crossed each other’s paths. But he was an incredibly influential person in the newsroom and in political journalism, a world I was still trying to break into in a meaningful way at the time.

It wasn’t that Thrush was offering young women a quid pro quo deal, such as sex in exchange for mentorship. Thrush, just by his stature, put women in a position of feeling they had to suck up and move on from an uncomfortable encounter.

On that night five years ago, I joined Thrush and a handful of other reporters for a few rounds at the Continental, a Politico hangout in Rosslyn, Virginia. At first, nothing seemed strange, until the crowd had dwindled down to Thrush, me, and one other female colleague.

Thrush tossed a $20 bill at her and told her to take a cab and leave us, “the grown-ups,” alone. He slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.

In the morning, Thrush sent me an apologetic email. I didn’t save it, but I recall it as similar to the one he would later send to Padró Ocasio’s friend in June. He said he was sorry, but he didn’t say for what, exactly.

A few hours later, I saw him in deep conversation with a number of men I worked with. My gut told me something was up. I worried he was covering his tracks by spreading a rosy version of the night. As many people told me in the course of reporting this story, Thrush is a talker — or, as many put it, “a bullshitter.” He likes to hear gossip, and he likes to spread it.

Gradually, things in the office started to change for me. Certain men in the newsroom, I thought, started to look at me differently. Some of their comments seemed a bit too familiar or were outright offensive. I had a nagging sense that I just wasn’t as respected as I used to be.

I started to think maybe I shouldn’t be in journalism if I couldn’t hang in a tough newsroom. I found myself on edge, nervous and anxious all the time. I started to believe I had brought this all on myself.

In the course of reporting this story, I was told by a male reporter who’d worked at Politico at the time that my instinct was right. He said that the day after that night at the bar, Thrush told him about the incident, except with the roles reversed. I had come onto him, the reporter said Thrush told him, and he had gently shut it down.

In a statement, Thrush denied that he disparaged me to colleagues at Politico. He said that “the encounter described [in this story] was consensual, brief, and ended by me.”

The source said that Thrush frequently told versions of this story with different young women as the subject. He would talk up a night out drinking with a young attractive woman, usually a journalist. Then he’d claim that she came onto him. In his version of these stories, Thrush was the responsible grown-up who made sure nothing happened.

There was no conventional HR office at Politico at the time (a VP of human resources position was created there in 2016). So I brought my concern about the night to an experienced colleague right after the incident. When I believed rumors were damaging my standing in the office a few months later, I told a very senior editor. I was under the impression that nothing could be done. A spokesperson for POLITICO Brad Dayspring emphasized that no formal complaint ever reached the general counsel’s desk and that both the colleague and senior editor in question had left POLITICO years ago.

Women have a very different story to tell

One former Politico staffer told me that she’d become worried about her reputation after an encounter with Thrush sometime in the winter of 2012-’13. The scene was, again, a Politico going-away party. She said she and Thrush spoke most of the night, until they ended up the last two of the party left in the bar. She says she’d had a lot to drink and Thrush offered her a ride home.

Her recollection of the details is fuzzy, but one way or another, he ended up in her place.

“I had alcohol blur,” she says. But Thrush was far from being the grown-up who preventedthings from going too far; instead, she says, she was the one to raise objections. “I remember stopping him at one point and saying, ‘Wait, you’re married.’” After that, she says, he left almost immediately. “I remember that by the time he left, I didn’t have much clothes on.”

The woman says she was struggling at Politico at the time, and she wondered if gossip might have made her situation worse. “I don’t know if he told other male reporters or editors. Did that shade their opinion of me? There’s no way to know.”

She says she doesn’t believe she was pressured or that she’s a victim.

But she also says she wants others to know about what happened.

“The only regret I have is not telling more women. I told two. What if I had told five?”

One of the two women she told at the time shared with me her recollection of the conversation. “I remember she kept reemphasizing that they were both really drunk, that it was consensual,” the friend said. “And she did not believe it was an assault. But I do remember she was very rattled and upset and ashamed of what she saw as her role in it.”

Another woman described to me a 2013 Politico party that she attended in her early 20s. She said she was standing alone, Thrush came up to talk to her, and suddenly he leaned in and landed a wet kiss on her ear.

“It all happened very quickly. And he leaned in very quickly,” she said. “At the time, I remember thinking … adults sometimes kiss each other on the cheek. Then sometimes they miss and slobber on your ear. It was my way of thinking this wasn’t as weird as I thought.”

Over time, the “whisper network” of warnings about Thrush has grown louder

A 21-year-old woman arrived in Washington last year to intern in a journalism organization. She heard from people who don’t even work with Thrush to be careful. An employee at the Washington Post told her about him when she first arrived. A few months later, she says, a reporter at Roll Call warned her about him, too. She passed on the intel to four other female interns.

Multiple young women journalists I spoke to said that they’d heard serious warnings about Thrush from friends. The word among women just starting in Washington, they said, is to be careful if you meet him at an event with alcohol, or if he sends you a direct message on Twitter. (Thrush suspended his Twitter account in September, saying it was too much of a distraction.)

There’s something endearing and inspiring about interns who self-organized to guard themselves and each other against advances offered under guise of praise and professional advice — but there’s also something sad about a world in which the savvy move is to teach a young woman not to trust an older man who has something nice to say about her work.

And whispers don’t fix everything. When Bianca Padró Ocasio’s friend found herself at the bar with Thrush in June, with him asking her to leave and go to another bar with him, she went to the bathroom and texted Padró Ocasio and another female friend, both of whom were also in journalism.

“I’m drunk,” she texted, as saved screenshots of the messages show. “I’m nervous about this Glenn situation.”

The friends urged her to call an Uber.

“I am,” she responded. “I need to go home.”

“Who else is there??” one friend asked. “Is there a woman you can uber home with?”

Instead, the woman ended up leaving the bar with Thrush, who suggested they walk off some of their drinking — get some fresh air.

He repeatedly tried to take her hand as they walked, she recalls, but she kept pulling it away. They crossed the Key Bridge from the Virginia neighborhood where Politico’s office is located into Georgetown. He led her down an incline to a dimly lit path along the old C&O Canal bed. He kissed her, she says, and she panicked. Then her phone rang, jolting her. It was Padró Ocasio.

“I felt very protective of her,” Padró Ocasio said, describing the call. “I thought, she’s drunk right now. If I don’t do something, I’m not going to forgive myself.”

The young woman ordered an Uber — the receipt shows it was about 11 pm — and says she planned to call Padró Ocasio back once inside the car. In the few minutes she waited, she said, Thrush walked back over to her and started to kiss her again. She began to cry. When Thrush saw, he abruptly walked off, waving his hand flippantly, and left her alone to wait for her ride, she said.

Glenn Thrush sent an apologetic email to a woman who had met him at a going-away party. She described an unwanted encounter with him, but felt she had to send a cordial reply and stay on good terms.
Courtesy of the young woman on the email thread

Padró Ocasio’s friend received an email from Thrush the next morning with the subject line, “Nice meeting you!” followed by, “(And apologies?).” She responded congenially. “It was nice meeting you too! (And no worries haha).” She also met him a few weeks later at a tea shop near the White House, a meeting they’d discussed the night at the bar. Thrush sent her a few critiques of her stories. She said she feels that despite her misgivings, she has to stay on good terms with him since he is connected.

“I hate feeling obligated to make him think I think everything is fine,” she said. “It’s been this thing hanging over me. I feel like I have to be nice to this person just because he knows people.”

In his emailed statement, Thrush said that the night in June with the young woman was the last time he’s had a drink.He wrote:

The June incident [described above] was a life-changing event [for me]. The woman involved was upset by my actions and for that I am deeply sorry.

Over the past several years, I have responded to a succession of personal and health crises by drinking heavily. During that period, I have done things that I am ashamed of, actions that have brought great hurt to my family and friends.

I have not taken a drink since June 15, 2017, have resumed counseling and will soon begin out-patient treatment for alcoholism. I am working hard to repair the damage I have done.

“I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment”

In the course of his text dialogue with Padró Ocasio about the incident with her friend, Thrush wrote, “I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment.”

Back at Politico years ago, Thrush’s behavior contributed to a toxic environment I experienced. Dozens of people told me that Politico has changed dramatically since Carrie Budoff Brown took over a year ago as the publication’s editor. Multiple men and women who work for her say her standards are high and she has no time for the kind of behavior I described.

Budoff Brown was at the going-away party in June where Thrush was in the booth with the 23-year-old woman. She told me she noticed them talking but, like other attendees I talked to, she didn’t know that anything happened afterward.

“I was disappointed in Glenn but had no reason to think that anything would progress beyond the bar that night,” she said. “And I am saddened to learn in the course of your reporting that it did.”

“Great journalism and great business require a great workplace. My colleagues and I have worked hard to nurture a newsroom where people are supportive, good to each other, and where mutual respect is the way of life. We have zero tolerance for anything else.”

New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush inside the White House briefing room on February 24.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

By the time of the June incident, Thrush was gone from Politico anyway — off to the New York Times, which has hired many of Politico’s top reporters over the years. But now he will be on hiatus pending a Times investigation that was sparked by my reporting for this story.

“The behavior attributed to Glenn in this Vox story is very concerning and not in keeping with the standards and values of The New York Times,” said Eileen Murphy, the senior vice president of communications for the New York Times, in a written statement. “We intend to fully investigate and while we do, Glenn will be suspended. We support his decision to enter a substance abuse program. In the meantime, we will not be commenting further.”

It’s the Times itself, of course, that has done so much to spark the current conversation around harassment with its exposés on Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. There’s probably no loftier perch in all of political journalism from which one could teach the trade and enlist young women into the calling — or, as the case may be, betray them.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16678094/glenn-thrush-new-york-times-sexual-harassment

Woman says Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Lindsay Menz posted the photo with Sen. Al Franken on Facebook in August 2010
  • She told her husband, father, mother and sister about the incident at the time

(CNN)A woman says Sen. Al Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010, telling CNN that he grabbed her buttocks while taking a photo at the Minnesota State Fair.

It is the first allegation of improper touching by Franken, who is a Democrat, while he was in office. It comes just days after Leeann Tweeden, a local radio news anchor in California, said that Franken forcibly kissed and groped her in 2006, when Franken was a comedian.
Franken has since issued an apology to Tweeden and faces a potential investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Lindsay Menz, a 33-year-old woman who now lives in Frisco, Texas, reached out to CNN on Thursday hours after Tweeden made her story public. Menz said she wanted to share an “uncomfortable” interaction that left her feeling “gross.”
According to Menz, she attended the Minnesota State Fair with her husband and father in the summer of 2010, almost two years after Franken was elected to the Senate. Her father’s small business was sponsoring a local radio booth, and she spent the day meeting various elected officials, political candidates and celebrities and taking photos with them as they stopped by the booth.
When Franken walked in, Menz and her husband, who also spoke with CNN, said they recognized him right away. Menz said she had a brief and cordial exchange with the senator.
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken “pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear,” Menz said. “It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek.”
“It wasn’t around my waist. It wasn’t around my hip or side. It was definitely on my butt,” she said, recalling that the brazen act lasted three or four seconds. “I was like, oh my God, what’s happening.”
“He reached around her and kind of pulled her into him,” said her husband Jeremy Menz, who didn’t see what happened behind his wife. “He pulled her in and pushed his head against her head. It was over pretty quick.”
Lindsay Menz told CNN that she walked away as soon as the photo was taken, without saying anything to the then-first term senator. When she reconnected with her husband moments later, she told him: “He totally grabbed my butt.” Jeremy Menz described that conversation the same way to CNN.
In a statement to CNN Sunday, Franken said he did not remember taking the photo with Menz and that he felt “badly” that she felt disrespected.
“I take thousands of photos at the state fair surrounded by hundreds of people, and I certainly don’t remember taking this picture,” Franken said. “I feel badly that Ms. Menz came away from our interaction feeling disrespected.”
“I felt gross. It’d be like being walking through the mall and some random person grabbing your butt,” Lindsay Menz said. “You just feel gross. Like ew, I want to wash that off of me.”
“I was upset. I wasn’t happy about it in the least,” Jeremy Menz said. “He was already gone and I wasn’t going to confront him. But yeah — I was in shock, really.”
Menz’s father, Mark Brown, was also in the radio booth that day but didn’t witness the moment. But he told CNN that his daughter told him about the incident right away.
Menz’s mother, Jodi Brown, also told CNN that she discussed the incident with her daughter immediately after it happened. She said she distinctly recalls her son-in-law saying to her: “Our senator just groped my wife right in front of me.”
In the photo of Menz and Franken, the side of the senator’s face is pressed up against Menz’s but the lower halves of their bodies are not shown. Both of them are smiling.
Menz posted the photo with Franken on Facebook at the time, on August 27, 2010. Her sister, Cari Thunker, commented under the photo: “Sorry, but you two aren’t Bibles (sic) width apart” — a reference, Thunker explained to CNN, to how physically close Menz and Franken were in the photo.
Menz responded to her sister on Facebook: “Dude — Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!” (The exchange is visible to Menz’s Facebook friends.)
Minnesota statutes state that “intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks” is not considered criminal sexual conduct.
Menz told CNN that what happened immediately after she took the photo with Franken that summer day in 2010 has also stayed with her. Standing nearby was another politician — then-Minnesota Rep. John Kline.
As she was getting ready to take a picture with Kline, Menz said the congressman asked her whether they should “mutually put our arms around each other” — an interaction that struck her as being in stark contrast with what she had experienced moments ago with Franken.
Reached on the phone on Friday, Kline, a Republican who retired from Congress this year, confirmed that he attended the Minnesota State Fair in 2010, as he did most years. Kline could not remember seeing the interaction between Menz and Franken. But when CNN described Menz’s recollection of her interaction with Kline before they took a photo together, he told CNN: “As a matter of practice, I did that all the time.”
“If somebody wanted a picture, I would ask: should I put my arm on your back or your shoulder?” Kline said. He said that as a congressman, he was particularly inclined to do this when taking photos with women.
Lindsay and Jeremy Menz moved from Minnesota to Texas in 2014. Lindsay Menz is now a stay-at-home-mom of three young kids. Neither is registered with a political party and she said she has equally supported Republican and Democratic candidates while he said he has tended to favor Republicans. The couple voted last year for Donald Trump, and Menz said she has voted for Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is a Democrat, in the past. Menz said she believes she has voted for Franken as well, but is not sure.
When Menz saw the news of Tweeden’s allegations against Franken on Thursday, she immediately discussed her own run-in with the senator from 2010 with her family. She also posted about it on Twitter and Facebook.
A friend encouraged Menz to contact a CNN reporter after seeing the network’s coverage of sexual harassment in recent days. Menz was emphatic that she “absolutely” would not have decided to share her story had Tweeden not done the same.
“I don’t want to paint my story in the same light as hers,” Menz said, saying she believes what happened to Tweeden is much worse.
Still, she said, “the reason I want to say something is if someone sees that I said something, maybe it would give them the courage to say something too.”
Franken has not made further statements to the press since releasing two apologies on Thursday. He has said he intends to fully cooperate if there is a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his behavior.
“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” he said in a statement. “I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.”

 Story 2: A Two Charlie Day — Charlie Rose, Should Be Fired By CBS, and Charlie Manson, Dead At 83, Should Have Been Executed By State of California — Remember One of The Victims — Sharon Tate — Videos

Notorious cult leader Charles Manson dead at 83

Charles Manson Interview with Tom Snyder (Complete)

Charles Manson Interview with Charlie Rose on Nightwatch (Complete)

Charles Manson – Dianne Sawyer Documentary

Charlie Manson Exposes Illuminati Methods

Published on Jan 28, 2013

Some choice clips from 20 years of media interviews with Charlie Manson. I hope this shows some of you just how intelligent and ahead of his time this man was. The story about Manson that media has jumped through hoops to avoid is a 100x more interesting.

Check out the work of Dave McGowan, only Manson and the satanic Hollwood elite controlling the music, film, & TV industry at that time. SO many more millions are awakened in this past decade thanks to 9-11. By all the fake “9-11 truth” groups that we know now were cointel and disinfo franchises sponsored and employed by intelligent agencies for both the federal government and military intelligence. Not only that, more private mercenaries were employed than actual US soldiers, almost all to guard the same people trying to have guns taken away from the middle class.

Los Angelino, Dave McGowan, author of “Programmed to Kill”, has written a never-before seen expose of all the ’60’s rock stars and how they all were sons and daughters of high ranking military brass, many claimed to be satanists themselves by surviving victims who swore under oath in front of a judge and US Grand Jury.

The Wisdom of Charles Manson? Compilation

Charles Manson Today: The Final Confessions of a Psychopath

“Charles Manson never killed anyone.”

Is #HarveyWeinstein in “Europe” to Fight Rape Charge Extradition à la Roman Polanski or Phony Rehab?

Too Young to Die – Sharon Tate

The Real Reason We Don’t Hear About Elijah Wood Anymore

Shirley Temple – pedogate hollywood

The Sad Life Of Corey Feldman

Corey Feldman Reveals the Name of an Alleged Abuser

The Illuminati’s Final Warning for Corey Feldman! (2017-2018)

Hollywood Abuse | Barbara Walters Knew It All, But She Silenced Victim Corey Feldman

Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood, & Sexual Abuse

Swiss prosecutors won’t pursue Polanski rape case

Video: Meryl Streep Defends Child Rapist Roman Polanski “I am Really Sorry That He is In Jail”

Hollywood Liberals Celebrate Child Rapist

Roman Polanski Recently Accused Of Rape

Roman Polanski’s Arrest Ignites Controversy

Johnny Depp and Whoopi Goldberg Defending Pedophile Roman Polanski #Pizzagate

Roman Polanski’s Sexual Assault Victim Asks Judge To End 40-Year-Old Case | TIME

Geimer Interview: Inside Edition

CNN Official Interview: Roman Polanski’s victim tells what happened

Extradition hearing in Roman Polanski underage sex case

Roman Pulanski-Samantha Geimer sex scandal documentary biography

Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski – The End of a fairy tale

Roman Polanski’s Arrest Ignites Controversy

Samantha Geimer: ‘Why I Forgave Roman Polanski’ | Good Morning Britain

Victim in Roman Polanski sexual assault wants case dropped

Breaking News – Swiss prosecutors to examine Roman Polanski rape claims

Published on Oct 9, 2017

Swiss prosecutors said Monday that they will examine allegations made by a German woman that filmmaker Roman Polanski raped her in 1972 in the town of Gstaad, when she was 15.The procedural move means that Switzerland has not ruled out prosecuting the filmmaker, despite questions as to whether the statute of limitations for the alleged crime has lapsed.Renate Langer, a 61-year-old former actress, told Swiss police last month that she met Polanski while working as a model in Munich before travelling to his home in Gstaad, where he raped her.’The prosecutor’s office in the Canton of Bern has confirmed … it will handle (the file)’, prosecution spokesman Christof Scheurer said in an email.Langer is the fourth woman to publicly accuse Polanski of sexual assault.Polanski pleaded guilty in the United States to having unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer – aged 13 at the time – in 1977 but fled the country before he could be sentenced. He remains a fugitive from the US justice system.British actress Charlotte Lewis also accused Polanski of assault in 2010. Lewis claimed the director ‘forced himself’ upon her just after her 16th birthday.In August, a woman identified only as Robin told a news conference in Los Angeles she was ‘sexually victimized’ by the French-Polish film director when she was 16, in 1973.Polanski’s film career has continued to flourish since he fled the US for France, where many consider him an icon.He has eight Cesars – the French equivalent of an Oscar – as well as a best director Academy Award for Holocaust drama ‘The Pianist.’

Top 10 Craziest Things Charles Manson Has Ever Said

20/20 Truth and Lies : The Family Manson – MAY 13, 2017 (SPECIAL)

Charles Manson is rotting in hell

Charles Manson, the ’60s cult leader behind one of the most notorious killings in American history, died Sunday in California after a prolonged illness, officials said. He was 83.

Manson – housed at Corcoran State Prison since 1989 – died at 8:13 p.m. local time at Kern County Hospital, the California Department of Corrections said in a press release early Monday.

He’d been in failing health for months and was first hospitalized back in January, reportedly with serious gastrointestinal problems.

Manson — who infamously wore a swastika tattoo between his eyebrows — had spent more than 45 years in prison after being convicted of directing his “Manson Family” clan of troubled, mostly female, followers to kill seven people in California in the summer of 1969. The dead included actress Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of director Roman Polanski, who was stabbed 16 times.

“I am crime,” Manson proudly proclaimed during a collect call to The Post from prison in the mid-2000s.

Born on Nov. 12, 1934, in Cincinnati, Ohio, to a prostitute named Kathleen Maddox, Manson was officially dubbed “no name Maddox” at birth and apparently never knew his biological father.

From a very young age, Manson was a self-styled “outlaw” who took pride in being a criminal and reveled in all the mayhem he caused.

Manson committed his first crimes at around 13 years old, robbing liquor stores to scrounge together enough money to eat and rent motel rooms.

During his teenage years, Manson was in-and-out of juvenile halls and was placed in the Indiana Boys School, where he was sexually assaulted before he escaped in 1951, according to a book, “Manson In His Words,” by Nuel Emmons.

Between 1951 and 1955, Manson was repeatedly arrested for a variety of federal and state offenses, including stealing cars and robbing gas stations.


r
e
Sharon TateAP

Charles Manson

He was sent to reformatories, but none of them could wean him off his appetite for trouble.

By 1957, Manson was doing hard time in the federal prison at Terminal Island in Los Angeles for violating his probation after he was caught stealing a car and driving it over state lines.

He was eventually paroled, but started a career as a pimp and tried to cash forged US Treasury checks.

Manson found himself back at Terminal Island, where, on March 21, 1967 – the day of his release – he pleaded with prison officials to keep him there because he had been institutionalized for most of his life up to that point.

The wild-eyed, gnome-like figure ended up staying in Los Angeles, where he wrote and played music with a guitar – and began a hippie cult that drew tough men and disaffected suburban young women.

But Manson’s inability to build a musical career led him to an even darker path.

Manson hung out with Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson and the band’s record producer, Terry Melcher, but the latter refused to give him a record deal.

Furious, Manson put together a plan to exact his revenge, ordering several of his drug-addled, brainwashed followers to kill everyone inside Melcher’s former residence.

Despite knowing that Melcher no longer lived there, Manson specifically chose that location because it represented the music industry that had snubbed him.

Just as importantly, Manson, who harbored bizarre racist theories and philosophies, wanted to start a race war – something he called “Helter Skelter,” named after the Beatles song by the same name.

On Aug. 9, 1969, Manson’s disciples, Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel, descended on Melcher’s former compound in Benedict Canyon, where pregnant actress Sharon Tate was now living with filmmaker Roman Polanski.

Polanski was overseas shooting a movie at the time, but Tate was hosting a low-key party with friends, including hair stylist Jay Sebring, coffee heiress Abigail Folger and her boyfriend, Wojciech Frykowski.

First, the killers fatally shot Steven Parent, who had been visiting a caretaker on the property. They then butchered to death Tate, Sebring, Folger and Frykowski.

The next night, Manson directed Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and another follower, Leslie Van Houten, to murder supermarket magnate Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary LaBianca, in their Los Feliz home.

In the decades since the murders, Manson has become an icon for troubled youth and a fixture in pop culture.

Charles Manson is escorted to his arraignment on conspiracy-murder charges in connection with the Sharon Tate murder case in 1969.AP

There have been numerous books written about the “Manson Murders,” as well as movies and documentaries detailing the case.

Manson himself reached almost mythical status through his strange and colorful prison interviews with notable media types, including Charlie Rose, Diane Sawyer and Geraldo Rivera.

In his final years in prison, Manson almost married Afton “Star” Burton, who moved from Mississippi to Corcoran just to be with him.

Although they filed for a marriage license, Manson never got hitched to the woman who is more than 50 years his junior.
No one who carried out murders at Manson’s behest has has ever been released from prison.

Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remained locked up in California while Atkins died in prison in 1989.

A board granted Van Houten – who at 19 was the youngest of the killers – parole in September.

But the ruling is still under review and California Gov. Jerry Brown will get to uphold, reject or modify the finding of parole early next year.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/mass-murderer-charles-manson-dead-at-83/

Sharon Tate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharon Tate Polanski
Sharon Tate Valley of the Dolls 1967.jpg

Tate circa 1967
Born Sharon Marie Tate
January 24, 1943
DallasTexas, U.S.
Died August 9, 1969 (aged 26)
Benedict Canyon, Los AngelesCalifornia, U.S.
Cause of death Murder by stabbing
Resting place Holy Cross CemeteryCulver City, California, U.S.
33°59′26″N 118°23′16″W
Occupation Actress, model
Years active 1961–1969
Spouse(s) Roman Polanski (m. 1968)
Parents
Website www.sharontate.net

Sharon Marie Tate Polanski (January 24, 1943 – August 9, 1969) was an American actress and model. During the 1960s, she played small television roles before appearing in films and was regularly featured in fashion magazines as a model and cover girl. After receiving positive reviews for her comedic and dramatic acting performances, Tate was hailed as one of Hollywood‘s most promising newcomers.

She made her film debut in 1966 with the occult-themed Eye of the Devil. Her most remembered performance was as Jennifer North in the 1967 cult classic film, Valley of the Dolls, earning her a Golden Globe Awardnomination. Tate’s last completed film, 12+1 was released posthumously in 1969, with the actress receiving top billing.[1][2]

On January 20, 1968, Tate married Roman Polanski, her director and co-star in 1967’s The Fearless Vampire Killers. On August 9, 1969, Tate and four others were murdered by members of the Manson Family in the home she shared with Polanski. At the time of her death, she was eight-and-a-half months pregnant with the couple’s son.

A decade after Tate’s murder, the actress’ mother, Doris Tate, in response to the growing cult status of the killers and the possibility of them being granted parole, organized a public campaign that resulted in amendments to the California criminal law. Tate’s mother went on to say that the law would “help transform Sharon’s legacy from murder victim to a symbol of victims’ rights”. A book by Tate’s sister, Debra Tate,[3] titled Sharon Tate: Recollection, was released in 2014.[4]

Life and career

Childhood and early acting career

Sharon Tate was born in DallasTexas, the eldest of three daughters, to Colonel Paul James Tate (1922–2005),[5] a United States Army officer, and his wife, Doris Gwendolyn (née Willett). At six months of age, Tate won the “Miss Tiny Tot of Dallas Pageant”, but her parents had no show business ambitions for their daughter. Paul Tate was promoted and transferred several times. By the age of 16, as a military brat, Tate had lived in six different cities, and she reportedly found it difficult to maintain friendships. Her family described her as shy and lacking in self-confidence. As an adult, Tate commented that people would misinterpret her shyness as aloofness until they knew her better.[6]

Tate attended Chief Joseph Junior High School (now Chief Joseph Middle School) from September 1955 to June 1958, and Columbia High School (now Richland High School) in Richland, Washington from September 1958 to October 1959. She attended Irvin High School in El Paso, Texas, from late fall 1959 to April 1960; and Vicenza American High School in Vicenza, Italy, from April to June 1960. She graduated from Vicenza American High School in 1961.

As she matured, people commented on Tate’s beauty; she began entering beauty pageants, winning the title of “Miss Richland” in Washington in 1959. She spoke of her ambition to study psychiatry, and also stated her intention to compete in the “Miss Washington” pageant in 1960, however, before she could do either, her father received orders to be stationed in Italy. With the family relocating in Verona, Tate learned that she had become a local celebrity owing to the publication of a photograph of her in a bathing suit on the cover of the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. She discovered a kinship with other students at the American school she attended in nearby Vicenza, recognizing that their backgrounds and feelings of separation were similar to her own, and for the first time in her life began to form lasting friendships.

