ESPN delays broadcast debut of Down in the Valley

[Hoovtrain]

Totally different situations. Not comparable - at all.

Cosby actually had charges pressed against him in a court of law and apparently made some admissions years ago that were supposedly sealed.

KJ has never been charged with a crime and has consistently maintained his innocence. While he apparently did agree to a settlement for her silence years ago, that doesn't at all equate to an admission of guilt. Celebrities and politicians have historically made deals like that because the mere appearance of impropriety can hurt their careers. Now, I'm not saying that I know he didn't commit the crimes he has been accused of -- I'm just saying that the fact that he has been accused and that he agreed to a settlement doesn't at all mean that he is guilty.

Unlike a lot of others, I tend to simply go off the facts. He was accused, but never charged. That means the police/DA either didn't have any corroborating evidence and/or they didn't find the accuser's story credible. I've seen the video and I have my own opinion about it, but regardless what that is -- the only 2 people that know what really happened is the accused and the accuser. Unless one of them ever change their story, that will never change. So what we're ultimately left with is a "he said, she said" situation. And one of the supposed bedrocks of this country's legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I'm quite sensitive to that principle because someone very close to me was once accused of a crime they did not commit and while the truth eventually came to light and proved such -- that person had to endure a lot of BS for a long time.

An accusation does not equal guilt. Celebrities are often the target of multiple accusations for various reasons. The key here is that no charges were ever filed. While that doesn't prove what did or didn't happen, it does, in my mind, provide him with a little more benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, circling back to the relevant point, the situation has nothing to do with the story of Sacramento's fight to keep their team.

Uh no, Cosby has never been charged in any case
You may also want to brush up on the portion of the police transcript where KJ is recorded by the police talking about the situations with the young lady. If that's your view of an admission of innocence then that's your opinion. I have never based my opinion on the fact that he paid her off...I've always based it on what he said in those recorded conversations

PS I'm not trying to be rude so hopefully it did not come off like that

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Uh no, Cosby has never been charged in any case

He has been charged in civil court. That's how the sealed admissions came about. He admitted to drugging the women. The only reason he has never been charged criminally is because the statute of limitations ran out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe KJ has been charged in any way shape or form. And unlike Cosby, the statute of limitations had not run out 20+ years ago when these allegations were first brought to investigators. They could have charged him, but chose not to for reasons likely already stated.

You may also want to brush up on the portion of the police transcript where KJ is recorded by the police talking about the situations with the young lady.

Admittedly, I have not heard the KJ recordings. Didn't even know about them. I only viewed the video of the young girl because it was linked within the recent article. It may or may not change my opinion somewhat. Regardless, my main point still stands. It has nothing to do with the Sacramento saga.

PS I'm not trying to be rude so hopefully it did not come off like that

You do not come off that way at all, but thanks for clarifying. Same goes in return. We are all passionate about certain things and it is easy to misinterpret words typed out on a screen.

 

[Hoovtrain]

He has been charged in civil court. That's how the sealed admissions came about. He admitted to drugging the women. The only reason he has never been charged criminally is because the statute of limitations ran out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe KJ has been charged in any way shape or form. And unlike Cosby, the statute of limitations had not run out 20+ years ago when these allegations were first brought to investigators. They could have charged him, but chose not to for reasons likely already stated.



Admittedly, I have not heard the KJ recordings. Didn't even know about them. I only viewed the video of the young girl because it was linked within the recent article. It may or may not change my opinion somewhat. Regardless, my main point still stands. It has nothing to do with the Sacramento saga.



You do not come off that way at all, but thanks for clarifying. Same goes in return. We are all passionate about certain things and it is easy to misinterpret words typed out on a screen.

For sure
I don't think Cosby was ever charged though, just deposed. I may be wrong though (wouldn't be the first time lol)
But if you ever get a chance give the police transcript a read, and in particular the part toward the end that is the transcript of the police recorded conversation between he and her. It's pretty damning to say the least. There are also other reports that surfaced of him offering pay off to other girls when he was in charge of Sac High and St. Hope. I can PM you those if you like as I don't want to get this thread locked

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And that is such a miniscule sample size that it is irrelevant. I know lots of people outside of California and on the east coast. None of care about what Johnson was accused of over 20 years ago. None. Like the people you are "hearing" things from outside of the local area, that also represents a miniscule sample size. But I truly believe you'll find it to be the norm. A vast majority of those that are attempting to make a big deal about it have an anti-KJ or political agenda of some kind.

