They are leeches. And the pollsters? Tell 'em what they want to hear certainly served the Clintons well; that being the "science" of polling that led up to 2016's election day.
Also, publicly, the motivation of those posing the Ellison ambush needs to be pursued by the media. The credibility of doing that ambush to Ellison seems reflected in the recent vote. However the underlying charge might shake out, the timing was self-impeaching for those releasing the smear.
Show us, or show the DNC a video, or suffer the consequences. If those attacking Ellison on the election eve have no video when one was asserted to exist, consequences might go beyond the ire of all who feel that if there were any truth to the allegations they would not have been timed as they were.
Ellison's divorced wife speaking up in Ellison's favor was helpful for voters to weigh all claims, such voters then voting as they did.
What are the politics of Austin Monahan? This is no minor child, this is a twenty-five year old person, held to adult behavior standards. Just as Ellison is held to conduct standards - for things he actually did, allegations being suspect, but from a public perspective, possibly true.
What sets this case apart from other domestic violence claims is the fact that a public servant with a pending candidacy was claimed to have done wrong; with a claim made that unimpeachable evidence exists; but with no such showing.
Instead, "Trust me?" Why would anyone do that under such circumstances? Leave it aside from domestic violence, an assertion of another driver forcing me off the road, without any vehicle contact evidence but saying a dashcam video of the incident exists; but declining to produce such alleged evidence: where is any credibility? Were the assertions made alone, without mention of any video, then it is a he-says-she-says with no history of any abusive conduct up to the belated and ill-timed assertion, but ambiguous. Once an unimpeachable video is alleged to exist; it must be the focus of any credibility assessment. It exists, or saying so if none exists is a clear lie. Under such circumstances, "Are you lying or telling the truth," is a question that can objectively be determined. So, where is the truth in this, the presumption being if evidence is asserted to exist but not produced then it either does not exist or something in the video might exculpate the alleged transgressor. How else can such a situation be rationally handled?
Consider MPR:
The former girlfriend accusing DFL Congressman Keith Ellison of physical abuse said she never intended for the public to know about an alleged video that captured the abuse and she doesn't plan to release it.
The video and what it shows has become a focal point as Ellison tries to refute a single incident of alleged domestic abuse just one day before a critical election. Ellison has denied the accusation and says no video exists. Karen Monahan, Ellison's former girlfriend, says there is video, but for several reasons, she won't make it public.
"It's humiliating, it's traumatizing, for everyone's family involved, and for me," she said in an interview with MPR News on Monday.
She said she's also frustrated that people won't believe that she was assaulted unless she produces the video.
"It sets the expectation for survivors of all kinds of forms of abuse, whether it be abuse toward women, abuse from police officers, abuse from other people in power, to have to be the ones, like I'm doing right now, to show and prove their stories," she said. "It's feeding into that."
Of course it is! It has always been the rule that accusing another of wrongdoing, especially one under constant public scrutiny without any history of such alleged conduct, the accuser has the burden of proof. It has been that and it makes sense to be that and in situations where tardy discussions of alleged wrongdoing are asserted, the burden is heavier. "Why now," is the ancillary question facing the Monahan camp.
MPR continues:
The allegations were first circulated by Monahan's son in a Facebook post Saturday night without her knowledge beforehand, she said.
That is noting an allegation collateral to the main question. "She said," being what it is. Then this, from MPR:
Monahan also sent additional text messages to MPR News indicating that she alerted Ellison to a video in December 2017. "We never discussed — the video I have of you trying to drag me off the bed," Monahan wrote to Ellison, quoting abusive language he allegedly shouted at her.
Ellison did not respond to that message or several that followed. Monahan said the recording also came up in a meeting with Ellison one day before he filed to run for attorney general. Monahan said Ellison was concerned about their text message exchanges and her increasingly frequent social media posts alluding to their relationship.
"He said it could ruin his career. I said 'Keith, I'm not the one who is ruining your career. You're the one that chose to put your hands on me. You're the one who chose to drag me off the bed. You're the one who chose to gaslight me and manipulate me.'"
"He said, 'Let me see the video.'"
She didn't show it to him.
In a statement to MPR News, Ellison's campaign manager Ryan Doyle said Monahan requested to meet with Ellison before he announced his run for attorney general.