Tate and her friends became interested in the filming of Adventures of a Young Man, which was being made nearby with Paul NewmanSusan Strasberg, and Richard Beymer, and obtained parts as film extras. Beymer noticed Tate in the crowd and introduced himself, and the two dated during the production of the film, with Beymer encouraging Tate to pursue a film career. In 1961, Tate was employed by the singer Pat Boone and appeared with him in a television special he made in Venice.[which?][citation needed]

A black and white screenshot from the television series, The Beverly Hillbillies shows Max Baer, Jr. as Jethro, Nancy Kulp as Jane Hathaway, and Sharon Tate as Janet Trego, a secretary. Tate is wearing a business suit and a dark wig, and is watching Miss Hathaway

Sharon Tate (at right wearing a dark wig) as Janet Trego in the 1964 “Giant Jackrabbit” episode of The Beverly Hillbillies with Max Baer, Jr. and Nancy Kulp

Later that year, when Barabbas was being filmed near Verona, Tate was once again hired as an extra. Actor Jack Palance was impressed by her appearance and her attitude, although her role was too small to judge her talent. He arranged a screen test for her in Rome, but this did not lead to further work. Tate returned to the United States alone, saying she wanted to further her studies, but tried to find film work. After a few months, Doris Tate, who feared for her daughter’s safety, suffered a nervous breakdown and her daughter was persuaded to return to Italy. [6]

The family returned to the United States in 1962, and Tate moved to Los Angeles, where she contacted Richard Beymer‘s agent, Harold Gefsky. After their first meeting, Gefsky agreed to represent her, and secured work for her in television and magazine advertisements. In 1963, he introduced her to Martin Ransohoff, director of Filmways, Inc., who signed her to a seven-year contract. She was considered for the role of Billie Jo Bradley, on CBS‘s sitcom, Petticoat Junction, but Ransohoff believed that she lacked confidence and the role was given to Jeannine Riley. Ransohoff gave Tate small parts in Mister Ed and The Beverly Hillbillies to help her gain experience, but was unwilling to allow her to play a more substantial role. “Mr. Ransohoff didn’t want the audience to see me till I was ready,” Tate was quoted in a 1967 article in Playboy.[7]

During this time, Tate met the French actor Philippe Forquet and began a relationship with him. They became engaged, but the relationship was volatile and they frequently quarreled. Career pressures drove them apart and they broke up.[citation needed]

In 1964, she met Jay Sebring, a former sailor who had established himself as a leading hair stylist in Hollywood. Tate later said that Sebring’s nature was especially gentle, but when he proposed marriage, she would not accept. She said she would retire from acting as soon as she married, and at that time she intended to focus on her career.[6]

Film career

In 1964, Tate made a screen test for Sam Peckinpah opposite Steve McQueen for the film The Cincinnati Kid. Ransohoff and Peckinpah agreed that Tate’s timidity and lack of experience would cause her to flounder in such a large part, and she was rejected in favor of Tuesday Weld.[6] She continued to gain experience with minor television appearances, and after she auditioned unsuccessfully for the role of Liesl in the film version of The Sound of Music, Ransohoff gave Tate walk-on roles in two motion pictures in which he was the producer: The Americanization of Emily and The Sandpiper.[8] In late 1965, Ransohoff finally gave Tate her first major role in a motion picture in the film Eye of the Devil, costarring David NivenDeborah KerrDonald Pleasence, and David Hemmings.[9]

Tate in Eye of the Devil trailer, 1966

Tate and Sebring traveled to London to prepare for filming, where she met the Alexandrian Wiccan High Priest and High Priestess Alex and Maxine Sanders.[10] Meanwhile, as part of Ransohoff’s promotion of Tate, he arranged the production of a short documentary called All Eyes on Sharon Tate, to be released at the same time as Eye of the Devil. It included an interview with Eye of the Devil director J. Lee Thompson, who expressed his initial doubts about Tate’s potential with the comment, “We even agreed that if after the first two weeks Sharon was not quite making it, we would put her back in cold storage,” but added he soon realized Tate was “tremendously exciting”.[6]

Tate played Odile, a witch who exerts a mysterious power over a landowner, played by Niven, and his wife, played by Kerr. Although she did not have as many lines as the other actors, Tate’s performance was considered crucial to the film, and she was required, more than the other cast members, to set an ethereal tone. Niven described her as a “great discovery”, and Kerr said that with “a reasonable amount of luck” Tate would be a great success.[6] In interviews, Tate commented on her good fortune in working with such professionals in her first film and said that she had learned a lot about acting simply by watching Kerr at work. Much of the filming took place in France, and Sebring returned to Los Angeles to fulfill his business obligations. After filming, Tate remained in London, where she immersed herself in the fashion world and nightclubs. Around this time, she met Roman Polanski.

Tate and Polanski later agreed that neither of them had been impressed by the other when they first met. Polanski was planning The Fearless Vampire Killers, which was being coproduced by Ransohoff, and had decided that he wanted the red-headed actress Jill St. John for the female lead. Ransohoff insisted that Polanski cast Tate, and after meeting with her, he agreed that she would be suitable on the condition that she wore a red wig during filming.

A color screenshot from the film, The Fearless Vampire Killers. Tate is sitting in a large ceramic bathtub, filled with bubbles up to her shoulders. Strands of hair from her red wig are draped over her face, as she looks, smiling, at Roman Polanski, who is leaning towards her at the side of the bathtub.

Sharon Tate with Roman Polanskiin The Fearless Vampire Killers in 1967

The company traveled to Italy for filming where Tate’s fluent Italian proved useful in communicating with the local crew members. A perfectionist, Polanski had little patience with the inexperienced Tate, and said in an interview that one scene had required 70 takes before he was satisfied. In addition to directing, Polanski also played one of the main characters, a guileless young man who is intrigued by Tate’s character and begins a romance with her.

As filming progressed, Polanski praised her performances and her confidence grew. They began a relationship, and Tate moved into Polanski’s London apartment after filming ended. Jay Sebring traveled to London, where he insisted on meeting Polanski. Although friends later said he was devastated, he befriended Polanski and remained Tate’s closest confidante. Polanski later commented that Sebring was a lonely and isolated person, who viewed Tate and himself as his family.[11]

Tate returned to the United States to film Don’t Make Waves with Tony Curtis, leaving Polanski in London. Tate played the role of Malibu and the film was intended to capitalize on the popularity of beach movies and the music of such artists as the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean. Tate’s character, billed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer publicity as “Malibu, Queen of the Surf”, wore little more than a bikini for most of the film. Disappointed with the film, she began referring to herself sarcastically as “sexy little me”. Before the film’s release, a major publishing campaign Coppertone sunsscreen featured Tate. The film opened to poor reviews and mediocre ticket sales, and Tate was quoted as confiding to a reporter, “It’s a terrible movie”, before adding, “Sometimes I say things I shouldn’t. I guess I’m too outspoken.”[6]

Polanski returned to the United States, and was contracted by the head of Paramount PicturesRobert Evans, to direct and write the screenplay for Rosemary’s Baby, which was based on Ira Levin‘s novel of the same name.[9] Polanski later admitted that he had wanted Tate to star in the film and had hoped that someone would suggest her, as he felt it inappropriate to make the suggestion himself. The producers did not suggest Tate, and Mia Farrow was cast. Tate reportedly provided ideas for some of the key scenes, including the scene in which the protagonist, Rosemary, is impregnated.[citation needed] A frequent visitor to the set, she was photographed there by Esquire and the resulting photographs generated considerable publicity for both Tate and the film.

A March 1967 article about Tate in Playboy began, “This is the year that Sharon Tate happens …” and included six nude or partially nude photographs taken by Roman Polanski during filming of The Fearless Vampire Killers.[6] Tate was optimistic: Eye of the Devil and The Fearless Vampire Killers were each due for release, and she had been signed to play a major role in the film version of Valley of the Dolls. One of the all-time bestsellers, the film version was highly publicized and anticipated, and while Tate acknowledged that such a prominent role should further her career, she confided to Polanski that she did not like either the book or the script.[6]

Patty DukeBarbara Parkins, and Judy Garland were cast as the other leads. Susan Hayward replaced Garland a few weeks later when she was dismissed.[12] Director Mark Robson was highly critical of the three principal actresses, but according to Duke, directed most of his criticism at Tate. Duke later said Robson “continually treated [Tate] like an imbecile, which she definitely was not, and she was very attuned and sensitive to this treatment”.[6] Polanski later quoted Robson as saying to him, “That’s a great girl you’re living with. Few actresses have her kind of vulnerability. She’s got a great future.”[11]

In interviews during production, Tate expressed an affinity for her character, Jennifer North, an aspiring actress admired only for her body. Some magazines commented that Tate was viewed similarly and Look published an unfavorable article about the three lead actresses, describing Tate as “a hopelessly stupid and vain starlet”.[6] Tate, Duke and Parkins developed a close friendship that continued after the completion of the film. During the shooting of Valley of the Dolls, Tate confided to Parkins that she was “madly in love” with Polanski.[7] “Yes, there’s no doubt that Roman is the man in my life,” Tate was quoted as saying in the New York Sunday News.[7] Tate promoted the film enthusiastically. She frequently commented on her admiration for Lee Grant, with whom she had played several dramatic scenes. Tate was quoted as saying, “I learned a great deal about acting in [Valley of the Dolls], particularly in my scenes with Lee Grant…. She knows what acting is all about and everything she does, from little mannerisms to delivering her lines, is pure professionalism.”[6]

A journalist asked Tate to comment on her nude scene, and she replied,

I have no qualms about it at all. I don’t see any difference between being stark naked or fully dressed — if it’s part of the job and it’s done with meaning and intention. I honestly don’t understand the big fuss made over nudity and sex in films. It’s silly. On TV, the children can watch people murdering each other, which is a very unnatural thing, but they can’t watch two people in the very natural process of making love. Now, really, that doesn’t make any sense, does it?[6]

An edited version of The Fearless Vampire Killers was released, and Polanski expressed disgust at Ransohoff for “butchering” his film. Newsweek called it “a witless travesty”, and it was not profitable. Tate’s performance was largely ignored in reviews, and when she was mentioned, it was usually in relation to her nude scenes. Eye of the Devil was released shortly after, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer attempted to build interest in Tate with its press release describing her as “one of the screen’s most exciting new personalities”. The film failed to find an audience, and most reviews were indifferent, neither praising nor condemning it. The New York Times wrote that one of the few highlights was Tate’s “chillingly beautiful but expressionless performance”.[6]

The All Eyes on Sharon Tate documentary was used to publicize the film. Its 14 minutes consisted of a number of scenes depicting Tate filming Eye of the Devil, dancing in nightclubs and sightseeing around London, and also contained a brief interview with her. Asked about her acting ambitions, she replied, “I don’t fool myself. I can’t see myself doing Shakespeare.” She spoke of her hopes of finding a niche in comedy, and in other interviews she expressed her desire to become “a light comedienne in the Carole Lombard style”.[6] She discussed the type of contemporary actress she wanted to emulate and explained that there were two in particular that she was influenced by: Faye Dunaway and Catherine Deneuve. Of the latter, she said, “I’d like to be an American Catherine Deneuve. She plays beautiful, sensitive, deep parts with a little bit of intelligence behind them.”[13]

Later in the year, Valley of the Dolls opened to almost uniformly negative reviews. Bosley Crowther wrote in The New York Times, “all a fairly respectful admirer of movies can do is laugh at it and turn away”.[14]Newsweek said that the film “has no more sense of its own ludicrousness than a village idiot stumbling in manure”, but a later article read: “Astoundingly photogenic, infinitely curvaceous, Sharon Tate is one of the most smashing young things to hit Hollywood in a long time.”[15] The three lead actresses were castigated in numerous publications, including The Saturday Review, which wrote, “Ten years ago … Parkins, Duke and Tate would more likely have been playing the hat check girls than movie-queens; they are totally lacking in style, authority or charm.”[6]The Hollywood Reporterprovided some positive comments, such as, “Sharon Tate emerges as the film’s most sympathetic character … William H. Daniels‘ photographic caress of her faultless face and enormous absorbent eyes is stunning.”[6]Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times praised Tate as “a wonder to behold”, but after describing the dialogue in one scene as “the most offensive and appalling vulgarity ever thrown up by any civilization”, concluded that, “I will be unable to take her any more seriously as a sex symbol than Raquel Welch.”[16]

Marriage to Roman Polanski

In late 1967, Tate and Polanski returned to London and were frequent subjects of newspaper and magazine articles. Tate was depicted as being untraditional and modern, and was quoted as saying couples should live together before marrying. They were married in Chelsea, London, on January 20, 1968, with considerable publicity. Polanski was dressed in what the press described as “Edwardian finery“, while Tate was attired in a white minidress.[9] The couple moved into Polanski’s mews house off Eaton Square in Belgravia.[7]Photographer Peter Evans later described them as “the imperfect couple. They were the Douglas Fairbanks/Mary Pickford of our time … Cool, nomadic, talented and nicely shocking.”[6]

While Tate reportedly wanted a traditional marriage, Polanski remained somewhat promiscuous and described Tate’s attitude to his infidelity as “Sharon’s big hang-up”. He reminded Tate that she had promised that she would not try to change him.[6] Tate accepted Polanski’s conditions, though she confided to friends that she hoped he would change. Peter Evans quoted Tate as saying, “We have a good arrangement. Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him.”[17]

Polanski urged Tate to end her association with Martin Ransohoff, and Tate began to place less importance on her career, until Polanski told her he wanted to be married to “a hippie, not a housewife”. The couple returned to Los Angeles and quickly became part of a social group that included some of the most successful young people in the film industry, including Warren BeattyJacqueline BissetLeslie CaronJoan CollinsMia FarrowJane FondaPeter FondaLaurence HarveySteve McQueenJoanna PettetPeter Sellers; older film stars like Yul BrynnerKirk DouglasHenry Fonda, and Danny Kaye; musicians such as Jim Morrison and The Mamas & the Papas; and record producer Terry Melcher and his girlfriend Candice Bergen. Jay Sebring remained one of the couple’s most frequent companions. Polanski’s circle of friends included people he had known since his youth in Poland such as Wojciech Frykowski and Frykowski’s girlfriend, coffee heiress Abigail Folger. Tate and Polanski moved into the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles for a few months [11] until they arranged to lease Patty Duke‘s home on Summit Ridge Drive in Beverly Hills during the latter part of 1968.[11] The Polanski house was often full of strangers, and Tate regarded the casual atmosphere as part of the “free spirit” of the times, saying that she did not mind who came into her home as her motto was “live and let live”.[11] Her close friend Leslie Caron later commented that the Polanskis were too trusting — “to the point of recklessness” — and that she had been alarmed by it.[18]

In the summer of 1968, Tate began her next film, The Wrecking Crew (1969), a comedy in which she played Freya Carlson, an accident-prone spy, who was also a romantic interest for star Dean Martin, playing Matt Helm. She performed her own stunts and was taught martial arts by Bruce Lee. The film was successful and brought Tate strong reviews, with many reviewers praising her comedic performance. The New York Times critic Vincent Canby criticized the film, but wrote, “The only nice thing is Sharon Tate, a tall, really great-looking girl.”[19] Martin commented that he intended to make another “Matt Helm” film, and that he wanted Tate to reprise her role.

Around this time Tate was feted as a promising newcomer. She was nominated for a Golden Globe Award as “New Star of the Year – Actress” for her Valley of the Dolls performance.[20]

She placed fourth behind Mia FarrowJudy Geeson, and Katharine Houghton for a “Golden Laurel” award as the year’s “Most Promising Newcomer” with the results published in the Motion Picture Exhibitor magazine.[21] She was also runner-up to Lynn Redgrave in the Motion Picture Heralds poll for “The Star of Tomorrow”, in which box-office drawing power was the main criterion for inclusion on the list.[22] These results indicated that her career was beginning to accelerate and for her next film, Tate negotiated a fee of $150,000.[6]

She became pregnant near the end of 1968, and on February 15, 1969, she and Polanski moved to 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon.[7] The house had previously been occupied by their friends, Terry Melcher and Candice Bergen. Tate and Polanski had visited it several times, and Tate was thrilled to learn it was available, referring to it as her “love house”. At their new home, the Polanskis continued to be popular hosts for their large group of friends, although some of their friends still worried about the strange types who continued to show up at their parties.[7] Encouraged by positive reviews of her comedic performances, Tate chose the comedy Twelve Plus One (1969) as her next project, as she later explained, largely for the opportunity to co-star with Orson Welles. In March 1969, she traveled to Italy to begin filming, while Polanski went to London to work on The Day of the Dolphin (1973). Frykowski and Folger moved into the Cielo Drive house.

After completing Twelve Plus One, Tate joined Polanski in London. She posed in their apartment for photographer Terry O’Neill in casual domestic scenes such as opening baby gifts, and completed a series of glamour photographs for the British magazine Queen. A journalist asked Tate in a late July interview if she believed in fate, to which she replied, “Certainly. My whole life has been decided by fate. I think something more powerful than we are decides our fates for us. I know one thing — I’ve never planned anything that ever happened to me.”[6]

She returned from London to Los Angeles, on July 20, 1969, traveling alone on the QE2. Polanski was due to return on August 12 in time for the birth, and he asked Frykowski and Folger to stay in the house with Tate until then.[citation needed]

Death and aftermath

Murder

On August 8, 1969, Tate was two weeks from giving birth. She entertained two friends, actresses Joanna Pettet and Barbara Lewis, for lunch at her home, confiding in them her disappointment at Polanski’s delay in returning from London. That afternoon, Polanski telephoned her as did her younger sister, Debra, who called to ask if she and their sister, Patti, could spend the night with her. Tate declined, offering to have them over another time. Later that evening, Tate dined at her favorite restaurant, El Coyote Cafe, with Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger, returning at about 10:30 p.m.[6]

Shortly after midnight, they were murdered by members of Charles Manson‘s “family” and their bodies were discovered the following morning by Tate’s housekeeper, Winifred Chapman. Police arrived at the scene to find the body of a young man, later identified as Steven Parent, shot dead in his car, which was in the driveway. Inside the house, the bodies of Tate and Sebring were found in the living room; a long rope tied around each of their necks connected them. On the front lawn lay the bodies of Frykowski and Folger. All of the victims, except Parent, had been stabbed numerous times. The coroner‘s report for Tate noted that she had been stabbed sixteen times, and that “five of the wounds were in and of themselves fatal”.[8]

Police took the only survivor at the address, the property’s caretaker William Garretson, in for questioning. Garretson lived in the guest house that was located on the property, but a short distance from the house, and not immediately visible. As the first suspect, Garretson was questioned and submitted to a polygraph test. Garretson stated that Parent had visited him at approximately 11:30 p.m. and left shortly thereafter. Garretson informed police that he had no involvement in the murders and did not know anything that could help the investigation. Police accepted his explanation and he was released.

The Tate family burial plot at Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, California, in which Tate, her unborn son Paul, mother Doris, and sister Patti are interred

Polanski was informed of the murders and returned to Los Angeles where police, unable to determine a motive, questioned him about his wife and friends. On Wednesday, August 13, Tate was interred in the Holy Cross CemeteryCulver City, California, with her son, Paul Richard Polanski (named posthumously for Polanski’s and Tate’s fathers), in her arms. Sebring’s funeral took place later the same day; the funerals were scheduled several hours apart to allow mutual friends to attend.

Life magazine devoted a lengthy article to the murders and featured photographs of the crime scenes. Polanski was interviewed for the article and allowed himself to be photographed at the entrance of the house, next to the front door with the word “PIG” — written in Tate’s blood — still visible.[23] Widely criticized for his actions, he argued that he wanted to know who was responsible and was willing to shock the magazine’s readers in the hope that someone would come forward with information.[11]

Curiosity about the victims led to the re-release of Tate’s films, achieving greater popularity than they had in their initial runs. Some newspapers began to speculate on the motives for the murders. Some of the published photographs of Tate were allegedly taken at a Satanic ritual, but were later proven to have been production photographs from Eye of the Devil. Friends spoke out against the portrayal of Tate by some elements of the media. Mia Farrow said she was as “sweet and pure a human being as I have ever known”, while Patty Duke remembered her as “a gentle, gentle creature. I was crazy about her, and I don’t know anyone who wasn’t.” Polanski berated a crowd of journalists at a news conference, saying that many times they had written that Tate “was beautiful. Maybe the most beautiful woman in the world. But did you ever write how good she was?”[6] Peter Evans later quoted the actor Laurence Harvey, who commented on Polanski immediately after the murders, “This could destroy Roman. Marriage vows mean nothing to him, but few men have adored a woman as much as he adored Sharon.”[17]

Polanski later stated that, in the months following the murders, he suspected various friends and associates, and his paranoia subsided only when the killers were arrested. Newspapers claimed that many Hollywood stars were moving out of the city, while others were reported to have installed security systems in their homes. Writer Dominick Dunne later recalled the tension:

The shock waves that went through the town were beyond anything I had ever seen before. People were convinced that the rich and famous of the community were in peril. Children were sent out of town. Guards were hired. Steve McQueen packed a gun when he went to Jay Sebring’s funeral.[24]

In September 1969, members of the Manson “Family” were arrested on unrelated charges, eventually leading authorities to a breakthrough on the Tate case as well. They explained that the motive for the murders was not the identity of the victims, but rather the house at that address, which had previously belonged to an acquaintance of Manson.

In 1994, the Tate/Polanski house was demolished and a new house was constructed on the site with the street address changed to 10066 Cielo Drive.[25]

Legacy

This picture shows, from left to right, President George Bush, Doris, Debra and Patti Tate. All but Doris Tate are standing in a row facing the camera. Doris Tate, who was ill with brain cancer, is in a wheelchair; Debra stands beside her, holding her hand.

In 1992, the work of Sharon Tate’s mother, Doris Tate (seated), in support of victims’ rights was acknowledged by President George Bush. Sharon’s sisters, Debra and Patti, are also pictured.

In the early 1980s, Stephen Kay, who had worked for the prosecution in the trial, became alarmed that Manson Family member Leslie Van Houten had gathered 900 signatures on a petition for her parole. He contacted Tate’s mother, Doris, who said she was sure she could do better, and the two mounted a publicity campaign, collecting over 350,000 signatures supporting the denial of parole.[6] Van Houten had been seen as the most likely of the killers to be paroled; following Kay’s and Tate’s efforts, her petition was denied. Doris Tate became a vocal advocate for victims’ rights and, in discussing her daughter’s murder and meeting other crime victims, assumed the role of counselor, using her profile to encourage public discussion and criticism of the corrections system.[6]

For the rest of her life, she strongly campaigned against the parole of each of the Manson killers, and worked closely with other victims of violent crime. Several times, she confronted Charles Manson at parole hearings, explaining, “I feel that Sharon has to be represented in that hearing room. If they’re (the killers) pleading for their lives, then I have to be there representing her.” She addressed Tex Watson directly during her victim impact statement in 1984: “What mercy, sir, did you show my daughter when she was begging for her life? What mercy did you show my daughter when she said, ‘Give me two weeks to have my baby and then you can kill me’? … When will Sharon come up for parole? Will these seven victims and possibly more walk out of their graves if you get paroled? You cannot be trusted.”[6]

In 1992, President George Bush recognized Doris Tate as one of his “thousand points of light” for her volunteer work on behalf of victims’ rights. By this time Tate had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and her health and strength were failing; her meeting with Bush marked her final public appearance. When she died later that year, her youngest daughter, Patricia Gay Tate, known as Patti, continued her work. She contributed to the 1993 foundation of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, a nonprofit organization that aims to influence crime legislation throughout the United States and to give greater rights and protection to victims of violent crime.[26] In 1995, the “Doris Tate Crime Victims Foundation” was founded as a nonprofit organization to promote public awareness of the judicial system and to provide support to the victims of violent crime.[27]

Patti Tate confronted David Geffen and board members of Geffen Records in 1993 over plans to include a song written by Charles Manson on the Guns N’ Roses album “The Spaghetti Incident?”. She commented to a journalist that the record company was “putting Manson up on a pedestal for young people who don’t know who he is to worship like an idol.”[28]

After Patti’s death from breast cancer in 2000, her older sister Debra continued to represent the Tate family at parole hearings. Debra Tate said of the killers: “They don’t show any personal responsibility. They haven’t made atonement to any one of my family members.”[6] She has also unsuccessfully lobbied for her sister to be awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Colonel Paul Tate preferred not to make public comments; however, he was a constant presence during the murder trial, and in the following years attended parole hearings with his wife, and wrote letters to authorities in which he strongly opposed any suggestion of parole. He died in May 2005.[29][30]

Roman Polanski gave away all of his possessions after the murders, unable to bear any reminders of the period that he called “the happiest I ever was in my life”. He remained in Los Angeles until the killers were arrested. After, he fled to Europe to evade criminal charges of raping a 13-year-old girl. His 1979 film Tess was dedicated “to Sharon”, as Tate had read Thomas Hardy‘s Tess of the d’Urbervilles during her final stay with Polanski in London and had left it for him to read with the comment that it would be a good story for them to film together. He tried to explain his anguish after the murder of his wife and unborn son in his 1984 autobiographyRoman by Polanski, saying “Since Sharon’s death, and despite appearances to the contrary, my enjoyment of life has been incomplete. In moments of unbearable personal tragedy some people find solace in religion. In my case the opposite happened. Any religious faith I had was shattered by Sharon’s murder. It reinforced my faith in the absurd.”[11]

In July 2005, Polanski successfully sued Vanity Fair magazine for libel after it alleged that he had tried to seduce a woman on his way to Tate’s funeral. Among the witnesses who testified on his behalf were Debra Tate and Mia Farrow. Describing Polanski immediately after Tate’s death, Farrow testified, “Of this I can be sure — of his frame of mind when we were there, of what we talked about, of his utter sense of loss, of despair and bewilderment and shock and love — a love that he had lost.” At the conclusion of the case, Polanski read a statement, saying in part, “The memory of my late wife Sharon Tate was at the forefront of my mind in bringing this action.”[17]

The murders committed by the Manson “Family” have been described by social commentators as one of the defining moments of the 1960s. Joan Didion wrote, “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true. The tension broke that day. The paranoia was fulfilled.”[6]

Tate’s work as an actress has been reassessed after her death, with contemporary film writers and critics, such as Leonard Maltin, describing her potential as a comedian. A restored version of The Fearless Vampire Killers more closely resembles Polanski’s intention. Maltin lauded the film as “near-brilliant” and Tate’s work in Don’t Make Waves and The Wrecking Crew as her two best performances, as well as the best indicators of the career she might have established.[31]Eye of the Devil with its supernatural themes, and Valley of the Dolls, with its overstated melodrama, have each achieved a degree of cult status.

Tate’s biographerGreg King, holds a view often expressed by members of the Tate family, writing in Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders (2000): “Sharon’s real legacy lies not in her movies or in her television work. The very fact that, today, victims or their families in California are able to sit before those convicted of a crime and have a voice in the sentencing at trials or at parole hearings, is largely due to the work of Doris [and Patti] Tate. Their years of devotion to Sharon’s memory and dedication to victims’ rights … have helped transform Sharon from mere victim, [and] restore a human face to one of the twentieth century’s most infamous crimes.”[6]

In 2012, the book Restless Souls was published; authored by Alisa Statman, a close friend of Patti Tate, two short chapters in the book are written by Tate’s niece, Brie Tate. The book contains portions of the unfinished autobiographies of Tate’s father, mother, and sister, Patti, along with Statman’s own “personal interpretation[s]”. [32] Debra Tate has questioned the book’s veracity.[33]

On June 10, 2014, a coffee table book by Debra Tate, called Sharon Tate: Recollection, was released. It is the first book about Tate that is devoted exclusively to her life and career without covering her death, its aftermath, or the events that led to it. [4]

In pop culture

Memorial art exhibition

in 2009, American contemporary artist Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell presented a comprehensive mixed media art exhibition ICON: Life Love & Style of Sharon Tate: In honor of the 40th anniversary of Tate’s passing. With the blessing of the Tate family, Corbell created a 350-piece historic art exhibition celebrating Tate’s style and life. The art and fashion based presentation showcased images of Tate’s never before revealed wardrobe by designers such as Christian DiorThea PorterOssie Clark and Yves Saint Laurent.[34][35]Sharon was also mentioned in Jim Carrol’s song “it’s too late”.

Dramatic portrayals

Tate was portrayed by actress Katie Cassidy in the 2016 horror film Wolves at the Door, loosely based on the Manson Family‘s murders. In 2017 Rachel Roberts portrayed Sharon in the seventh season of American Horror Story: CultKate Bosworth is set to play Tate in an upcoming Screen Gems biopic of her life, which will be directed by Michael PolishMargot Robbie is also currently in talks to portray Tate in a film directed by Quentin Tarantino which will based on the Manson murders.

Filmography

List of acting performances in film and television
Title Year Role Notes
Barabbas 1961 Patrician in Arena Uncredited
Hemingway’s Adventures of a Young Man 1962 Burlesque Queen Uncredited
The Beverly Hillbillies 1963–65 Janet Trego TV series, 15 episodes
Mister Ed 1963
  • Telephone Operator
  • Sailor’s Girl
  • TV series, episodes:
  • “Love Thy New Neighbor”
  • “Ed Discovers America”
The Americanization of Emily 1964 Beautiful Girl Uncredited
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. 1965 Therapist Episode: “The Girls of Nazarone Affair”
Eye of the Devil 1966 Odile de Caray
The Fearless Vampire Killers 1967 Sarah Shagal
Don’t Make Waves 1967 Malibu
Valley of the Dolls 1967 Jennifer North Nominated – Golden Globe Award for Most Promising Newcomer – Female
The Wrecking Crew 1968 Freya Carlson
The Thirteen Chairs
(also known as 12+1)
1969 Pat Released posthumously, (Last appearance)

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Tate

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People v. Roman Polanski
Mug shot of Roman Polanski.png
Court Los Angeles County Superior Court
Full case name People of the State of California v. Roman Polanski
Verdict Guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomylewd and lascivious actupon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation,[6] and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation.[7] However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation,[5][8]Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[9] Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.

Rape case

On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, became embroiled in a sexual assualt case involving 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey[10] (now Samantha Geimer).[11] A grand jury charged Polanski with five charges:

  1. rape by use of drugs
  2. perversion
  3. sodomy
  4. lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen
  5. furnishing a controlled substance to a minor[9]

This ultimately led to Polanski’s guilty plea to a different charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[12]

According to Geimer’s testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer’s mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,[13] which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski’s request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on 10 March 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. At the time the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a ski trip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.”[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated, adding: “We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this”.[16]

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oralvaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22]

Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[23][24] Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.[25] Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she “wasn’t unresponsive”, and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.[26] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.” The officers quoted two psychiatrists’ denial of Roman being “a pedophile” or “sexual deviate”.[27]

Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[28]

Conviction and flight

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming.[29] Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.[30] Polanski’s lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time.[31]

However, it is alleged in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, that things changed after an ex parte conversation between LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells and the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Wells was not an attorney of record on the case, but was an attorney for the People of the State of California, which was a party to the case. Thus, the communication with Wells was a one-sided external communication, which is prohibited by ethics law. Wells allegedly showed the judge a photo of Polanski with his arms around some ostensibly underage girls, and convinced Rittenband that Polanski should not be released.

