For most of the last six-plus years, Andrew Torba has billed himself as one of the champions of free speech on the Internet. He bills his social networking platform, Gab, as a platform where free speech reigns supreme, arguing that Facebook and Twitter’s moderation amounts to an attack on our expression — especially for Christian conservatives like him. What he has actually served up is a safe haven for some of the worst people in the world. Racists, white nationalists, white supremacists, conspiracy peddlers, the lot.

However, Torba’s accommodation of one particularly noxious conspiracy theory ought to prove once and for all that he is a fraud. He has thrown Gab’s doors open to a conspiracy theory that, by definition, is an attack on free speech. Namely, QAnon.

Torba recently gained infamy when attention was focused on his role with the campaign of Doug Mastriano, the cartoonishly extreme Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania. Mastriano paid Torba $5,000 for “campaign consulting” that actually turned out to be new followers on Gab. For a time, every new account on Gab automatically followed Mastriano.

Mastriano did this despite almost certainly being aware that the man who carried out the worst anti-Semitic attack in American history, the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh, was a prolific Gab user. Nor, apparently, was Mastriano deterred by Torba’s own well-documented reputation as a virulent anti-Semite. He once ranted about the need to create a “parallel Christian society” rather than stay in a “Judeo-Bolshevik one” — recycling a well-known Nazi trope. In response to well-deserved criticism, he claimed that everyone was just mad at him for sharing “Biblical truth.”

When the ties between Torba and Mastriano came to light, Torba told his followers that he and Mastriano were leading a “Christian movement” — one that had no room for promoters of “Big Tent nonsense” like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro. When observers noticed it was no accident that Torba was singling out two prominent Jewish conservatives, Torba doubled down, saying that Shapiro was more than welcome to join the movement — if he renounced his Jewish faith.

After a week of criticism, Mastriano finally distanced himself from Torba. He deleted his Gab account and declared that his campaign “reject(ed) antisemitism in any form” — while somehow claiming the criticism was just a distraction ginned up by Democrats.

Had Mastriano and his team bothered to dig into what Torba and Gab stood for, they would have seen his virulent anti-Semitism. They would have also seen that Torba has rolled out the red carpet for QAnon.

In October 2020, soon after Facebook joined Twitter in banning QAnon from its platforms, Torba openly declared that QAnon was welcome across all Gab platforms. He even went as far as to include QAnon’s battle cry, “WW1WGA” (where we go one, we go all) in the headline. As he saw it, QAnon supporters were just “very fine people who love freedom and their country,” and were merely “seek(ing) the truth for themselves” rather than from mainstream outlets.

Just in case he didn’t make himself clear, Torba claimed shortly after the 2020 election that QAnon wasn’t a conspiracy theory at all, but simply “a refreshing and objective flow of information” promoted through “a decentralized new media network.” He also claimed those big, bad libruls in the mainstream media were having a hissy fit over QAnon not because it was framing people as pedophiles, but because it was “organizing and uniting Christians” who wanted “real news and information about the corrupt people in power.” This post was tweeted out by one of the most famous QNuts, Marjorie Taylor Greene, in December 2020 — thus proving the lie to her claims that she had renounced QAnon in 2018.

Torba threw the doors of Gab open to QAnon despite knowing about the numerous cases of violence and trolling linked to QAnon and its ancestor, Pizzagate. He did so despite almost certainly knowing that one of QAnon’s central premises is that those who oppose Trump are at the very least covering for pedophiles — that is, if they aren’t pedophiles themselves.

We know this because one of the loudest promoters of QAnon and Pizzagate, Liz Crokin, has mentioned this several times in the past. On a fringe Christian talk show in September 2017, Crokin claimed that those “screaming the loudest, complaining about President Trump” had ties to sex trafficking and pedophilia.

She doubled down on this that November in an interview with fellow conspiracy peddler and former Survivor contestant Anna Khait, claiming that those who loudly oppose Trump needed to be investigated for pedophilia.

Let’s be clear. QAnon doesn’t have a damn thing to do with protecting children. It has everything to do with silencing those who would dare speak ill of The Messiah, Lord Donald Trump, The Most Merciful. And apparently that applies to those who share Trump’s desire to Make America Great Again. Greene, for instance, told fellow deplorable Raheem Kassam that there was likely to be a lot of overlap between “anti-Trump pedos and associates” and “all the people frothing with MTG hate.”

But wait a minute. How can Torba claim to be a champion of free speech and roll out the red carpet for QAnon? After all, QAnon promoters frequently harass and troll anyone who isn’t willing to kiss Trump’s ring by smearing them with heinous claims that they’re either pedophiles or covering for pedophiles. If Torba is willing to promote this or any movement that seeks to silence its opposition in this manner, he is not promoting an environment that is really conducive to free speech. Which means that when Torba welcomed QAnon to Gab with open arms, he effectively abandoned his claim to be a champion of free speech.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of many reasons that we must look askance at those who oppose moderation on social media. An environment that allows harassment and trolling to persist unchecked actually causes a chilling effect on speech, as it has the effect of driving opposition into silence. For instance, Lindsey Simmons, who made a fairly good account of herself challenging Vicky Hartzler in a crimson-red district in west-central Missouri in 2020, decided she wasn’t going to run for anything in 2022 because of the ugly threats she received during the campaign. They were so nasty that late in the campaign, she had to move her young son elsewhere until Election Day.

Let’s be clear. Every day that Torba allows QAnon on Gab is more proof that his claim to support free speech is utterly fraudulent. He says he’s not willing to talk to non-Christian journalists. Well, Andrew, I am a charismatic Christian. If you’re willing to explain how you can claim to support free speech and promote a conspiracy theory whose goal is to suppress opposition to Trump, I’m more than willing to hear it.

When the history books are written about the Donald Trump era, one thing that will stand out is how the religious right seemed willing to ignore Trump’s depraved and outright criminal behavior. Why? He was willing to give them everything they wanted and then some on policy and the courts.

Left-leaning and never-Trump Christians aren’t willing to twist ourselves into pretzels in this manner. Whenever people whom we support cross lines that can never be crossed, we don’t stand for it.

I’ve recently found myself having to take such a step — even though it was very disheartening. A Christian investigative journalist whom I believe is providing a public service has a very large and very disturbing ethical blind spot — one that poses great danger to the work she is doing.

In late 2020, I learned that John MacArthur, one of the heavyweights of the evangelical world, appeared to be covering up a COVID-19 outbreak at his megachurch in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, Grace Community Church. The source of that information was veteran investigative journalist Julie Roys. She spoke with a member of GCC’s leadership team who revealed a number of members had COVID. However, MacArthur and the other powers that be refused to report it to Los Angeles County officials despite being required to do so. Obviously, the bill was coming due for MacArthur after he started holding a full schedule of services in the summer with no masks or social distancing to speak of.