People outside of California is not a miniscule sample size. But, by all means, feel free to educate me on what makes you think that the anecdotal "people you know" a more valid data set than the anecdotal "people I know."

 

[Livinthedream]

Eh, maybe it's true. And maybe it's that "agenda/vendetta" is the rallying cry of opposition forces. You can't tell the "Save the Kings" story without making Johnson look like a hero. And there are people who aren't going to stand for Johnson looking like a hero, without saying, "But, what about..."

This is what it boils down to for me. There is no new information. This was out and well documented when ESPN agreed to the documentary.

 

[N0tmyfault]

Totally different situations. Not comparable - at all.

Cosby actually had charges pressed against him in a court of law and apparently made some admissions years ago that were supposedly sealed.

KJ has never been charged with a crime and has consistently maintained his innocence. While he apparently did agree to a settlement for her silence years ago, that doesn't at all equate to an admission of guilt. Celebrities and politicians have historically made deals like that because the mere appearance of impropriety can hurt their careers. Now, I'm not saying that I know he didn't commit the crimes he has been accused of -- I'm just saying that the fact that he has been accused and that he agreed to a settlement doesn't at all mean that he is guilty.

Unlike a lot of others, I tend to simply go off the facts. He was accused, but never charged. That means the police/DA either didn't have any corroborating evidence and/or they didn't find the accuser's story credible. I've seen the video and I have my own opinion about it, but regardless what that is -- the only 2 people that know what really happened is the accused and the accuser. Unless one of them ever change their story, that will never change. So what we're ultimately left with is a "he said, she said" situation. And one of the supposed bedrocks of this country's legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I'm quite sensitive to that principle because someone very close to me was once accused of a crime they did not commit and while the truth eventually came to light and proved such -- that person had to endure a lot of BS for a long time.

An accusation does not equal guilt. Celebrities are often the target of multiple accusations for various reasons. The key here is that no charges were ever filed. While that doesn't prove what did or didn't happen, it does, in my mind, provide him with a little more benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, circling back to the relevant point, the situation has nothing to do with the story of Sacramento's fight to keep their team.

I have investigated over a 100+ sexual assault cases as a detective. I'm well aware of the ample amounts of false accusations made, and it's hard, at times, to keep an unbiased opinion going into each investigation knowing this fact. I appreciate the fact that KJ saved the Kings, but after reading the transcripts of the "confrontation call," where the victim places a phone call to KJ under the direction of police investigators, it's clear to me KJ is not the target of a malicious allegation for cash scandal.

Here's the transcript of the phone call:

Koba: “Well, I was naked and you were naked, and it wasn’t a hug.”

Johnson: “Well, I felt that it was, you know, a hug, and you know, I didn’t, to be honest, remember if we were both naked at that time. That is the night at the guesthouse?”

Koba: “Yeah. ... Why would I be upset if it was just a hug?”

Johnson: “Well, I said the hug was more intimate than it should have been. But I don’t believe I touched your private parts in those areas. And you did feel bad the next day and that’s why we talked about it.”

Koba: “Well, if it was just a hug, why were either one of us naked?”

Johnson: “Again, I didn’t recall us being a hundred percent naked.”

I have done hundreds of these calls, and I can tell you the transcripts never do it justice...there are other subtle things that can be picked up from the audio recording. When someone is innocent, and is being accused of hugging an underage girl naked, things can get a bit hostile. This is not the verbiage from an innocent man. Yes, this case did not get prosecuted by the DA. This case was screwed the moment the victim's therapist alerted KJ of the allegations even before the police started their investigation. These investigations are already difficult to prove, let alone when your suspect is aware that the victim is sharing the allegations.

 

[sdballer]

I have investigated over a 100+ sexual assault cases as a detective. I'm well aware of the ample amounts of false accusations made, and it's hard, at times, to keep an unbiased opinion going into each investigation knowing this fact. I appreciate the fact that KJ saved the Kings, but after reading the transcripts of the "confrontation call," where the victim places a phone call to KJ under the direction of police investigators, it's clear to me KJ is not the target of a malicious allegation for cash scandal.