Polanski’s attorneys assert that the judge suggested to them that he would send the director to prison and order him deported.[5] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski bought a one-way ticket to England and fled the United States.[2] Shortly after Polanski fled, Rittenband denied he ever did anything that the 2008 documentary would go on to allege, by issuing the following statement:

I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country.[32]

Polanski fled initially to London on 1 February 1978, where he maintained a residence. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the United States by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens,[33] and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[34]Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and worked in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.[citation needed] In 1979, Polanski gave a controversial interview with the novelist Martin Amis in which, discussing his conviction, he said “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”[35][36][37][38]

Original reactions to his flight

Filmmaker Joseph Losey (who exiled himself to the UK after being blacklisted by HUAC) responded to Polanski’s flight by saying “I have not contacted him – and I’m not going to.” Actor Robert Stack called his flight “a coward’s way out,” and then added “the ranks are closing in on him.”[39]

Post-conviction

Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction.[40] The case was settled out of court in 1993. After Polanski missed an October 1995 payment deadline, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect at least US$500,000. The court held that Polanski still owed her over $600,000, but it was unclear as of 2009 if this had since been paid.[41]

In a 2003 interview,[15] Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.” In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, “I think he’s sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don’t think he’s a danger to society. I don’t think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever – besides me – and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It’s an unpleasant memory … (but) I can live with it.”[42]

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski’s attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney’s office about prosecutor David Wells’ role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton sought judicial review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.[43] However, after Polanski’s arrest, David Wells recanted his statements in the film admitting that he had lied and “tried to butter up the story to make me look better”.[44]

In December 2008, Polanski’s lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing claims that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.[45] In January 2009, Polanski’s lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend to appear. In February 2009, Polanski’s request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[46][47][48] The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor’s focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.[49] Judge Espinoza also stated there was misconduct by the judge in the original case but Polanski must return to the United States to actually apply for dismissal.[50]

There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor.[51] While some legal experts interviewed in 2009 thought he might at that point face no jail time for unlawful sex with a minor, his failure to appear at sentencing is in itself a crime.[52]

On 7 July 2009, Polanski’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of mandate (the California equivalent of a writ of mandamus) with the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in order to seek review of Judge Espinoza’s decision on an expedited basis.[53] The next day, the Court ordered the prosecution to file an opposition, thus indicating that it was assuming jurisdiction over the case.[53] This was unusual; petitions for extraordinary writs are usually summarily denied without any explanation.[54]

Arrest in Zurich[edit]

On 26 September 2009, Polanski was detained by Swiss police at Zurich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski had planned to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award.[55][56][57] The arrest followed a request by the United States that Switzerland apprehend Polanski. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip from a fax sent on 22 September 2009, from the Swiss Justice Ministry to the United States Department of Justice‘s Office of International Affairs, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest.[58] Polanski had been subject of an Interpol red notice at the request of the United States since 2005.[59][60]

The Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police said Polanski was put “in provisional detention.” An arrest warrant or extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Criminal Court and then the Federal Supreme Court, according to a ministry spokesman.[61] Polanski announced that he intended to appeal extradition and hired lawyer Lorenz Erni to represent him.[62][63] On 6 October his initial request for bail was refused by the Federal Department of Justice and Police; a spokesperson commented, “we continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight.”[64]

On 2 May 2010, Polanski published an open letter entitled “I can remain silent no longer!” on Bernard-Henri Lévy‘s web site.[65] In it, he stated that on 26 February 2010 Roger Gunson (the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, retired by the time of the letter) testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren (the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question Gunson) that on 16 September 1977 Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that Polanski’s term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence he would have to serve. Polanski also stated that Gunson added that it was false to claim (as the present district attorney’s office does in their request for his extradition) that the time he spent in Chino was for the purpose of a diagnostic study.

On 12 July 2010, the Swiss court rejected the U.S. request and released Polanski from custody.[66] Because Polanski fled the Los Angeles court before being sentenced, all six of the original charges are still pending against him.[67][68]

Reactions to the arrest

In reaction to the arrest, the foreign ministers of both France and Poland urged Switzerland to release Polanski, who holds dual citizenship of both countries,[69] but subsequently withdrew their support for Polanski.

France

The arrest provoked particular controversy in France, where over the years many had downplayed the severity of Polanski’s crime, highlighting instead his achievements as a film director and the many years that had passed since his flight from the United States.[70]

The French minister of Culture and Communication, Frédéric Mitterrand, was especially vehement in his support, all the while announcing his “very deep emotion” after the questioning of the director, “a French citizen” and “a film-maker of international dimension”: “the sight of him thrown to the lions for an old story which doesn’t make much sense, imprisoned while traveling to an event that was intending to honor him: caught, in short, in a trap, is absolutely dreadful. Polanski,” Mitterrand continued, “had a difficult life” but had “always said how much he loves France, and he is a wonderful man”. There is, he added, “a generous America that we love, and a certain America that frightens us. It’s that America that has just shown its face.”[71][72][73] These reactions, however, resulted in political backlash in France.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit criticized these statements by Mitterrand, mainly on the grounds that it was a “matter of justice” inasmuch as “a 13-year-old girl was raped”, adding “I believe that a minister of Culture, even if his name is Mitterrand, should say: I’ll wait and read the files [myself]”.[74] “It is a tough call, since it is true that a 13-year-old girl was raped, that she said in her own words ‘I complained [as it was happening]’ and that she afterwards added ‘I accepted a large sum of money’ [to remain silent]”.[75]

Marc Laffineur, vice president of the French National Assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s center-right party, criticized government ministers for rushing to judgment, saying the charges against Polanski should not be minimized.

Marine Le Pen, from the National Front, during a TV talk show on how to prevent sex crimes recidivism, criticized Mitterrand for his support of Polanski.[76] She recalled that in 2005, Mitterrand had published a book strongly similar to memoirs[77] in which he mentioned using adolescent “boy” prostitutes in Thailand. She contended that such apparent support of abusers of minors from a minister was at odds with the objective of the state to discourage sex tourism and the abuse of minors. The National Front started a petition for Mitterrand’s resignation.

The SACD, a society that collects authorship fees for film and theater works and redistributes them to authors, hosted an international petition in favor of Polanski.[78] The petition stated:

By their extraterritoriality, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.[78]

A number of celebrities, most of them French, expressed their support for Polanski by means of a public manifesto, whose concluding statements were “Roman Polanski is a French citizen, an artist of international reputation, now threatened to be extradited. This extradition, if brought into effect, would carry a heavy load of consequences as well as deprive the film-maker of his freedom.” The signatories concluded: “we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.”[79] Not all assessments coming from the French film-making mainstream have been openly partisan, however. Luc Besson, for instance, remarked: “I do not know the history of the trial. (…) I feel a lot of affection for [Polanski], he’s a man I really like and I know him a bit, our daughters are very good friends but there is one justice, [and] it is the same for everyone”.[80][81]

On 30 September 2009, the French government dropped its public support for Polanski, on the grounds that he was not “above the law”. Government spokesman Luc Chatel said: “We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job,” adding: “One can understand the emotion that this belated arrest, more than 30 years after the incident, and the method of the arrest, have caused.”[82]

Public opinion polls in France consistently show between 65% and 75% of the population want to see him extradited to the United States.[83]

Poland

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded to early reactions by urging his cabinet ministers to exercise calm and reminding them that it is a “case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child.”[58]

An opinion poll showed that more than 75% of Poles would not like to see Polanski escape another trial.[84]

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the arrest caused widely varying reactions in the media and in politics, while the Swiss minister of justice, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, defended the arrest as legally required under the Swiss-U.S. extradition treaty and as a matter of equality before the law.[63]

United States

When asked if he would consider granting Polanski a pardon, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “I think that he is a very respected person and I am a big admirer of his work. But, nevertheless, I think he should be treated like everyone else. It doesn’t matter if you are a big-time movie actor or a big-time movie director or producer.” Schwarzenegger added: “And one should look into all of the allegations, not only his allegations, but the allegations about his case. Was there something done wrong? You know, was injustice done in the case?”[85]

More than 100 people in the film industry, including Woody AllenMartin ScorseseDarren Aronofsky, and David Lynch signed a petition in 2009 calling for Polanski’s release.[78][86][87] Harvey Weinstein also defended Polanski.[88][89]

Whereas a number of those in Hollywood have rallied behind Polanski, the Los Angeles Times reports that the rest of the nation seems to have a different perspective: “In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski.”[90]

Following the rearrest, David Wells announced that he had lied in the Wanted and Desired documentary, claiming that Marina Zenovich told him that the documentary would not air in America, if he refused to lie in it (which Zenovich denied). Wells then proceeded to blast Polanski, calling him a pedophile rapist.[91][92] Wells said “It’s outrageous. This pedophile raped a 13-year-old girl. It’s still an outrageous offense. It’s a good thing he was arrested. I wish it would have happened years before.”

Legal actions

On 30 September 2009, New York Times reported that Steptoe & Johnson’s Reid Weingarten, a well-known criminal defense lawyer and allegedly a close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, had been hired by Polanski for his defense along with attorneys Douglas Dalton, Bart Dalton, and Chad Hummel. According to the New York Times:[93][94]

Mr. Weingarten is expected to mount a legal effort to block Mr. Polanski’s extradition before the issue works its way through the Swiss legal system, according to people who were briefed on Mr. Weingarten’s involvement, but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

A critical step will most likely be a move to stop the extradition before United States authorities send the required documents to Switzerland. Mr. Polanski’s team may do so by arguing either that his crime does not qualify for extradition, because he was originally to have been sentenced to less than a year in prison, or that he has already effectively served his sentence, during a 42-day psychiatric evaluation.

On 21 October, after Swiss authorities had rejected Polanski’s initial pleas to be released on bail pending the result of any extradition hearing, one of his lawyers, Georges Kiejman, floated the idea of a possible voluntary return to the United States in an interview with the radio station Europe 1: “If this process drags on, it is not completely impossible that Roman Polanski could choose to go finally to explain himself in the United States where the arguments in his favor exist.”[95]

On 25 November, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland accepted Roman Polanski’s plea to be freed on US$4.5M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag.[96][97]

On 10 December, Division 7 of the California Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District heard oral argument on Polanski’s petition for writ of mandate.[53] Television stations including CNNFrance 2 and TVN24 also filed applications to cover the hearing.

The Court denied Polanski’s petition in an opinion filed on 24 December. The Court reasoned that since Polanski had adequate legal remedies in 1977 and at present in 2009, there was no reason to carve out a special exception to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. In arriving at that holding, the Court pointed out that neither side had realized that Polanski had the option of simply asking to be sentenced in absentia, which would result in a hearing where Polanski could directly attack the trial judge’s alleged malfeasance in 1977. On 6 January 2010, upon remand to the superior court, Polanski’s lawyers followed the appellate court’s advice and presented a notarized letter from Polanski in which he asked to be sentenced in absentia. The court asked the parties to brief the issue and scheduled a hearing for 25 January. At the hearing, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled Polanski must be present in court for sentencing.[98]

On 12 July 2010, the Swiss authorities announced that they would not extradite Polanski to the U.S. in part due to a fault in the American request for extradition. Polanski was no longer subject to house arrest, or any monitoring by Swiss authorities. In a press conference held by Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, she stated that Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. was rejected, in part, because U.S. officials failed to produce certain documents, specifically “confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement.”[citation needed] According to Swiss officials, the records were required to determine if Polanski’s 42-day court-ordered psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison constituted Polanski’s whole sentence according to the now-deceased Judge Rittenband. Reasoning that if this was the correct understanding, then “Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.”[99]

In 2013, Samantha Geimer published her view on the rape in her autobiography The Girl: A Life in the Shadow of Roman Polanski.[100][101]

In late October 2014, Polanski was questioned by prosecutors in Kraków, and released. Back in 2010 the Polish prosecutor general stated that under Polish law too much time had passed since the crime for Polanski to be extradited.[102] On 25 February 2015, Polanski appeared in a Polish court for a hearing on the U.S. request for extradition. The judge scheduled another hearing to be held in April or sooner, to give time to review documents that arrived from Switzerland.[103]

On October 30, 2015, Polish judge Dariusz Mazur denied a request by the United States to extradite Polanski. According to the judge, allowing Polanski to be returned to American law enforcement would be an “obviously unlawful” act, depriving the filmmaker of his freedom and civil liberty. His lawyers argued that extradition would violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Polanski holds dual citizenship with Poland and France.[104]

On November 27, 2015, Poland decided it will not extradite Polanski to the U.S. after prosecutors declined to challenge the court’s ruling, agreeing that Polanski had served his punishment and did not need to face a U.S. court again. Preparations for a movie he was working on had been stalled by the extradition request from last year.[105]

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Poland ruled to reject an appeal filed by Polish Minister of Justice Ziobro, and to uphold the October 2015 ruling.[106]

On August 17, 2017, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon rejected a request from Samantha Geimer to dismiss the case against Polanski.[107]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1003

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017, Story 1: More on Moore: Roy Moore’s Attorney News Briefing — She Said Vs. He Said — Faulty Memory of Witnesses Leading To Wrongful Conviction — Sexual Abuse — Who Do You Believe? — The Voters of Alabama Must Answer This Question on December 12 — Videos — Story 2: Will The Senate Pass A Tax Reform Bill?– NO — Tax Cut Bill — Yes — Videos — Story 3: Who is on the Congressional CREEP List of Sexual Harassers in Congress and Their Staffs ? — Who is next to be outed? — Shout Animal House — Intimacy — Getting To Know You– Dance With Me –Videos 

Posted on November 16, 2017. Filed under: American History, Art, Art, Assault, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, James Comey, Law, Life, Media, Movies, Music, National Interest, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Networking, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Image result for branco cartoons on roy mooreImage result for sexual harassment in congressImage result for branco cartoons tax reformImage result for branco cartoons tax reformImage result for sexual harassment in congress

Image result for Be Safe of Harassment

Story 1: More on Moore: Roy Moore’s Attorney News Briefing — She Said Vs. He Said — Faulty Memory of Witnesses Leading To Wrongful Conviction — Sexual Abuse — Who Do You Believe? — The Voters of Alabama Must Answer This Question on December 12 — Videos —

Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open – SNL

RUSH: Roy Moore Accuser Claims She Was Locked In Car In 1977; Child Locks Not Required Till 1980s

WATCH: Roy Moore’s attorney holds news briefing

Streamed live on Nov 15, 2017
The attorney for Roy Moore, the candidate for the Alabama seat vacated by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, holds a press conference following multiple allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Moore.

Alabama seniors say Roy Moore’s alleged actions were normal back then (HBO)

Mark Levin: People of Alabama should decide if they believe the accusations against Roy Moore

Ben Shapiro: Roy Moore needs to go

What Pisses Me Off About Roy Moore and Stupid F&%king Republicans

Judge Roy Moore Sexual Misconduct Allegations | True News

On The Sean Hannity Show, Newt Gingrich says a “lynch mob” is after Roy Moore

Live Stream: #Pedowood Predators, Pervs, Pedophiles and Pederasts Are Tolerated But Trump’s Reviled

How reliable is your memory? | Elizabeth Loftus

TED

Published on Sep 23, 2013

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider. TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.

Mother Of Roy Moore Accuser Spills The HOAX By Accident! – Several Facts Turned Out To Be FAKED

WaPo REPORTER Beth SECRETLY RECORDED OFFERING WOMAN $1000 TO ACCUSE ROY MOORE

Mark Levin REVEALS The Truth About Judge Roy Moore Allegations! You Will Cheer!

As McCain Leads The Charge Against Moore, LOOK What SICKENING Secret From His Past EXPOSED

Mitch McConnell Handling Of Past Sex Scandal A Warning For Roy Moore | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

USA: SENATOR BOB PACKWOOD SCANDAL UPDATE

Bob Packwood Resigns from Senate

Woman Explains Why She Falsely Accused Her Dad Of Sexual Assault As A Child

Dr. Drew: Child abuse at the core of virtually all societies’ problems

Dr. Drew on staggering impact of sexual abuse

Tom Arnold talks about his childhood of abuse

CNN: CNN anchor Don Lemon talks coming out, abuse

Candace Conti: Former Jehovah’s Witness Takes on Church over Sex Abuse Allegations

What happens to a child after he/she suffers sexual abuse?

Roy Moore maintains lead in another new Senate poll

Roy Moore, left, and Doug Jones. (AL.com file photos)
Roy Moore, left, and Doug Jones. (AL.com file photos)
s

Fox 10/Strategy Research poll released Tuesday night showed Moore with a six-point lead over Democrat Doug Jones.

The poll, according to Fox 10, sampled 3,000 likely voters on Monday with Moore getting 49 percent of the vote, Jones 43 percent and 8 percent undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 2 percent.

Even with that edge, the poll indicated Moore has lost almost half of his support. A Fox 10 poll two weeks ago showed Moore with an 11-point lead. Moore’s support among Republicans also dropped 8 percent.

The poll also said that 11 percent of participants said they were less likely to vote for Moore because of the allegations made against him while 35 percent said it made them more likely to vote for him.

The allegations also did not alter the thinking of a majority of the undecided voters. Of those who have not made up their mind, 51 percent said that the allegations would not be a deciding factor while 44 percent said it made them less likely to vote for Moore.

An Emerson College poll, released Monday, had Moore with a 10-point lead. Five other polls conducted since the allegations were publishedlast week either had Jones winning or within the margin of error.

One other poll, conducted by an official from earlier Moore campaigns and presented exclusively to Moore-favoring Breitbart News, had the former Alabama chief justice leading by 11 points.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_maintains_lead_in_an.html

Women supporting Roy Moore not concerned whether he dated teens

Dean Young and other Roy Moore supporters appear at a press conference in Montgomery on Nov. 16, 2017. (Mike Cason/mcason@al.com)

Two women who joined longtime Roy Moore ally Dean Young at a press conference today said they aren’t concerned whether Moore sought dates with teenage girls when he was a county prosecutor in his early 30s, some four decades ago.

Moore has strongly denied the two most serious allegations against him – a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old and an assault on a 16-year-old.

But Moore did not clearly deny dating teenage girls when he was in his early 30s in an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program. Moore did, in an open letter to Hannity, say that he did not date “underage” girls.

AL.com and the Washington Post have published stories about women who said Moore dated them or asked them on dates when they were ages 16-18 and he was in his 30s.

Click here for AL.com’s coverage of Roy Moore.

Kay Day, 69, of Theodore, who joined Young at today’s news conference, said that doesn’t necessarily bother her and won’t affect her support for Moore, who faces Democratic nominee Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 in the U.S. Senate election.

Day said she was 18 when she began dating her husband, who was 32 at the time. They got married in 1963.

“My mother married at 15 and married a man 14 years older than her,” Day said. “In that day, if you married someone that was 15 years older, it was common.”

“Even if it were so, that would not make me not vote for Judge Moore. That is just not something that would make me discredit and ruin a man for the rest of his life.”

Day, who grew up in Tennessee, said she began following Moore’s career during his legal battles over displays of the Ten Commandments.

“And I continue to follow him and have for 20 years, and devastated by what they would say about Judge Moore because I’ve known him for so long and been with him,” Day said. “Gentleman. Never heard anything come out of his mouth that would even give me an inkling. Never crossed my mind. Perfect gentleman.”

Dee Owens, 75, who came to Montgomery from Mobile today to join Young for the press conference, said she would not be bothered to learn that Moore dated teenage girls in his early 30s.

“Not in the least because that’s all right with me,” Owens said. “When I was young I dated a gentleman that was 22 years older than me and my parents didn’t have a problem with it. And mothers back then actually wanted their daughters to marry men that were older. They felt they would be taken care of.”

“I believe like he does,” Owens said. “And like the Ten Commandments, he stood up. He will stand for what’s right. Not like the RINOs we have in Washington. And definitely I’ll vote for him. And everybody I know, all my friends are voting for him.”

Young, who ran for a Congress last year and in 2013, is a regular presence at Moore rallies and press conferences and has known Moore since the early 1990s.

Moore said the campaign is working to debunk allegations against the candidate and will prevail against what he called the fake news media, elitist Republican establishment in Washington and the Democrats.

“Now they have all this endless parade of people who have never said anything for 40 years say that a man that you, Alabamians have watched for 25 years,” Young said. “You’ve watched him stand for what’s right, for what’s good and what’s just and what’s fair.”

Young aimed much of his criticism at Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who backed Sen. Luther Strange in his primary loss to Moore and has said he believes Moore’s accusers and that Moore should get out of the race.

Young also criticized attorney Gloria Allred, who represents Beverly Young Nelson, 56, who accused Moore of assaulting her in his car outside the Gadsden restaurant where she worked when she was 16. Moore has strongly denied the allegation.

Moore’s attorney, Phillip Jauregui, has challenged Allred to submit Nelson’s high school yearbook for examination by handwriting analysts. Nelson claims Moore signed the yearbook.

Allred said they would only allow the yearbook to be examined if the Senate Judiciary Committee or Select Committee on Ethics conducts a hearing on Nelson’s allegation. She said Nelson is willing to give testimony under oath and Moore should do the same.

Young pointed out that Allred declined to answer directly when asked by Wolf Blitzer on CNN if the yearbook signature was a forgery.

“Is this a real signature?” Young said. “She won’t even answer that question.”

Owens said efforts by the national Republican establishment to derail Moore’s campaign in Alabama have made her more determined than ever to support him.

“I would like to go to Washington with a big stick,” Owens said.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/women_supporting_roy_moore_not.html

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom

Joyce W. Lacy#1 and Craig E. L. Stark#2

Abstract

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

Introduction

Pioneers in neuroscience such as Ramón y Cajal, Hebb, and Marr introduced the idea that memory is encoded in the patterns of synaptic connectivity between neurons. Increases in the strengths of these synapses encode our experiences and thereby shape our future behavior. Our understanding of the complex mechanisms that underlie learning and memory has progressed dramatically in recent decades, and studies have not provided evidence that memories are indelible. Quite the contrary, it is becoming clear that there are several ways through which memories can change.

The ‘imperfection’ of memory has been known since the first empirical memory experiments by Ebbinghaus1, whose famous ‘forgetting curve’ revealed that people are unable to retrieve roughly 50% of information one hour after encoding. In addition to simple forgetting, memories routinely become distorted27. The public perception of memory, however, is typically that memory is akin to a video recorder8 (Box 1). This distinction between the perception and reality of memory has important consequences in the context of the courtroom. In the legal system, like among the general public, it is generally assumed that memory is highly accurate and largely indelible, at least in the case of ‘strong’ memories.

Recently, some regional jurisdictions, such as New Jersey10,11, Massachusetts12, Texas13, and North Carolina14 have implemented procedural changes designed to mitigate effects of memory biases and to best preserve accurate memories of eyewitnesses. However, the legal system writ large has been slow to adapt to research findings on memory, even though these findings have implications not only for eyewitness testimony, but also for how jurors remember and weigh evidence. Interest in the research of memory processes and their relevance to the courtroom has increased since the advent of DNA evidence, which has exonerated hundreds of individuals who were falsely convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony. …

Conclusions

Memory is imperfect and is susceptible to distortion and loss. There are adaptive reasons for generalization and forgetting7. Indeed, Luria’s famous report of the mnemonist S.85 readily shows how an inability to forget can severely impair normal functioning. In addition, the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie the occurrence of distortions in memory also allow memories to be updated and strengthened. Unfortunately, in the courtroom ‘memory’ is often misunderstood and undue assumptions are made about its veridicality.

Thus, there needs to be greater education and awareness of memory processes in judicial settings and in daily life. Society would benefit from a better understanding of what factors affect memory accuracy and of their complexity and potentially counter-intuitive nature. Secondly, the legal system needs to reevaluate the probative value of memory. Witnessing a potentially traumatic event does not produce an unbiased, indelible memory of the event. Memory is an adaptive process based on reconstruction. It works well for what it is intended — guiding current and future behaviour. However, it is not infallible, and therefore should not be treated as such. For these reasons, some have argued that the legal system should not convict individuals on eyewitness testimony alone, but rather should require corroborative evidence83,86. Lastly, more research ought to be carried out on the complex mechanisms that underlie memory so that we can better understand its limits, improve its reliability, and detect when it has gone awry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/

Eyewitness memory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eyewitness memory is a person’s episodic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed.[1] Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual’s memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example.[2] However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.[1] It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined.[3][4][5] The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.[6]

Encoding

During the event

Challenges of identifying faces

People struggle to identify faces in person or from photos, a difficulty arising from the encoding of faces.[7] When participants were given a basic memory test from an array of photos or a lineup, they struggled to accurately identify the images and had low recognition. This finding provides a starting point for estimating the accuracy of eyewitnesses’ identification of others involved in a traumatic event. It can only get more challenging for a person to accurately encode a face when they are experiencing a traumatic event.[7] Because courts rely on eyewitness facial recognition, it is important to acknowledge that identification is not always accurate.[8] Face-specific cognitive and neural processes show contributions to holistic processing and recognition in the episodic memories of eyewitnesses.[9] Unreliability of eyewitness identifications may be a result of mismatching between how faces are holistically processed and how composite systems retrieve features in faces during an event.[10]

Other-race effect

The other-race effect (i.e. the own-race bias, cross-race effect, other-ethnicity effect, same-race advantage) is one factor thought to impact the accuracy of facial recognition. Studies investigating this effect have shown that a person is better able to recognize faces that match their own race but are less reliable at identifying other more unfamiliar races, thus inhibiting encoding.[11] Various explanations for this effect have been proposed. The perceptual expertise account suggests that with an increase of exposure to one’s own race, perceptual mechanisms develop which allow people to be more proficient at remembering faces of their own race.[12] The socio-cognitive account predicts that motivational and/or attentional components over focus on the race of a person.[12] Another hypothesis is that each race pays attention to certain facial details to differentiate between faces.[13] However, other races might not encode these same features. A final suggestion is that faces of the same race are encoded more deeply, leading a witness to have a more detailed memory for those faces; but there has not been much research to support this hypothesis. Research on the other race effect has mainly focused on the African American and Caucasian races. Most research has shown that white eyewitnesses exhibit the other-race effect, however this effect does extend to other races too.[13] In general, memory is an individual process and that conceptualization of race causes racial ambiguity in facial recognition. Mono-racial eyewitnesses may depend on categorization more than multiracial eyewitnesses, who develop a more fluid concept of race.[14] Perception may affect the immediate encoding of these unreliable notions due to prejudices, which can influence the speed of processing and classification of racially ambiguous targets. The ambiguity in eyewitness memory facial recognition can be attributed to the divergent strategies that are used when under the influence of racial bias. It should be noted this phenomenon is not limited to race. Stereotypes of any kind (whether they be related to age, gender, etc.) can affect the encoding of information at the time of the event. For example, if one is held at gunpoint by two individuals, one of whom is a man and the other is a woman wearing a hat, the victim may quickly fall back on the belief that men are more likely to be aggressors. Consequently, the victim may encode the situation as involving two male assailants, yielding problematic effects in the process of identifying the assailants later on.

Stress and trauma

Stress or trauma during an event can affect the encoding of the memory.[15] Traumatic events may cause memory to be repressed out of conscious awareness.[16] An inability to access the repressed memory is argued to occur in cases involving child sexual abuse. Another way encoding a memory can be affected is when the person involved in a traumatic event experiences dissociation; he or she mentally removes themselves from the situation, which may serve as a coping mechanism. Lastly, trauma may induce a flashbulb effect; the witness believes they vividly remember significant details of a salient event, although accuracy must be determined of such memories .[15] In legal settings the mental state of an individual at both witnessing a crime and in testimony can affect the success of their memory retrieval. Stress in small amounts is thought to aid memory, whereby stress hormones released by the amygdala promote the consolidation of emotional memories.[17] Nevertheless, stress in high amounts may hinder memory performance. Witnesses of severe crimes or trauma can suffer from further implications, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)[18] or even Psychogenic Amnesia.[19]

Post traumatic stress disorder

Explicit memory (used in legal testimony) is affected by post traumatic stress disorder(PTSD); individuals diagnosed with PTSD can struggle to recall explicit events from their memory, usually those which are especially traumatic events. This may be due to the individual preferring not to think about the unpleasant memory, which they may rather forget. Implicit memory, on the other hand, does not seem to be affected in the same way that explicit memory does, rather some individuals with PTSD may score higher on implicit memory tests than non-PTSD individuals.[18]

Psychogenic amnesia

Psychogenic amnesia (or dissociative amnesia) can affect explicit memory for a particular event.[19] Most often cases of psychogenic amnesia occur after witnessing an extremely violent crime or trauma, such as war.[20]

Mood-congruency effect

Everyday memory can be affected by factors such as stress or mood. The ‘mood congruency’ effect refers to memory being aided by a matching of mood at the encoding/learning stage to the retrieval stage. If a memory is encoded under stressfull conditions it may be more likely that the memory is better recalled if stress levels at retrieval are congruent to stress levels at encoding. Mood congruency may affect a witnesses ability to recall a highly stressful crime, if conditions of encoding and retrieval are different.[20] Moderate amounts of stress may be beneficial to memory by the release of corticosteroids. Conversely, too much stress (and therefore an extreme influx of corticosteroids) can affect function of the hippocampus and therefore hinder memory. Very high levels of corticosteroid release may be very detrimental for memory.[21]

Weapon focus

The weapon focus effect suggests that the presence of a weapon narrows a person’s attention, thus affects eyewitness memory.[22] A person focuses on the central detail (for example, the weapon) and loses focus on the peripheral details (for example, the perpetrator’s characteristics). While the weapon is remembered clearly, the memories of the other details of the scene suffer.[22] The weapon focus effect occurs because additional items require more visual attention, therefore they are frequently not processed. This increased focus of attention on central aspects takes away attentional resources from peripheral details. For example, if a gun was brought into a school, it would attract significant amount of attention, because students are not used to seeing that item. When participants were watching a slideshow, and were seeing an unusual stimulus item, their reaction times were slower (regardless whether the stimulus was dangerous) in comparison to reaction times for more frequent stimulus. When the item was dangerous (i.e. a weapon), participants had a lower accuracy and confidence than the control group’s.[23] Another hypothesis is that seeing a weapon might cause an aroused state. In an aroused state, people focus on central details instead of peripheral ones.[24]

Interference

The testimony of a witness can lose validity due to too many external stimuli, that may affect what was witnessed during the crime, and therefore obstruct memory. For example, if an individual witnesses a car accident on a very public street, there may be too many cues distracting the witness from the main focus. Numerous interfering stimulus inputs may suppress the importance of the stimulus of focus, the accident. This can degrade the memory traces of the event, and diminish the representation of those memories. This is known as the cue-overload principle.[25]

After the event

Because memory is subject to contamination, the most reliable test of a memory is the initial test.[26] Police procedures can reduce the effects of contamination on memory with proper testing protocols.[26]

Misinformation effect

Witnesses can be subject to memory distortions that can alter their account of events. It is of particular interest that the memory of an eyewitness can become compromised by other information, such that an individual’s memory becomes biased. This can increase eyewitnesses sensitivity to the misinformation effect. Individuals report what they believe to have witnessed at the time of the crime, even though this may be the result of a false memory. These effects can be a result of post-event information.[27] It is very important to provide witnesses with helpful response options on memory tests and to be warned of misleading influences that might affect how the memory of the event is recalled at a later time.[28] Many employees, police force workers, and others are trained in post-warning in order to reduce influences on the misinformation effect, which can be predicted before crime. In their studies, many researchers use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness’ ability to recall information.[29] Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. Other studies also address how the misinformation effect seems to amplify over increasing recall.[30] Discussing events and being questioned multiple times may cause various versions of the testimonies. However, the earliest records prove to be the most accurate due to a minimized misinformation effect.