The following week, Roys discovered that at least nine members of a GCC fellowship group had COVID, and another three were recovering from COVID. Combined with seven cases tied to a GCC staff Christmas party and an rash of cases in the Filipino fellowship group, the evidence was irrefutable — MacArthur was covering up a COVID outbreak. And he was doing so when Southern California hospitals were literally being stretched to their limits.

With this in mind, I felt compelled to sound the alarm at Daily Kos here and here. But I was intrigued enough by Roys’ exhaustive reporting to look more into her. I learned that she had helped bring down another evangelical heavyweight, James MacDonald, by reporting on a litany of financial and spiritual abuse at his Chicago-area megachurch, Harvest Bible Chapel. She has also written about abusive and corrupt behavior from a number of other evangelical luminaries, such as John Piper and Mark Driscoll.

Seeing this led me to do everything short of stand up and applaud. Whenever the mainstream media or liberal bloggers called out the religious right or their heroes, invariably we get charged with anti-Christian bias. That excuse didn’t fly when Roys turned the hot lights on them.

In an era when this nation has become dangerously polarized, Roys was performing what can only be described as a public service. I had no qualms about sharing her stories where I could, and even highlighting others on Daily Kos.

But I recently learned that two years ago, Roys ran a story that represented an inexplicable and egregious lapse of editorial judgment and basic ethics. In September 2020, Roys reported that author and speaker Jen Hatmaker had divorced her husband, Brandon, after almost 17 years. The problem? Roys announced the divorce before Hatmaker herself could announce it, citing divorce papers filed almost a month earlier. This all but forced Hatmaker to announce the divorce herself on her social media platforms. When Roys posted this story to her Facebook and Twitter feeds, the criticism came in fast and hard. Most commenters pointed out, and rightly so, that this was not Roys’ story to break.

I first learned about this in early June of this year, when Christian blogger and abuse advocate Julie Anne Smith revealed something that made one of Roys’ editorial decisions look particularly questionable. In January, Roys reported that Cora Jakes Coleman, the eldest daughter of televangelist T. D. Jakes, was divorcing her husband, Richard — better known as rapper SkiiVentura. Smith was rather perturbed that Roys didn’t seem to be doing more to honor Cora’s request for privacy. She publicly upbraided for allowing comments on the original article, as well as when Roys posted the article to social media.

Julie Anne Smith on Twitter: "Why are we publicizing a couple's divorce and inviting public comment and speculation? Who benefits from this? Can we please stop this? https://t.co/Zj2QqfTrUo / Twitter"

Why are we publicizing a couple's divorce and inviting public comment and speculation? Who benefits from this? Can we please stop this? https://t.co/Zj2QqfTrUo

On June 4, we learned that Cora had a very good reason to ask for privacy, via The Christian Post. Smith tweeted it out here.

Julie Anne Smith on Twitter: "I publicly challenged a Christian journalist when she reported on Cora Jakes' divorce when Cora explicitly asked for privacy. Her ex-husband's was recently arrested for sex abuse. Cora's wishes should have been honored. We don't know the rest of the story. https://t.co/eFgVx8RdpB / Twitter"

I publicly challenged a Christian journalist when she reported on Cora Jakes' divorce when Cora explicitly asked for privacy. Her ex-husband's was recently arrested for sex abuse. Cora's wishes should have been honored. We don't know the rest of the story. https://t.co/eFgVx8RdpB

The Christian Post, unfortunately, buried the lede. It turned out that when Cora learned that Richard had molested his adopted daughter, Cora immediately divorced him and called the police.

It’s perfectly understandable that Cora wanted some space to absorb this. Her husband of 11 years had just betrayed her trust in a despicable way. Unfortunately, Roys denied her that chance, even if it was inadvertent. A number of commenters suggested that Cora was no longer qualified for ministry. Can you imagine Cora and her friends reading that when, in truth, there was no way she could legally or morally stay with Richard?

When Smith posted the Christian Post’s coverage of Cora, one of Smith’s followers mentioned what Roys had done with Hatmaker. I couldn’t believe Roys would do such a thing. Unlike other Christian journalists like, say, David Brody, Roys never came across as someone who threw her ethics out the window. But sure enough, the story was indeed there.

I had considered addressing my concerns with Roys privately, as one journalist to another. But then I discovered that while she’d deleted the Twitter post about Hatmaker’s divorce, the Facebook post was still there — and is still there as I write this two years later. To my mind, that showed that she at least considered whether that article should exist — and concluded that it did.

I was also very troubled by Roys’ justification for running this story. For instance, in one response to a concerned reader, Roys said that she’d gotten Hatmaker’s divorce papers from one of Hatmaker’s Instagram followers. That Instagram follower saw something in Hatmaker’s posts that suggested her marriage was on the rocks, and found the divorce papers on public records.

If that wasn’t enough, Roys told an outraged Twitter commenter that the divorce filing would have likely become public anyway.

Julie Roys on Twitter: "I didn't do any search. It was set to me and would have become public with or without me. / Twitter"

I didn't do any search. It was set to me and would have become public with or without me.

To put it in the most diplomatic terms that I can use, this argument is complete, unadulterated bullshit. I know this because I faced a similar situation not long after I started getting paid to open my big mouth. In 2016, while I was still at Liberal America, I wrote about how author and speaker Amber Cantorna had been thrown out of her own house after she told her father — an early leader in Focus on the Family — that she was a lesbian.

I seriously considered digging through public records to find out the identity of Cantorna’s father. On paper, I would have been on solid legal ground to release it. After all, when you post enough information to identify someone, it’s legally the same as posting their name and address. This guy seemed long overdue for a dose of accountability. After all, despite what MacArthur and other fundies would have us believe, no parent should ever treat their child in this way. Ever.

But any designs of releasing the dad’s name ended when I recalled how Cantorna told me on Facebook Messenger that she was still hoping to maintain a relationship with her brother. As appalling as what her father had done to her was, was releasing his name worth blowing up any chance of reconciling with her brother? Not by a longshot.

The identity of Cantorna’s father was not mine to share. And if his name were to ever be released before Cantorna saw fit to release it, I was not going to bear that responsibility. If I knew this, how did Roys not know it when she got those divorce papers?

Roys also claimed the story was newsworthy because Hatmaker made her family part of her brand. But if she knew this, shouldn’t she have had enough respect for Hatmaker and her family to let her be the one to announce it? No public interest could possibly be so compelling that Hatmaker should have been denied that right. It’s especially outrageous in light of our reassessment of how the media covered Britney Spears in the early 2000s, given that we now realize that having one’s private life exposed for all to see is not something a public figure signs up for.