Here's the transcript of the phone call:




I have done hundreds of these calls, and I can tell you the transcripts never do it justice...there are other subtle things that can be picked up from the audio recording. When someone is innocent, and is being accused of hugging an underage girl naked, things can get a bit hostile. This is not the verbiage from an innocent man. Yes, this case did not get prosecuted by the DA. This case was screwed the moment the victim's therapist alerted KJ of the allegations even before the police started their investigation. These investigations are already difficult to prove, let alone when your suspect is aware that the victim is sharing the allegations.

This. We can argue the relevance to the documentary but that exchange looks very bad. And with increased attention to the story (however motivated) I understand espns desire to proceed cautiously.

 

[Hoovtrain]

I have investigated over a 100+ sexual assault cases as a detective. I'm well aware of the ample amounts of false accusations made, and it's hard, at times, to keep an unbiased opinion going into each investigation knowing this fact. I appreciate the fact that KJ saved the Kings, but after reading the transcripts of the "confrontation call," where the victim places a phone call to KJ under the direction of police investigators, it's clear to me KJ is not the target of a malicious allegation for cash scandal.

Here's the transcript of the phone call:




I have done hundreds of these calls, and I can tell you the transcripts never do it justice...there are other subtle things that can be picked up from the audio recording. When someone is innocent, and is being accused of hugging an underage girl naked, things can get a bit hostile. This is not the verbiage from an innocent man. Yes, this case did not get prosecuted by the DA. This case was screwed the moment the victim's therapist alerted KJ of the allegations even before the police started their investigation. These investigations are already difficult to prove, let alone when your suspect is aware that the victim is sharing the allegations.

Thank you articulating this much better than I was, as this has always been my biggest point of contention. Also nice to hear from the POV of someone who does this for a living.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

People outside of California is not a miniscule sample size. But, by all means, feel free to educate me on what makes you think that the anecdotal "people you know" a more valid data set than the anecdotal "people I know."

You completely misinterpreted my point. I said that the amount of people you are "hearing from" outside of California is miniscule. Unless you are talking to tens of thousands of people, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. Secondarily, I never stated that the people I know were more valid, but rather that I could easily state that I'm hearing the opposite POV from a relative equal number of people. In both cases, it means nothing because it represents such a very small sample size. THAT was the point.

In short, you made a blanket statement about how people outside of Sacramento feel about this subject based off the opinions of a very few then tried to pass it off as if it represents the majority POV. That's not necessarily the case.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I have investigated over a 100+ sexual assault cases as a detective. I'm well aware of the ample amounts of false accusations made, and it's hard, at times, to keep an unbiased opinion going into each investigation knowing this fact. I appreciate the fact that KJ saved the Kings, but after reading the transcripts of the "confrontation call," where the victim places a phone call to KJ under the direction of police investigators, it's clear to me KJ is not the target of a malicious allegation for cash scandal.

Appreciate your take. Not saying I agree or disagree. My original reply to this thread wasn't intending to get into whether anybody believes the allegations or not. I still don't really want to go there. Instead, I'll circle back to my original point, which is that whatever happened or didn't happen over 20 years ago has no bearing on Sacramento's fight to keep their team. It's certainly relevant to a documentary about KJ himself, but not here. As both Warhawk and myself already mentioned, there were lots of key players in this Sacramento saga and it's not relevant to provide life history on each of them -- especially on things that may or may not be true.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You completely misinterpreted my point. I said that the amount of people you are "hearing from" outside of California is miniscule. Unless you are talking to tens of thousands of people, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. Secondarily, I never stated that the people I know were more valid, but rather that I could easily state that I'm hearing the opposite POV from a relative equal number of people. In both cases, it means nothing because it represents such a very small sample size. THAT was the point.

In short, you made a blanket statement about how people outside of Sacramento feel about this subject based off the opinions of a very few then tried to pass it off as if it represents the majority POV. That's not necessarily the case.