Unconscious transference

Many mistaken identifications are the result of unconscious transference, or the inability to distinguish between the perpetrator and another person who was encountered in a different context.[31] In many of these cases, the culprit is confused with a different person who was present at the crime scene. Implicit processing takes place during the event, in which the witness encodes the general features of innocent bystanders, creating a sense of familiarity. At retrieval, this familiarity could cause people who were merely present in the crime scene to be confused with the culprit.[31] After viewing a video of a crime involving a thief and two innocent bystanders, participants were asked to identify the perpetrator from a lineup including the three persons present in the video and three other people never before encountered. Most participants falsely identified an innocent person from the lineup. Furthermore, participants were more likely to misidentify one of the two innocent confederates in the video than one of the three unfamiliar people.[31] Unconscious transference occurs in this instance when the witness misattributes his or her sense of familiarity of the perpetrator to a bystander.[32] This confusing effect of familiarity is found in the mug shot procedure as well.[33] The presentation of mug shot arrays alone does not seem to influence identification accuracy. However, this presentation can be influential if the police lineups include individuals who were earlier featured in the mug shot array. Individuals appearing in police lineups that also appeared in previous photo arrays may be identified as quickly as identifying the actual target. Therefore, in cases where a suspect is identified from mug shots following a line-up, it is uncertain whether the line-up identification is a result of the recognition of the perpetrator or of the detection of a person seen previously in mug shots.[33]

Retrieval

Lineups

police lineup is a method for an eyewitness to identify a perpetrator by viewing a series of photos, or a live group of suspects.[22] One possible outcome of a lineup is that the eyewitness can correctly identify the criminal. Another outcome is that the eyewitness can correctly state that the criminal is not in the lineup. A third option is that the eyewitness can fail to recognize that the culprit is present. Lastly, the eyewitness can incorrectly select another suspect. The ideal result is to correctly identify the offender, and the worst outcome is to mistakenly identify an innocent.[22]

Police role in lineup

There are specific guidelines for police to follow when administering a lineup, to reduce bias in the lineup and increase the accuracy of eyewitness judgements.[22] Police must reduce the pressure that eyewitnesses feel to select a criminal from an array of photos or persons. They should make sure that the eyewitness is aware that the perpetrator might not be in the lineup. Also, police should conduct a double blind procedure that does not allow them to see the lineup. This prevents police from giving the eyewitness any information, intentional or not, about who in the lineup is a police suspect. It also prevents the police from giving any feedback to the eyewitness. Feedback can produce a false confidence in the witness’ selection. When overseeing a lineup, the police can use speed of recognition to determine the validity of the identification. If the witness quickly identifies the perpetrator, then the selection is more likely to be correct.[22]

Style of lineup

sequential lineup presents a witness with a series of photos one at a time, requiring the participant to identify if each photo matches his/her memory before moving forward.[34] The witness does not know how many photos are in the group. In a simultaneous lineup, the photos or suspects are viewed together. Sequential lineups produce fewer identifications, since they are more challenging, and require absolute judgement. This means that the decision regarding the matching of the memory to the photo is independently made. On the other hand, a simultaneous lineup requires relative judgement, as the decision is not independent of the other possibilities. An absolute judgment is a judgment that requires the person to be 100 percent certain in their choice where a relative judgment is when someone makes up their mind based on what looks the closest. However, researchers such as Dr. Gary Wells from Iowa State University claim “during simultaneous lineups, witnesses use relative judgment, meaning that they compare lineup photographs or members to each other, rather than to their memory of the offender.”[35] Sequential lineups have been preferred historically, seeing as they do not rely on relative judgment. However, recent data suggests the preference for sequential lineups over simultaneous lineups may not be empirically supported. Individuals who participate in sequential lineups are less likely to make a selection at all, regardless if the selection is accurate or not. This suggests the sequential lineup fosters a more conservative shift in criterion to make a selection rather than an increased ability to pick the true perpetrator. Consequently, further research is needed before offering recommendations to police departments.[36]

Size of lineup

Lineup members should have diverse characteristics so that lineups are not biased toward or against the suspect. If the appearance of a person stands out amongst the otherwise indistinctive crowd, then an eyewitness is more likely to select that person regardless of their own recollection of the criminal. According to Schuster (2007), the suspect, if he is in the in person lineup or in a picture lineup, should not stand out from the others in the lineup. People’s eyes are drawn to what is different. If you make sure that all the men or women in the pictures have a similar appearance, have the same background in their picture, race, age, and are wearing the same or similar clothing, just to name a few, then the risk of getting a false positive will decrease. Thus, this lineup is suggestive.[37] Fillers should be added to the lineup in order to depict a broad spectrum of characteristics,[38] but must match any known description of the offender. If lineup members do not all match the known description of the offender then the lineup is biased toward the suspect.[39] Biased lineups have been shown to increase misidentifications, particularly in target-absent lineups.[40] Increasing the nominal size of a lineup (the actual number of suspects that are compiled) often decreases the potential for a wrong selection. Functional size also plays a role in lineup bias. Functional size is the reciprocal of the fraction of mock witnesses that choose the suspect from a lineup.[41] For example, in a lineup of nominal size 5, if 15 out of 30 mock witnesses (randomly chosen individuals that did not experience the offence) choose the suspect, the functional size of the lineup is the reciprocal of 15/30, which is 30/15, or 2. So although the lineup has 5 members, functionally it only has 2. Effective size is the number of probable suspects. Police use these three numbers to evaluate a lineup.[38]

Viewpoints

Many studies, as well as police procedures, are dependent on photo lineups or police lineups where the eyewitness views the suspects from a distance. This procedure is done in an attempt to eliminate suspects and identify the perpetrator. These types of lineups allow only small degrees of visual information for the eyewitness, such as limited viewing angles, which restrict the level of detail compared to a computerized virtual lineup where witnesses can see the targets from multiple angles and distances. One might anticipate that examination of the suspects from unlimited viewpoints would allow for better recognition cues, than when compared to limited views. However, unlimited visual information may be disadvantageous and counterproductive if the information offered at the time of retrieval was not actually present at the time of memory encoding.[42] For example, if an eyewitness only saw the face of the perpetrator from one angle, seeing the lineup participants from other viewpoints might be distracting. Other studies have demonstrated that unlimited viewpoints do improve accuracy in police lineups.[42] It should also be noted that the eyewitness accuracy improves when the distance between the suspect and witness matches the distance during the initial witnessing of the crime.[43]

Retroactive interference

Another phenomenon that may interfere with an eyewitness’ memory is retroactive interference. This occurs when new information is processed that obstructs the retrieval of old information.[44] A common source of interference that may occur after the event of a crime is the reporting of the crime. Police investigations include questioning that is often suggestive. The processing of new information may disrupt or entirely replace old information.[45] If a police officer has reason to believe that a suspect is guilty the interrogator’s bias can influence the eyewitness’ memory. The interrogators can also put pressure on witnesses causing them to want to select a perpetrator from a police lineup. Eyewitnesses are often unsuspecting of the interrogator bias and believe their memories to be uncontaminated.[46]

Co-witness contamination

The presence of a co-witness can often contaminate memories.[47] When witnesses confer about an event they can end up agreeing on an incorrect narrative. Research has found that 71% of witnesses changed their eyewitness accounts to include false components that their co-witnesses remembered.[48] This makes it very difficult to reconstruct the actual account of an event. To prevent this effect, police should separate witnesses as early as possible before the reporting of the event. Unfortunately this is difficult, especially if the police do not get involved immediately after the event. Police should inform witnesses of the possibility of contamination as soon as possible. Witnesses should be interviewed as soon as possible with police noting if the witnesses have compared accounts. Once the accounts have been recorded, police should make notes of similarities or differences that could point to contaminated details or facts. [49]

Confidence

A witness identifying a suspect can make a decision with little or great confidence. Level of confidence varies between different witnesses and situations. There are two types of confidence: confidence in a witness’ own ability to make an identification (prior to viewing a police lineup) and confidence in having made an accurate identification or accurate rejection. It must be considered that memories are normally vulnerable to multiple influences and prone to distortions and deceptions: “they are never constant and never result in fully accurate representations [and] these changes occur without us being aware of them.”[50] As a consequence, the witness’ confidence in his/her ability to make a correct identification should not be used to assess the accuracy of identification. Witnesses should be asked to attempt identifications even if their confidence is low. Confidence ratings after identification of a suspect is a better ( but not perfect) predictor.[51]

In many experiments, witnesses are asked to rate their confidence in their decision after making an identification from a lineup. A number of psychologists have investigated factors that might affect the confidence accuracy relationship. In a recent review of 15 experiments, suspect identifications made with high confidence were, on average, 97 percent accurate.[26] On the other hand, witnesses who report low confidence are highly suggestive of inaccurate identification. University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett analyzed trial materials for 161 DNA exonerated individuals and found that in 57 percent of those cases, it was possible to determine that, in the initial (uncontaminated) memory test, the eyewitnesses were, at best, uncertain.[26]

The optimality hypothesis states that factors influencing the optimality of information processing also influence the reliability of the confidence estimate. During situations in which information processing conditions are less than optimal (e.g. the perpetrator is disguised or duration of exposure is brief) witnesses’ performance during identification decreases and they are less confident in their decision. The confidence accuracy correlation is thus estimated to be stronger in situations of optimal information processing such as longer exposure time, and weaker under conditions that are not optimal.[52]

Certain factors affect identification accuracy without influencing confidence whereas other factors influence confidence without having an effect on identification accuracy. Reconstructive processes in memory (i.e. the influence of post-event information on stored memories) can influence identification accuracy while not necessarily affecting confidence. Social influence processes (i.e. committing to a decision) might have an effect on confidence judgements while having little to no effect on the accuracy of the identification.[53]

Interviews

The method of conducting an interview has great implication on the accuracy of the testimony. When the person being interviewed is forced to provide more information, he/she is more likely to engage in confabulation.[54] For example, when participants were shown a video and instructed to answer all questions (answerable and unanswerable) about its content, they often fabricated information.[54] When prodded too much to remember something, people often fall upon false memories. This effect is also seen in hypnosis: when people intensely try and are guided to remember something, they may end up mistaking a vivid imagination as a memory.[55]

Cognitive interview technique

Researchers have developed a strategy, entitled the cognitive interview technique, to elicit the most accurate eyewitness memory.[56] In this preferred protocol for conducting interviews, the interrogator should make the witness feel comfortable, ask open-ended questions, and grant the witness freedom in describing the event.[22] In addition, the interviewer should encourage the witness to exhaust his/her memory by reinstating the context of the event, recalling the events in different orders, and viewing the event scene from different perspectives.[22]

Suggestibility

Distortions in a witness’s memory can be induced by suggestive questioning procedures.[57] Asking eyewitnesses to repeatedly retrieve information in multiple interviews may enhance memory because the event is being rehearsed many times or, as in many cases, increase suggestibility. Misleading information offered by the investigators may attract more attention than the originally encoded information, so the witness’ memory of the event is altered to include erroneous details suggested during the interview.[57] In addition, repeating questions could make the witness feel pressured to change his or her answer or elaborate on an already-given response with fabricated details.[58] Open-ended questioning can reduce the level of retrieval-enhanced suggestibility because the witness is not subjected to testing manipulation by the interviewer.[57]

Contextual reinstatement

Contextual reinstatement is a common technique used to help eyewitnesses remember details about a specific environment– reviewing the initial environment in which the original information was encoded. Taking a witness back to the scene where the event occurred, for example, will help facilitate the accuracy in identifying perpetrators. Reinstatement is thought to improve recall as it provides memory retrieval cues. Research has demonstrated that pairing faces of suspects or words with contextual cues at the scene of the crime will enhance performance on recognition tasks.[59][60] Therefore, it seems practical that these results can be applied to eyewitness identification. Methods commonly used to examine context reinstatement include photographs of the environment/scene, mental contextual reinstatement cues, and guided recollection. Studies show that re-exposing participants to the crime scene does enhance performance in facial recognition.[61] There were also notable effects for context reinstatement where improvement on correct identifications while increasing false alarms. Reports also show that the magnitude of improvement via context reinstatement increased in lifelike situations compared to laboratory studies.[62]

Experimental context

An alteration of context was found to be one of the most important predictors of recognition accuracy. Such changes in experimental context have been shown to have effects similar to transformations in appearance, such as disguises. Criminal identifications can be influenced by a change in context. Investigators must account for the fact that encountering an acquaintance that we usually see in one context, such as work place, alters memory generalizability when compared to encountering the same acquaintance in another environment that acts like an unassociated context, such as a grocery store. The changes in environment make it difficult to identify this acquaintance.[62] Initially, the individual might seem familiar but because this person is not in the normal context, it might be difficult to place the face and recall the name. Researchers have begun to implement procedures for reinstating the context surrounding a specific event in an attempt to improve identification accuracy. Reinstating the crime scene is often not possible. Sometimes, however it is possible to have eyewitnesses imagine and thus mentally reinstate the surroundings with imagery instructions and other mnemonic devices.[62] In some instances, objects from the crime scene such as guns or clothing can be used additionally to help reinstate the context. Such methods have successfully shown to improve reliability and accuracy of eyewitness recall.

Verbal overshadowing effect

The process of describing a face entails thinking about its features independently, but people process faces configurally (as a whole, encoding the features in relation to one another).[63] So, the process of describing the face often impairs the memory of it—this is the verbal overshadowing effect. A verbal overshadowing effect typically refers to the negative effect on memory recall as a result of giving a verbal description of a visual object. For example, a witness who gives a verbal description of a face is likely to have subsequent impaired recognition for that face.[64] However, Perfect et al. (2002) predicted that the verbal overshadowing effect would also be seen in voice recognition; that is that verbally describing a voice should also impair subsequent recognition of that voice. They predicted this because they argued that voices were difficult to articulate and so it is likely they would be vulnerable to the verbal overshadowing effect. This was found to be the case. Moreover, a dissociation between accuracy and confidence was observed. Participants’ confidence that they had identified the correct voice in the audio-lineup was not influenced by the verbal overshadowing effect; in other words, verbal overshadowing had the effect of decreasing earwitnesses’ recognition ability but without their knowledge.[65]

Child testimony

Most of the research on eyewitness memory has involved adults, despite the fact that it is not uncommon for children to have been involved in a crime or to have been the central witness of a crime. Statistics from the Crown Prosecution Service[66] revealed that 1,116 children under the age of 10 were witnesses to a crime in England and Wales in 2008/9.

Children’s testimony refers to when children are required to testify in court after witnessing or being involved in a crime. In situations where a child is the main witness of a crime, the result of the hearing is dependent on the child’s memory of the event. And there are several important issues associated with eyewitness memory of children. For example, the accuracy of the child’s explanation, in such situations, coupled with how well the child can identify the setting of the crime and the individuals involved in the crime, influence the credibility of the child’s testimony. Whilst research shows that it is possible for children to provide relevant and accurate forensic information, they appear less reliable than adult witnesses and like all witnesses, can create false memories.[67][68]

Moreover, children often have a limited vocabulary, a desire to please the officer, or difficulty answering questions because of trauma.[68] Using early childhood memories in eyewitness testimony can also be challenging because for the first 1–2 years of life, brain structures such as the limbic system, which holds the hippocampus and the amygdala and is involved in memory storage,[69] are not yet fully developed.[70] Research has demonstrated that children can remember events from before the age of 3–4 years, but that these memories decline as children get older (see childhood amnesia).[71][72]

Children can be involved in testimony not only when they are witnesses, but also when they are victims. There have been several cases of children recovering false memories of childhood abuse.[73] Children as especially suggestible[74] and in cases of recovered memories, is hard to determine whether the recovered memory is accurate or imagined. Due to the sensitivity of these cases, strategic interviewing is implemented for children, which may result in the validity of the memory to suffer. Strategic interviewing must be assessed with sensitivity on an individual bases and without leading questions, as they may influence the child’s answer.[75] Additional influences may include individuals surrounding the child prior to, and during the hearing. If children hear new information from such individuals, studies show that children will more than likely agree with what the others said – regardless of the child’s initial opinion.[76]

Studies on children show that the average child is at greater risk for memory loss, due to the brain’s immaturity and plasticity, when compared to an average adult.[21] Poorer memory performance in young kids was shown when youth of different ages were asked to recall a doctor’s visit.[15] Children aged 3–5 answered with much less accuracy than individuals aged 6–15, indicating developmental differences in memory capacity. Furthermore, it has been shown that information encoded and stored in memory is dependent on the extent of knowledge regarding the event. That is, if a child is exposed to an event that he or she knows little about, their memory of the event will not be as accurate when compared to a child who is more knowledgeable on event-related topics.[77] These results of increased sensitivity, suggestibility and memory loss in children lead one to question the competency of a child to serve as an eyewitness. Researchers have determined that a child should be considered a competent witness if he or she has the capacity to observe, communicate, produce sufficient memories, differentiate truth from lies, and understand the obligation to tell the truth.[15] However, the same caution that is taken with all eyewitnesses should be taken with child testimony, as all eyewitness testimonies are prone to inaccuracies.[3][4][5]

Intellectual ability and testimony

Individuals with intellectual disabilities are at a higher risk for sexual abuse and exploitation because they are often dependent on others and uneducated or physically incompetent in ways of self-protection.[78] Therefore, much research has been devoted to investigating the accountability of these individuals in eyewitness testimonies. When a group of adults chosen by the Developmental Disabilities Association was compared to a control group of college students, they performed equally well when a target was absent from a lineup. However, the control group were better at recognizing when a target was present in a lineup, leading to the determination that people with intellectual disabilities are more suggestible and likely to confabulate.[78] Children with intellectual disabilities show similar patterns in their eyewitness accounts. After watching a video of a crime, children with these disabilities performed worse than non-disabled kids of the same age on free recall, open-ended questions, and both general and specific misleading questions.[79] These children performed better than the age-matched control group only on leading questions with yes or no answers, suggesting that they are more likely to acquiesce in the interview.[79] These findings indicate that individuals with intellectual disabilities could be considered competent witnesses if interrogated in a non-leading manner.

Eidetic memory

Individuals who are said to possess eidetic memories are thought to hold to an image in mind for longer and with more accuracy than the average individual.[80] But evidence for eidetic memory is limited, and there is no evidence for photographic memory or a memory being an exact replica of an event. The memories of those who claim to have superior eidetic memories are just as flawed as the memories of individuals who have normal mnemonic abilities;[81] people who claim to have photographic memories are not immune to flawed eyewitness testimony. Witnesses who believe that they are able to retrieve an accurate mental photograph will also be much more confident in their account of the event and may influence the trial outcome.[80] Accuracy recall of such visual scenes is a controversial issue. In the past, eidetikers were believed to have extremely accurate recall for visual displays, but modern research findings might reveal a different story. Some research demonstrates that eidetic children have greater recall accuracy for visual details compared to non-eidetic children. Other researchers have failed to find any advantage between the two groups. It is also hypothesized that eidetic imagery is not exactly related to memory and improves recall for visual details. As such, photographic memory is not useful in the courtroom.[82]

The frequency of eidetic imagery is low in adults and shows greatest frequency in early child development.[83] In fact, it is almost non-existent past the age of 7. When procedures are used to classify eidetic memory separate from the characteristic of afterimage and memory image, a small number of children are classified as true eidetikers. These children are still suggestible; their eyewitness testimonies may still have error.

Earwitness memory

Research investigating earwitness memory has only recently emerged from the shadow of the extensively investigated phenomena of eyewitness memory and eyewitness testimony, despite having been in use within the English justice system since the 1660s.[84][85]Earwitness memory refers to a person’s auditory memory for a crime or incriminatory information they have heard.[86] Much of the research which has been conducted on earwitness memory focuses on speaker recognition, otherwise known as voice recognition, whilst there is less research which investigates memory for environmental sounds.[87] The majority of the literature on voice and face recognition finds a robust face advantage; compared to voice recognition, face recognition appears to be the stronger pathway, with most individuals finding it much more difficult to recall a voice compared to recalling a face.[88][89][90]

Eyewitness vs. earwitness accuracy

A substantial proportion of the literature into witness testimony finds a robust recall advantage for visual stimuli compared to auditory stimuli. We seem to have a profound memory advantage for visual objects and scenes whilst being poorer at remembering auditory information.[91] This therefore has clear implications for eyewitness and earwitness memory; what is seen should be more likely to be remembered than what is heard by a witness. This finding can be extended to faces and voices; within the person recognition literature, it has been found that individuals are far better at identifying a person by their face as opposed to their voice.[92][93][94]

Non-verbal memory: environmental sound

Researchers define environmental sounds as those that are either animate, inanimate, artificial or natural; sounds produced by real events as opposed to machine-generated sounds; sounds that are more complex than laboratory-produced sounds and those that are dynamic and convey a sense of activity.[95][96] Examples include the ring of a doorbell, coughing, rain, a car engine, a railroad crossing signal, and so on. Such environmental sounds are important sources of information and provide us with knowledge of our surroundings.

Research has found that recall for environmental sounds can be dependent upon the storage and retrieval of verbalizable interpretations. In one study, individuals heard a selection of ambiguous environmental sounds and attempted to label each sound as they were presented. A week later, individuals labelled the sounds again and it was found that re-labelling the sounds subsequently caused individuals to perform much better in the recognition test. Recognition of environmental sounds therefore appears dependent upon labeling both at input and in the test phase, either when labels are created by subjects as they hear the sounds, or when labels are generated by the experimenter and presented to subjects.[97] More recent research has found that it is possible to memorize the loudness of an environmental sound.[98] However it is important to remember that a lot of research investigating environmental sound and memory recall is conducted in a laboratory setting and so has limited ecological validity and generalizability.

Verbal memory: voice recognition

Compared to memory recall for faces, voice recall appears to be significantly more vulnerable to interference.[94][99] These consistent findings suggest that earwitness memory is far more vulnerable to the effects of interference compared to eyewitness memory;[100]although the weight placed on eyewitness memory in court should also be carefully considered as there is much evidence to suggest its fallibility.[101][102] For example, some studies have found that eyewitness identification can be impaired by effects such as the weapon focus effect or verbal overshadowing.[103][104] Nevertheless, voice recognition appears to be the pathway most significantly impaired by interfering factors.

Face overshadowing effect

A face overshadowing effect is often found to occur, whereby individuals’ voice recognition performance is impaired with the co-presentation of a face.[105] Visual information therefore appears to have the ability to significantly interfere with the recall of auditory information. However, research has investigated whether earwitness memory is impaired to the same extent when the face of the one speaking is concealed in some way. Research shows that when a face is covered, with a balaclava for instance, accuracy for voice identification slightly improves; however a face overshadowing effect still exists despite the earwitness being able to see fewer facial features.[106]

Pitch of voice

Voice pitch has also been identified as a factor that can affect voice recognition performance. Individuals are likely to exaggerate their memory for pitch; upon hearing a high pitched voice in an initial presentation (such as the perpetrator’s voice in a crime), individuals are likely to choose an even higher-pitched voice in the test phase (audio line-up). Similarly, upon hearing a low-pitched voice, they are likely to remember the voice as being even lower in pitch when voices are presented in an audio line-up.[107] Comparable cognitive functions seem to operate when individuals attempt to remember faces; ambiguity surrounding the ethnicity or gender of faces is likely to result in the individual’s recall of faces to be exaggerated with regards to ethnic and gender-related features. Researchers call this the accentuation effect.[108] It is suggested that voice pitch, alongside other ‘surface properties’ of speech such as speech content,[109] are instantaneously encoded into memory.[110] This contrasts with auditory features such as amplitude and speaking rate, of which there is contrary evidence about whether they are automatically encoded into memory.[111]

Other-accent effect

There is evidence to suggest that witnesses may find it harder to identify a perpetrator’s voice if the perpetrator speaks the witness’s native language with an accent compared to without one. It is thought that more cognitive effort is required to process a non-native speaker’s voice. This is because a ‘cost’ is placed on the listener, with accented voices violating the ‘speech schema’ the listener is familiar with in their own geographic region. Therefore, listeners may be required to expend more effort in order to recognize and distinguish the non-native speaker’s phonetic segments and words.[112][113]

An accent also has the potential to interfere with the witness’s ability to recognize the perpetrator’s appearance. It has been found that when witnesses are asked to recall a perpetrator, the perpetrator’s physical appearance is remembered less well when they have an accent compared to when they do not. This appears the case with different accents, speech content and how long a listener is exposed to the speaker. One proposed explanation for why accents can negatively affect the recall of visual information and eyewitness memory draws from Wickens’ (2002; 2008) multiple resource theory.[114][115] Wickens’ theory suggests that attentional resources are separated into distinct ‘pools’. Only visual and auditory tasks have access to visual and auditory attentional resources, respectively. However, when a task arises which requires the use of attentional resources from both modalities, this leads to competition for resources, in turn leading the inability to accomplish one or both tasks or resulting in poorer performance. Therefore, fewer general resources may have been available in order to encode and remember the perpetrator’s appearance after witnesses had used attentional resources for the processing of the accented voice and speech content.[113]

Direct hearing vs. devices

Whilst many earwitness accounts are attained directly and ‘in-the-moment’, many will be acquired over a telephone or over other communication devices. Whether the earwitness hears a conversation or other auditory information in person or hears it over a communication device could impact their rate of accuracy. However, contrary to this prediction, research has found no significant differences between the accuracy of voice identification when the voice was heard directly or over a mobile phone, despite the sound quality seeming poorer in the latter.[116]

Emotion

Researchers have also investigated to what extent the distinctiveness of a voice, such as heightened emotion, can aid or impair an individual’s recollection of it. There is evidence that faces are better remembered if they display emotion compared to when they appear neutral; in one study healthy control participants remembered more accurately happy faces than they did neutral faces.[117] Likewise, a host of studies have found that memories that are more emotional in nature are more complex and are less likely to be forgotten compared to memories that are more neutral.[118][119] It therefore seems logical for researchers to explore whether auditory material which is emotional in nature is also remembered better. Research has produced conflicting results. Bradley and Lang (2000) found that there was a memory advantage for auditory material when it was more emotional compared to when it was more neutral.[120] The authors also found that participants’ physiological activity when they listened to emotionally arousing sounds was very similar to the physiological arousal produced when they were shown emotional images. However, studies investigating emotion in voices have found no significant differences between recall rates for emotional voices and neutral voices, with some research even demonstrating that emotion can impair memory recall for the voice. For instance, it was found that angry voices were recalled to a lesser extent compared to if they were neutral in tone.[121] This finding has been supported by other studies which have also found that rather than enhancing voice identification, emotion may significantly interfere with it.[122] However it is important to remember that ethical guidelines will confine the levels of emotionality that are appropriate to be induced in participants in a laboratory study environment.