With this in mind, I felt I had to speak out publicly. I owed it to my followers, since I had promoted Roys a lot on my Facebook feed. One of my followers once told me that she and a lot of other people don’t hesitate to share my posts because they have come to trust me. It is incumbent upon me to maintain that trust — and doing so meant that I had to call Roys out. This lapse was too egregious, and her justification for it was too lacking, to wait — so I posted this video to my feeds on June 5.

This lapse in ethics was so egregious that it has led to speculation that Roys leaked those papers because Hatmaker has become a strong proponent of fully welcoming LGBT people into the Christian community. As near as I can tell, that argument is based on some pretty thin reeds of evidence. While Roys was still hosting a talk show on Moody Radio, she chided Hatmaker for her change of heart on LGBT rights.

Julie Roys on Twitter: "Sad @JenHatmaker is succumbing to sentimentality of culture. Affirms LGBT relationships b/c she's seen too much pain https://t.co/WHV1SUreDL / Twitter"

Sad @JenHatmaker is succumbing to sentimentality of culture. Affirms LGBT relationships b/c she's seen too much pain https://t.co/WHV1SUreDL

But whether this was a homophobic cheap shot or not, what is beyond dispute is that Roys did a really shitty thing by breaking this story. And what makes it even more shitty is that she justified it with a rationale that comes dangerously close to the one Gawker initially used to justify a story claiming that Condé Nast CFO David Geithner was being extorted by a gay porn star. The problem? Even though the story was based almost entirely on text messages provided by the escort, Gawker only took one working day to research and vet the story before running it.

Gawker initially claimed that all that mattered was that the story was true. Never mind that by publishing the story, Gawker had made itself an accessory to extortion. The guy whose byline appeared on the story, Jordan Sargent, should have known that he shouldn’t have written a story about those texts, but called the police. After 18 hours, Gawker took the post down. But it couldn’t even get that right; founder and CEO Nick Denton claimed that while such a story might have been acceptable when Gawker was founded in 2003, it wasn’t acceptable now. So there was a time when extortion was remotely acceptable?

This unfolded at the same time that Hulk Hogan was suing Gawker for releasing a clip of a sex tape of Hogan — a lawsuit that we later learned was bankrolled by venture capitalist Peter Thiel. The fact that story about Geithner ran in the first place cost Gawker a lot of goodwill — and in my view, cost it any chance of surviving when Hogan won the suit. We now knew that Gawker fostered an environment where it was possible for a story sourced from an extortion attempt could even run, or that felt that was ever a time where extortion was acceptable. Such an outlet was not worth saving, no matter how popular it may have been. I suspect any white knights who would have been willing to come to Gawker’s rescue after it lost the Hogan suit must have believed the same thing.

The sad part is that it obscured the real good that Gawker did. As NPR’s David Folkenflik noted on Gawker’s last day of business, it’s mostly because of Gawker that we learned about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s substance abuse — a scandal that would have likely sunk him even if he hadn’t been forced to end his reelection bid due to the discovery of a tumor in his abdomen. Folkenflik also noted that Gawker turned the hot lights on Bill O’Reilly using his influence to get police on Long Island to investigate his ex-wife’s boyfriend.

It’s no different with Roys. There’s no denying that she has done some very good work, and is still doing very good work. Last September, for instance, Roys exposed Franklin Graham’s outrageous bullying of Naghmeh Panahi, the ex-wife of disgraced pastor Saeed Abedini. Even as Abedini was being jailed in Iran for his faith, he was continuing to emotionally abuse Panahi in the same manner that he had for most of their marriage. For much of the time before his imprisonment, it was physical as well. And yet, Graham had the gall to suggest Panahi was cheating on Abedini. He also wagged his finger at Panahi for telling her family’s supporters about the abuse, and moving back in with her parents. By the time The Washington Post reported on this in June, we had known since September that Graham was a heartless bully. And we have Roys to thank for that.

We also know, largely because of Roys, that MacArthur found it acceptable to shame and bully a domestic violence survivor who refused to take her abusive husband back. Roys also revealed that MacArthur fostered an environment in which it was acceptable for GCC members to harass that survivor when she wasn’t willing to reconcile with her husband.

But all of that is in danger of being obscured because Roys’ idea of the public interest seems to be putting her down the same path that brought down Gawker and made WikiLeaks a pariah. I had hoped in the month since I learned about Roys’ lapse of judgment that she would explain this in a way that made sense. Instead, this past weekend, I noticed her Facebook page wasn’t popping up in my feed. It turned out she’d blocked me — with no explanation whatsoever. In contrast, she’s frequently called out a number of MacArthur and MacDonald’s diehard defenders for making defamatory posts. And when I reached out to her on Twitter direct message, she told me that I should have talked to her “before forming and publishing your opinions.”

No, Julie. This was not merely an opinion. It is a fact that you published information that was not yours to share. And the fact that you don’t understand that this was wrong shows you have a dangerous ethical blind spot. You’re going down a dangerous road — one that endangers the work you’ve done. And it’s not a path on which I can appear to be accompanying you.

For a long time, former actress Stacey Dash was a member of a very exclusive club — black conservatives who were all in for Trump. But that changed earlier this week, when she told the UK’s Daily Mail that she no longer supported Trump and was done with politics altogether. According to Dash, her change of heart came with the insurrection at the Capitol.

Well, excuse me, but this black man is finding it really hard to feel much sympathy for Dash. How in the world was Trump’s blatant racism not enough? Maybe it’s because I was only the second generation of my family to attend integrated schools, but it boggles the mind how anyone of color could support a guy who knowingly called lawmakers of color “savages” and “human scum.” Even if I leaned more conservative, there is no way I could support someone who spewed blatant racial slurs. Not now, not ever.

Dash also claims that in her days as a Fox News contributor, she was typecast as the “angry, conservative black woman” and was merely doing her job to support the prevailing right-wing narrative. She says that isn’t who she really is at heart.

Um, Stacey? If that gave you pause, you could have kept your integrity and said no. For instance, if we believe your account, you were told to claim that Trump was right to say “both sides” were responsible for the horror in Charlottesville. I say this as someone who was under inexorable pressure to kowtow to the right in my freshman year, when I got suckered into joining a fundified campus ministry that was every bit as hard right as Fox News. But when I saw that I was going to have to become someone I simply could not be, I walked out.

And if you really weren’t the angry woman portrayed on Fox News from 2012 to 2017, why didn’t you call out Trump’s other racist dog whistles even before he blew that blatant yacht horn in 2019? Like his references to “shithole countries,” calling Omarosa a “dog,” and on, and on, and on.