It's not necessarily the case, but I stand behind what I said. I personally consider it to be more plausible than the hypothetical shadow cabal that's secretly out to get Kevin Johnson.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Appreciate your take. Not saying I agree or disagree. My original reply to this thread wasn't intending to get into whether anybody believes the allegations or not. I still don't really want to go there. Instead, I'll circle back to my original point, which is that whatever happened or didn't happen over 20 years ago has no bearing on Sacramento's fight to keep their team. It's certainly relevant to a documentary about KJ himself, but not here. As both Warhawk and myself already mentioned, there were lots of key players in this Sacramento saga and it's not relevant to provide life history on each of them -- especially on things that may or may not be true.

There is no dispute as to whether there were "lots of key players." But you can't tell the story without including Kevin Johnson. And you can't include Kevin Johnson without making Kevin Johnson look like a hero. And you can't make Kevin Johnson look like a hero without a not-insignificant number of people taking exception to it.

There was tremendous action at the grassroots level that went into saving the Kings. But, whether Kings Fans like it or not, the story of the grassroots activism doesn't get made into a nationally broadcast documentary. The story of Crown Downtown doesn't get made into a nationally broadcast documentary. For better or worse, Kevin Johnson is the reason why this story was made into a 30 for 30. If his past isn't brought up, people are going to bring it up.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

It's not necessarily the case, but I stand behind what I said. I personally consider it to be more plausible than the hypothetical shadow cabal that's secretly out to get Kevin Johnson.

Fair enough. I obviously understand where you stand on KJ the person, and I don't know enough about the history or all the circumstantial evidence to really have an insightful opinion one way or the other. Where you and I completely disagree, though, is over the relevance to the story regarding the Kings staying in Sacramento. I don't see any angle where it becomes relevant to telling that story.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's the wrong question to ask, though. The question is not whether Johnson's past is relevant to the story. The question is whether or not Johnson's past is perceived as being relevant to the story. And I feel confident in saying that that's the right question because, if it wasn't, there would be no leverage that anyone could use to coerce Disney to delay the broadcast, 'shadow conspiracies' notwithstanding. My contention is that, outside of Northern California, his past is perceived as relevant to the story, and therefore, whether or not it is actually relevant to the story doesn't matter.

If Down in the Valley were only being aired locally on CSN-CA, then no, Johnson's past wouldn't matter. But, it isn't, and it does.

 

[Warhawk]

That's the wrong question to ask, though. The question is not whether Johnson's past is relevant to the story. The question is whether or not Johnson's past is perceived as being relevant to the story. And I feel confident in saying that that's the right question because, if it wasn't, there would be no leverage that anyone could use to coerce Disney to delay the broadcast, 'shadow conspiracies' notwithstanding. My contention is that, outside of Northern California, his past is perceived as relevant to the story, and therefore, whether or not it is actually relevant to the story doesn't matter.

If Down in the Valley were only being aired locally on CSN-CA, then no, Johnson's past wouldn't matter. But, it isn't, and it does.

I disagree on if it is the wrong question.

Apparently it wasn't perceived to be important by the maker of the documentary (per my quote of Breton, above), or anyone else involved, until someone decided to post a video of the interview. Why that came out right now? It's political BS/smear, pure and simple, based on the timing of the release and known ongoing attack of KJ/Rhee (his wife) by Deadspin.

And I will state it again - I haven't followed this part of KJ's "history" at all (heck, I didn't follow basketball outside of Sac much at all back then and don't really know much about him as a player either). The quotes above are not positive for him being innocent. At all. If he did something "bad" then he should have been (or should be?) tried for it. If he's guilty, lock him up! But that hasn't happened for whatever reason...... And I would THINK if someone had a solid case they would have done so. Not arguing his innocence here, just making an observation.

But, again, this has NOTHING to do with the story of Sacramento keeping the team. You and I just flat disagree on this, Slim. If KJ's past is brought up in this, then so should CD's, and Kunal's, and Ranadive's, and Grant's, and EVERYONE else's involved. While KJ might be the biggest figure here, he is by far not the only one who worked to save this team. This is selective political targeting that paints the whole Sacramento effort to keep the team in a bad light and should not be tolerated. You want to go after KJ, fine. Be my guest! But this is not the right way to do it, unless you are a bigger slimeball than KJ is accused of being by his detractors. IMHO, of course.