"After their relationship ended in 2016, Congressman Ellison met with Ms. Monahan numerous times at her request, including the night before he announced his run for attorney general, when she asked for a meeting to request assistance and advice for a mutual friend," Doyle wrote. "In that meeting, Ms. Monahan repeated her false assertion that a video exists."
That is the classic put up or shut up response, with no subsequent put up; and clearly no shut up either.
MPR continues:
Julie Owens, a consultant who works with domestic abuse survivors and groups based in North Carolina, said it's not unusual for a victim of abuse to not want video of the assault released.
"When I have worked with victims where those things have become public it's been very hard for them and it has been retraumatizing," she said, adding "I do think that asking a victim to produce proof of abuse is rather abusive in and of itself, although I understand people want to know what the truth is, obviously."
That ducks the question entirely. It is irrelevant, other cases are not this case; and there's a gulf of difference between asking, "Have you any proof to back that up," vs. "You say unimpeachable tangible evidence exists, let's see it." If consultant Julie Owens cannot get that straight perhaps she, in her consulting, does more harm than good. Rules of evidence exist as they are, having evolved over time, and for the principle that you show the evidence you say you have to be believed, all logic underpins it. Continuing:
Monahan said she has never been contacted by any candidate or campaign in the attorney general's race, and she didn't intend for this to be an issue in the election. She said she's not asking Ellison to leave office or step down from the race for attorney general.
"It's never a good time, whether I came out now or came out during a general election. It's never going to be the 'right time,'" she said.
"... whether I came out now or came out during a general election," bespeaks strangely of the opening allegation, "Son Austin did it without my knowledge or approval."
"... I came out ..." IS speaking in the first person.
Not, "Gee, Austin ...".
"I" in that context suggests a usage, with Austin being the opening vehicle as a conscious choice to manipulate the situation, i.e., Austin getting the ball rolling as a red herring.
...
What of the employer charging a past employee of embezzlement but refusing to produce business records? "It's in the books, which I decline to produce." Where is the legitimacy there? Who would you believe, never mind hair splitting over predominance of the evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt. Does anyone believe a prosecutor would take such a situation to trial? That an investigating agent would recommend that a prosecutor do so?
Ask Amy Klobuchar that one. She prosecuted.
____________UPDATE_____________
Having used early voting, traveling by air on the day of the primary, I voted Ellison before the allegation became publicized. I would vote the same way, had I voted after the tardy eleventh hour development. If there is a video released showing Ellison at fault and being untruthful about it; my feeling would be that Hillstrom was unfairly disadvantaged in her effort and hope by the thing lying in the weeds when time enough existed to unequivocally tie the ball up one way or the other before any voting. Hillstrom deserved timiliness just as Ellison did. All the DFL AG candidates were served badly by this dumped thing on the eve of voting. Voters also were served badly by the Monahan camp too, as to timing. That is so even if a spot-on video proof surfaces against Ellison before November voting. We all got sandbagged, either way, by the Monahan camp's choice of timing. The feeling of manipulation of the public is strongly felt here; so what is the counter evidence to intentional ambush? Again, it is, "Trust me ...".
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
CALLING BULLSHIT: The web is replete with reporting the DNC is taking up the Ellison question. This would be very positive, if done correctly. It looks as if DNC is doing the opposite. The question can be resolved in a day. From DNC headquarters, Tom Perez contacts Monahan, produce a video or don't, as the message. No video, move on. A video, analyze, have open discussions and decision making, then move on. If there is a video, DNC would need to do something, as a precedent. When a video is claimed to exist but not given DNC, the path is equally clear, move on. But a hypothetical pissing match dragging on at length, in the absence of a video, would give the impression of long knives at DNC wanting to subject Ellison to a thousand cuts, because he opposed the inner "inner party" will to hold DNC reins despite the comparative showings of Bernie, and then the Clintons. DNC can either acquit itself well, or badly. The ball is in their court.
Links relevant to the story: MPR, Rollcall, Strib, Daily Caller - reverse chrono; DC on 8/14, then on 8/13. The Daily Caller links gain further comment.
The 8/14 item concludes:
“These allegations recently came to light and we are reviewing them. All allegations of domestic abuse are disturbing and should be taken seriously,” the DNC said in a statement to NPR.
The DNC’s statement didn’t go far enough, according to former DNC communications director Luis Miranda.