Simply put, Dash has a hard sell to make to convince me she’s changed. And she has a lot of work to do in order to make it.

It was bad enough that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy saw fit to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory mere hours after the Capitol was targeted by a deadly insurrection. But it was even worse that, per reporting from Cook Political Report’s Dave “I’ve seen enough” Wasserman, McCarthy did so despite knowing full well there was no basis to the false claims of election fraud that fueled that insurrection.

Hours after the Capitol was secured, Wasserman revealed that McCarthy had told him on numerous occasions that he knew what the nation already knew — Trump’s claims of fraud were complete bollocks.

JavaScript is not available.

A few weeks after the election, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy acknowledged Trump's clear loss to me and I asked him if the president's refusal to concede would lead the country down a dangerous road. His response: "Maybe."

JavaScript is not available.

At the end of the day, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy voted to object to both AZ and PA's electors after acknowledging multiple times to me there was no doubt as to Biden's victory.

In other words — when McCarthy rose to object, he was effectively giving succor to a lie that he damned well knew was, well, a lie. The fact he did so compounded his earlier public silence on the matter, as well as his failure to rein in his Republican compatriots’ plans to object.

When I saw this, my mind turned to the numerous occasions I’ve seen where people did something knowing full well that they were complicit in a great wrong. One thing stuck out in particular — my research into the Bernie Madoff scandal. Specifically, the news that one of Madoff’s longtime henchmen had continued to further what would become the largest Ponzi scheme in history despite knowing for at least two decades that his boss was a fraud.

On August 11, 2009 — eight months to the day that Madoff’s scheme imploded — former Madoff chief financial officer Frank DiPascali pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme. During his allocution, he dropped a bombshell — he’d known at some point between the late 1980s and early 1990s that Madoff wasn’t trading.

He subsequently admitted to looking up stock prices in order to help create fictitious trades, helping Madoff generate bogus returns for favored customers, and repeatedly lying to the SEC. Again, he did this while knowing for more than two decades that he was working for, and helping, a criminal. That probably explains why federal judge Richard Sullivan initially remanded DiPascali to prison, despite both his own attorney and federal prosecutors seeking to let him out on bail. It took until the following February for lawyers t hammer out a bail package acceptable to the court, but DiPascali was only able to secure enough signatures to guarantee the $10 million bond in June.

Looking back at DiPascali’s behavior, it’s hard to blame Sullivan for being reluctant to grant bail. He played a key role in throwing the SEC off the scent on what may have been the first chance it had to bring down Madoff. According to one of THE books on the Madoff scandal, “The Wizard of Lies” by Diana Henriques — the New York Times reporter who led the Old Grey Lady’s coverage of Madoff — that chance came in 1992.

For years, Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes, who inherited the old accountancy practice of Madoff’s father-in-law, Saul Alpern, had taken money from close friends, relatives and clients and given it to Madoff to “invest” on their behalf. Alpern had set up this arrangement himself in the 1960s, and it continued after he took on Avellino and Bienes as partners. The money was treated as a loan to the firm, which used it to invest in its accounts with Madoff. In the late 1970s, after Alpern retired, Avellino and Bienes began paying their clients a fixed interest rate, giving them the option to take a check or reinvest. Most people reinvested.

However, in 1992, an investment adviser in California printed out brochures with Avellino and Bienes’ names on it and sent them to perspective customers. Something about it didn’t pass the smell test with two investors, who alerted the SEC. When Madoff got wind of it, he and DiPascali created years’ worth of fictitious trading activity for seven Avellino & Bienes accounts. It wasn’t enough to prevent the SEC from ordering Madoff to return every penny in those accounts — which by then had grown to $400 million.

So based on the timeline DiPascali spelled out in 2008, he likely knew at this point that Madoff was a fraud. And yet, he didn’t say a word to the SEC about it. Nor did he do so in 2001, when articles in MARHedge and Barron’s suggested — loudly — that Madoff’s returns were too good to be true. Nor did he do so on numerous occasions when the SEC interacted with Madoff. Quite the opposite, in fact. DiPascali created a number of computer programs to help service the fraud, allowing him to generate bogus account statements. He kept track of closing prices on the S&P 500, then picked the best performing stocks to create bogus trading records. This is exactly like how McCarthy voted to object to certifying Arizona and Pennsylvania’s results despite knowing full well there was no basis for any claims that they were tainted by fraud.

Just like McCarthy, DiPascali had a chance at the bitter end to come clean — and blew it eight ways to Sunday. By the week after Thanksgiving 2008, Madoff realized he was on the brink of collapse. The Chase business checking account that Madoff had used to fuel the Ponzi scheme had dwindled to a mere fraction of the money he needed to meet $7 billion in redemptions. With banks having more or less stopped lending, he couldn’t hope to borrow enough money to close the gap. According to the SEC, at DiPascali’s suggestion, Madoff used the remaining balance in the Chase account to cut $350 million in checks to family members and favored clients. When Madoff’s sons told their lawyers about those checks on December 10, the lawyers advised them to alert prosecutors and the SEC, setting the stage for Madoff’s arrest the following day.

DiPascali claimed to have stayed loyal to Madoff because he believed Madoff had hidden assets stashed away somewhere. But that claim collapsed with his willingness to cut the checks rather than come clean. A more likely explanation is pure greed. According to another exhaustive book on the Madoff scandal, “The Madoff Chronicles” by Brian Ross, DiPascali owned a $1.3 million home in New Jersey, a large fishing boat, and drove a Mercedes. According to Henriques, he also earned a salary of $4 million and took $5 million a year from the Chase account. Clearly, he didn’t want to give up that wealth.

Based on DiPascali’s allocution, he knew full well that if Madoff’s scheme blew up, it would destroy thousands of investors. It would also put the employees of the legitimate side of the Madoff firm out of business. And yet, he kept right on going.

What McCarthy did is no different. He knew the Big Lie was a lie, and remained silent despite numerous reports of election officials being harassed and trolled, and despite election systems companies being targeted with vicious harassment and threats. Just like DiPascali, he didn’t make the decision he was morally and legally required to make.

DiPascali had his sentencing date pushed back numerous times due to his cooperation with the government. Most notably, he was the star witness in the 2013–1 trial of five of his former colleagues — including Annette Bongiorno, who helped him get his job with Madoff in 1976. He died in 2015. Ten to one when he arrived at the pearly gates, God asked him, “Why did you remain silent for so long?”