 

[fansinceday1]

The question I have is:

Will Kings fans give KJ his massive standing ovation on opening night next year?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

But, again, this has NOTHING to do with the story of Sacramento keeping the team. You and I just flat disagree on this, Slim. If KJ's past is brought up in this, then so should CD's, and Kunal's, and Ranadive's, and Grant's, and EVERYONE else's involved. While KJ might be the biggest figure here, he is by far not the only one who worked to save this team.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I really don't understand how anybody can reasonably argue otherwise.

Mark Wahlberg has a checkered past. When they produce a biography about his life, it would certainly be relevant to bring it up. However, if one day he saves three orphans from a burning building, his past would be irrelevant when telling the story of how he saved those kids.

The same logic applies in this case. KJ's past, real or perceived, doesn't connect to the role he played in helping keep the Kings in Sacramento. Just because the KJ haters and/or those with a political agenda are desperately trying to make a connection doesn't mean there is one. I can say that the sky is red all I want. Unless I happen to live on Mars, it just isn't so.

 

[Mike0476]

On September 29th I listened to a podcast, which is rare, and two guys from Dead Spin (the editor was one of them) discussed Sacramento, the Kings and Down in the Valley.

1. "...tax payers can be shaken down for hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their stupid basketball team in town."

2. "... the Kings are garbage and the Kings are owned by the Maloofs brothers who essentially ran them into the ground."

3. Referred to Sacramento as a cow town.

4. They made it known they did not want ESPN to air the documentary.

 

[Mike0476]

That's the wrong question to ask, though. The question is not whether Johnson's past is relevant to the story. The question is whether or not Johnson's past is perceived as being relevant to the story. And I feel confident in saying that that's the right question because, if it wasn't, there would be no leverage that anyone could use to coerce Disney to delay the broadcast, 'shadow conspiracies' notwithstanding. My contention is that, outside of Northern California, his past is perceived as relevant to the story, and therefore, whether or not it is actually relevant to the story doesn't matter.

If Down in the Valley were only being aired locally on CSN-CA, then no, Johnson's past wouldn't matter. But, it isn't, and it does.

Notice Dead Spin did not attack Playing to Win. Why? It's a local film that was shown only locally and not shown to a national audience by ESPN.

 

[Mike0476]

There is no dispute as to whether there were "lots of key players." But you can't tell the story without including Kevin Johnson. And you can't include Kevin Johnson without making Kevin Johnson look like a hero. And you can't make Kevin Johnson look like a hero without a not-insignificant number of people taking exception to it.

There was tremendous action at the grassroots level that went into saving the Kings. But, whether Kings Fans like it or not, the story of the grassroots activism doesn't get made into a nationally broadcast documentary. The story of Crown Downtown doesn't get made into a nationally broadcast documentary. For better or worse, Kevin Johnson is the reason why this story was made into a 30 for 30. If his past isn't brought up, people are going to bring it up.

No argument from me on what was written above.

However we did not need a documentary to be shown on national TV to inspire other fans doing what they can to save their teams and get arenas or stadiums built such as in Milwaukee, Oakland and San Diego.

I have been in contact with the leadership in each city and they have all heard of us, what we did, our story, etc. They have also mentioned us when they are interviewed by the media, which is pretty cool.

For those who did not get the opportunity to watch Down in the Valley, they did mention how the grassroots stepped up like something never seen before, but it did not mention anyone by name or what they did.

What was shown were the following with very little screen time:

1. Chants

2. Signs at the game

3. Facebook page getting more and more likes

4. Fans going to the airport twice

5. Fans standing outside the St. Regis Hotel in NYC

 

[KingsFanSince85]

On September 29th I listened to a podcast, which is rare, and two guys from Dead Spin (the editor was one of them) discussed Sacramento, the Kings and Down in the Valley.

1. "...tax payers can be shaken down for hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their stupid basketball team in town."

2. "... the Kings are garbage and the Kings are owned by the Maloofs brothers who essentially ran them into the ground."

3. Referred to Sacramento as a cow town.

4. They made it known they did not want ESPN to air the documentary.

Deadspin can't even get the simplest of facts correct. Shocking.

The 1st statement shows that, not only do they have an agenda, that agenda clouds them from doing any real fact checking.