Time-delay

The amount of time between when an individual hears incriminatory information or the voice of their perpetrator, for instance, and the time they are required to recall the auditory information as an earwitness can affect their recall accuracy rate. Memory for auditory information including voice recognition appears to decline over time; studies have found that participants can recall more correct auditory information immediately after the initial presentation than after a four-day time interval, supporting several other studies finding similar results. Furthermore, the extent to which the time-interval affects memory recall for auditory information depends upon whether the witness just heard the auditory information of whether it was accompanied by visual information too, such as the face of the perpetrator. One study has found that recall is enhanced when both auditory information is heard and visual information is seen, as opposed to just hearing auditory information. Still, when individuals are asked to remember the voice and the speech content, they are only likely to have remembered the gist of what has been said as opposed to remembering verbatim.[123][124] This clearly has implications for the amount of weight that is placed upon earwitness testimony in court. Earwitnesses are not typically required to give statements or recall a voice or auditory information immediately after an event has occurred, but instead are required to recall information after a time-delay. This could significantly impair the accuracy of their recall. The testimonies of those who have only heard the voice of a suspect compared to a witness who has both seen the face and heard the voice of a suspect should also be treated with extreme caution in court.[125]

Children’s earwitness memory

It is of critical importance that research into children’s earwitness memory is also conducted in order to secure justice for child victims and witnesses. Compared to adult earwitness memory, the area of child earwitness memory has been largely neglected. In one of few studies comparing adult and child earwitnesses, Öhman, Eriksson & Granhag (2011) found that only children in the older age-group of 11–13 years performed at above chance levels for voice recognition, compared to the younger-age group of children (aged 7–9) and adults. They suggest that under the age of 10 a child may be overwhelmed by the cognitive demands of the task and so do not perform above chance levels on the task. Meanwhile, adults made the highest percentage (55%) of false identifications. They also found that voice pitch level and speaker rate was highly correlated with children’s but not adults’ false identification rates.[67] Overall however, the results confirmed other studies which have also shown that in general, earwitness performance for unfamiliar voices is poor.[126]

Other research found that children aged 11 to 13 years old who were tested very shortly after exposure to a voice made more correct identifications compared with children who were tested after a time interval of two weeks. This was found not to be the case for adult witnesses.[127]

Auditory memory in blind individuals

It has been suggested that blind individuals have an enhanced ability to hear and recall auditory information in order to compensate for a lack of vision.[128] However, whilst blind adults’ neural systems demonstrate heightened excitability and activity compared to sighted adults, it is still not exactly clear to what extent this compensatory hypothesis is accurate.[129] Nevertheless, many studies have found that there appears to be a high activation of certain visual brain areas in blind individuals when they perform non-visual tasks. This suggests that in blind individuals’ brains, a reorganization of what are normally visual areas has occurred in order for them to process non-visual input. This supports a compensatory hypothesis in the blind.[130][131][132]

Enhancement

Research has investigated how to improve the accuracy of earwitness performance. One study investigated whether an interview called a Cognitive Interview would improve adult or child (11–13 years) voice recognition performance or speech content recall if it was administered immediately after the event. It was predicted that a cognitive interview would improve the likelihood of witnesses making a correct identification and improve recall of speech content, whether immediately after the event of after a time-delay and regardless of age. It was also predicted that adults would recall more content than children, because other studies have indicated that children provide less detail than adults during free recall.[133] However, results revealed poor correct identification rates, regardless of the type of interview earwitnesses had received (19.8%), as well as high false identification rates; 38.7% of participants incorrectly identified an innocent suspect. It did not seem to matter if an interview had been conducted shortly after the event or not. Moreover, there did not seem to be any difference between children and adults in terms of the number of suspects they correctly identified by their voice. Many researchers would suggest that this furthers the case for children (aged 11–13) to be thought of as equally capable of proving potentially helpful earwitness accounts within court settings.[134]

Example

In 1984, Jennifer Thompson-Cannino selected Ronald Cotton from both a photographic line-up and later a physical line-up as her rapist, leading to his conviction of rape and burglary and a sentence of life in prison plus fifty-four years. Ronald Cotton spent eleven years in prison due to faulty eyewitness memory before DNA evidence exonerated him in 1995. Despite Jennifer’s strong intent to study her rapist’s features during the traumatic event for the purpose of identifying him afterward, she fell victim to encoding limitations at the time of the assault. Jennifer undoubtedly experienced a great degree of stress on the night of her assault with a knife pressed to her neck and a feeling of absolute powerlessness. “There in my memory, at the knife-edge of fear, time distorted”.[135] She also fell prey to factors after the incident that affected the accuracy of her recall. Even if memories are correctly encoded at the time of the event, interference and decay can alter these memories in negative ways. The simple passage of time entails memory loss, and any new information presented between the time of the crime and testimony can interfere with a witness’s recall. When Jennifer was asked to identify her perpetrator from a series of photographs, she was told by officers that she should not feel compelled to make an identification. However, Jennifer’s faith in the legal system led her to believe that the police must have had a suspect to warrant her participation in photographic identification. And when Jennifer selected the photo of Ronald, the police told her she did great. It should be noted the photograph of Jennifer’s true rapist, Bobby Poole, was not included in the lineup. The positive feedback Jennifer received allowed her to begin incorporating details from the photograph into her memory of the attack. The fact that Jennifer took five minutes to study the pictures before she selected Ronald Cotton’s photo also allowed Jennifer ample opportunity to encode Ronald’s face as her assailant and thereby interfere with her original memory. The photographs were presented simultaneously, allowing Jennifer to compare the photographs to each other as opposed to her memory of the event. As a result, when she was later asked to choose her assailant from a physical line-up, Jennifer saw Ronald in her memory and thus chose him. The police further solidified her choice by telling her “We thought that might be the guy…it’s the same person you picked from the photos.”.[136] As a result, the authorities viewed Jennifer as the ideal eyewitness, one who was motivated to remember the face of her assailant during the event and subsequently confident in her identification of the target. Unfortunately, the level of confidence in an eyewitness’ recall is not associated with accuracy of identification. The eyewitness’ confidence in his or her recall is, however, strongly associated with the jury’s belief in the accuracy of the eyewitness’ testimony, thus increasing the risk of assigning guilty verdicts to innocent individuals.[137] In conclusion, unconscious transference essentially contaminated Jennifer’s memory. Even after Jennifer learned of Ronald’s innocence, she still saw his face in her memory of the attack years later. It wasn’t until she met with Ronald face-to-face and he gave her his forgiveness did she begin to see Ronald for himself rather than as her assailant, thus beginning a remarkable and unexpected friendship.

References

 

Story 2: Will The Senate Pass A Tax Reform Bill?– NO — Tax Cut Bill — Yes — Videos —

Robert Shiller / Nov 14, 2017 / On The Growing Market Worries

Stockman on Dow Reaching New Highs: It’s a ‘Wild, Gambling Casino’

David Stockman / Nov 15, 2017 / Corporate tax rate reduction won’t go into wages

Recite Al Jazeeri: Arthur Laffer

Senators Gather to Tout Tax Reform Bill

Battle Looms as GOP House, Senate Bills Diverge. #GOP #TaxReform

Reagan Budget Director Stockman Thrashes GOP Tax Bill as ‘Ideological Imposter’ of ‘81 Bill

Senate Republicans unveil their tax plan

Sen. Pat Toomey On Tax Reform: We Can Iron Out Differences Between House & Senate Bills | CNBC

Mark Levin: The House and Senate bill on taxes are not serious tax reform plans and should fail!

 

Story 3: Who is on the Congressional CREEP List of Sexual Harassers in Congress and Their Staffs ? — Who is next to be outed? — Shout Animal House — Intimacy — Getting To Know You–Videos

More Cap. Hill Sexual Harassment Cases Revealed

Rep. Speier: Sexual harassment continues on Capitol Hill because people get away with it

Rep. Jackie Speier: Two Sitting Members Of Congress Have Engaged In Sexual Harassment

Mary Bono shares story of sexual harassment in Congress

US lawmakers discuss sexual harassment in Congress

Sexual Harassment In Congress? “Me Too” Act To Overhaul The Way Harassment Claims Are Handled

Mark Levin: Republican leaders must resign over sexual harassment in Congress (November 14 2017)

Lawmaker Says Sexual Harassment Is ‘Routine’ At The Capitol

Have You Ever Met a Monster? | Amy Herdy | TEDxSanJuanIsland

Wait, What? George H.W. Bush Sexual Assault Allegations

Shout Animal House

Tony Robbins Identifies 4 Types of Love | Oprah’s Life Class | Oprah Winfrey Network

Creating extraordinary intimacy in a shutdown world | Michael J. Russer | TEDxUniversityofNevada

TEDxJaffa — Niveen Rizkalla — Getting Intimate with Intimacy

Mork & Mindy (1978-1982)

Published on Nov 15, 2015

Mork & Mindy was the first tv show to display an incredible talent of Robin Williams. The audience instantly fell in love with the “cute and cuddly” alien Mork and his human friend Mindy. I think of this show with great fondness because it’s extremely funny, lovely and kind. It’s the kind of TV product we really need these days. It was a huge hit back in the day and i think the people in 2015 could really use a little happiness it gives. Anyway, here’s a little video, i hope you gonna like it! Song: Walk The Moon – Shut Up and Dance

The Love Story of Mork & Mindy

Mork & Mindy – Never Thought That I Could Love

Mork & Mindy – Getting To Know You

Mork and Mindy – Dance With Me

Bing Crosby – Getting To Know You

Getting to Know You from The King and I

Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr perform “Shall We Dance” from The King and I

Julie Andrews – Getting to Know You

Getting to Know You
It’s a very ancient saying
But a true and honest thought
That if you become a teacher
By your pupils you’ll be taught
As a teacher I’ve been learning
You’ll forgive me if I boast
And I’ve now become an expert
On the subject I like most
Getting to know you
Getting to know you
Getting to know all about you
Getting to like you
Getting to hope you like me
Getting to know you
Putting it my way
But nicely
You are precisely
My cup of tea
Getting to know you
Getting to know all about you
Getting to like you
Getting to hope you like me
Getting to know you
Putting it my way
But nicely
You are precisely
My cup of tea
Getting to know you
Getting to feel free and easy
When I am with you
Getting to know what to say
Haven’t you noticed
Suddenly I’m bright and breezy?
Because of all the beautiful and new
Things I’m learning about you
Day by day
Getting to know you
Getting to feel free and easy
When I am with you
Getting to know what to say
Haven’t you noticed
Suddenly I’m bright and breezy?
Because of all the beautiful and new
Things I’m learning about you
Day by day
Songwriters: Oscar Ii Hammerstein / Richard Rodgers
Getting to Know You lyrics © Imagem Music Inc

The Four Faces of Intimacy

By Beverley Golden

December 16, 2011Health, Healthy Living, Living

Intimacy among animals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It started with what seemed like a simple question I asked myself. That question, not surprisingly for anyone who knows me, led to a series of additional questions. Somehow, I wasn’t getting clear answers for myself, so I started asking people I came in contact with the same questions. The results were fascinating to me and I wanted to explore the topic more fully. The basic question: “What does intimacy mean to you?

The range of responses was wide and varied. I included both men and women, different ages, some were in relationships and others were not. Most people had to stop for a moment to really think about and put into words what intimacy meant to them. As I looked more deeply at the topic, I found that there are in fact four key types of intimacy.

What Does Intimacy Mean to You?

The people I asked generally started with the most common of the four types of intimacy: Sexual. This wasn’t too much of a surprise because sexual intimacy is probably the most stereotypical and most familiar definition of the word in modern society. Having sex, however, often has less to do with intimacy than with a physical act between people. As it ended up, the people I talked to wanted more than just the act of sex — they wanted some depth. They wanted to feel safe while being vulnerable, wanting to be seen by his/her partner. That made sense, as this form of intimacy also includes a wide range of sensuous activity and sensual expression, so it’s much more than having intercourse.

It’s interesting that the word intercourse is also defined as an “exchange especially of thoughts or feelings.” It’s curious why intimacy is challenging to people in their relationships. I continued to look further.

Connecting Emotionally

The next of the four faces of intimacy is emotional intimacy.This happens when two people feel comfortable sharing their feelings with each other. The goal is to try to be aware and understand the other person’s emotional side. My guess is that women have an easier time with this in very close female friendships, but I’d like to believe that men too are becoming more comfortable experiencing emotional intimacy. This form of intimacy I’ve become comfortable with and see as a healthy part of the give-and-take in all relationships, whether female or male.

Margaret Paul, Ph.D, refers to the fears people have in relation to emotional intimacy. She says, “Many people have two major fears that may cause them to avoid intimacy: the fear of rejection (of losing the other person), and the fear of engulfment (of being invaded, controlled, and losing oneself).” This made some sense to me.

Love and Intimacy

However, if we believe that there are only two major energies we humans experience, love and fear (or an absence of love), then I find it interesting that in this area of intimacy, it seems people have moved from their hearts and love to an energy that stops them from experiencing their true essence and what they often yearn for the most. Love and intimacy.

In her book A Return to Love, the brilliant Marianne Williamson says it most eloquently:

“Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we have learned here. The spiritual journey is the relinquishment or unlearning of fear and the acceptance of love back into our hearts. Love is our ultimate reality and our purpose on earth. To be consciously aware of it, to experience love in ourselves and others, is the meaning of life.”

Even the Bible says, “There is no fear where love exists.” Of course I believe that love and intimacy are highly spiritual. In her book Love for No Reason, Marci Shimoff states, “Love for no reason is your natural state.” She also tells a wonderful story about a spiritual teacher who once said to her, “I love you and it’s no concern of yours.” To love, from your heart, just to love. As I talked about in my piece on what makes a good relationship, my ideal is definitely a loving spiritual partnership.

True Intimacy

I kept wondering if true intimacy could be as simple as a matter of moving back to loving ourselves first? To rediscovering the unconditional love we all were born with? The idea of self-intimacy and self-love is a fascinating concept. I’ll leave these as open-ended questions for you to ask yourselves for now. I was curious to look more closely at the other two types of intimacy.Intellectual Intimacy_conversation between men

 

The next, intellectual intimacy, is something I personally have the most comfort with. This one is about communication, and as someone who lives and breathes words, it’s extremely familiar to me. The ability to share ideas in an open and comfortable way can lead to a very intimate relationship indeed, as I’m fortunate to discover quite frequently. As someone who engages in this type of interaction all the time, it offers me a wonderful and fulfilling form of intimacy. I wondered if this was my strongest area of intimacy.

Experiential Intimacy

The fourth kind of intimacy is experiential intimacy, an intimacy of activity. I realized I experience this every time I get together with a group to create art in a silent process. It’s about letting the art unfold, by working together in co-operation. The essence of this intimate activity is that very little is said to each other, it’s not a verbal sharing of thoughts or feelings, but it’s more about involving yourself in the activity and feeling an intimacy from this involvement.

During a recent encounter I had at a contact improv jam, I realized was actually this form of intimacy. I interacted with a young man, letting our body energy lead the dance, with no eye contact and no words, just movement in a sensual and open, if not dramatic, dance. So, I understood that this experiential intimacy is also, somewhat surprisingly, in my intimacy vocabulary.Intimacy_experiential

 Joining and Separating

Rick Hanson, Ph.D says that having intimacy in our lives requires a natural balance of two great themes — joining and separation — that are in fact central to human life. Almost everyone wants both of them, to varying degrees. He goes on to say, “In other words: individuality and relationship, autonomy and intimacy, separation and joining support each other. They are often seen at odds with each other, but this is so not the case!” This also made perfect sense to me. Yin and yang. Light and dark. All the polarities we live in life, lead to a balance.

My understanding and curiosity were greatly expanded after exploring the four faces of intimacy. Maybe this awareness might make it easier to find your own perfect personal balance between them all. For me, it comes down to our willingness to explore intimacy in all its forms. It’s not necessary that every intimate relationship includes all the different types of intimacy. Ultimately it is each individual’s choice.

What I learned, makes me believe that with some balance in these areas, we might find a deeper connection and understanding of the relationships in our life. I also fully recognize that we all have different definitions of intimacy. Are men and women’s definitions dramatically different? It is a fascinating conversation to continue to explore.

Soul Intimacy

Then, as often happens with perfect synchronicity, I received my daily Gaping Void email by Hugh MacLeod with the subject: Has your soul been seen lately? It went on to say, “I saw your soul today and it made me want to cry with joy and thanks.” The topic was intimacy. What followed was a beautiful way to end my piece.

“Intimacy isn’t strictly about romantic relationships, or even relations with family — sometimes it happens quickly, and often times in ways we hardly notice.

I’m talking about that moment when someone allows the world to see what’s inside… what they are really about. It’s about seeing someone for who and what they are and that the glimpse was offered either voluntarily or without the person’s knowledge. This is an incredible moment where our existence suddenly makes sense and all comes together in a singular place.

For those of you who have experienced this, it’s something that never gets lost in memory or time. It’s like a little mirror we take out every now and then to remember a time when something so complex became so inconceivably simple. It’s pretty incredible.”

This is the essence of what intimacy is really all about. Dare to be vulnerable, dare to be seen.

Intimacy is Key to Being Healthy and Vital

Dr. Christiane Northrup in her newest book “Goddesses Never Age”, tells us that intimacy is an important part of life regardless of age. As she shares, “Age is just a number, and agelessness means not buying into the idea that a number determines everything from your state of health to your attractiveness to your value.” As a member of Team Northrup, a team whose mission is to support people to live their most vital and healthy lives, I invite you to a complimentary health and vitality consultation.

Before we talk to customize a plan for you, find out how healthy you are with the True Health Assessment. The three-part report, identifies your top health risk factors, maps out a recommended lifestyle plan that identifies ways you can improve your health and provides you with individualized nutrition recommendations based on your specific assessment answers.

Now let me ask you my starting question: What does intimacy mean to you?

https://www.beverleygolden.com/the-four-faces-of-intimacy/

 

Rep. Jackie Speier claims $15million in taxpayer money has been used to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress in the past 10 to 15 years

  • Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) says $15m in taxpayer money has been used to settle sexual harassment claims against Congressmen in the past 10 to 15 years
  • Speier says she doesn’t know how many Congressmen benefited from the taxpayer bail out to protect their reputations 
  • However, she claims there were two accused sexual harassers currently serving in Congress – a Republican and a Democrat 
  • Speier doesn’t think they will ever be named since they signed non-disclosure agreements with their accusers
  • The Congresswoman is leading an effort to change the policy so that accused Congressmen pay for settlements with their own money   

California Rep. Jackie Speier says that $15million in taxpayer money has been used to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress in the past 10 to 15 years.

The Democrat made the stunning revelation in an interview on Meet the Press Tuesday night.

Speier says she doesn’t know how many members of Congress were given hush money to settle their suits in private and protect their reputations.

She previously said that two current members of Congress were the subject of sexual harassment claims – including one Republican and one Democrat.

One of those two Congressmen had their settlement paid with money from the U.S. Treasury.

Speier is leading a campaign to change Congress’ policy of paying settlements. In the future, she wants accused Congressmen to use their own money to settle their own lawsuits.

As to whether we’ll ever know about the two current Congressmen accused of sexual harassment, Speier says she thinks it’s too late to name them, since both they and their accusers signed non-disclosure agreements.

Scroll down for video 

California Rep. Jackie Speier (D) says that $15million in taxpayer money has been used to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress in the past 10 to 15 years

California Rep. Jackie Speier (D) says that $15million in taxpayer money has been used to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress in the past 10 to 15 years

Speier took part in a House hearing on Tuesday, detailing incidents of sexual misconduct involving current lawmakers and how to prevent such abuse.

Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., said she was recently told about a staffer who quit her job after a lawmaker asked her to bring work material to his house, then exposed himself.

‘That kind of situation, what are we doing here for women, right now, who are dealing with someone like that?’ Comstock asked. Comstock said there should be clear-cut rules about the kinds of relationships and behaviors that are off-limits and create a hostile work environment.

In this March 28, 2017, file photo, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., walks at the Capitol, in Washington. Amid a daily deluge of stories about harassment in the workplace, female members of Congress detailed incidents of sexual misconduct involving current lawmakers at a House hearing on how to prevent such abuse

Comstock said the name of the lawmaker she mentioned wasn’t disclosed to her, but emphasized that naming names is an important step in promoting accountability and encouraging victims to come forward.

The Democrat from California recently introduced legislation to make training to prevent sexual harassment mandatory for members of Congress after sharing her own story of being sexually assaulted by a male chief of staff. Her bill also includes a survey of the current situation in Congress and an overhaul of the processes by which members and staffers file harassment complaints.

The bill has gained support from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., said she was recently told about a staffer who quit her job after a lawmaker asked her to bring work material to his house, then exposed himself

Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., said she was recently told about a staffer who quit her job after a lawmaker asked her to bring work material to his house, then exposed himself

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) testifies before the House Administration Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 14, 2017 in Washington, DC 

Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., who chairs the House Administration Committee, said in his opening remarks, ‘I believe we need mandatory training, and probably everyone here would agree.’

Speier is planning to introduce a second bill this week that seeks to create greater transparency by listing offices that have complaints and their outcomes, as well as the monetary amount for all settlements. Additionally, the bill will move to address mandatory non-disclosure agreements attached to mediation.

House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper (R-MS) (C) prepares for a hearing in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 14, 2017 in Washington, DC

Republican Representative from Alabama Bradley Byrne speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing on "Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Congressional Workplace" on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2017 as Democratic Representative from California Jackie Speier looks on

'Not being a flirt and not being a bitch. That was my rule, to try to walk that fine line,' says Bono, who has brought up inappropriate conduct she has received on the House floor

One Republican lawmaker, Rodney Davis of Illinois, said addressing the issue of sexual harassment on the Hill is ‘long overdue’ and that Congress must ‘lead by example.’ But he expressed concern that the increasing focus on gender hostility in the workplace could create unintended consequences, including ‘that some offices may just take a short cut and not hire women as a way to avoid these issues.’

Gloria Lett, counsel for the Office of House Employment Counsel, replied that such discrimination is illegal.

Both chambers of Congress have recently sprung into action to try to address accounts of sexual misconduct on the Hill.

With each passing day, new revelations of sexual misconduct continue to rock the political sphere. Alabama’s Republican nominee for Senate has come under fire after several women have come forward with accounts of sexually inappropriate behavior or, in at least one case, assault, at Moore’s hand when they were teenagers. In the wake of the allegations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans have said Moore should step aside. One Republican has suggested that if elected, Moore should be expelled from the Senate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5085129/Congress-sex-harassment-claims-settled-tax-money.html#ixzz4yk9cTeH9

 

Mork & Mindy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mork & Mindy
Mork & Mindy.jpg

First season title card
Genre
Created by
Starring
Theme music composer Perry Botkin, Jr.
Country of origin United States
Original language(s) English
No. of seasons 4
No. of episodes
  • 91 (original run)
  • 95 (syndication)

(list of episodes)

Production
Executive producer(s)
  • Antony W. Marshall
  • Garry Marshall
Producer(s)
  • Bruce Johnson
  • Brian Levant
  • Dale McRaven
  • Ed Scharlach
  • Tom Tenowich
Camera setup Multi-camera
Running time 22–24 minutes
Production company(s)
Distributor CBS Television Distribution
Release
Original network ABC
Audio format Monaural
Original release September 14, 1978 – May 27, 1982
Chronology
Preceded by
Related shows

Mork & Mindy is an American sitcom and a spin-off of Happy Days that aired on ABC from September 14, 1978 to May 27, 1982. It stars Robin Williams as Mork, an extraterrestrial who comes to Earth from the planet Ork in a small, one-Orkan egg-shaped spaceship. Pam Dawber co-stars as Mindy McConnell, his human friend and roommate, and later his wife and the mother of his child.

Season Episodes Originally aired Nielsen ratings[1]
First aired Last aired Rank Rating
1 25 September 14, 1978 May 10, 1979 3 28.6
(Tied with Happy Days)
2 26 September 16, 1979 May 1, 1980 27 20.2
3 22 November 13, 1980 May 14, 1981 N/A N/A
4 22 October 8, 1981 May 27, 1982 N/A N/A

Premise and initial success

The character of Mork was played by a then-unknown Robin Williams, who impressed producer Garry Marshall with his quirky comedic ability as soon as they met. When Williams was asked to take a seat at the audition, Williams immediately sat on his head on the chair and Marshall cast him on the spot, and later wryly commented that Williams was the only alien who auditioned for the role.[2]

Mork appears in the Happy Days season five episode, “My Favorite Orkan“, which first aired in February 1978 and is a take on the 1960s sitcom My Favorite Martian. Williams’ character, Mork, attempts to take Richie Cunningham back to his planet of Ork as a human specimen, but his plan is foiled by Fonzie. In the initial broadcast of this episode, it all turned out to be a dream that Richie had, but when Mork proved so popular, the ending was re-edited to show Mork erasing the experience from everyone’s minds, thus meaning the event had actually happened and was not a dream.[citation needed]

Mork & Mindy, is set in BoulderColorado, in the then present-day late 1970s and early 1980s (as opposed to the Happy Days setting of Milwaukee in the late-1950s). Mork explains to Richie that he is from the “future” — the 1970s.

Mork arrives on Earth in an egg-shaped spacecraft. He has been assigned to observe human behavior by Orson, his mostly unseen and long-suffering superior (voiced by Ralph James). Orson has sent Mork to get him off Ork, where humor is not permitted. Attempting to fit in, Mork dresses in an Earth suit, but wears it backward. Landing in Boulder, Colorado, he encounters 21-year-old Mindy (Pam Dawber), who is upset after an argument with her boyfriend, and offers assistance. Because of his odd garb, she mistakes him for a priest and is taken in by his willingness to listen (in fact, simply observing her behavior). When Mindy notices his backward suit and unconventional behavior, she asks who he really is, and he innocently tells her the truth. She promises to keep his identity a secret and allows him to move into her attic. Mindy’s father Fred (Conrad Janis) objects to his daughter living with a man (particularly one as bizarre as Mork), but Fred’s mother-in-law Cora (Elizabeth Kerr) approves of Mork and the living arrangement. Mindy and Cora work at Fred’s music store, where Cora gives violin lessons to Eugene (Jeffrey Jacquet), a 10-year-old boy who becomes Mork’s friend. Also seen occasionally are Mindy’s snooty old high school friend Susan (Morgan Fairchild) and the possibly insane Exidor (Robert Donner).

Storylines usually center on Mork’s attempts to understand human behavior and American culture as Mindy helps him to adjust to life on Earth. It usually ends up frustrating Mindy, as Mork can only do things according to Orkan customs. For example, lying to someone or not informing them it will rain, is considered a practical joke (called “splinking”) on Ork. At the end of each episode, Mork reports back to Orson on what he has learned about Earth. These end-of-show summaries allow Mork to humorously comment on social norms.

Mork’s greeting is “Na-Nu Na-Nu” (pronounced /ˈnɑːn ˈnɑːn/) along with a hand gesture similar to Mr. Spock‘s Vulcan salute from Star Trek combined with a handshake. It became a popular catchphrase at the time, as did “Shazbot” (/ˈʃæzbɒt/), an Orkan profanity that Mork uses.[citation needed] Mork says “KO” in place of “OK”.

This series is Robin Williams’ first major acting role and became famous for Williams’ use of his manic improvisational comedic talent. Williams made up so many jokes during filming, eventually scripts had specific gaps where Williams was allowed to freely perform. Pam Dawber found him so funny that she had to bite her lip in many scenes to avoid breaking up in laughter and ruining the take, often a difficult task with Williams’s talent.[citation needed]

The series was extremely popular in its first season. The Nielsen ratings were very high, ranking at 3, behind Laverne & Shirley (at 1) and Three’s Company (at 2), both on ABC, which was the highest-rated network in the U.S. in 1978. The show gained higher ratings than the Happy Days series that had spawned it, at 4.[3][4] However, the network management sought to improve the show in several ways. This was done in conjunction with what is known in the industry as counterprogramming, a technique in which a successful show is moved opposite a ratings hit on another network. The show was moved from Thursdays, where it outrated CBS‘ The Waltons, to Sundays where it replaced the canceled sci-fi series Battlestar Galactica. The show then aired against two highly rated shows: NBC‘s anthology series titled The Sunday Big Event and CBS‘ revamped continuation of All in the Family titled Archie Bunker’s Place.[3]

Second season

The second season saw an attempt to seek younger viewers and premiered a new disco arrangement of the gentle theme tune.

The characters of Fred and Cora were dropped from the regular cast. It was explained that Fred went on tour as a conductor with an orchestra, taking Cora with him. Fred and Cora made return appearances in later episodes. Recurring characters Susan and Eugene made no further appearances after season one and were never mentioned again.

New cast members were added. Among the new supporting characters were Remo and Jeanie DaVinci (Jay Thomas and Gina Hecht), a brother and sister from New York City who owned a new neighborhood deli where Mork and Mindy now spent a lot of time. Also added as regulars were their grumpy neighbor Mr. Bickley (who was seen occasionally in the first season and ironically worked as a verse writer for a greeting-card company), portrayed by Tom Poston, and Nelson Flavor (Jim Staahl), Mindy’s snooty cousin who ran for city council.

The show’s main focus was no longer on Mork’s slapstick attempts to adjust to the new world he was in, but on the relationship between Mork and Mindy on a romantic level. Also, some of the focus was on Mork trying to find a steady-paying job.

Because of the abrupt changes to the show and time slot, ratings slipped dramatically (from 3 to 27). The show was quickly moved back to its previous timeslot and efforts were made to return to the core of the series; however, ratings did not recover.

Third season

For the third season, Jeanie, Remo, and Nelson were retained as regulars with Jeanie and Remo having opened a restaurant. Nelson was no longer into politics and wore more casual clothes.

Mindy’s father and grandmother returned to the series. The show acknowledged this attempt to restore its original premise, with the third season’s hour-long opener titled “Putting The Ork Back in Mork”.

Several new supporting characters were added to the lineup. Joining were two children from the day-care center where Mork worked named Lola and Stephanie. Also added was Mindy’s close friend Glenda Faye Comstock (Crissy Wilzak), a lovely young widow whom Nelson falls for. Wilzak lasted one season as a regular.

When these ideas failed to improve ratings, many wilder ideas were tried to attempt to capitalize on Williams’ comedic talents. The season ended at number 49 in the ratings.

Fourth season

Despite the show’s steady decline, ABC agreed to a fourth season of Mork & Mindy, but executives wanted changes. The show began to include special guest stars this year.

In the fourth season, Mork and Mindy were married. Jonathan Winters, one of Williams’ idols, was brought in as their child, Mearth. Because of the different Orkan physiology, Mork laid an egg, which grew and hatched into the much older Winters.[5] Winters had previously appeared in a season 3 episode as Dave McConnell (Mindy’s uncle and Fred’s brother). It had been previously explained that Orkans aged “backwards”, thus explaining Mearth’s appearance and that of his teacher, Miss Geezba (portrayed by then-11-year-old actress Louanne Sirota). After four seasons and 95 episodes, Mork & Mindy was canceled in the summer of 1982. The show ended at 60th place at season’s end.