“The party has no choice but to suspend him at a minimum until they figure out what’s going on,” Miranda told NPR. “Frankly, it would be malpractice not to. We’ve made it clear we’re going to take these accusations seriously, at a minimum. We set too high a standard not to take this seriously.”
Luis Miranda is bullshitting big time. Guilty unless proven innocent is not anybody's sane way to move. First, suspend him from what; his Assistant Chair position, or from party membership? Pending what? In half a day Perez could send Monahan the needed email requesting provision of the video;
Last; the 8/13 Daily Caller:
A liberal-leaning women’s group is calling on Democratic Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison to resign from Congress and end his attorney general campaign following allegations that he physically abused his ex-girlfriend.
“We believe women. We believe Karen Monahan,” UltraViolet executive director Shaunna Thomas said in a statement Monday. “A domestic abuser does not belong in any position of power but particularly not as the top prosecutor in the State.”
“Keith Ellison should withdraw his candidacy for Minnesota’s Attorney General and resign from the House of Representatives.”
What's Shaunna Thomas thinking? That is ignoring a claim of a definitive video, item "withheld" over the asserted "trauma" of producing tangible evidence purportedly in existence. That's Star Chamber practice to do what Ms. Thomas suggests, and we don't practice legal decision making that way, in this nation, at this time. Nor should we.
Poisoning the political career of an ex-lover is not easily dismissed; especially if done this way. How this situation unfolds will be very important to the question of allegations, alone, causing career damage, when the allegation is, "It was traumatic evil. I have tangible proof but won't release it."
That's pure bullshit. Unless and until the evidence is released to substantiate a claim it exists, it doesn't. Logic allows no other position. And DNC fiddling around instead of expeditiously confronting things now is doing no service - i.e., according no justice - to its deputy chair, Kieth Ellison. It's hanging him out to dry. To twist slowly in the wind. To do that would be undemocratic, for the Democratic National Committee.
End of story.
______________FURTHER_______________
Not end of story. That "no choice but to suspend" thing comes from this Luis Miranda:
DNC shakes up leadership as Brazile takes charge in wake of WikiLeaks email scandal -- By David Sherfinski and Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 2, 2016
CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall and top spokesman Luis Miranda are all leaving the DNC as the party looks to the general election contest between Hillary Clinton, its presidential nominee, and Republican nominee Donald Trump.
[...] The departures come on the heels of WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of internal DNC emails right before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
One of the emails showed Mr. Marshall musing about ways that Sen. Bernard Sanders’ religion could be used against his campaign. Mr. Miranda’s and Ms. Dacey’s addresses were both on the email chain. Mr. Marshall later apologized, saying the comments don’t reflect either his beliefs or the DNC‘s.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman in the wake of the email release, and Ms. Brazile, a longtime party strategist, was named as interim chairwoman.
What a piece of work is man. More on Luis Miranda. With an image. Does his looks, never mind his
Miranda has previously worked as deputy communications director at the DNC, where was the he [sic] headed a 50-state regional communications program that helped Democrats grab Congress in 2006, and elect President Obama two years later. Most recently, co-founded [sic] a communications consulting company in Washington, D.C.
In his new role, Miranda aims to expand the DNC’s outreach to everyone. “Certainly, I have experience in integrating Hispanic outreach into a broader effort, but it’s important that there's a real effort to tell the story of the millions, white, Hispanic, Black or Asian.”
His appointment, he says, is more evidence that at 54 million strong in the U.S., Latinos will increasingly play roles in all areas of business, not just politics.
[italics emphasis added] Luis Miranda has a reddit chain. You can also word search "Miranda" here, here, here, here and here. The Intercept, here, is credited with breaking the story that led to Luis Miranda being sacked at DNC.
Not neutral when professing neutrality seems an odd qualification to be trustworthy as press punditry sourcing.
Message to MSM: As to credible sources of commentary, with no ax to grind, look beyond Luis Miranda, please.
How's that, for a Miranda Warning? And now-
End of story, really.
_____________FURTHER_______________
Not really. Sometimes a gift keeps giving. A harder nut to crack, "Where are you now, Luis Miranda?"
As contractors build homes on spec, this update was launched on spec. The speculation that the Clinton-Dean astroturfing has perhaps found a place with a paycheck with personal loyalty being its best reward, ONWARD TOGETHER was researched. Would you at a guess conclude that clueless beltway consulting contractors produced this? I would.