 

[Mike0476]

Deadspin can't even get the simplest of facts correct. Shocking.

The 1st statement shows that, not only do they have an agenda, that agenda clouds them from doing any real fact checking.

Have a listen for yourself around the 33 minute mark to get a feeling for what they are discussing on KJ to Sacramento.

Monday, September 28th

The Kevin Johnson Scandals
Marchman and Drew take you through the numerous scandals surrounding former NBA superstar Kevin Johnson. Plus baseball choke fights!

http://www1.play.it/audio/deadcast/

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Have a listen for yourself around the 33 minute mark to get a feeling for what they are discussing on KJ to Sacramento.

The problem is, when they can't get the simplest of things correct in their attack of Sacramento (no taxes are being used to fund the arena), I have no faith in their journalistic integrity or interest in wasting time listening to that kind of nonsense.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I disagree on if it is the wrong question.

Apparently it wasn't perceived to be important by the maker of the documentary (per my quote of Breton, above), or anyone else involved, until someone decided to post a video of the interview. Why that came out right now?

:: sighs ::

I already told you why it has recently come back up, and it has nothing to do with political smearing and shadow conspiracies. It's like I already said, if it hadn't been brought up, somebody was going to bring it up. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the way things are in the Internet era. There are some people who simply can't abide someone who has been accused of the things that Kevin Johnson has been accused of being made to look like a hero in any context. Not a political conspiracy, just human nature. If someone is on your ****list, you're not going to be quiet and let anybody portray them as positive, under any circumstances, without getting your two cents in. Not even if it's for the "greater good," because the issue is not really about them. You're not going to bite your tongue and let anybody portray someone on your ****list as being a hero, in any context, if it's within your influence to do otherwise. Nobody is; it's just not how we're wired. And if you think I'm exaggerating, well... don't make me have to name names... Kevin Johnson is on a lot of people's ****list, because of what he's accused of, and I have no reason to believe that there's anything political about it. The higher your public profile is, the more people's ****list you're going to be on; that's just how that goes.

You keep saying that this has nothing to do with Sacramento keeping the team, and you're wrong. But, you're not wrong because you're factually wrong, because factually, you're not wrong. You're wrong because perception is reality. Because, as important as Carmichael Dave and Kunal and Ranadive and Napear were to the movement, if they are portrayed as the central figures in this documentary, then the documentary never gets made. Or, rather more accurately, the documentary never gets made into a 30 for 30. Dave and Kunal and Ranadive and Napear do not resonate on a national level. They don't matter enough outside of Northern California for this story to ever get made into a 30 for 30; but Kevin Johnson is. That's why his past matters and theirs doesn't. That's why you can portray Carmichael Dave as a hero in this story, and nobody is going to be like, "Yeah, but didn't that guy get a DUI, or something?" Dave is not on enough people's ****list to make anybody care about him being portrayed as a hero. And neither is Kunal, and neither is Ranadive, and neither is Napear.

I'll say it again, you can't tell the story of how Sacramento saved the Kings, without making Kevin Johnson look like a hero. I mean, you can, but ESPN's not buying that story; they don't care about that story. They care about the story because of how Kevin Johnson factors into the story, which means in the story they want to stick their brand on, Kevin Johnson has to look like a great guy, and that's going to cause a lot of pushback. That's why I know that it's the right question to ask, and that's why I know that Johnson's past is relevant: if it weren't relevant, then the broadcast wouldn't be delayed. It doesn't matter that his past isn't actually relevant. It's relevant because people say it's relevant; because, if it isn't brought up, if you don't qualify Johnson's role in the story by saying "Kevin Johnson has been accused of horrible things, but he was also instrumental in making this happen," then Johnson looks like the white night. And, if Kevin Johnson is on your ****list, you will not be able to abide that.

The quotes above are not positive for him being innocent. At all. If he did something "bad" then he should have been (or should be?) tried for it. If he's guilty, lock him up! But that hasn't happened for whatever reason...... And I would THINK if someone had a solid case they would have done so. Not arguing his innocence here, just making an observation.

You've been around the block enough times to know that that's not really how it works in sexual harassment/sexual assault cases. I don't think that even a tenth of the guilty people so much as get charged in cases like these.