Characters

  • Mork (Robin Williams) — An alien from the planet Ork sent to observe human behavior. Mork mentions many times that Orkan scientists grew him in a test-tube.
  • Mindy McConnell (Pam Dawber) — A pretty female human who finds Mork and teaches him about human behavior. Eventually falls in love, marries Mork and raises an Orkan “child”.
  • Fred McConnell (Conrad Janis) — Mindy’s father, a widower with conservative values. In the first season, Fred owned a music shop with Cora. In the third season, Fred became the conductor of the Boulder Symphony Orchestra.
  • Grandma Cora Hudson[6] (Elizabeth Kerr) — Mindy’s less-conservative, progressive grandmother and Fred’s mother-in-law.
  • Franklin Delano Bickley (Tom Poston) — Mindy’s downstairs neighbor. He has a job involving writing out greeting cards. At first, he is a total grump and always complains about noise. In time, however, he warms up and becomes a friend to Mork and Mindy and the gang.
  • Mearth (Jonathan Winters) — The “child” of Mork and Mindy and godson of Orson. Because of Orkan physiology, Orkans age backwards, starting with elderly adult bodies but with the mind of a child and regressing to feeble “old” kids.
  • Remo DaVinci (Jay Thomas) — The brother of Jeanie DaVinci co-owner of The New York Delicatessen in season 2 and DaVinci’s Restaurant in season 3.
  • Jeanie DaVinci (Gina Hecht) — The sister of Remo DaVinci and co-owner of The New York Delicatessen in season 2 and DaVinci’s Restaurant in season 3.
  • Nelson Flavor (Jim Staahl) — The strait-laced, driven, yet aloof cousin of Mindy with dreams of political power.
  • Orson (voiced by Ralph James) — Mork’s mostly unseen and long-suffering superior who has sent Mork to Earth to get him off-world because humor is not permitted on Ork.

Recurring characters

  • Susan Taylor (Morgan Fairchild) — Mindy’s snooty ex-friend from high school who was only seen in Season 1. In the episode “Mork’s First Christmas”, a glimpse into why Susan is such a shallow person was shown.
  • Exidor (Robert Donner)—An odd man (with possible mental illness) who regards himself as a prophet. He often appears wearing a flowing white robe with a brown sash. He recognizes Mork as an alien, but nobody believes him. As the leader of a cult called “The Friends of Venus“, of which he was the only member, he regularly engaged in conversations with imaginary members of his cult (such as “Pepe” and “Rocco”), but was the only person who could see them. Most times he is found yelling at his imaginary cult. He makes the comment, “Entourages can be the pits!” Later, since the Venusians had abandoned him, he began to worship O.J. Simpson when Mork encountered him at the Boulder Police Station. He also had a plan to become “Emperor of the Universe” by becoming a rock-star; his musical instrument of choice was the accordion. Exidor appears to be something of a squatter, as on at least two separate occasions he is present in homes not his own. Once Mork visited Exidor at a very nice apartment where he supposedly lived with his imaginary girlfriend and her twin sister. Another time, he is “on vacation” in Mindy’s family home, where he apparently believed there was a beach in the living room closet. (“Everybody out of the water! Can’t you see that fin?”) He eventually got married, in a “forest” (Mindy’s attic). Mindy thought his wife would be imaginary, but she turned out to be a real woman named Ambrosia. Exidor became highly popular with audiences and prompted wild applause from the studio audience when entering a scene.
  • Mr. Miles Sternhagen (Foster Brooks) — Mindy’s boss when she gets a job at a local TV station. He is overbearing and demanding of Mindy when sober, but occasionally turns up drunk and cheerful (per Brooks’ famous “drunk” act).
  • Glenda Faye Comstock (Crissy Wilzak) — Mindy’s friend and recent widow who becomes the love interest of Nelson and was only seen in Season 3.
  • Todd Norman “TNT” Taylor (Bill Kirchenbauer) — An obnoxious and arrogant womanizer. He later teaches Mork to drive at the FastLane Driving School.
  • Cathy McConnell (Shelley Fabares) — Fred’s new younger wife and Mindy’s stepmother seen in Seasons 2-4.
  • Lola and Stephanie (Amy Tenowich and Stephanie Kayano) — Two children from the daycare center Mork works at later in the series during Season 3. Lola is a young philosopher and Stephanie is a chubby girl who loves to eat.
  • Billy (Corey Feldman) — A daycare-center child who appeared during Season 3. He wants to be like his namesake Billy the Kid. Mork introduces him to the Orkan hero Squellman the Yellow.
  • Bebo — Mork’s ball-of-fur pet who spoke Orkan gibberish and was introduced and only seen in Season 3. He was occasionally seen around the house and stood by Mork during his reports to Orson.
  • Eugene (Jeffrey Jacquet) — A ten-year-old boy who takes violin lessons from Cora and befriends Mork during his appearances in Season 1.
  • Arnold Wanker (Logan Ramsey) — The landlord of Fred and Mindy’s music store during Season 1.[7] He dies in Fred’s music store, but Mork (misinterpreting the comments made to his wife) brings him back to life (a “one-in-a-billion” chance).

Connections to other shows

Actor-director Jerry Paris was inspired to create the character of Mork after directing an unusual and memorable episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show titled “It May Look Like a Walnut”, in which Van Dyke‘s Rob Petrie has a dream wherein he believes the Earth has been surreptitiously invaded by walnut-eating aliens who steal humans’ thumbs and imaginations.[8] Series creator Carl Reiner had written the episode, which was the 20th in the show’s second season and the 50th episode produced. When he moved on to direct Happy Days, Paris introduced Mork in a similarly atypical season-five episode titled My Favorite Orkan.[8][9] In it, Richie tells everyone he has seen a flying saucer, but no one else believes him. Fonzie tells him that people make up stories about UFOs because their lives are “humdrum.” Then while Richie is at home, Mork walks in. He freezes everyone with his finger except Richie and says he was sent to Earth to find a “humdrum” human to take back to Ork. Richie runs to Fonzie for help. When Mork catches up to him, he freezes everyone, but finds himself unable to freeze Fonzie because of The Fonz’s famous and powerful thumbs. Mork challenges Fonzie to a duel: finger vs. thumb. After their duel, The Fonz admits defeat, and Mork decides to take Fonzie back to Ork instead of Richie. Then, Richie wakes up and realizes he was dreaming. There is a knock on the door and much to Richie’s dismay, it is a man who looks exactly like Mork, except in regular clothes, asking for directions.

When production on Mork & Mindy began, an extra scene was filmed and added to this episode for subsequent reruns. In the scene, Mork contacts Orson and explains that he decided to let Fonzie go, and was going to travel to the year 1978 to continue his mission. In the pilot episode of Mork & Mindy, Orson tells Mork that he is assigning him to study the planet Earth. Mork remembers that he has been to Earth before to collect a specimen (Fonzie) but he “had to throw it back, though. Too small.”

Fonzie and Laverne of Laverne & Shirley appeared in the first episode of the show. In this segment, Mork relays to Mindy his trip to 1950s Milwaukee where Fonzie sets Mork up on a date with Laverne.

Mork returned to Happy Days in the episode “Mork Returns” in which Mork tells Richie that he enjoys coming to the 1950s because life is simpler and more “humdrum” than in the 1970s. Fonzie sees Mork and immediately tries to run away, but Mork freezes him and makes him stay. He eventually lets him go, but not before Fonzie asks Mork to reveal two things about the future: “cars and girls”. Mork’s response is, “In 1979… both are faster.” The episode is mostly a retrospective in which clips are shown as Richie and Fonzie try to explain the concepts of love and friendship to Mork.

Mork also appears in the first episode of Out of the Blue, “Random’s Arrival”, as a crossover stunt.

DVD releases

Paramount Home Entertainment has released the entire series of Mork & Mindy on DVD in Region 1 in both individual season sets and a complete series configuration,[10] while the first three seasons are available in Regions 2 and 4. The Region 1 DVD release of season 1 was from Paramount alone; subsequent releases in Region 1, as well as international season 1 releases, have been in conjunction with CBS DVD.

DVD name Episodes Release dates
Region 1 Region 2 Region 4
The Complete First Season 25 September 7, 2004 October 29, 2007 September 19, 2007
The Second Season 26 April 17, 2007 April 7, 2008 March 6, 2008
The Third Season 22 November 27, 2007 September 1, 2008 September 4, 2008
The Fourth Season 22 December 9, 2014 TBA TBA
The Complete Series 95 December 9, 2014 December 15, 2014[11] TBA

Primetime Emmy Award nominations

For its first season, Mork & Mindy was nominated for two Primetime Emmy Awards: Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series for Robin Williams. The program lost to Taxi and Williams lost to Carroll O’Connor for All in the Family.

Syndication

Mork & Mindy was syndicated off network by Paramount beginning in the Fall of 1982, to low ratings. By 1983, most stations that owned the show rested it much of the year running it only in the summer, when weaker programming tended to air. Few stations renewed the show a few years later.[citation needed] By 1987, the show only aired in a handful of TV markets. With the expansion of cable channels available, the show began airing on cable. Nick at Nite reran the show from March 4, 1991 to November 27, 1995.[12] The show has also aired on FOX Family Channel in the late 1990s. From 2008 to 2011, the show aired in marathons on SyFy.[13] It has aired in subsequent years on Me-TV, the Hub Network and various other classic television stations airing on various digital subchannels. The show currently airs on Antenna TV.

Filming locations

1619 Pine Street, Boulder, Colorado, the location used for the external shots of Mindy’s house on Mork & Mindy

In an interview with Garry Marshall on June 30, 2006, Pat O’Brien mentioned that Mork & Mindy was filmed on Paramount stage 27, the former studio for his infotainment program The Insider.

The house from the show is located at 1619 Pine Street, just a few blocks away from the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder. This was also used in the show as Mindy’s actual address in Boulder, as shown in the episode “Mork Goes Public”. The same house was later used for exterior shots on the series Perfect Strangers in Episode 21 of Season 5, “This Old House”, where the show’s main characters, cousins Larry and Balki, remodel a home for a fix-and-flip in hopes of huge profits. Often mistaken, it was not the house the cousins moved into with their wives during the final two seasons. In addition, it was used in three episodes of Family Matters as Myra’s house.[14][unreliable source?][original research?] As of July 2016, the house was valued at $1.9 million, with a last sale date of 1974 for US $80,000 (equivalent to $385,000 in 2015).[15]

Spin-offs and adaptations

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2007). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946-Present (Ninth Edition). Ballantine Books. p. 1688-1689. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4.
  2. Jump up^ “Robin Williams Biography”. Biography Channel. Retrieved 27 September 2012.
  3. Jump up to:a b Brooks, Tim; Earl Marsh (2003). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV ShowsBallantine BooksISBN 0-345-45542-8.
  4. Jump up^ “Screen Source: Top TV Shows, 1970’s”. Retrieved 10 January 2016.
  5. Jump up^ “TV Playbook: Let’s Add a Kid!IGN. Retrieved 2010-08-15.
  6. Jump up^ “Full cast and crew for “Mork & Mindy””.
  7. Jump up^ “Mork & Mindy – To Tell the Truth”Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
  8. Jump up to:a b Weissman, Ginny; Coyne Steven Sanders (1993). The Dick Van Dyke Show. Macmillan. p. 60. ISBN 0-312-08766-7.
  9. Jump up^ Happy Days: My Favorite Orkan (1978)”Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
  10. Jump up^ “Mork & Mindy DVD news: Announcement for The 4th Season and The Complete Series – TVShowsOnDVD.com”. Retrieved 10 January 2016.
  11. Jump up^ “Mork & Mindy: Complete Collection [DVD]”. Retrieved 10 January 2016.
  12. Jump up^ Nick at Nite Log – 1985-present
  13. Jump up^ “Mork And Mindy finally being used on SyFy”Sitcoms Online. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
  14. Jump up^ “We’re Going to Disney World (Part 2)”, “Crazy For You (Part 1)”, and “Crazier for You (Part 2)”
  15. Jump up^ “1619 Pine St, Boulder, CO 80302”zillow.com. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mork_%26_Mindy

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1002

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 20017, Story 1: He Is Back — Let The Screaming Begin — Videos — Story 2: Trial Balloon of Having Sessions Return To The Senate By Write In Campaign Shot Down By Attorney General Jeff Sessions — Political Elitist Establishment Trying To Overturn Alabama Voters —  Videos — Story 3: Attorney General Sessions Grilled By House Including Whether There Will Special Counsel For Hillary Clinton Alleged Crimes — Vidoes — Story 4: Sexual Harassment in The Senate and House — Time To Expose the Exposers — Out Them By Naming Them — Publish The Creep List — Videos

Posted on November 15, 2017. Filed under: Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, House of Representatives, Sexual Harrasment, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Image result for president trump back from asia trip at andrews air base air force one november 13, 2017Image result for i am mad as hellImage result for attorney general jeff sessions november 14, 2017Image result for congressional CREEP listThis combination photo shows, top row from left, film producer Harvey Weinstein, former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price, director James Toback, New Orleans chef John Besh, middle row from left, fashion photographer Terry Richardson, New Republic contributing editor Leon Wiseltier, former NBC News political commentator Mark Halperin, former Defy Media executive Andy Signore, and bottom row from left, filmmaker Brett Ratner, actor Kevin Spacey, actor Jeremy Piven and actor Dustin Hoffman. In the weeks since the string of allegations against Weinstein first began, an ongoing domino effect has tumbled through not just Hollywood but at least a dozen other industries. (AP Photos/File) ORG XMIT: NYET888

Allegations against Harvey Weinstein set off tremors in Hollywood and other industries. Top: Weinstein, former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price, director James Toback, New Orleans chef John Besh; middle, from left: fashion photographer Terry Richardson, New Republic contributing editor Leon Wiseltier, former NBC News political commentator Mark Halperin, former Defy Media executive Andy Signore; bottom, from left: filmmaker Brett Ratner and actors Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Piven and Dustin Hoffman.

Story 1: He Is Back — Let The Screaming Begin — Videos —

i’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore! Speech from Network

[ youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMVMbmQBug]

President Trump Arrives Back in Washington at The White House After 2 Weeks in NJ

Liberals scream at sky on anniversary of Hillary’s loss

Story 2: Trial Balloon of Having Sessions Return To The Senate By Write In Campaign Shot Down By Attorney General Jeff Sessions — Political Elitist Establishment Trying To Overturn Alabama Voters —  Videos

Source: Sessions has ‘no interest’ in returning to Senate

Story 3: Attorney General Sessions Grilled By House Including Whether There Will Special Counsel For Hillary Clinton Alleged Crimes — Vidoes

Sean Hannity LIVE 24/7- Fox News Live Today November 14, 2017

“How do you restore trust in the DOJ?” Trey Gowdy GRILLS Attorney General Jeff Sessions

#HillaryClinton Is Public Enemy Number One: Compromised, Putrid and Devoid of Character or Morality

Incompetent Dolt Jeff Sessions Is Donald Trump’s Biggest Most Colossal Mistake Bar None

“Hillary is a HONEST person??” Tomi Lahren DESTROY Hillary Clinton supporter

“Hillary is Cancer” Donna Brazile DESTROY Whoopi Goldberg

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Does The Right Thing And Pushes Back | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Jeff Sessions just threw a wet blanket on President Trump’s Russia dossier conspiracy theory

Trey Gowdy SLAMS Jeff Sessions With A Very TRICKY Question During Hearing

Sheila Jackson Lee GRILLS Jeff Sessions. Do You Believe These Young Women & Russia 11/14

Rep. Jordan presses Jeff Sessions to appoint special counsel

“We don’t need a Special counsel” Trey Gowdy SHOCKS everyone with latest interview

Attorney General Jeff Sessions DESTROYS LEFTIST Rep.Gutierrez on the CLINTON Investigation

Sessions needs to resign – He is incompetent – Jim Jordan made him look like a DEEP STATE HACK-

“YOU’RE LYING!!!” Jeff Sessions GETS DESTROYED on His Russia Lies & Trump’s Russia Ties

Trey Gowdy SLAMS Jeff Sessions With A Very TRICKY Question During Hearing

Watch live: Sessions testifies to the House Judiciary Committee

PBS NewsHour full episode November 14, 2017

 

You’re accusing me of lying about that?’: Sessions angrily denies committing PERJURY about Russia contacts, saying he gave ‘no response’ to one Trump aide who mentioned Moscow trip and ‘pushed back’ when another pitched Trump-Putin meeting

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he has always ‘told the truth’
  • He bristled when Rep. Hakeem Jeffries brought up his vote to impeach President Clinton over perjury 
  • He neglected to mention a March 2016 where Trump advisor George Papadopoulos pitched a Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin during Senate testimony
  • ‘That’s not fair!’ 
  • He says he would ‘gladly’ have revealed it since he opposed Papadopoulos’ proposals
  • He said every day of the Trump campaign involved ‘chaos’
  • ‘Sleep was in short supply’ 
  • Said he has ‘no clear recollection’ of what was said
  • Can’t recall how Donald Trump responded 
  • Sessions also got pressed on his agency’s research on a special counsel to look into Clinton Foundation
  • He wants federal prosecutors to ‘evaluate certain issues’ raised by Republicans    

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an angry denial that he committed perjury when he denied having any Russia contacts after House Democrat brought up his vote to impeach Bill Clinton in part over lying to investigators.

Hours into his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Sessions got asked about his vote to approve articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

New York Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries grilled Sessions Tuesday about his meetings with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. and his conversations that Sessions now acknowledges happened with two Trump campaign officials, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, who had Russia contacts.

‘Mr. Jeffries, nobody – nobody – not you or anyone else should be prosecuted – not me – or accused of perjury for answering the question the way I did in this hearing,’ Sessions said, referencing his earlier denials.

'I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended,' said Sessions

‘I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended,’ said Sessions

Scroll down for video 

‘I’ve always tried to answer the questions fairly and accurately. But to ask did you ever do something, you ever meet with Russians and deal with the campaign?’ Sessions said, starting a lengthy response after a series of interrogatory questions.

‘You’re saying Mr. Carter Page, who left that meeting according to the press reports and I guess his deposition or interview, has been reported as saying ‘I’m going to Russia.’ I made no response to it – didn’t acknowledge it. And you’re accusing me of lying about that? I say that’s not fair Mr. Jeffries,’ Sessions said.

'I don’t think it’s right to accuse me of doing something wrong,' said Sessions, after several Democrats pressed him on his changing account of Trump campaign officials who had Russia contacts

‘I don’t think it’s right to accuse me of doing something wrong,’ said Sessions, after several Democrats pressed him on his changing account of Trump campaign officials who had Russia contacts

‘I would say that’s not fair colleagues,’ Sessions continued. ‘That’s not any indication that I in any way participated anything wrong. And the same with Mr. Papadopoulos, he talked about – it’s reported in the paper – that he said something about going to Russia and dealing with the Russians and I pushed back, I said you shouldn’t do it.’

‘So I don’t think it’s right to accuse me of doing something wrong. I had no participation in any wrongdoing with regard to influence in this campaign improperly,’ the attorney general said.

Sessions blew up after Jeffries asked about a 2016 encounter he had with Carter Page at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, where it is reported Page referenced his upcoming trip to Moscow.

'You're accusing me of lying about that? I say that's not fair,' said Sessions

‘You’re accusing me of lying about that? I say that’s not fair,’ said Sessions

Sessions faced repeated questions from Democrats about his prior testimony, when he said he did not know of any Trump campaign Russia contacts

‘Yes. He said it was a brief meeting as he was walking out the door. I don’t recall that conversation but I’m not able to dispute it,’ Sessions said. ‘Does that establish some sort of improper contact with Russians? He’s not Russian either you know,’ Sessions said.

Sessions got immediate backup from Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.

‘You didn’t do anything wrong in that testimony,’ said DeSantis. ‘This question was garbled. That’s just not giving you any benefit of the doubt at all to do what these guys are doing to you, so I hear what you’re saying and you didn’t do anything wrong there.’

Before the emotional defense, Jeffries had asked Sessions about an argument he had made during the Clinton impeachment, and a young police officer he had once prosecuted for making false statements and then changing his account.

Earlier in the oversight hearing, Sessions explained his faulty memory about meetings with former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos by citing the ‘chaos’ of the Trump campaign he advised.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on November 14, 201

He says he ‘pushed back’ when Papadopoulos mentioned his Russia contacts at the meeting and indicated the Russians were available for a high level meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

‘I pushed back. I’ll just say it that way,’ Sessions said under questioning.

Asked whether Trump or anyone else at the meeting either expressed interest on concerns about the Russia channel, Sessions told New York Democratic Rep. Jerold Nadler: ‘I don’t recall.’

Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., right, shakes hands with Attorney General Jeff Sessions as he returns from a break during his testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill

Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., right, shakes hands with Attorney General Jeff Sessions as he returns from a break during his testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill

Papadopoulos pled guilty in October to lying to the FBI about his contacts that led him to pitch a Trump meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin after meeting with a professor who had government contacts in Moscow.

Then he explained instances where he has failed to recall conversations about Trump campaign Russia contacts by citing the unique seat-of-the-pants nature of the Trump campaign.

‘All of you have been in campaigns, let me just suggest,’ he told House Judiciary Committee members.

‘But most of you have not participated in a presidential campaign. And none of you had a part in the Trump campaign. It was a brilliant campaign I think in many ways. But it was a form of chaos every day from day one. We traveled, sometimes to several places all the day. Sleep was in short supply,’ said Sessions.

‘After reading his account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that [Papadopoulos] was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government, for that matter,’ said Sessions.

‘But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and I would gladly have reported it had I remembered it because I pushed back against his suggestion that I thought may have been improper,’ said Sessions.

He also spoke campaign unpaid Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, who traveled to Moscow during the campaign.

‘As for Mr. Page, while I do not challenge his recollection, I have no memory of his presence at a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club or any passing conversation he may have had with me as he left the dinner,’ Sessions said.

Page told the House intelligence committee earlier this month that he had informed some members of the Trump campaign about the trip, including Sessions.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrives to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on November 14, 2017, in Washington, DC, on oversight of the US Justice Department

Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrives to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on November 14, 2017, in Washington, DC, on oversight of the US Justice Department

‘I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question as I understood them and to the best of my recollection,’ Sessions said, defending his conduct.

Sessions, whose agency routinely interrogates Americans about their recollections when conducting investigations, complained: ‘I have been asked to remember details from a year ago, such as who I saw on what day, in what meeting, and who said what to when.’

With his own prior testimony under fire – he previously denied recalling any campaign Russia contacts – Sessions included a vigorous defense of his own honor in his opening statement.

‘In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie,’ he said.

‘Let me be clear: I have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General.’

Sessions said he 'pushed back' when George Papadopoulos spoke about about his Russia contacts at a meeting Sessions said did not recall until reading news reports

'I have no memory of his presence at a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club or any passing conversation he may have had with me as he left the dinner,' Sessions said of Carter Page

'In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie,' Sessions said
 ‘In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie,’ Sessions said

Attorney General Jeff Sessions (C) arrives to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 14, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions (C) arrives to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 14, 2017

Questioned by Democratic California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Sessions didn’t give himself high marks for assembling a crack foreign policy team.

‘I was asked to lead, inform and find some people who would join and meet with Mr. Trump to give him advice and support regarding foreign policy and I did so, although we were not a very effective group, really,’ Sessions testified.

Sessions also got grilled about his pledge to recuse himself from Clinton investigations at a House Judiciary oversight hearing Tuesday – just hours after it was revealed prosecutors who report to him are evaluating on the possible appointment of a second special counsel who could probe Hillary Clinton.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told the House panel that prosecutors will advise Sessions about whether ‘any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any merit the appointment of a special counsel.’

Among the issues being evaluated, and which House Republicans have asked them to examine, are any ties between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.

The Obama administration approved the sale of the Canadian-owned company with rights to U.S. uranium supplies to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions (left) said Monday that prosecutors were looking into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Republican concerns including an investigation of the Clinton Foundation dealings

Attorney General Jeff Sessions (left) said Monday that prosecutors were looking into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Republican concerns including an investigation of the Clinton Foundation dealings

The deal got approved in 2010 by a committee that Clinton participated in as secretary of state.

Now, amid the prospect Sessions could approve a second special counsel to probe Clinton transactions, Sessions will face questions about statements he made about Clinton at his Senate confirmation hearing.

‘It was a highly contentions campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign. With regard to Sec. Clinton and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question,’ Sessions said, under questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa.

‘I’ve given that thought. I believe the proper thing to do would be for me to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve secretary Clinton that were raised during the campaign or could be otherwise connected to it,’ Sessions added.

At the start of Tuesday’s hearing, panel chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia noted Sessions’ recusal pledge for 2016 campaign matters.

But Goodlattee complained: ‘There are significant concerns that the partisanship of the FBI and the department has weakened the ability of each to act objectively,’ and raised the issue of getting a second special counsel who would look into Clinton’s emails.

His Democratic counterpart, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, brought up Sessions’ recusal in his own opening statement – and complained that his deputy’s letter got sent to the Republican staff but not Democrats.

‘Without so much as a copy to the ranking member by the way, the assistant attorney general seems to leave the door open to appointing a new special counsel to cater to the president’s political needs,’ Conyers said.

Conyers read some of President Donald Trump’s past online attacks on Sessions. He expressed hope he would get reassurances about ‘near daily attacks on its independence by President Trump and that no office of the department is being used to pressure the president’s political enemies.’

Sessions said Monday that prosecutors were looking into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Republican concerns.

The revelation came after President Trump has ramped up his public calls for probes of his former rival, who he brands ‘crooked Hillary.’

‘Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems,’ Trump tweeted earlier this month.

Hillary is pictured here Monday evening onstage during the tour for her new book 'What Happened' at Fox Theater in Atlanta 

Hillary is pictured here Monday evening onstage during the tour for her new book ‘What Happened’ at Fox Theater in Atlanta

The president also griped about his own apparent inability to steer investigations. ‘The saddest thing is that because I’m the President of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI,’ Trump said.

The Justice Department is looking to investigate the Clinton Foundation dealings and also an Obama-era uranium deal.

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, which is holding an oversight hearing Tuesday, the Justice Department said Sessions had directed senior federal prosecutors to ‘evaluate certain issues’ recently raised by Republican lawmakers.

If prosecutors do appoint a special counsel, speculation could arise with regards to the independence of federal investigations under President Trump.

The list of matters he wants to look into vary but include the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Also matters connected to the purchase of the Canadian mining company Uranium One by Russia’s nuclear energy agency.

The letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd did not say what specific steps might be taken by the Justice Department to address the lawmakers’ concerns, or whether any of the matters Republicans have seized might on already be under investigation.

Any appointment of a new special counsel, particularly in response to calls from members of Congress or from President Donald Trump, is likely to lead to Democratic complaints about an undue political influence on the department’s decision-making.

Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly weighed in on department affairs, publicly lamenting that he does not have more direct involvement with it and calling on law enforcement scrutiny of Democrat Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential race, and other Democrats. He has been particularly interested in the Clinton Foundation.

‘Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems…’ Trump tweeted earlier this month.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) and husband, Former U.S. President Bill Clinton (right) at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014 in New York

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) and husband, Former U.S. President Bill Clinton (right) at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014 in New York

In apparent anticipation of those concerns, Boyd said in the letter that Justice Department ‘will never evaluate any matter except on the facts and the law.’

‘Professionalism, integrity and public confidence in the Department’s work is critical for us, and no priority is higher,’ Boyd said.

Sessions said at his January confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself from any investigations involving Democrat Hillary Clinton given his role as a vocal campaign surrogate to President Donald Trump. He similarly recused himself from a separate investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, and in May, the Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead that probe.

House Republicans in recent weeks have launched their own probes into the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The Justice Department said Sessions (pictured here) had directed senior federal prosecutors to 'evaluate certain issues' recently raised by Republican lawmakers

The Justice Department said Sessions (pictured here) had directed senior federal prosecutors to ‘evaluate certain issues’ recently raised by Republican lawmakers

 Some have specifically said they want to know more about whether Obama’s Department of Justice was investigating the purchase of American uranium mines by a Russian-backed company in 2010. The agreement was reached while Hillary Clinton led the State Department and some investors in the company had relationships with former President Bill Clinton and donated large sums to the Clinton Foundation.

The letter comes one day before Sessions is to appear before the Judiciary panel for a Justice Department oversight hearing. Democrats on the committee have already signaled that they intend to press Sessions on his knowledge of contacts between Russians and aides to the Trump campaign.

Trump tweeted: ‘Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081643/Sessions-grilled-Hillary-recusal-pledge.html#ixzz4yYQ4TrqA

The huge contradiction at the heart of Jeff Sessions’ Russia explanation

Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions was adamant about one thing during his hours-long testimony in front of the House judiciary committee on Tuesday: He has never lied under oath regarding what he knew and when he knew it about the interactions between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Russia.

“I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question as I understood them and to the best of my recollection, as I will continue to do today,” Sessions angrily insisted. “I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie.”
Sessions: I have never lied to Congress
The phrase “to the best of my recollection” is doing A LOT of work in Sessions’ defense.
Here’s why.
In January, during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate judiciary committee, Sessions was asked whether he was aware of any contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he said at the time.
Then, in October, again in front of the Senate judiciary committee, Sessions had this exchange with Minnesota Democratic Sen. Al Franken:
Sessions and Franken go at it again
Sessions and Franken go at it again 01:57
FRANKEN: “You don’t believe that surrogates from the Trump campaign had communications with the Russians?”
SESSIONS: “I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did. And I don’t believe it happened.”
On Tuesday, Sessions said he did in fact now remember that he was part of a March 31, 2016, meeting that included both then-candidate Trump and a foreign policy adviser named George Papadopoulos.
Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in regard to his ties to Russia, told special counsel Robert Mueller that he boasted in that meeting that he had ties to Russia and could set up a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Attendees said that Sessions pushed back hard on that idea, insisting that it would not be smart.

George Papadopoulos, pictured second from the left in March 2016 in a National Security Meeting with President Donald Trump, far right, and Jeff Sessions, far left.