Odds are that God will ask the same question of McCarthy. It cannot be repeated enough — just like DiPascali, McCarthy was complicit in a monstrous lie. However, unlike DiPascali, we have a chance to make McCarthy answer for it in this world — have the House censure him for his cowardice. Sign this petition to the House demanding that McCarthy be censured.

By now, most of you know that Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was caught on tape trashing people with learning disabilities. The far-right congresswoman from northwest Georgia called people who aren’t willing to spend money seized from Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s drug proceeds to fund the wall the “r-word.” Watch it here.

Warning: Offensive Content *Here's video I found of Marjorie Taylor Greene calling electeds an awful slur used against those with learning disabilities. She then says "I'm not trying to talk down on people with Down's Syndrome. But that's what these people are." Expel Greene. pic.twitter.com/I7GmxuWZp5

Greene has probably used that word all of her life. I’m sure of it. It was thrown around a lot in my elementary and middle school days; Greene is only three years older than me. But it’s beyond comprehension that she doesn’t know or understand just how hurtful it is now.

According to WTVC in Chattanooga, the ABC affiliate for much of the northern portion of the Mad Georgian’s district, a father with Down syndrome confronted Greene about her use of the r-word. Greene brushed it off as slang, which caused the dad to nearly blow his stack. It’s hard to blame him. How many times has his son heard that word directed at him? I’d dare Greene to tell that little boy to his face that it’s just slang.

And it’s even more outrageous when you consider that Greene has five kids. Is she teaching her kids that this is just slang? If my now-wife and I ever had kids and we caught them using that word, they’d be grounded for awhile. And I wouldn’t hesitate to call out any kid who used that word.

We got another reminder of just what can happen when this sort of talk isn’t nipped in the bud, and quickly. This past weekend, students at Bob Jones University, the hyperfundamentalist school in Greenville, South Carolina; got the bright idea to make fun of people with schizophrenia.

This past Friday, Chi Alpha Pi, a men’s group at BJU, held a fundraiser for “Bible Conference,” a yearly spring conference that takes place when most secular schools and less-fundified Christian schools are holding spring break. It was a sketch comedy show called — “Skitzophrenia.” No, this isn’t snark. Here’s a screenshot of their Instagram promoting it.

When I was alerted to this by a number of BJU alums who have walked away from fundamentalism altogether, I was stunned. On what planet could anyone have even thought this was a good idea? I knew that in many of the independent Baptist churches that make up BJU’s constituency, mental illness is usually swept under the rug. After all, in this world, getting saved is considered a beauty contest.

But surely using such blatantly degrading language to make light of mental illness would be too much even for BJU, right? Then I thought back to Greene mocking people with mental illness and brushing it off as slang. Greene is only slightly less hidebound than the average BJU parent. It’s not too big a leap to wonder if she’s teaching her kids, including at least one daughter who is college age, that using such terms is just slang.

The point is that this sort of thing starts at home. If it’s not nipped in the bud early, you get things like what happened this weekend.

From the looks of it, Chi Alpha Pi has scrubbed all references to this show from social media. But that’s not enough. Their motto is “Don’t settle.” Well, it’s time for them to put some action behind that motto. They need to apologize, and now. Drop them an email at chialphacavaliers at gmail dot com. Also, pester them on Facebook and on Twitter.

Had I been a congressman from North Carolina, this is the speech I would have given in favor of impeaching Trump.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment resolution.

What happened last Wednesday is beyond dispute. A mob of rioters invaded and ransacked the Capitol in an attempt to prevent us from exercising one of our most solemn duties — certifying the election of the next president. These rioters were incited by a lame-duck president in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to cling to power and undo an election that he clearly lost. It is the closest thing this country has ever seen to a coup attempt. The question, then, is what to do about it? If our oaths mean anything at all, the only option is to support impeaching Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection.

Normally, I would be reluctant to support impeaching a president this late in his term. But if there is ever a cause for an exception to that principle, it is when the president uses the power of his office to interfere with the democratic process. That was why I supported impeachment last year. Donald Trump used the power of his office to bully and intimidate a foreign government into joining a politically motivated investigation into his principal rival in the upcoming election. No self-respecting democracy could tolerate this, even if we were only a year away from Election Day at the time.

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the horrific events of last Wednesday present an even starker exception. My friends across the aisle have argued that impeaching this president would serve no purpose, as he is due to leave office in a week. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a president who has no qualms about using incendiary language to whip into an attempt to interfere with one of the most basic steps in any self-respecting democracy — the peaceful transfer of power. And we have a president who sat and watched, did nothing, to stop the violence that ensued even as we were fleeing for our lives, and even as policemen were beaten and bludgeoned. There is no dispute — what happened on Wednesday was a high crime.

Can a president who engages in such behavior be trusted with nuclear codes, even for a week? Can a president who engaged in such behavior be trusted with acting in the best interests of the nation, rather than his own? The answer to both questions, Madam Speaker, is not just no. It’s “hell no.” And when a president engages in such conduct, he must be removed from office by all lawful means necessary. It doesn’t matter if there is one day or one month left in his term. There are chances that we dare not take.

Madam Speaker, I would have argued for impeaching this president even if the vice president and Cabinet had had the will to invoke the 25th Amendment. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, had it right last night — the signal must go out that no president can interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. For the sake of the historical record, this situation demands that the American people, through us, their elected representatives, send a message that this is a line no president can cross without having to answer for it. We had a chance to send this message after Watergate, and blew it when President Nixon was pardoned after leaving office. We cannot squander this now. Even if he is acquitted in the Senate, the historical record must reflect that one chamber of Congress upheld its duty.

Moreover, if Donald Trump is convicted in the Senate, there is the prospect of removal from office. Any reservation I may have had about these articles vanished when I realized that there is no other definitive remedy to prevent Trump from running for office again. While it would appear he breached the 14th Amendment, any attempt to throw Trump off the ballot on that basis would take years of litigation. While the Senate’s disqualification power is not to be used lightly, if this isn’t grounds to use it, nothing is.

Madam Speaker, last week we swore an oath to defend the Constitution. What we witnessed last week was an attack on all we have sworn to protect. If our oaths mean anything at all, we must vote to impeach Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection.

In recent years, the phrase “believe women” has become part of the national lexicon. It’s simple on paper — in order to reverse the shameful legacy of how domestic violence and sexual assault have gone unpunished, we must give those who claim to have been victims an adequate chance to be heard and take their claims seriously.

However, as Cornell Law professor Sherry Colb notes, taking a woman’s complaint seriously “in no way rules out a later conclusion that her claim is false.” We have reached that point with Tara Reade’s claim that she was brutally sexually assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993.

