Patrick Brown/CTV

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

Here's what still bugs me and leads me to believe that Brown will not win here. His team abandoned him instantly. Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, Ansari, Franklin, etc all took at least a week before any action or resignation occurred. In this case he resigned within 12 hrs.

CTV asked him to comment before it came out and he declined to comment. His denile was abstract and not specific. He hires PR firms and investigators to dig through everything to discredit the accusers. Then 2-3 weeks later launches the attack.

So why did the team abandon him quickly
If he didn't remember these women why didn't his denile include that
If he did remember them why wasn't the she kissed me defense stated in the initial denile.
Why did it take weeks for all of this to come together?

Do you remember every detail of your life from 11 years ago? Especially the mundane details of things that did not actually happen? If he'd just come out screaming that it was not true, but then remembered that it was maybe a little bit true, his word would be worthless. He took the time to piece the details together by talking to other people he was with during those nights in question.

Why did his team abandon him so quickly? There's an election coming up. Why do you think? Do you really even need to ask a question with such a blatantly obvious answer? It really seems like you're disappointed that he's not what you think he is. As though because other people thought something, it proves that he did something.

I heard his interview. He's got answers for every question. And in this country, you're innocent until proven guilty. Maybe not in GGG's mind, but in the eyes of the law, for sure. Turns out that he didn't do anything illegal, and furthermore, nothing immoral.

Also, it's "denial".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hah, it's amazing how the whole script is now flipped onto the accused. "If she thought she was assaulted, why not go to the Police immediately?" You'll presume the accuser is truthful despite evidence that she made false claims, but go looking for holes in the accused's version of events. Motivated reasoning strikes again.

I mean, it's entirely possible that he had no recollection of these events but wanted to actually make sure he hadn't done something while drunk and forgotten about it, wanted to get others' corroboration on record before attempting to defend himself in an atmosphere that, at least for many of the louder voices in the mob, presumes the guilt of the accused under the guise of "believing victims". Maybe he recognized that regardless of any denial he couldn't possibly forestall the downfall of his leadership bid, and instead turned his focus to this inevitable point when he launched a defamation suit - if it was that, it was probably very smart; musn't say anything of any real substance on record until you have a well-defined legal strategy in place. Really, there are many reasons why he would wait.

Or it could simply be this.

Or hell, maybe you're right and he's lying. I don't know. I don't see much reason to assume so though.

Im evaluating each persons statements based on my notions of what truthful statements would look like and deciding which is most credible. With that approach I assumed the first complaint wasn't really valid aside from the icky factor and focused on the second.

Also the answer to the question of why not go to the police immediately is that at that time the police would have asked, did he rape you -- no, did he stop when he resisted yes, okay no crime here. If she did that it would also likely cost her her job. So you put up with it.

So whose behaviour makes sense? If it was just going to take 2 weeks to do this investigation he could have easily hung on.

I haven't seen your we should wait to see the outcome of the unfiled liable suit before judging CTV reporting yet

[CaptainCrunch]

Basically he's now effectively ambushed the ambusher. If he would have stuck around and fought it live and in real time, CTV probably would have buried him, bought up more statements from the sources of the story. Repeated it on the top of every hour.

Instead he basically waited until he had everything and he's shot CTV and the accusers with both barrel's.

As soon as the accusations came out, there was no hanging on, the party had to get rid of him in a hurry so they could put the accusations behind them, look like they were doing the right thing and get the new leaders into the spotlight and Brown out of the Spotlight.

This isn't Hollywood where you hang on and can hide or spin things. Politics is an entirely different game.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't see why people see the second story as discredited. The friend of Brown confirms everything except what happens in the room of which she has no knowledge

And also why this person remembers this detail of this event is kind of odd. A drunk girl following brown upstairs and then them coming back down and her getting a ride home doesn't seem like a memorable event.

As CC said, her friend claims to not even have been there. Others at the party said that they specifically remember the event because they said she was following Brown around the house and it was annoying his girlfriend.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

As CC said, her friend claims to not even have been there. Others at the party said that they specifically remember the event because they said she was following Brown around the house and it was annoying his girlfriend.

Are you sure that's what the new story is saying.

I might be missing something but the only person saying anything about the second story is the girlfriend of brown who is coroberating that they went to the bedroom together for a short period of time which is consistent with the complaint.

It's the first incident where the friend is saying it didn't happen.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4535373

I might be missing something though.

[Jacks]

I've been too swamped at work to read everything, not sure which allegation they were referring to. I was speaking about the information reported here. That was the one where he "assaulted" her in the bedroom from what I understand.
http://canoe.com/news/provincial/wit...b-de7dbd506beb

[Dogbert]

Having a hard time thinking that this is all made up. I've been hearing stuff about Brown since before he was leader of the PCs.

That being said, if it turns out to be sabotage, Brown might want to have a look into his own party. He pissed off an awful lot of social conservatives and alt-right types while he was leader.

[Jacks]

Seriously? you think his own party set this up right before an election?

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Seriously? you think his own party set this up right before an election?

Everyone in the party threw Brown under the bus instantly. That doesn't happen if they really wanted him as leader.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I've been too swamped at work to read everything, not sure which allegation they were referring to. I was speaking about the information reported here. That was the one where he "assaulted" her in the bedroom from what I understand.
http://canoe.com/news/provincial/wit...b-de7dbd506beb

The fried saying they were never there is the first one.

The second is a friend who was told after the incident that it was just a peck i hadn't read before I had just read the girl friend comments but the phrasing of who she is is very wierd

A woman who knows the second accuser told Postmedia that she admitted at the time that the “encounter with Patrick (had been) just a kiss, nothing more.”

.