But I digress. The Clinton-Dean astroturfing lists "Partners," two of which appear aimed at working the Latino crowd. Long story short, this link for one of the ONWARD TOGETHER spin-offs. There is uncertainty, for the crafted bio makes no mention of "DNC" past service, making it hard to pin down whether one Luis Miranda of the astroturf is the same Luis Miranda of the Fuck-Bernie days of the DNC; under Debbie. So, you tell me, same person/different person? In fairness, images here and here would need crackerjack facial recognition software to say, "Same Dude." But blood kin relatives if not the same person? It is guesswork.
At any rate, the Luis Miranda astroturfing for the ONWARD TOGETHER sub-franchised LATINO VICTORY thing, as head honcho, that is a Luis Miranda who does self-identify as "the Founding Partner of The MirRam Group," which in turn invites attention to that operation. That operation proves the LATINO VICTORY founder and boss is a flak jockey, deeply set in the fee-generating political consultancy milieu. Democratic Party side.
The MirRam Group was founded in 2000 by Luis A. Miranda Jr. and Roberto Ramirez. With decades of experience, the founding partners created an independent consulting firm designed to offer clients the benefit of their deep understanding of New York’s political, corporate, labor, and non-profit landscapes.
[...] Throughout its history, the MirRam Group has worked with some of the largest non-for-profit organizations, industry coalitions, elected officials, Fortune 500 companies, and the best known developers in the state.
In the electoral arena, the MirRam Group has been at the forefront of a politically changing landscape, helping minority candidates break barriers at all levels of government. It has also played pivotal roles in the winning campaigns of Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand. In addition, the organization has been instrumental in helping elect a new generation of local and state elected officials.
Whether it’s a challenging piece of legislation, the creation and implementation of an issue campaign, or a must-win election, the MirRam Group’s experienced professionals work closely with clients to achieve success, in an ever-changing city and state that often sets local, national and international benchmarks.
List of clients and references is available upon request.
Sleaze, to progressives who disapprove of such folks sucking money and impeding progressivism from taking its fair place in political power sharing within the current not-great political swamp some might actually want to see really drained, beyond campaign promising. Throughout its history, the MirRam Group has worked with some of the largest non-for-profit organizations, industry coalitions, elected officials, Fortune 500 companies, and the best known developers in the state.
At a guess, from photos, not the same Luis Miranda; but certainly kindred in spirit, in working politics for profit.
More mere speculation - Does Karen Monahan or Austin Monahan have any ties to, or communications history with Onward Together or any of its spin-off franchises? Mainstream Media should pop that question, all around.
It is RELEVANT.
FINALLY: The Clintons and Howard Dean are astroturfing the same way the Koch brothers are, and should recalculate. The credibility of their astroturf is no greater than the Kochs, employing Hegseth and such front men vs. this Luis Miranda michief. "When in Rome do as the Romans do," is an old saying, ignoring that Rome died about seventeen hundred years ago with only the shell, the Roman church, remaining. Doing as the Romans did, is to go extinct; which the Democratic Party is making its best effort to achieve in state houses nationwde.
Bless the little motives and minds.
BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
BUT FOR DWS, ONE OF THE LUIS MIRANDAS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES SEEING MS. CLINTON AS A WINNER, BERNIE WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE AND LEVERAGED IT. THE DNC/DCCC CROWD CUT OFF THEIR NOSE TO SPITE THEIR FACE, AND TRUMP GOT ALL THE SPOILS. ON BOTH SIDES CONSULTANTS PERSIST. AS STRONGLY AS BEDBUG INFESTATIONS. AS TASTEFULLY, TOO.
______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Earlier linked material notes that MirRam was founded in 2000; so despite name similarity, it has to be different people. As to possible kinship, the MirRam Group has a news webpage, pointing here; showing playwright Lin-Manual Miranda is son of the MirRam Group's boss. The DNC former worker could be a sibling of the playwright. Images are uncertain, but my guess is Luis [DNC] is the son of Luis [MirRam]; both being entrenched to a fault in the payday from politics crowd. Another link, here, shows the MirRam leader as a younger man, this image, where facial resemblance with the DNC operative from DWS days seems stronger.