Much has been made of the people who can supposedly corroborate what Reade told them about what happened while she was working as an aide in Biden’s Senate office. But forensic evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony. And in the last few weeks, evidence has come to light that not only casts serious doubt about Reade’s credibility, but raises serious doubt about whether the incident happened at all in the manner that Reade now says it happened.

I come at this from a dual perspective. I am a domestic violence survivor who stayed in a marriage to an abusive and controlling woman in part because I feared no one would believe a 5–3 woman could abuse and control a 6–3 guy. Additionally, in retaliation for coming forward and standing up for myself, I was targeted with a false accusation of making a girl watch X-rated movies — one that took five months to be dismissed despite the fact that my time card should have been conclusive proof that it could not possibly have happened.

Those defending Reade in the face of evidence that her story doesn’t add up forget that while sweeping domestic violence and sexual assault under the rug is wrong, it is equally wrong to continue chasing down claims that are clearly not credible. To do so makes it harder for those who really have been abused and assaulted to be believed.

In recent days, enough has come to light for me to conclude that, absent something I haven’t heard or seen, Tara Reade’s claim is not just non-credible, but without merit. Moreover, the evidence that Reade’s claim is without merit is such that in the absence of something I haven’t heard or seen, the investigation demanded by Reade’s supporters and elements of the media would not be credible.

What’s that evidence, you ask? Well, there are three factors that, taken together, should prove that Reade is not telling the truth.

1. Reade edited an old blog post to match her new claims rather than simply create a new post — and did so just days after promoting her previous story as the truth.

Much has been made of Reade famously tweeting this just days before going public with her new claims against Biden.

taratweets ( Alexandra Tara Reade) on Twitter

@ryangrim @johncusack Yup. Timing... wait for it....tic toc

But it turns out that she did something even more damning that that tweet. On April 29, blogger Roman Smith revealed that on March 24, mere hours before Reade went public with her new claims against Biden on Katie Helper’s podcast, she edited a post on her Medium blog from April 4, 2019 about her experiences in Biden’s office to match the new allegations she was about to make.

The edits were done in a way to make it appear that they were part of the original. One problem — Reade had also submitted the original story to The (Grass Valley) Union, which ran it on April 17, 2019. It describes how Biden touched her on a few occasions in a way that made her uncomfortable — with no mention whatsoever about sexual assault.

Reade tweeted it the very next day.

taratweets ( Alexandra Tara Reade) on Twitter

@authorcaitlin @nytimeswell @nytclimate @NYTScience @WellFamilyNYT @NYTHealth https://t.co/b7L5dlL7Zt

She confirmed it as a true account a few days later.

taratweets ( Alexandra Tara Reade) on Twitter

Tell 'The View' your incredible story - ABC News - I am a former Biden staffer. I spoke up to my supervisor about Biden and lost my job. Below is my story....I told my story again recently and read what happened... https://t.co/b7L5dlL7Zt

Reade tweeted links to this story no fewer than 15 other times between then and 2020. The last of those tweets came on March 15. As in nine days before she went public. And I have a receipt.

So let’s see. After over a year of claiming that Biden just touched her, suddenly she turns around and edits her blog to claim that it was actually sexual assault? And she does so a mere nine days after the last promoted the unedited version as the true story? There is absolutely, positively no good-faith reason that I’m aware of for why Reade would do this.

When I first learned about Reade editing her old posts last week, I asked Reade for an explanation. Her defenders claim she was merely clarifying her old account. But as Smith notes, those edits completely changed the meaning of her original post, and did so in a way that was incredibly misleading at best. It is beyond belief that a woman with a law degree wouldn’t have realized how this looks. If Reade wanted to get the truth out and be believed, why not simply do a new post?

I was going to give Reade until this weekend to explain these edits before writing this, given that her claim that she has received death threats cannot be discounted. But when you combine the fact that she edited her old post with the fact that she was promoting the original story as true mere days before going public, it would be intellectually dishonest to continue giving Reade the benefit of the doubt.

If I were a prosecutor and I were looking at this case, there is no way ethically that I could take this to trial. A witness who is saying one thing when she is on record as saying something totally different? No matter how guilty the defendant may be on paper, taking this case to trial would have the effect of ignoring every safeguard that is supposed to be in place to make sure that innocent people aren’t unjustly convicted.

Indeed, this situation reminds me of the rape case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2011. If you’ll remember, the case unraveled when the accuser, an immigrant from Guinea, was caught in a series of lies and inconsistencies. According to a filing by prosecutors in Manhattan, the accuser had given no fewer than three differing accounts about what happened before, during and after DSK allegedly assaulted her. She had also lied about being gang-raped in Guinea, and claimed she had no interest in making money on the case despite being caught on tape discussing that very prospect with her boyfriend. Prosecutors even uncovered evidence that she may have lied to the grand jury that indicted DSK. These and other lies left prosecutors with no other option but to dismiss the charges.

This situation is no different. No prosecutor with an iota of decency would bring an indictment of sexual assault in a situation like this. Granted, the prospect of blowing up a presidential bid doesn’t require the same standard as in a criminal case. But to do so based on the word of someone who can be proven to have lied would be an attack on our democracy almost on the level of Russia’s attempt to hack the 2016 election. And speaking of which — this should put an end to any talk of Russian involvement. Putin isn’t normally this sloppy.

2. In all likelihood, Reade never filed a complaint.

Reade told The New York Times that she filed a complaint about Biden with the Senate personnel office. However, The Times was unable to find any complaint, and Reade claimed not to have a copy of it. Retired prosecutor Michael Stern found it unusual that Reade didn’t have a copy of the complaint, but did keep her employment records. Reade has since stated the complaint would have been about harassment, not sexual assault.

That isn’t in and of itself enough to discount Reade’s credibility. Indeed, it led to speculation that the complaint might be in the National Archives or in Biden’s office archives at the University of Delaware. Reade’s defenders, such as Lyla Gold of Current Affairs, seized on it, suggesting the possibility that either Biden intentionally funneled the complaint into his Senate papers or they had been deposited in the National Archives without his knowledge. But on Monday, evidence came to light that strongly suggests there never was a complaint.

If you’ll remember, soon after denying Reade’s allegation on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Biden asked the Secretary of the Senate to find and release any documents related to a possible complaint by Reade. The Secretary of the Senate turned the request down on the advice of legal counsel, citing both confidentiality laws and a Senate resolution that barred disclosing Senate records if such disclosure was prohibited by law.

Later, NBC News obtained details on what the procedure for reporting harassment complaints would have been at the time. Under those procedures, Reade would have had to submit a “request for counseling” with the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices — the Senate’s version of an HR department. It would have documented Reade’s allegation while informing her of her rights and responsibilities. After the counseling process, the next step would have been mediation, during which Biden’s office would have been notified of her claim.