 

[Warhawk]

I already told you why it has recently come back up, and it has nothing to do with political smearing and shadow conspiracies. It's like I already said, if it hadn't been brought up, somebody was going to bring it up. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the way things are in the Internet era. There are some people who simply can't abide someone who has been accused of the things that Kevin Johnson has been accused of being made to look like a hero in any context. Not a political conspiracy, just human nature. If someone is on your ****list, you're not going to be quiet and let anybody portray them as positive, under any circumstances, without getting your two cents in. Not even if it's for the "greater good," because the issue is not really about them. You're not going to bite your tongue and let anybody portray someone on your ****list as being a hero, in any context, if it's within your influence to do otherwise. Nobody is; it's just not how we're wired. And if you think I'm exaggerating, well... don't make me have to name names... Kevin Johnson is on a lot of people's ****list, because of what he's accused of, and I have no reason to believe that there's anything political about it. The higher your public profile is, the more people's ****list you're going to be on; that's just how that goes.

Slim, I get what you are saying and this post helped clean up your position and thoughts. Thanks.

I never said conspiracy (shadow or otherwise), I just said political smear. And it isn't a "person" doing this, it's Deadspin. They are after Rhee and KJ both. That's political smear (news organization going after a husband/wife). That's not just an "individual with a **** list".

 

[N0tmyfault]

The quotes above are not positive for him being innocent. At all. If he did something "bad" then he should have been (or should be?) tried for it. If he's guilty, lock him up! But that hasn't happened for whatever reason...... And I would THINK if someone had a solid case they would have done so. Not arguing his innocence here, just making an observation.

It's a valid thought to question why or why not charges were never brought forward against KJ. I don't pretend to know specific details to this case, but I do know that the investigation was compromised by the victim's therapist. I think it's also important to note the date of the investigations - in the mid-to-late 90s. I don't want to undermine or discredit the investigators in this case, but it's no secret that victims in sexual assault cases were treated with disrespect and skepticisms -- maybe even up to California passing a Victim's Rights bill in 2008 (Marcy's Law). Not only the point above, but with the growth of technology and investigative techniques, these type of he-said-she-said cases now have the potential for stronger evidence than in the past.

 

[Livinthedream]

What a tough topic. I tend to try to separate my opinions based on the law vs. Politcs vs. Morality. Though we would like them to all work in harmony, they just don't.

Legally: settled 20 years ago. Done from that standpoint whether I agree with how it was handled back then is not necessarily relevant.

Politically: This story is being used to attack KJ and wife when it hurts most. When arguable his greatest mayorial accomplishment is being celebrated it comes out again. It's personal.

Morally: KJ shouldn't have put himself in that situation with a minor. Period.

Deadspin is also using this woman to further their agenda. I believe this is evident by them realising video without her permission. Visuals drive home the mesage even more. Deadspin needed the video to actually make it a story. Otherwise it's nothing. This was unfair to the woman and a simple sorry from Deadspin is all she got.

Finally...is that non disclosure agreement no longer valid? Why is she once again speaking on this when she was paid not to?

This thing is ugly all the way around.

 

[macadocious]

I keep hearing that this is being done for political reasons. What I want to know is, by whom? Who gains from all of this?

 

[Hoovtrain]

I keep hearing that this is being done for political reasons. What I want to know is, by whom? Who gains from all of this?

And how/why would deadspin be affiliated with it?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

And how/why would deadspin be affiliated with it?

Yeah, it's weird. It goes something like this:

Dave McKenna is a sports columnist in the D.C. area who also apparently writes for Deadspin. Michelle Rhee is Kevin Johnson's wife. McKenna became a "noted Rhee skeptic" (link) due to Rhee's handling of the sports programs at D.C. area high schools when Rhee was Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools (link to summary here, with several links to McKenna pieces inside). It appears that McKenna has gone full scorched-earth and is now attempting to get back at Rhee by destroying KJ. Basically all of the anti-KJ articles on Deadspin are written by Dave McKenna - keep in mind, a high-school sports columnist in D.C. who has no apparent connection to Sacramento. Why Deadspin is carrying his water for him, I don't know. Most likely, they recognize click-bait when they see it. Though of course it would not be surprising if other anti-KJ factions were encouraging this, that's kind of the way politics works.