Sessions confirmed Tuesday that he not only now remembered that meeting, but also recalled, now, that he had been a voice of dissent for Papadopoulos’ proposal. He said the memory came back to him when it was “revealed in the press.”
Added Sessions:
“After reading Papadopoulos’ account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government, for that matter. But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and would gladly have reported it had I remembered it, because I pushed back against his suggestion.”
What Sessions is saying that he simply didn’t remember that March 31 meeting prior to it being reported in the wake of Papadopoulos’ guilty plea. But, now he not only remembers the meeting but he also recalls that he spoke out against an idea for Trump to meet with Putin.
Sessions’ explanation for this seeming contradiction? The Trump campaign, while brilliant, was chaotic. Here’s his full answer on Tuesday:
“All of you have been in a campaign. But most of you have not participated in a presidential campaign. And none of you had a part in the Trump campaign. It was a brilliant campaign in many ways. But it was a form of chaos every day from day one. We traveled all the time, sometimes to several places in one day. Sleep was in short supply.”
Which is OK! I get tired after one late night. And I am in my 40s!
But context is not Sessions’ friend here.
You’ll remember that during his confirmation hearings, Sessions said he had never met with any Russian officials. It was subsequently reported that Sessions had met twice with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak — once on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention and once in his Senate office.
He explained that seeming contradiction by insisting that he simply had not recalled the RNC meeting with Kislyak, and that, in his Senate office, he had met with the ambassador in his official capacity as a senator, not as a Trump surrogate.
On Tuesday, asked about his initial failure to recollect those meeting with Kisylak — and his initial response to the Senate judiciary committee regarding contacts between Trump campaign officials/surrogates and Russians — Sessions said:
“My focus was on responding to the concerns that I as a surrogate was participating in a continuing series of meetings with intermediaries with the Russian government. I certainly didn’t mean I’d never met a Russian in the history of my life.”
It’s impossible to prove that Sessions is lying or not — whether about his meetings with Kislyak or this memory of the March 31, 2016, meeting with Papadopoulos.
But, it’s also difficult to believe that Sessions simply forgot a meeting in which he was a strong voice pushing back against the idea of Trump meeting with Putin. That seems like the sort of thing — whether you got a lot of sleep or not during the campaign — you would remember.

‘Get that hack out of Fox News’: Shepard Smith leaves viewers irate after six-minute segment debunking theory of Hillary Clinton’s ‘crimes’ in Uranium One deal

  • Fox News anchor Shepard Smith infuriated a large number of the network’s viewers on Tuesday 
  • Smith aired six-minute segment debunking far-right conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing in a sale of American uranium 
  • Smith said many claims about Clinton’s supposed role in the uranium sale were ‘inaccurate’ 
  • ‘Shep Smith needs to be fired for his biased reporting,’ tweeted one Fox News viewer in response to the segment 

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith infuriated a large number of the network’s viewers on Tuesday after a six-minute segment in which he debunked far-right conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton‘s alleged wrongdoing in a sale of American uranium.

The segment was surprising given that a number of broadcasters on Smith’s own network have promoted the idea that Clinton broke the law in approving the sale to foreign buyers who also donated to her husband’s foundation.

Smith said many claims about Clinton’s supposed role in the uranium sale were ‘inaccurate’ – even as President Donald Trump and his supporters are calling for a federal investigation.

The Fox News host began the segment by summarizing the particulars of the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian firm with rights to mine US uranium.

Rosatom, a Russian firm, acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith infuriated a large number of the network's viewers on Tuesday after a six-minute segment in which he debunked far-right conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's alleged wrongdoing in a sale of American uranium

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith infuriated a large number of the network’s viewers on Tuesday after a six-minute segment in which he debunked far-right conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing in a sale of American uranium

The Fox News host began the segment by summarizing the particulars of the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian firm with rights to mine US uranium. Rosatom, a Russian firm, acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013
 The Fox News host began the segment by summarizing the particulars of the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian firm with rights to mine US uranium. Rosatom, a Russian firm, acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013

Smith said many claims about Clinton's (above) supposed role in the uranium sale were 'inaccurate' - even as President Donald Trump and his supporters are calling for a federal investigation

Smith said many claims about Clinton’s (above) supposed role in the uranium sale were ‘inaccurate’ – even as President Donald Trump and his supporters are calling for a federal investigation

Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

That committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department, which Clinton ran at the time.

Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security and the Office of the US Trade Representative.

The matter took on new life after a report last month said the FBI was investigating possible Russian attempts to influence the US nuclear sector at the time the CFIUS was considering the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.

The report said members of the committee, including Clinton, should have known about the investigation and it questioned why they would have approved it.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5084385/AP-Explains-What-happened-Russia-bought-Uranium-One.html#ixzz4yYSuDyBO

Story 4: Sexual Harassment in The Senate and House — Time To Expose the Exposers — Out Them By Naming Them — Publish The Creep List — Videos

Congresswoman speaks out about alleged sexual harassment in Congress

Reps. Barbara Comstock & Jackie Speier: Members Of Congress Engaged In Sexual Harassment | NBC News

Lawmakers allege sexual harassment in Congress

Female Lawmakers Share Stories Of Sexual Harassment In Congress

Rep. Jackie Speier On Reporting Sexual Harassment In Congress: ‘It’s A Bad System’ | MSNBC

Published on Nov 14, 2017

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) explains the current protocol for reporting sexual harassment in Congress following the recent claims that two lawmakers engaged in sexual misconduct. »

Sexual harassment settlements in Congress paid by taxpayers

The INGRAHAM ANGLE – Pulling Back the Curtain | Fox News 11/14/17

Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Congressional Workplace (EventID=106621)

Byrne Testifies on Sexual Harassment and Congress

Female Senator Harassed, Groped By Fellow Senators

 

‘Nothing about it felt right’: More than 50 people describe sexual harassment on Capitol Hill

me too congress sexual assault harassment orig bw_00011922

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The House is holding a hearing on sexual harassment Tuesday
  • Staffers describe a “creep list” of inappropriate male members of Congress or staffers

(CNN)Be extra careful of the male lawmakers who sleep in their offices — they can be trouble. Avoid finding yourself alone with a congressman or senator in elevators, late-night meetings or events where alcohol is flowing. And think twice before speaking out about sexual harassment from a boss — it could cost you your career.

These are a few of the unwritten rules that some female lawmakers, staff and interns say they follow on Capitol Hill, where they say harassment and coercion is pervasive on both sides of the rotunda.
There is also the “creep list” — an informal roster passed along by word-of-mouth, consisting of the male members most notorious for inappropriate behavior, ranging from making sexually suggestive comments or gestures to seeking physical relations with younger employees and interns.
CNN spoke with more than 50 lawmakers, current and former Hill aides and political veterans who have worked in Congress, the majority of whom spoke anonymously to be candid and avoid potential repercussions. With few exceptions, every person said they have personally experienced sexual harassment on the Hill or know of others who have.
In an environment with “so many young women,” said one ex-House aide, the men “have no self-control.” “Amongst ourselves, we know,” a former Senate staffer said of the lawmakers with the worst reputations. And sometimes, the sexual advances from members of Congress or senior aides are reciprocated in the hopes of advancing one’s career — what one political veteran bluntly referred to as a “sex trade on Capitol Hill.”
These anecdotes portray a workplace where women are subjected to constant harassment — both subtle and explicit. They also highlight an antiquated reporting system that discourages some victims from speaking out, leaving many professionals on the Hill to rely instead on hushed advice from peers and mentors.
On Tuesday, a House committee held a hearing to examine the chamber’s sexual harassment policies, and the Senate last week passed a resolution making sexual harassment training mandatory for senators, staff and interns — two clear acknowledgments of the need for reform. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell support ramping up sexual harassment training.
One female congresswoman told CNN that she has experienced sexual harassment from her male colleagues on multiple occasions over the years, but she declined to speak on the record or detail those interactions.
“Half are harassers,” she said of her male counterparts in Congress, before quickly adding that that was an over-estimate — only “some are harassers,” she said.

Capitol Hill’s open secret: ‘We know’ who they are

What began as a typical workday left one woman feeling “horrified.”
A former Senate staffer recalled getting on the “members only” elevator — designed to let lawmakers easily reach the House and Senate floors — with her boss a few years ago. Her boss introduced her to another senator in the elevator. Both senators are men and still currently in office.
When she leaned in to shake that senator’s hand, he stroked the inside of her palm “in a really gross, suggestive way” — a gesture that was completely invisible to her boss. The ex-staffer said she was rattled and “felt very yucky.” She was also shaken by how brazen the senator was to do this with his colleague standing right next to them.
The woman, who declined to be named or reveal the senator’s identity, told CNN that she avoided that lawmaker from that day on. She also never told her then-boss about it — she was embarrassed and nervous to make it an issue, she said, and simply “took it for the gross moment that it was.”
“Nothing about it felt right,” she said.
In conversations with CNN, multiple women pointed to the elevators on Capitol Hill as a place where staff and members prey on women and say they have been advised to avoid riding alone with men if possible. One woman said years after leaving her job in Congress, she still feels anxious about being alone in elevators with men.
The inappropriate conduct is hardly limited to the confines of elevators.
The unique lifestyle on the Hill helps fuel a hostile culture. Many male members are far away from their families, including their spouses, during the week, frequently working late nights and attending evening fundraisers and events where alcohol flows freely. Often, they are staffed by younger, female employees. Some members of Congress forgo a Washington-area apartment and sleep in their offices, a practice several sources highlighted as problematic.
One aide who works in the Senate described Capitol Hill as “a sort of old school, Wild West workplace culture that has a lot of ‘work hard, play hard’ ethos and without the sort of standard professionalism that you find in more traditional workplaces.”
The dozens of interviews that CNN conducted with both men and women also revealed that there is an unwritten list of male lawmakers — made up primarily of House representatives where there are many more members than the Senate — notorious for inappropriate or predatory behavior. Several people simply referred to that roster as the “creep list.”
More than half a dozen interviewees independently named one California congressman for pursuing female staffers; another half dozen pointed to a Texas congressman for engaging in inappropriate behavior. CNN is not naming either of those lawmakers because the stories are unverified.
“Amongst ourselves, we know,” a former Senate aide said referring to sexual harassers and their behavior. “There is a certain code amongst us, we acknowledge among each other what occurs.”

Some stay silent; others tolerate bad behavior: ‘There’s a little bit of a sex trade on Capitol Hill’

Even as explosive allegations in Hollywood and media have taken down powerful figures like producer Harvey Weinstein, actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Louis C.K. and political journalist Mark Halperin, on Capitol Hill, it’s not clear that a similar a day of reckoning is soon coming to one of the country’s most important institutions.
The power dynamics in Washington contribute to this problem. Most offices are staffed by early-career professionals who are trying to make a name for themselves in Washington. They also report directly to members of Congress.
“A lot of it has to do with being in a place where people who have power try to exert it to get what they want,” one Senate staffer said, adding that a lot of the most egregious examples happen “on the cocktail circuit” — where powerful men intermingle with younger staffers outside of the Capitol.
It’s “people using their power without any self-control,” a former House staffer said. “There are a lot of tales of these guys going out and behaving very badly with younger staffers.”
But some women tolerate the advances or even reciprocate them — everything from flirting to getting physically intimate — believing that it is one way to climb the ladder.
“There’s a little bit of a sex trade on Capitol Hill. If a part of getting ahead on Capitol Hill is playing ball with whatever douchebag — then whatever,” said one female political veteran who worked on Capitol Hill.
Former Rep. Mary Bono said publicly this month that she endured suggestive comments from a fellow lawmaker for years before eventually confronting him. Rep. Linda Sanchez and ex-Rep. Hilda Solis also told the Associated Press stories of repeated inappropriate comments from lawmakers, including some who are still in office.
One woman who began her career in Washington in the 1980s and is now in her 50s, told CNN that she still constantly takes precautions to protect herself from powerful men.
“I think women have to watch where they are and how they are all the time,” she said.
Travis Moore, a former aide to ex-Rep. Henry Waxman, started a signature-gathering campaign last week calling on congressional leaders to reform “inadequate” sexual harassment policies in Congress. His letter has gathered over 1,500 signatures.
Moore told CNN that he was deeply affected by a close friend who confided in him that, while she was an aide in the Senate, she received sexual comments from a superior, who was an aide. When she reported the behavior to her chief of staff, she was “questioned harshly about it and her motives were questioned.”
The accused aide was not reprimanded and there was no recourse.

‘The place where complaints go to die’

Harassment on Capitol Hill isn’t always sexual in nature.
Around 2011, Liz was a young and fast-rising aide on the Hill. Her career was thriving and her work was getting noticed. But in the Senate office where Liz worked, her direct boss, a male senior aide, yelled and physically intimidated her.
She eventually sought help from the Office of Compliance, the little-known agency established in part to oversee workplace disputes in Congress. But Liz, whose first name has been changed to conceal her identity, told CNN that this was the implicit but clear message she received from the office: “There’s no real case to any of this.”
“It is like, the place where complaints go to die,” she said. “It was like I was talking to a black hole of people who didn’t care.”
Years later, Liz, who no longer works on the Hill, said she still wonders whether her decision to report her boss’s behavior damaged her career.
When asked to respond to Liz’s story, OOC Executive Director Susan Tsui Grundmann said in a statement, “Congress designed us to be a non-partisan, independent process, which means that we are not an advocate for either side.”
The OOC, established by the Congressional Accountability Act in the 1990s, has come under fire in recent weeks for what some say are antiquated rules that can intimidate victims into silence.
What’s more, the initial proceedings alone can drag out for months.
If a congressional aide wants to file a formal complaint with the OOC, they must first engage in 30 days of counseling. After 30 days, they can choose to go into mediation with a representative of the congressional office that they are lodging a complaint against, which can last at least another 30 days. Then, the accuser must wait an additional 30 days before they can officially file a complaint and pursue a hearing either with the OOC or the Federal District Court.
Multiple lawmakers in both chambers are drafting legislation to change the OOC’s protocol for handling workplace complaints.
Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand’s forthcoming bill would remove the 30-day waiting period before a victim can initiate the administrative hearing phase of the process. In the House, Rep. Jackie Speier is proposing similar legislation.
There is also growing pressure for more transparency so that the public can see information like the number of sexual harassment complaints filed with the OOC, the number of settlements reached, the dollar figure of those settlements and which offices are receiving complaints. CNN, along with some members of Congress, has requested that information.
Tracy Manzer, a spokeswoman for Speier, said 80% of people who have come to their office with stories of sexual misconduct in the last few weeks have chosen not to report the incidents to the OOC.
And many of those who did said the process was a nightmare, forcing them to stop midway through — some were told things like, “You can’t prove it” and “it’ll be a nightmare” to move forward, Manzer said.
The female congresswoman who told CNN that she has been sexually harassed by her male colleagues numerous times said she believed there is little upside to speaking out.
“I need these guys’ votes,” she said. “In this body, you may be an enemy one day and a close ally the next when accomplishing something. … So women will be very cautious about saying anything negative about any of their colleagues.”
Is that depressing? “I think it’s reality,” she said.
This story has been updated to reflect that Tuesday’s House hearing on sexual harassment has completed.

Lindsey Graham wants sexual harassers in Congress outed: ‘Name them’

A prominent Republican senator on Wednesday called for sexual harassers in Congress to be outed.

“Name them,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters. “Just get it out. Lay it out. Change the rules so people can come to work without being harassed. Those who do these things need to be held accountable.”

Graham’s comments come one day after California Rep. Jackie Speier testified that at least two sitting members of Congress — one from each party — have been the subjects of rampant sexual harassment complaints.

Without naming names, Speier said she’d heard stories of victims having their “private parts grabbed on the House floor.”

Speier said Wednesday that she is barred from identifying one lawmaker because of a non-disclosure agreement. She said she won’t name the other because the victim asked her not to.

During a news conference introducing her bill to overhaul the process for reporting sexual harassment, Speier said she is “here to protect the victims.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, Virginia Republican Barbara Comstock said she’d heard a story about a member of Congress telling a staffer to bring work material to his house. When she got there, she said, he exposed himself to her.

The staffer quit.

“What are we doing here for women, right now, who are dealing with someone like that?” Comstock asked at the hearing.

Graham, who on Monday called on Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore to step aside after a new accuser came forward alleging Moore sexually assaulted her when she was a teen, acknowledged that sexual harassment in Congress needs to be addressed.

“It’s just rude. It’s crude. I wouldn’t want my sister… wouldn’t (want) my nieces to go through this,” he said. “I wouldn’t want a young woman to experience that kind of behavior just, you know, by participating in their government.”

During the past few weeks, stories of sexual harassment and gender hostility across many industries have been dominating the news. Multiple incidents out of D.C. and other state houses have shed light on the difficulties victims face when trying to report their accusers.

About 1,500 former Capitol Hill aides have signed an open letter to House and Senate leaders demanding that Congress put in place mandatory harassment training. They’re also calling to revamp the Office of Compliance, a small office that deals with these complaints and that few knew even existed.

“Staffers who do decide to pursue a complaint face an opaque and burdensome process,” Kristen Nicholson, director of the Government Affairs Institute, who served as chief of staff to Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., from 2001-2017, wrote in an editorial.

“Hill offices are small and run largely as members see fit,” she said, adding there’s no HR department with whom to lodge a confidential complaint and that staffers are “conditioned” against saying anything that might make their boss or even the institution look bad.

After a while, offenses are seen more as an occupational hazard.

“These notions become so ingrained they stay with most of us long after we’ve left the Hill,” Nicholson said.

Earlier this month, The Associated Press reported on one current and three former female lawmakers who said they had been harassed or subjected to hostile and sexually suggestive comments by fellow members of Congress, some of whom are still in office. Shortly afterward, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., sent a memo to fellow lawmakers encouraging them to complete sexual harassment training and make it mandatory for their staffs.

Last week, the Senate unanimously approved a measure requiring all senators, staff and interns to be trained on preventing sexual harassment.

On a voice vote, lawmakers adopted a bipartisan resolution calling for training within 60 days of the measure’s passage.

Each Senate office would have to submit certification of completed training, and the certificate would be published on the public website of the secretary of the Senate.

The measure had widespread support, and the action occurred within days of the resolution’s formal introduction.

Fox News’ Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/15/name-them-lindsey-graham-wants-sexual-harassers-in-congress-outed.html

Netflix says no more Kevin Spacey on ‘House of Cards’

Kevin Spacey on “House of Cards.” | NETFLIX

LOS ANGELES — Netflix said Friday night that Kevin Spacey will no longer be a part of “House of Cards” and it’s cutting all other ties with the actor after a series of allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

“Netflix will not be involved with any further production of ‘House of Cards’ that includes Kevin Spacey,” the company said in a statement.

ADVERTISING

Netflix said it will work with the show’s production company MRC to evaluate whether it will continue without him.

The 58-year-old Spacey was nominated for best drama actor Emmy Awards during each of the show’s first five seasons, but never won. He played a ruthless politician who ascends to the presidency of the United States. Co-star Robin Wright is also a central player on the show, and it could conceivably continue with a focus on her.

Production on the show had already been suspended on Tuesday.

Netflix says it also will refuse to release the film “Gore,” in which Spacey stars as the writer Gore Vidal and also acted as producer.

SPONSORED CONTENT
By The Scene — From “The Very Busy and Important Person” and “The Gossip” to “The Always Late Person” and “The Stickler,” here are…

CNN reported that eight current or former “House of Cards” workers claim that Spacey made the production a “toxic” workplace and one ex-employee alleges the actor sexually assaulted him.

Spacey has not been arrested or charged with any crime. His publicist did not immediately return an email message late Friday night seeking comment. A publicist said earlier this week that Spacey is “taking the time necessary to seek evaluation and treatment.”

The Academy Award-winning actor became ensnared in Hollywood’s fast-growing sexual harassment crisis after actor Anthony Rapp alleged Spacey made sexual advances toward him in 1986, when Rapp was 14. Spacey has said he doesn’t remember the alleged encounter reported by BuzzFeed News last weekend but apologized if such “drunken behavior” occurred.

The story spurred several others to come forward with similar allegations about Spacey.

London police are reportedly investigating Spacey for a 2008 sexual assault, British media reported Friday.

Police did not identify Spacey by name but said the department’s child abuse and sexual offenses unit is investigating the reported assault after it was referred to police earlier this week.

Spacey is the latest high profile Hollywood figure to lose work and standing in a wave that began when dozens of sexual harassment allegations were reported last month against film mogul Harvey Weinstein.
Weinstein is under investigation in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, London and New York for possible criminal cases after several women accused him of sexual assault or rape.

This combination photo shows, top row from left, film producer Harvey Weinstein, former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price, director James Toback, New Orleans chef John Besh, middle row from left, fashion photographer Terry Richardson, New Republic contributing editor Leon Wiseltier, former NBC News political commentator Mark Halperin, former Defy Media executive Andy Signore, and bottom row from left, filmmaker Brett Ratner, actor Kevin Spacey, actor Jeremy Piven and actor Dustin Hoffman. In the weeks since the string of allegations against Weinstein first began, an ongoing domino effect has tumbled through not just Hollywood but at least a dozen other industries. (AP Photos/File) ORG XMIT: NYET888

Allegations against Harvey Weinstein set off tremors in Hollywood and other industries. Top: Weinstein, former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price, director James Toback, New Orleans chef John Besh; middle, from left: fashion photographer Terry Richardson, New Republic contributing editor Leon Wiseltier, former NBC News political commentator Mark Halperin, former Defy Media executive Andy Signore; bottom, from left: filmmaker Brett Ratner and actors Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Piven and Dustin Hoffman.

Magazine publisher resigns after allegations

Also Friday, Hamilton Fish, publisher of The New Republic, resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment.

In a company memo shared with The Associated Press, magazine owner Win McCormack wrote that Fish’s resignation was effective immediately and that an internal investigation would continue. Fish, who joined The New Republic in 2016, had been placed on leave of absence last week. He is a former publisher of The Nation.

“As I understand it, some employees, to my deep dismay, complained this week that my presence had led them to feel uncomfortable at The New Republic,” Fish wrote to McCormack in a memo Friday that was also shared with the AP. “Women have longstanding and profound concerns with respect to their treatment in the workplace. Many men have a lot to learn in this regard. I know I do, and I hope for and encourage that new direction.”

Fish wrote in an email to the AP that he “felt the controversy swirling around us could cause irreparable harm to the magazine, and that the only way to protect The New Republic and its employees was for me to separate from the organization.” Noting his time with such organizations as The Nation, a prominent liberal publication, and with Human Rights Watch, he wrote that he had spent his career in “in progressive media and the human rights field.

Fish is among several figures in media and publishing that have stepped down or been fired in the wake of the Weinstein reports.
Others include author and former NBC analyst Mark Halperin, former New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier and former NPR chief editor Michael Oreskes, who was an AP executive from 2008 to 2015.

AP National Writer Hillel Italie in New York and Writer Gregory Katz in London contributed to this report.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/netflix-says-no-more-kevin-spacey-on-house-of-cards/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017, Story 1: Senate Majority Leader McConnell Commits To Passing Tax Reduction and Reform This Year Maybe — Best Efforts Only — Otherwise President Trump Will Run Against Congress in 2018 and Steve Bannon Will Find Candidates To Primary All Republicans Not on Trump Team — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Addresses 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas — Videos — Story 3: Prowling Pedophile Predator Pack —  Friends of Clinton, Epstein and Weinstein — War on Women By Dirty Deviant Democrats — Filthy Rich Too Big To Arrest? — Videos

Posted on October 16, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Assault, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, First Amendment, Former President Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Harvey Weinstein, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for trump and mcconnell in rose garden press conferenceImage result for values summit 2017Image result for Bill Clinton and harvey weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein

Image result for lJeffrey Epstein , bill clinton and harvey weinstein

Story 1: Senate Majority Leader McConnell Commits To Passing Tax Reduction and Reform This Year Maybe — Best Efforts Only — Otherwise President Trump Will Run Against Congress in 2018 and Steve Bannon Will Find Candidates To Primary All Republicans Not on Trump Team — — 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas –Videos — 

Image result for trump and mcconnell in rose garden press conference

Image result for steve bannon values summit 2017

Image result for president donald j. Trump values summit 2017

Trump Throws A Fit Because Democrats Won’t Destroy America

Donald Trump insults Mitch McConnell at press conference about taking money from lobbyists

BOOM! Mitch McConnell BLASTS Steve Bannon During Presser with Trump

Steve Bannon: GOP establishment “trying to nullify the 2016 election”

The book that shaped Steve Bannon’s worldview

Neil Howe: The World Is on the Verge of Generational Crisis

Neil Howe: It’s going to get worse; more financial crises coming

Neil Howe: Is Trump America’s ‘Gray Champion’ Like Lincoln or FDR?

Neil Howe on Steve Bannon, Trump and the Possibility of an American Civil War

Donald Trump Doubles Down On NFL Controversy After Hillary Clinton Tweet | TIME

President Trump CONFRONTED on his Press Conference with Mitch McConnell 10/16/2017

WATCH: President Trump Press Conference With Mitch McConnell 10/16/17

The Five 10/16/17 – The Five Fox News Today October 16, 2017 MITCH MCCONNELL, TRUMP PRESS CONFERENCE

Strauss–Howe generational theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Strauss–Howe generational theory, created by authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, describes a theorized recurring generation cycle in American history. Strauss and Howe laid the groundwork for their theory in their 1991 book Generations, which discusses the history of the United States as a series of generational biographies going back to 1584.[1] In their 1997 book The Fourth Turning, the authors expanded the theory to focus on a fourfold cycle of generational types and recurring mood eras in American history.[2] They have since expanded on the concept in a variety of publications.

The theory was developed to describe the history of the United States, including the 13 colonies and their British antecedents, and this is where the most detailed research has been done.[original research?] However, the authors have also examined generational trends elsewhere in the world and described similar cycles in several developed countries.[3]

In a 2009 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Eric Hoover called the authors pioneers in a burgeoning industry of consultants, speakers and researchers focused on generations.[4] Academic response to the theory has been mixed—some applauding Strauss and Howe for their “bold and imaginative thesis”, and others criticizing the theory.[5][6] Criticism has focused on the lack of rigorous empirical evidence for their claims,[7] and a perception that aspects of the argument gloss over real differences within the population.[6]

History

William Strauss and Neil Howe’s partnership began in the late 1980s when they began writing their first book Generations, which discusses the history of the United States as a succession of generational biographies. Each had written on generational topics: Strauss on Baby Boomers and the Vietnam War draft, and Howe on the G.I. Generation and federal entitlement programs.[8] Strauss co-wrote two books with Lawrence Baskir about how the Vietnam War affected the Baby Boomers (Chance and Circumstance: The Draft the War and The Vietnam Generation (1978) and Reconciliation after Vietnam (1977)). Neil Howe studied what he believed to be the US’s entitlement attitude of the 1980s and co-authored On Borrowed Time: How America’s entitlement ego puts America’s future at risk of Bankruptcyin 1988 with Peter George Peterson.[9] The authors’ interest in generations as a broader topic emerged after they met in Washington, D.C., and began discussing the connections between each of their previous works.[10]

They wondered why Boomers and G.I.s had developed such different ways of looking at the world, and what it was about these generations’ experiences growing up that prompted their different outlooks. They also wondered whether any previous generations had acted along similar lines, and their research discussed historical analogues to the current generations. The two ultimately described a recurring pattern in Anglo-American history of four generational types, each with a distinct collective persona, and a corresponding cycle of four different types of era, each with a distinct mood. The groundwork for this theory was laid out in Generations in 1991. Strauss and Howe expanded on their theory and updated the terminology in The Fourth Turning in 1997.[8][11] Generations helped popularize the idea that people in a particular age group tend to share a distinct set of beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors because they all grow up and come of age during a particular period in history.[6]

In their books Generations (1991) and The Fourth Turning (1997), Strauss and Howe discussed the generation gap between Baby Boomers and their parents and predicted there would be no such generation gap between Millennials and their elders. In 2000, they published Millennials Rising. A 2000 New York Times book review for this book titled: What’s the Matter With Kids Today? Not a Thing, described the message of Millennials Rising as “we boomers are raising a cohort of kids who are smarter, more industrious and better behaved than any generation before”, saying the book complimented the Baby Boomer cohort by complimenting their parenting skills.[12][13][14]

In the mid-1990s, the authors began receiving inquiries about how their generational research could be applied to strategic problems in organizations. Strauss and Howe were quickly established as pioneers in a growing field, and started speaking frequently about their work at events and conferences.[6] In 1999, Strauss and Howe founded LifeCourse Associates, a publishing, speaking and consulting company built on their generational theory. As LifeCourse partners, they have offered keynote speeches, consulting services, and customized communications to corporate, nonprofit, government, and education clients. They have also written six books in which they assert that the Millennial Generation is transforming various sectors, including schools, colleges, entertainment, and the workplace.[promotional language]

On December 18, 2007, William Strauss died at the age of 60 from pancreatic cancer.[15] Neil Howe continues to expand LifeCourse Associates and to write books and articles on a variety of generational topics. Each year Mr. Howe gives about 60 speeches, often followed by customized workshops, at colleges, elementary schools, and corporations.[6] Neil Howe is a public policy adviser to the Blackstone Group, senior adviser to the Concord Coalition, and senior associate to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[16]

Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero “focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or ‘fourth turning’, that destroyed an old order and created a new one”. Kaiser said Bannon is “very familiar with Strauss and Howe’s theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while.”[17][18][19] A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: “Steve Bannon’s obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome”, commented: “Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the ‘Fourth Turning’.”[20]

Works

Strauss and Howe’s work combines history with prophecy. They provided historical information regarding living and past generations and made various predictions. Many of their predictions were regarding the Millennial Generation, who were young children when they began their work, thus lacking significant historical data. In their first book Generations (1991), Strauss and Howe describe the history of the US as a succession of Anglo-American generational biographies from 1584 to the present, and they describe a theorized recurring generational cycle in American history. The authors posit a pattern of four repeating phases, generational types and a recurring cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises, from the founding colonials of America through the present day.[1][21]

