the timing makes one skeptical, but I will wait until the facts are in. Won't change my vote, if we can kick Murray out, we can kick out John if this proves to be true.
Urquhart may have pandered to (R) with his Sawant comment, but he didn't lie. While pandering to (R) he has enacted liberal policy in regards to sanctuary cities, Safe Consumption Sites, and fired bad cops. I need some evidence before I'll switch my vote to a law & order (aka (R)) anti-SCS candidate. Every day we do not have SCS people die on our streets.
At the very least, we should expect law enforcement officers to not sexually harass people and then threaten them with public retaliation. The Superior Court granted one accuser a TRO after he threatened retaliation; TROs are not granted lightly. Anyone who votes for this guy is being blind.
I'm still stunned by how many of these accusations never seem to go anywhere in criminal or even civil court. They seem to just tarnish the reputation of most of the accused and then lose steam after that.
TROs are granted lightly. Someone sees a court commissioner or judge without notice to the other party, hands up a declaration that sets out the party's claim. If the claim on its face, without regard to credibility, meets the statutory minimum then the temporary order is granted. It's not a rubber stamp but it's close.
#12: There really is a social transformation happening on the right and left wherein burden of proof and rule of law don't really matter. A whole generation doesn't seem to understand how criminal justice is supposed to work in a liberal democracy.
And did that information get out?
Thanks. And I meant never mind about my second question about whether the info was released.
Is "Allegation" the new "Guilty"?
Whatever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty In A Court of Law"?