Not a friend, former friend, co-worker just a women who knows. What level of friendship would you reveal assault. Also when did this declaration take place. It will be interesting how this persons claim will be dissected.

What's the motive to lie?

I see four options

PC wants to turf their leader
Libs want to destroy PCs
The two women just want to be part of #metoo
Their stories are true


I don't give 3 much credibility based on the blow back these women recieve when their names leak out and I don't see money /blackmail as a motive here given how it came out. Number 1 is absolutely crazy even if you don't like him as leader. It would have been done earlier during the leadership race. So you are left with the liberals weaponizing #metoo because the reporter had a lesbian relationship with the first complaintant and Kathleen Wynn is a lesbian was the craziest conspiracy. But the liberals finding a women to lie could be reasonable except that how do you convince a former PC intern who happened to go into a bedroom with him at a party. It's the perfect person to flip. I don't see that as a reasonable concept.

The liable suit will be interesting. I suspect it only focuses on the age of the first complaintant and Brown never is put under oath.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by GGG

What's the motive to lie?

Who knows?
Just because we can't think of a reason to lie doesn't make the man guilty though.
Wasn't long ago a man was accused of raping his daughter. If it wasn't for a defense lawyer who noticed a detail he might have spent decades in prison as a rapist. Turns out his daughter was mad that he was too strict. Everyone deserves due process, this wave of instant convictions with no proof is bullcrap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.bca1f06e8ac8

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

Everyone in the party threw Brown under the bus instantly. That doesn't happen if they really wanted him as leader.

Yes it does. They were facing an election, and we’ve seen this story before. Keeping a leader you really like who is being accused of sexual harassment/misconduct (or even a politician who isn’t the leader) is political suicide. You might really want him as leader, but not enough to sacrifice your own re-election.

[Jacks]

Exactly, the "lake of fire" idiot cost the WR the election even though he was only one person and was unlikely to win his seat. Instead we got Redford who was a complete disaster.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Who knows?
Just because we can't think of a reason to lie doesn't make the man guilty though.
Wasn't long ago a man was accused of raping his daughter. If it wasn't for a defense lawyer who noticed a detail he might have spent decades in prison as a rapist. Turns out his daughter was mad that he was too strict. Everyone deserves due process, this wave of instant convictions with no proof is bullcrap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.bca1f06e8ac8

Would you have voted for this guy if this accusation came out during an election campaign or would you have expected him to resign to deal with the accusation?

Brown has due process, he has not been denied it at all. His remedy for personal and economic damages are found in Canada's libel laws.

[Jacks]

He has not been given due process, his career has been left in shambles by accusations that have not been proven in court. He was tried and convicted in a matter of hours by a twitter court. I have no idea why you are defending the way this has played out, you seem to be a reasonable poster most of the time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

He has not been given due process, his career has been left in shambles by accusations that have not been proven in court. He was tried and convicted in a matter of hours by a twitter court. I have no idea why you are defending the way this has played out, you seem to be a reasonable poster most of the time.

So how should the media sitting on this type of news play out.

There is an election in 3-4 months. They have fact checked these cases to ensure the complaintant aren't politicaly motivated and at least in the second case that the party and the intoxication occurred. These allegations do not rise to criminal acts and given the time and the intoxication of the complaintant would not result in criminal charges being filed.

The newspaper finds the stories credible and believe they have the duty to the public to disclose this information as it is in the public interest to know who they are electing and that the public can decide if the accusations are credible

How should the newspaper proceed and how should the newspaper balance the public interest in exposing sex scandals in places of power with the risk they could be wrong?

How should women who have been victimized by actions that won't result in charges or convictions proceed?

[Jacks]

We are on different planets here. The newspapers should have a duty to fact check their sources before destroying a persons life. They should take the assumption that the accused is innocent unless they have compelling evidence otherwise, there is no one else that corroborates her story. The last 10-15 years or so have seen a massive decline in the standards of journalism, the gotcha crap we see now days is pathetic. I hope Brown sues CTV into the stone age the way the Gawker was put to rest.

[para transit fellow]

I read somewhere that Mr Brown's political staff abandoned him because they felt his explainations were inconsistent. His repeated explainations feel apart and they couldn't trust him. I think this is something to consider.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

We are on different planets here. The newspapers should have a duty to fact check their sources before destroying a persons life. They should take the assumption that the accused is innocent unless they have compelling evidence otherwise, there is no one else that corroborates her story. The last 10-15 years or so have seen a massive decline in the standards of journalism, the gotcha crap we see now days is pathetic. I hope Brown sues CTV into the stone age the way the Gawker was put to rest.

I agree with you. And I hope Brown goes under oath and testifies that none of this was true and if he meets the burden of the courts that CTV is destroyed.

That said I think CTV was correct in publishing at least the 2nd allegation. The second complaint has not been discredited at all. In fact we now have corrberation that Brown and the complaintant were in the bedroom together when the incident is alleged to occur. The work place harassment has not been addressed at all.

Newspapers have broken stories based on anonymous sources and statements from witnesses without hard evidence. The Catholic Church was brought down by the globe based on statements from victims years after the fact without hard evidence. Weinstein was brought down in a similar manner. The standard to publish in a newspaper is lower than the burden required by a court to convict. This a good thing that has provided public benefit.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Newspapers have broken stories based on anonymous sources and statements from witnesses without hard evidence. The Catholic Church was brought down by the globe based on statements from victims years after the fact without hard evidence. Weinstein was brought down in a similar manner. The standard to publish in a newspaper is lower than the burden required by a court to convict. This a good thing that has provided public benefit.

Newspapers are also subject to libel, which holds them to account for what they publish, even if it's from anonymous sources.