Strauss and Howe followed in 1993 with their second book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, which was published while Gen Xers were young adults. The book examines the generation born between 1961 and 1981, “Gen-Xers” (which they called “13ers”, describing them as the thirteenth generation since the US became a nation). The book asserts that 13ers’ location in history as under protected children during the Consciousness Revolution explains their pragmatic attitude. They describe Gen Xers as growing up during a time when society was less focused on children and more focused on adults and their self-actualization.[22][23][24]

In 1997, the authors published The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, which expanded on the ideas presented in Generations and extended their cycles back into the early 15th century. The authors began the use of more colorful names for generational archetypes – e.g. “Civics” became “Heroes” (which they applied to the Millennial Generation), “Adaptives” became “Artists” – and of the terms “Turning” and “Saeculum” for the generational cycles. The title is a reference to what their first book called a Crisis period, which they expected to recur soon after the turn of the millennium.[2]

In 2000, the two authors published Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. This work discussed the personality of the Millennial Generation, whose oldest members were described as the high school graduating class of the year 2000. In this 2000 book, Strauss and Howe asserted that Millennial teens and young adults were recasting the image of youth from “downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged”. They credited increased parental attention and protection for these positive changes. They asserted Millennials are held to higher standards than adults apply to themselves and that they’re a lot less vulgar and violent than the teen culture older people produce for them. They described them as less sexually charged and as ushering in a new sexual modesty, with increasing belief that sex should be saved for marriage and a return to conservative family values. They predicted that over the following decade, Millennials would transform what it means to be young. According to the authors, Millennials could emerge as the next “Great Generation”. The book was described as an optimistic, feel-good book for the parents of the Millennial Generation, predominantly the Baby Boomers.[25][26][27]

Defining a generation

Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years or about the length of one phase of life: childhoodyoung adulthoodmidlife, and old age. Generations are identified (from first birthyear to last) by looking for cohort groups of this length that share three criteria. First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. In this view, members of a generation are shaped in lasting ways by the eras they encounter as children and young adults and they share certain common beliefs and behaviors. Aware of the experiences and traits that they share with their peers, members of a generation would also share a sense of common perceived membership in that generation.[28]

Strauss and Howe say they based their definition of a generation on the work of various writers and social thinkers, from ancient writers such as Polybius and Ibn Khaldun to modern social theorists such as José Ortega y GassetKarl MannheimJohn Stuart MillÉmile LittréAuguste Comte, and François Mentré.[29]

Generational archetypes and turnings

Generations by year of birth according to Strauss–Howe
Late Medieval Saeculum
Reformation Saeculum (104 years)
  • Reformation Generation (1483–1511) (P)
  • Reprisal Generation (1512–1540) (N)
  • Elizabethan Generation (1541–1565) (H)
  • Parliamentary Generation (1566–1587) (A)
New World Saeculum (112 years)
  • Puritan Generation (1588–1617) (P)
  • Cavalier Generation (1618–1647) (N)
  • Glorious Generation (1648–1673) (H)
  • Enlightenment Generation (1674–1700) (A)
Revolutionary Saeculum (90 years)
  • Awakening Generation (1701–1723) (P)
  • Liberty Generation (1724–1741) (N)
  • Republican Generation (1742–1766) (H)
  • Compromise Generation (1767–1791) (A)
Civil War Saeculum (67 years)
Great Power Saeculum (82 years)
Millennial Saeculum (age 74 years in 2017)
Key: Prophet (P), Nomad (N), Hero (H), Artist (A)

Turnings

While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe described a theorized pattern in the historical generations they examined, which they say revolved around generational events which they call turnings. In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, they describe a four-stage cycle of social or mood eras which they call “turnings”. The turnings include: “The High”, “The Awakening”, “The Unraveling” and “The Crisis”.[21]

High

According to Strauss and Howe, the First Turning is a High, which occurs after a Crisis. During The High institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity.[36]

According to the authors, the most recent First Turning in the US was the post-World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.[37]

Awakening

According to the theory, the Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of “self-awareness”, “spirituality” and “personal authenticity”. Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.[38]

Strauss & Howe say the US’s most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid-1960s to the tax revolts of the early 1980s.[39]

Unraveling

According to Strauss and Howe, the Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era they say is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. The authors say Highs come after Crises, when society wants to coalesce and build and avoid the death and destruction of the previous crisis. Unravelings come after Awakenings, when society wants to atomize and enjoy.[40] They say the most recent Unraveling in the US began in the 1980s and includes the Long Boom and Culture War.[21]

Crisis

According to the authors, the Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era of destruction, often involving war, in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s survival. After the crisis, civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects towards community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group.[41]

The authors say the previous Fourth Turning in the US began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (which they call a Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. They say their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of that era.[42] The authors assert the Millennial Generation (which they also describe as a Hero archetype, born 1981 to 2004) show many similar traits to those of the G.I. youth, which they describe as including: rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.[43]

Cycle

The authors describe each turning as lasting about 20–22 years. Four turnings make up a full cycle of about 80 to 90 years,[44] which the authors term a saeculum, after the Latin word meaning both “a long human life” and “a natural century”.[45]

Generational change drives the cycle of turnings and determines its periodicity. As each generation ages into the next life phase (and a new social role) society’s mood and behavior fundamentally changes, giving rise to a new turning. Therefore, a symbiotic relationship exists between historical events and generational personas. Historical events shape generations in childhood and young adulthood; then, as parents and leaders in midlife and old age, generations in turn shape history.[46]

Each of the four turnings has a distinct mood that recurs every saeculum. Strauss and Howe describe these turnings as the “seasons of history”. At one extreme is the Awakening, which is analogous to summer, and at the other extreme is the Crisis, which is analogous to winter. The turnings in between are transitional seasons, similar to autumn and spring.[47] Strauss and Howe have discussed 26 theorized turnings over 7 saecula in Anglo-American history, from the year 1435 through today.

At the heart of Strauss & Howe’s ideas is a basic alternation between two different types of eras, Crises and Awakenings. Both of these are defining eras in which people observe that historic events are radically altering their social environment.[48] Crises are periods marked by major secular upheaval, when society focuses on reorganizing the outer world of institutions and public behavior (they say the last American Crisis was the period spanning the Great Depression and World War II). Awakenings are periods marked by cultural or religious renewal, when society focuses on changing the inner world of values and private behavior (the last American Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s).[49]

During Crises, great peril provokes a societal consensus, an ethic of personal sacrifice, and strong institutional order. During Awakenings, an ethic of individualism emerges, and the institutional order is attacked by new social ideals and spiritual agendas.[50] According to the authors, about every eighty to ninety years—the length of a long human life—a national Crisis occurs in American society. Roughly halfway to the next Crisis, a cultural Awakening occurs (historically, these have often been called Great Awakenings).[49]

In describing this cycle of Crises and Awakenings, Strauss and Howe draw from the work of other historians and social scientists who have also discussed long cycles in American and European history. The Strauss–Howe cycle of Crises corresponds with long cycles of war identified by such scholars as Arnold J. ToynbeeQuincy Wright, and L. L. Ferrar Jr., and with geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson and George Modelski.[51] Strauss and Howe say their cycle of Awakenings corresponds with Anthony Wallace‘s work on revitalization movements;[52] they also say recurring Crises and Awakenings correspond with two-stroke cycles in politics (Walter Dean BurnhamArthur Schlesinger Sr. and Jr.), foreign affairs (Frank L. Klingberg), and the economy (Nikolai Kondratieff) as well as with long-term oscillations in crime and substance abuse.[53]

Archetypes

The authors say two different types of eras and two formative age locations associated with them (childhood and young adulthood) produce four generational archetypes that repeat sequentially, in rhythm with the cycle of Crises and Awakenings. In Generations, Strauss and Howe refer to these four archetypes as Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive.[54] In The Fourth Turning (1997) they change this terminology to Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.[55] They say the generations in each archetype not only share a similar age-location in history, they also share some basic attitudes towards family, risk, culture and values, and civic engagement. In essence, generations shaped by similar early-life experiences develop similar collective personas and follow similar life-trajectories.[56] To date, Strauss and Howe have described 25 generations in Anglo-American history, each with a corresponding archetype. The authors describe the archetypes as follows:

Prophet

Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809. Strauss and Howe would identify him as a member of the Transcendental generation.

Prophet generations enter childhood during a High, a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-Crisis era, come of age as self-absorbed young crusaders of an Awakening, focus on morals and principles in midlife, and emerge as elders guiding another Crisis.[57]

Nomad

Nomad generations enter childhood during an Awakening, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas, when young adults are passionately attacking the established institutional order. Nomads grow up as under-protected children during this Awakening, come of age as alienated, post-Awakening adults, become pragmatic midlife leaders during a Crisis, and age into resilient post-Crisis elders.[57]

Hero

Young adults fighting in World War II were born in the early part of the 20th century, like PT109 commander LTJGJohn F. Kennedy (b. 1917). They are part of the G.I. Generation, which follows the Hero archetype.

Hero generations enter childhood after an Awakeningduring an Unraveling, a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening.[57]

Artist

Artist generations enter childhood after an Unraveling, during a Crisis, a time when great dangers cut down social and political complexity in favor of public consensus, aggressive institutions, and an ethic of personal sacrifice. Artists grow up overprotected by adults preoccupied with the Crisis, come of age as the socialized and conformist young adults of a post-Crisis world, break out as process-oriented midlife leaders during an Awakening, and age into thoughtful post-Awakening elders.[57]

Summary

  • An average life is 80 years, and consists of four periods of ~20 years
    • Childhood → Young adult → Midlife → Elderhood
  • A generation is an aggregate of people born every ~20 years
    • Baby Boomers → Gen X → Millennials → Post-Millennials (“Homeland Generation”)
  • Each generation experiences “four turnings” every ~80y
    • High → Awakening → Unraveling → Crisis
  • A generation is considered “dominant” or “recessive” according to the turning experienced as young adults. But as a youth generation comes of age and defines its collective persona an opposing generational archetype is in its midlife peak of power.
    • Dominant: independent behavior + attitudes in defining an era
    • Recessive: dependent role in defining an era
  • Dominant Generations
    • Prophet: Awakening as young adults. Awakening, defined: Institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy
    • Hero: Crisis as young adults. Crisis, defined: Institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s survival
  • Recessive Generations
    • Nomad: Unraveling as young adults. Unraveling, defined: Institutions are weak and distrusted, individualism is strong and flourishing
    • Artist: High [when they become] young adults. High, defined: Institutions are strong and individualism is weak

Timing of generations and turnings

Generation Generation Archetype Generation Year Span Entered childhood in a Turning Year Span
Late Medieval Saeculum
Arthurian Generation Hero (Civic) 1433-1460 (27) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Retreat from France 1435-1459 (24)0
Humanist Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1461–1482 (21) 4th Turning: Crisis: War of the Roses 1459–1497 (28)
Reformation Saeculum (107)
Reformation Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1483–1511 (28) 1st Turning: High: Tudor Renaissance 1497–1517 (30)
Reprisal Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1512–1540 (28) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Protestant Reformation 1517-1542 (25)
Elizabethan Generation Hero (Civic) 1541–1565 (24) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Intolerance and Martyrdom 1542–1569 (27)
Parliamentary Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1566–1587 (21) 4th Turning: Crisis: Armada Crisis 1569–1594 (25)
New World Saeculum (110)
Puritan Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1588–1617 (29) 1st Turning: High: Merrie England 1594–1621 (27)
Cavalier Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1618–1647 (29) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Puritan Awakening 1621–1649 (26)
Glorious Generation Hero (Civic) 1648–1673 (25) 3rd Turing: Unraveling: Reaction and Restoration 1649–1675 (26)
Enlightenment Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1674–1700 (26) 4th Turning: Crisis: Salem Witch Trials/King Philip’s War/
Glorious Revolution/War of the Spanish Succession
1675–1704 (29)
Revolutionary Saeculum (90)
Awakening Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1701–1723 (22) 1st Turning: High: Augustan Age of Empire 1704–1727 (23)
Liberty Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1724–1741 (17) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Great Awakening 1727–1746 (19)
Republican Generation Hero (Civic) 1742–1766 (24) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: French and Indian War 1746–1773 (27)
Compromise Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1767–1791 (24) 4th Turning: Crisis: American Revolution 1773–1794 (21)
Civil War Saeculum (71)
Transcendental Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1792–1821 (29) 1st Turning: High: Era of Good Feeling 1794–1822 (28)
Gilded Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1822–1842 (20) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Transcendental Awakening 1822–1844 (22)
Hero (Civic)1 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Mexican War and Sectionalism 1844–1860 (16)
Progressive Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1843–1859 (16) 4th Turning: Crisis: American Civil War 1860–1865 (5)
Great Power Saeculum (81)
Missionary Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1860–1882 (22) 1st Turning: High: Reconstruction/Gilded Age 1865–1886 (21)
Lost Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1883–1900 (17) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Missionary Awakening 1886–1908 (22)
G.I. Generation Hero (Civic) 1901–1924 (23) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: World War I/Prohibition 1908–1929 (21)
Silent Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1925–1942 (17) 4th Turning: Crisis: Great Depression/World War II 1929–1946 (17)
Millennial Saeculum (age 74)
Baby Boom Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1943–1960 (17)[58] 1st Turning: High: Superpower America 1946–1964 (18)
13th Generation (Generation X)2 Nomad (Reactive) 1961–1981 (20) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Consciousness Revolution 1964–1984 (20)
Millennial Generation (Generation Y)3 Hero (Civic) 1982–2004 (22) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Culture WarsPostmodernism 1984–2008 (24)
Homeland Generation (Generation Z)4 Artist (Adaptive) 2005–present (age 12) 4th Turning: Crisis: Great Recession/War on Terror/Sustainability[citation needed] 2008-

Note (0): Strauss and Howe base the turning start and end dates not on the generational birth year span, but when the prior generation is entering adulthood. A generation “coming of age” is signaled by a “triggering event” that marks the turning point and the ending of one turning and the beginning of the new. For example, the “triggering event” that marked the coming of age for the Baby Boom Generation was the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. This marked the end of a first turning and the beginning of a second turning. This is why turning start and end dates don’t match up exactly with the generational birth years, but they tend to start and end a few years after the generational year spans. This also explains why a generation is described to have “entered childhood” during a particular turning, rather than “born during” a particular turning.

Note (1): According to Strauss and Howe their generational types have appeared in Anglo-American history in a fixed order for more than 500 years, with one hiccup in the Civil War Saeculum. They say the reason for this is because according to the chart, the Civil War came about ten years too early; the adult generations allowed the worst aspects of their generational personalities to come through; and the Progressives grew up scarred rather than ennobled.

Note (2): Strauss and Howe use the name “13th Generation” instead of the more widely accepted “Generation X” in their book, which was published mere weeks before Douglas Coupland‘s Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture was. The generation is so numbered because it is the thirteenth generation alive since American Independence (counting back until Benjamin Franklin’s).[23]

Note (3): Although there is as yet no universally accepted name for this generation, “Millennials” (a name Strauss and Howe coined) is becoming widely accepted. Other names used in reference to it include Generation Y (as it is the generation following Generation X) and “The Net Generation”.

Note (4): New Silent Generation was a proposed holding name used by Howe and Strauss in their demographic history of America, Generations, to describe the generation whose birth years began somewhere in the mid-2000s and the ending point will be around the mid-2020s. Howe now refers to this generation (most likely currently being born) as the Homeland Generation.[6]

Note (5): There is no consistent agreement among participants on the Fourth Turning message board that 9/11 and the War on Terror lie fully within a Crisis era. The absence of any attempt to constrict consumer spending through taxes or rationing and the tax cuts of the time suggest that any Crisis Era may have begun, if at all, later, as after Hurricane Katrina or the Financial Meltdown of 2008.

The basic length of both generations and turnings—about twenty years—derives from longstanding socially and biologically determined phases of life.[who?] This is the reason it has remained relatively constant over centuries.[59] Some have argued that rapid increases in technology in recent decades are shortening the length of a generation.[60] According to Strauss and Howe, however, this is not the case. As long as the transition to adulthood occurs around age 20, the transition to midlife around age 40, and the transition to old age around age 60, they say the basic length of both generations and turnings will remain the same.[59]

In their book, The Fourth Turning, however, Strauss and Howe say that the precise boundaries of generations and turnings are erratic. The generational rhythm is not like certain simple, inorganic cycles in physics or astronomy, where time and periodicity can be predicted to the second. Instead, it resembles the complex, organic cycles of biology, where basic intervals endure but precise timing is difficult to predict. Strauss and Howe compare the saecular rhythm to the four seasons, which they say similarly occur in the same order, but with slightly varying timing. Just as winter may come sooner or later, and be more or less severe in any given year, the same is true of a Fourth Turning in any given saeculum.[61]

Current position of the US in the cycle

According to Strauss and Howe, there are many potential threats that could feed a growing sense of public urgency as the Fourth Turning progresses, including a terrorist attack, a financial collapse, a major war, a crisis of nuclear proliferation, an environmental crisis, an energy shortage, or new civil wars. The generational cycle cannot explain the role or timing of these individual threats. Nor can it account for the great events of history, like the bombing of Pearl HarborPresident Kennedy’s assassination, or 9/11. What the generational cycle can do, according to Strauss and Howe, is explain how society is likely to respond to these events in different eras. It is the response, not the initial event, which defines an era according to the theory. According to Strauss and Howe, the crisis period lasts for approximately 20 years.[62][21]

Critical reception

The Strauss and Howe retelling of history through a generational lens has received mixed reviews. Many reviewers have praised the authors’ books and theory for their ambition, erudition and accessibility. Former U.S Vice President Al Gore (who graduated from Harvard University with Mr. Strauss) called Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 the most stimulating book on American history he’d ever read. He even sent a copy to each member of Congress.[6] The theory has been influential in the fields of generational studies, marketing, and business management literature. However, it has also been criticized by several historians and some political scientists and journalists, as being overly-deterministic, non-falsifiable, and unsupported by rigorous evidence.[63][64][65]

Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069

After the publication of their first book Generations, Martin Keller, professor of history at Brandeis University, said that the authors “had done their homework”. He said that their theory could be seen as pop-sociology and that it would “come in for a lot more criticism as history. But it’s almost always true that the broader you cast your net, the more holes it’s going to have. And I admire [the authors’] boldness.”[66] Harvard sociologist David Riesman said the book showed an “impressive grasp of a great many theoretical and historical bits and pieces”. The Times Literary Supplement called it “fascinating,” but also, “about as vague and plausible as astrological predictions.”[67] Publishers Weekly, though, called Generations “as woolly as a newspaper horoscope“.[6]

The Fourth Turning

In his review for the Boston Globe, historian David Kaiser called The Fourth Turning “a provocative and immensely entertaining outline of American history”. “Strauss and Howe have taken a gamble”, argued Kaiser. “If the United States calmly makes it to 2015, their work will end up in the ashcan of history, but if they are right, they will take their place among the great American prophets.”[68] Kaiser has since argued that Strauss and Howe’s predictions of coming crisis seems to have occurred, citing events such as 9/11,[69] the 2008 financial crisis,[70] and the recent political gridlock.[71]

Kaiser has incorporated Strauss and Howe’s theory in two historical works of his own, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War (2000), and No End Save Victory: How FDR Led the Nation into War (2014).[72][73] New York Times book reviewer Michael Lind wrote that The Fourth Turning (1997) was vague and verged into the realm of pseudoscience.[65] Lind said that the theory is essentially “non-falsifiable” and “mystifying,” although he believed the authors did have some insights into modern American history.

13th Gen

In 1993, Andrew Leonard reviewed the book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?. He wrote “as the authors (Strauss and Howe) relentlessly attack the iniquitous ‘child-abusive culture’ of the 1960s and ’70s and exult in heaping insult after insult on their own generation — they caricature Baby Boomers as countercultural, long-haired, sex-obsessed hedonists — their real agenda begins to surface. That agenda becomes clear in part of their wish list for how the 13th generation may influence the future: “13ers will reverse the frenzied and centrifugal cultural directions of their younger years. They will clean up entertainment, de-diversify the culture, reinvent core symbols of national unity, reaffirm rituals of family and neighborhood bonding, and re-erect barriers to cushion communities from unwanted upheaval.”[74]

Again in 1993, writing for the Globe and Mail, Jim Cormier reviewed the same book: “self-described boomers Howe and Strauss add no profound layer of analysis to previous pop press observations. But in cobbling together a more extensive overview of the problems and concerns of the group they call the 13ers, they’ve created a valuable primer for other fogeys who are feeling seriously out of touch.” Cormier believed that the authors “raised as many new questions as answers about the generation that doesn’t want to be a generation. But at least they’ve made an honest, empathetic and good-humoured effort to bridge the bitter gap between the twentysomethings and fortysomethings.”[75]

In 1993, Charles Laurence at the London Daily Telegraph wrote that, in 13th Gen, Strauss and Howe offered this youth generation “a relatively neutral definition as the 13th American generation from the Founding Fathers,”.[76] According to Alexander Ferron’s review in Eye Magazine, “13th Gen is best read as the work of two top-level historians. While its agenda is the 13th generation, it can also be seen as an incredibly well-written and exhaustive history of America from 1960 to 1981–examining the era through everything except the traditional historical subjects (war, politics, famine, etc).”[77]

In 2011, Jon D. Miller, at the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (funded by the National Science Foundation)[78] wrote that Strauss and Howe’s 1961 to 1981 birth year definition of “Generation X” (13th Gen) has been widely used in popular and academic literature.[79]

Millennials Rising

David Brooks reviewed the follow-up book about the next generation titled Millennials Rising (2000). “Millennials” is a term coined by Strauss and Howe.[80] Brooks wrote: “This is not a good book, if by good you mean the kind of book in which the authors have rigorously sifted the evidence and carefully supported their assertions with data. But it is a very good bad book. It’s stuffed with interesting nuggets. It’s brightly written. And if you get away from the generational mumbo jumbo, it illuminates changes that really do seem to be taking place.”[63] Further, Mr. Brooks wrote that the generations aren’t treated equally: “Basically, it sounds as if America has two greatest generations at either end of the age scale and two crummiest in the middle”.[63]

In 2001, reviewer Dina Gomez wrote in NEA Today that Strauss and Howe make their case “convincingly,” with “intriguing analysis of popular culture.” While conceding that the book “over-generalizes”, Gomez also argues that it is “hard to resist the book’s hopeful vision for our children and future.”[81]

Millennials Rising ascribes seven “core traits” to the Millennial cohort, which are: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving. A 2009, Chronicle of Higher Education report commented Howe and Strauss based these core traits on a “hodgepodge of anecdotes, statistics, and pop-culture references” and on surveys of approximately 600 high-school seniors from Fairfax County, Virginia, an affluent county with median household income approximately twice the national average. The report described Millennials Rising as a “good-news revolution” making “sweeping predictions” and as describing Millennials as “rule followers who were engaged, optimistic, and downright pleasant”, commenting the book gave educators and “tens of millions of parents, a warm feeling. Who wouldn’t want to hear that their kids are special?”[82]

General

In 1991, Jonathan Alter wrote in Newsweek that the book Generations was a “provocative, erudite and engaging analysis of the rhythms of American life”. However, he believed it was also “an elaborate historical horoscope that will never withstand scholarly scrutiny.” He continued, “these sequential ‘peer personalities’ are often silly, but the book provides reams of fresh evidence that American history is indeed cyclical, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and others have long argued.” But he complained, “The generational boundaries are plainly arbitrary. The authors lump together everyone born from 1943 through the end of 1960 (Baby Boomers), a group whose two extremes have little in common. And the predictions are facile and reckless.” He concluded: “However fun and informative, the truth about generational generalizations is that they’re generally unsatisfactory.”[83] Arthur E. Levine, a former president of the Teachers College of Columbia University said “Generational images are stereotypes. There are some differences that stand out, but there are more similarities between students of the past and the present. But if you wrote a book saying that, how interesting would it be?”[6]

In response to criticism that they stereotype or generalize all members of a generation the authors have said, “We’ve never tried to say that any individual generation is going to be monochromatic. It’ll obviously include all kinds of people. But as you look at generations as social units, we consider it to be at least as powerful and, in our view, far more powerful than other social groupings such as economic class, race, sex, religion and political parties.”[84]

Gerald Pershall wrote in 1991: “Generations is guaranteed to attract pop history and pop social science buffs. Among professional historians, it faces a tougher sell. Period specialists will resist the idea that their period is akin to several others. Sweeping theories of history are long out of fashion in the halls of ivy, and the authors’ lack of academic standing won’t help their cause. Their generational quartet is “just too wooden” and “just too neat,” says one Yale historian. “Prediction is for prophets,” scoffed William McLoughlin (a former history professor at Brown), who said it is wrong to think that “if you put enough data together and have enough charts and graphs, you’ve made history into a science.” He also said the book might get a friendlier reception in sociology and political science departments than the science department.[64]

Sociologist David Riesman and political scientist Richard Neustadt offered strong, if qualified, praise. Riesman found in the work an “impressive grasp of a great many theoretical and historical bits and pieces” and Neustadt said Strauss and Howe “are asking damned important questions, and I honor them.”[64]

In 1991, professor and New York Times writer Jay Dolan critiqued Generations for not talking more about class, race and sex, to which Neil Howe replied that they “are probably generalizations not even as effective as a generation to say something about how people think and behave. One of the things to understand is that most historians never look at history in terms of generations. They prefer to tell history as a seamless row of 55-year-old leaders who always tend to think and behave the same way — but they don’t and they never have. If you look at the way America’s 55-year-old leaders were acting in the 1960s — you know, the ebullient and confidence of the JFKs and LBJs and Hubert Humphreys — and compare them with today’s leaders in Congress — the indecision, the lack of sure-footedness — I think you would have to agree that 55-year-olds do not always act the same way and you’re dealing with powerful generational forces at work that explain why one generation of war veterans, war heroes, and another generation which came of age in very different circumstances tend to have very different instincts about acting in the world.”[84]

Responding to criticisms in 1991, Bill Strauss accepted that some historians might not like their theory, which they presented as a new paradigm for looking at American history, that filled a need for a unifying vision of American history:

People are looking for a new way to connect themselves to the larger story of America. That is the problem. We’ve felt adrift over the past 10 years, and we think that the way history has been presented over the past couple of decades has been more in terms of the little pieces and people are not as interested in the little pieces now. They’re looking for a unifying vision. We haven’t had unifying visions of the story of America for decades now, and we’re trying to provide it in this book.

The kinds of historians who are drawn to our book — and I’m sure it will be very controversial among academics because we are presenting something that is so new — but the kinds who are drawn to it are the ones who themselves have focused on the human life cycle rather than just the sequential series of events. Some good examples of that are Morton Keller up at Brandeis and David Hackett Fischer. These are people who have noticed the power in not just generations, but the shifts that have happened over time in the way Americans have treated children and older people and have tried to link that to the broader currents of history.[84]

In 2006, Frank Giancola wrote an article in Human Resource Planning that stated “the emphasis on generational differences is not generally borne out by empirical research, despite its popularity”.[85]

In 2016 an article was published that explains the differences in generations, observed with the employer’s position, through the development of working conditions, initiated by the employer.[86] This development is due to the competition of firms on the job market for receiving more highly skilled workers. New working conditions as a product on the market have a classic product life-cycle and when they become widespread standard expectations of employees change accordingly.

One criticism of Strauss and Howe’s theory, and the field of “generational studies” in general, is that conclusions are overly broad and do not reflect the reality of every person in each generation regardless of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, or genetic information[87] For example, Hoover cited the case of Millennials by writing that “commentators have tended to slap the Millennial label on white, affluent teenagers who accomplish great things as they grow up in the suburbs, who confront anxiety when applying to super-selective colleges, and who multitask with ease as their helicopter parents hover reassuringly above them. The label tends not to appear in renderings of teenagers who happen to be minorities, or poor, or who have never won a spelling bee. Nor does the term often refer to students from big cities and small towns that are nothing like Fairfax County, Va. Or who lack technological know-how. Or who struggle to complete high school. Or who never even consider college. Or who commit crimes. Or who suffer from too little parental support. Or who drop out of college. Aren’t they Millennials, too?”[6]

In their 2000 book Millennials Rising Strauss and Howe brought attention to the Millennial children of immigrants in the United States, “who face daunting challenges.”[88] They wrote “one-third have no health insurance, live below the poverty line and live in overcrowded housing”.[88]

In a 2017 article from Quartz two journalists commented on Strauss–Howe generational theory saying: “the theory is too vague to be proven wrong, and has not been taken seriously by most professional historians. But it is superficially compelling, and plots out to some degree how America’s history has unfolded since its founding”.[19]

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

 

Story 2: President Trump Addresses 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas — Videos —

Donald Trump at Values Voter Summit: We’re Saying MERRY CHRISTMAS Again!

President Trump Delivers Remarks to the 2017 Values Voter Summit

Kellyanne Conway Takes Questions at the Values Summit in Washington DC

PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKS AT VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 10/13/17 | Fox News October 13, 2017

Perkins: Trump hit all right notes at Values Voter Summit

Reaction To Trump At Values Voter Summit – Fox & Friends

Reverend William Barber On Values Voter Summit: ‘Greed And Not Grace’ | AM Joy | MSNBC

Bill Bennett with a Very Pro-Trump Speech. Value Voters Summit!

Laura Ingraham Speaks at the Values Summit in Washington DC.

Watch Phil Robertson Preach! Values Voters Summit

Dana Loesch Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Rep Mark Meadows Speech. Values Voters Summit

Lila Rose speaks at the 2017 Values Voter Summit

Steve Scalise Speech! Values Voters Summit!

Michele Bachmann! A Full on Sermon! Values Voters Summit!

Judge Roy Moore Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Sebastian Gorka Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Steve Bannon Speaking at the Values Summit in Washington DC.

 

 

LIBERTY SCORECARD

List of A, B and C+ Scoring

Republican Senators Supporting Trump

 

 

 

 

GOP doesn’t have a clue — but Bannon does