However, Reade told the AP that she “chickened out” when she walked into the office to file the counseling request. That would have ended the process then and there. NBC’s Mike Memoli has more details.

Mike Memoli on Twitter

Tonight the Secretary of the Senate responded to Qs from Biden campaign lawyer, specifying they can't disclose even the existence of a potential complaint. But it also provided doc explaining what the complaint process would have looked like at the time

Mike Memoli on Twitter

The document indicates Reade's first step would have been to submit a request for counseling to Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices, either in person, by phone or in writing, within 180 days of alleged violation. First of several steps that would lead to a formal complaint

Mike Memoli on Twitter

Significantly, this is what Reade told AP last year: "They have this counseling office or something, and I think I walked in there once, but then I chickened out." If that is so, Biden's office would not have been notified of any complaint against him, and process would end

Mike Memoli on Twitter

Rule 5.5 of procedures of Office of Fair Employment Practices outlines this -

Given the stakes, it’s not unreasonable to believe that the Secretary of the Senate would have found a legal way to release any complaint had it been in the Senate records. And she would have done so in a way that Biden would have wound up with egg on his face had he contested it.

This has fueled speculation that the complaint may have been funneled to Biden’s Senate papers. However, former Congressman David Jolly, who spent 11 years as a staffer to his predecessor, Bill Young, believes that any attempt to mine Biden’s Senate papers for such a complaint would be a fool’s errand.

David Jolly on Twitter

When a member or senator leaves, the House or Senate sends all of their office materials from both on-site and those in storage to the retiring member or senator's home, office or designated destination like a university. But those materials do not include employment records.

David Jolly on Twitter

Employment records remain the custody of the House or Senate because the institution was, is, and remains the employer of all members, senators, and staff members.

David Jolly on Twitter

If records exist of a complaint filed with the Senate, they would not be with Biden's official and personal archives in Delaware. But they would be with the Secretary of the Senate under whatever storage protocols administered by that office for employee records.

Which means that if records of a complaint existed, they would be stored in the Senate employment records, not in Biden’s Senate papers.

This would not be a red flag in and of itself. But Reade is adamant that she did make a complaint, even though she doesn’t have a copy of it. In all likelihood, the reason she doesn’t have a copy is that there was no complaint.

3. People who know the Capitol’s layout have cast doubt on the details of Reade’s account.

A number of people who know the layout of the Capitol have looked at the details of where and when Reade says she was assaulted, and doubt that it could have happened in the way Reade says it happened. That includes congressional staffers from both sides of the aisle, as well as reporters.

When Newsweek White House correspondent and lifelong Washington-area resident Andrew Feinberg looked at Reade’s claims, a lot didn’t ring true with him. For one, he finds it hard to believe Reade saw Biden in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building because there was no “large, empty space” in the basement in 1993. Feinberg also noted that at the time, there was a plaster model of the statue that sits atop the Capitol dome which would have obstructed the view from the elevators.

Feinberg noted that the “side area” where she says Biden assaulted her corresponds to an area near the Capitol subway terminal. However, the area that’s out of view of the rotunda shares a wall with a Capitol Police post. It’s hard to believe that a Capitol Police officer wouldn’t have seen her. It’s also a very high-traffic area, and it seems hard to believe that no one would have noticed anything suspicious — especially only two years removed from the Anita Hill imbroglio.

Republican strategist Cheri Jacobs doubts Reade’s claim that the assault took place in a hallway near his office, because there aren’t any private hallways anywhere in the Senate office buildings.

Cheri Jacobus on Twitter

@AJDelgado13 One of the (several) "tells" for me was her claim he assaulted her just outside his Senate office in a "semi-private" hallway. For those of us who've worked on Capitol Hill, we know that would not happen, and there are no "semi-private" hallways just outside Senate offices.

She also claims that if Biden was a predator, anyone who worked on Capitol Hill in those days would have known about it.

Cheri Jacobus on Twitter

Many women like me who worked on Capitol Hill in that era can tell you exactly which House & Senate Members were known for this, AND which ones were known for affairs (which is how some women got ahead, like Trump's ambassador to the Holy See).

Vicki Ringer, public affairs director at Planned Parenthood South Carolina, has spent a lot of time in Washington. She believes that if the assault happened the way Reade claims it happened, someone would have seen it.

Vicki Ringer on Twitter

I've been all over the US Capitol, Senate and House office buildings, hallways and tunnels. Always lots of people in those areas. I find it unbelievable that Tara Reade said she was assaulted there and no one saw it. That alone is enough for me. #IBelieveBiden

The bottom line

There are other reasons to doubt Reade’s credibility. But these factors are absolutely lethal to Reade’s credibility. She claims the assault happened in an area where it was not possible for anyone to notice. She says she filed a complaint, but all indications are that she did not do so.

But most damning of all, she edited one of her old blog posts to match her new claims when there was no possible good-faith reason for her to do so. And she made those edits mere days after promoting the original version.

Add it up, and Tara Reade’s claim to have been sexually assaulted is not only non-credible, but without merit. Moreover, the evidence is such that in the absence of something absolutely earthshaking coming to light or a whopper of an explanation from Reade, the investigation demanded by Reade’s defenders would serve no purpose. In the absence of such an explanation from Reade, the probe demanded by her defenders would only serve to send the message that bringing sexual predators and domestic abusers is so important that we must continue to chase down claims even when they are clearly non-credible.

The more I look at the evidence that suggests Reade’s claim isn’t credible, the more I’m convinced that what she has done is a betrayal to all survivors. Her behavior has made it that much harder for us to be believed. Shame on you, Tara.

Had I been a congressman, this is what I would have said yesterday:

Madam Speaker, I rise — reluctantly, but firmly — in support of both articles of impeachment.

I say “reluctantly” because normally, I am reluctant to take the grave step of impeaching the president of the United States close to an election year. In the event that a president were to be impeached for criminal acts, we would have to consider whether it would be worth the risk of potentially impacting the ability to empanel a jury on a criminal trial.

But if there is ever a cause for an exception to that principle, it is when a president attempts to attack the integrity of the democratic process. And that is exactly what is before us today. The articles of impeachment spell out what may be the most ham-handed attempt to attack that process that has ever been uncovered.

It is clear, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt, that Donald Trump used the power of his office to attempt to launch a politically motivated investigation of a political rival, and attempted to strongarm a foreign ally into helping that investigation by threatening to withhold crucial military aid. Madam Speaker, we not only have the extensive corroboration of dozens of career diplomats and political appointees, but we also have the word of the president himself and his acting chief of staff.

He then refused to allow executive branch officials to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas issued by this body in an effort to get to the bottom of this behavior. Madam Speaker, this behavior proves the lie to any claims — both by this president and by his compatriots across the aisle — that this is a sham. He had ample opportunity to cooperate. Indeed, Chairman Nadler bent over backwards to give him a chance to take part in the inquiry. The record shows that the president squandered that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, this would be outrageous and unacceptable from any president, regardless of party. While I am a Democrat to the marrow of my bones, I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling for and voting for the impeachment of a Democratic president who engaged in this conduct. And I would have no qualms about doing so if we were sitting less than a year from a presidential election.

Contrary to what has been said from across the aisle, this has nothing to do with overturning an election. It has everything to do with setting a marker, a standard for all of our elected officials. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, the record will show that we set that marker.

So unless I hear something I haven’t heard or see something I haven’t seen when the vote is called, I will vote to impeach Donald John Trump for abusing his power and obstructing Congress.

Earlier today, I got an unexpected lesson on why Donald Trump still walks on water in much of red America. It turns out that many right-leaning evangelicals are still loyal to Trump in part because of his outwardly hard-line support of Israel. I say “outwardly” because events of the last fall have proven that support is as hollow as you can get.

My new girlfriend and I went to church together for the first time. It wasn’t at my church here in Charlotte, or at hers north of Atlanta. It was halfway of sorts, at Free Chapel’s campus in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Free Chapel, for those who don’t know, is a charismatic megachurch in Gainesville, Georgia pastored by Jentezen Franklin. It has since expanded to multiple campuses — including what was once Evangel Cathedral in Spartanburg, one of the earliest churches in this part of the country to open its doors to all races.

With few exceptions, Franklin’s messages to the main campus in Gainesville are beamed by IPTV to five sites around the Atlanta area, as well as in Spartanburg. So today, we got to watch Franklin talk about Free Chapel’s work on various projects in Israel — principally, a center on the border with the Gaza Strip that helps residents heal from and hide from frequent rocket attacks.

Franklin used his sermon to drive home the need to support Israel — and to remember that God blesses nations who bless Israel and curses nations that curse Israel. He also pointed out that we must always vote in leaders who will support Israel.

This, folks, is part of the reason the religious right is still loyal to Trump. Remember, one reason the religious right refused to throw Trump overboard in the wake of the Access Hollywood tapes was that he had promised to tear up the nuclear deal with Iran. The reason? Iran posed an existential threat to Israel. Trump has also moved to formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

All of these and other statements and acts in support of Israel are well and good. But they mean absolutely nothing in light of indisputably anti-Semitic statements from Trump.

Let’s review. In September, Trump got the bright idea to call several of his tormentors in the House “savages.”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!

This wasn’t just a typical Trump tirade. House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff are Jewish. “AOC Plus 3” — better known as “The Squad” — are all women of color. If you believe that a guy from Queens can call five minority lawmakers “savages” and not know exactly what he was doing, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale.

That alone would prove the lie to any talk of Trump truly supporting Israel. How can you credibly claim to be pro-Israel and throw around racist, anti-Semitic slurs like candy?

But last week, Trump doubled down with a blatantly anti-Semitic slur directed at Schiff himself.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Corrupt politician Adam Schiff's lies are growing by the day. Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party's rights away from us during the most unfair hearings in American History......

Again I ask — do you seriously believe a guy from Queens didn’t know exactly what he was doing when he called a high-profile Jewish congressman “human scum”? And do you seriously believe that you can throw around anti-Semitic slurs like candy and claim to support Israel? The answer to both questions is a resounding “no.”

Last week, I argued at RDTDaily that these blatantly racist tweets are impeachable offenses in and of themselves. After all, an overtly racist president cannot honestly take or uphold the oath of office. But these tweets do not only prove that Trump is a stone-cold racist. They also prove that his support of Israel is just another swindle from a man who has spent the last four-plus years pulling an elaborate swindle on this nation.

A few weeks ago, I introduced you to “Crystal,” a woman from West Virginia who endured ghastly emotional and physical abuse for 25 years. She stayed in it for so long in part because she didn’t trust a system that betrayed her not once, but twice.

When Crystal was a girl, she was molested for almost two years by a neighbor who had molested a dozen other girls. However, due in part to her attacker’s lawyer browbeating her in a way that would be grossly unethical even then, prosecutors opted for an insultingly lenient deal that resulted in him getting only 18 months in prison and a $15,000 fine.

Crystal has since told me that after the trial, she was told that it wasn’t safe for her or her family to stay in town. Her attacker was so well known that prosecutors feared she would have been the target of undue shame had she stayed. Remember, he would have been out midway through her sixth grade year at the time. Crystal and her family had to pack up and leave so quickly that Crystal didn’t even get a chance to say goodbye. She had to finish fifth grade at home, and when she started sixth grade, it was in a town where she didn’t know anyone.

This would never be allowed to happen today. Even with that lenient sentence, Crystal’s attacker would have almost certainly had to register as a sex offender — meaning that he would have been the one who would have been forced to move. Of course, had her attacker’s lawyer not acted in such a callous manner, that monster would have almost certainly been locked up at least for the duration of Crystal’s childhood, and possibly for life.

Speaking of that lawyer — among other things, he wondered why Crystal didn’t just lock the doors. Well, there was one problem — the guy was their landlord.

What did he get for this victim-shaming? Well, he eventually became the area district attorney. Had this taken place today, you can take it to the bank that he would have been held to account at some point — either defeated at his first election or unseated at a subsequent election. Indeed, had this happened today, he would have likely been haled before the bar. You do not browbeat witnesses in this way, especially children.

An already difficult process of healing became even more difficult when she was molested by some of her male relatives. She can’t bear to be alone in a room with one of them to this day. However, her parents kept it hush-hush, in the name of keeping her male relatives from having a record. If that sounds familiar, this is exactly what happened with Josh Duggar. If you’ll remember, Jim Bob and Michelle slow-walked reporting Josh’s molestation in the name of keeping him from having a record. They were only forced to report it when he fondled girls from outside the family.

Between the scarring from her molestation at the hands of her landlord and her further molestation at home, Crystal has had a hard time trusting those close to her. It was magnified by the fact she got married to escape it — only to discover her husband was an abusive jerk. If you’ll remember, when he hit her for the first of many times, the magistrate told her to her face that they wouldn’t bother enforcing a restraining order because it wasn’t a “knock down, drag out” fight. As a result, although he hit her numerous other times, she didn’t trust the police enough to report it.

Listening to Crystal’s story is a reminder of how rough victims of sexual assault and domestic violence— including minors — still had it as late as the 1980s. It’s also a reminder of how rough they still have it, even in the #MeToo/#ChurchToo era.