www.theoxfordscientist.com
'It was no secret ..., but nothing changed ...'
Jordan Knew of Sexual Assaults, and for Years
Number of accusers as of, 3 August 2018, exceed 100
- Jordan using congressional staff to run background checks on accusers -
Trump, Ryan and McConnell,
pull back from their blanket declarations of Jordan's innocence
Sordid details are appalling, 13 July 2018 AP
Jordan's accusers have parents, friends and relatives, who were told about the sexual assaults and their conversations with assistant coach Jordan at the time as well as other contemporaneous written records, such as,
text messages recorded and enshrined on their ubiquitous cell phones, the messages that never go away.
Jordan resignation, inevitable
Jordan's accusers have parents, friends and relatives, who were told about the sexual assaults and their conversations with assistant coach Jordan at the time as well as other contemporaneous written records, such as,
text messages recorded and enshrined on their ubiquitous cell phones, the messages that never go away.
Jordan resignation, inevitable
Jordan claims that the allegations against him are motivated politically and are being made because his detractors want to stand in the way of him gaining a leadership position within Congress, he has stated incredulously that he is under consideration for Speaker of the House of Representatives when a beleaguered Paul Ryan surrenders the gavel after the autumn elections. As allegations take on a sinister tint, Jordan's re-election is by no means assured.
In a word, Jordan wants us to believe that this entire affair, in substance and timing, came about because there is a conspiracy directed towards him. It follows therefore that Jim Jordan claims that he is also a victim of the sexual assault allegations.
This sets the stage so that when Jordan is forced to resign inevitably, it will not be because he turned a blind eye to sexual assault when he was a coach, but like Pruitt, he was forced to resign because of the relentless pressure put upon him and his family by an all too anti-Trump and anti-white-nationalist agenda 'fake' press.
Perhaps, Jordan ought to consider that demeaning the seriousness of the allegations in any way also demeans the victims, and that is a poor defensive as well as a baseless offensive posture to assume and maintain over the course of what will be a long and detailed investigation into the facts.
It is noted however that this is the same Jim Jordan who asserted on several cable news programs that Trump had never lied to him, personally. Trump has lied to the American people repeatedly, Jim Jordan is a representative of some of the people that Trump has lied to, and yet Trump, Jordan claims, has never lied to him, posing an inexplicable disconnect between reality and the truth. Notwithstanding that a member of the Christian-right could so easily ignore Matthew 25:40 (whatsoever you do ...), the willingness to construct and advance such a false argument is proof positive that critical thinking, the modern nomenclature for the study of logic, is a vital part of a classical education that must remain an essential element of curricula at every level.
Before the number of accusers had grown to more than 100, Trump had said that he believed Jordan’s protestations that at no time was he aware or ever informed about the alleged sexual assaults by the team doctor. Trump,,the one who has never lied to Jordan, also maintains he knew nothing about the nothing meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians in July 2016 and, the payment to the Playboy model was without his direct knowledge or input. As the number of accusers have grown, Trump, Ryan and McConnell have pulled back from their blanket pronouncements of Jordan's innocence.
Inexplicably, for an innocent man, Jordan has been using his congressional staff to run background checks on his accusers. Using taxpayer money to attack taxpayers. And, Jordan has recently declared that one of his accusers is a criminal. A recent statement by another coach from Ohio State that Jordan asked to make a statement in his behalf, perhaps put it best, 'I am willing to speak on Jordan's behalf, but when he has to testify under oath in a court of law, he is on his own.'
Jordan will shortly be given the opportunity to claim under oath that he heard nothing, saw nothing, and knew nothing about the lurid behavior in Larkins Hall. Disinformation before the press is regrettable and demeans the body politic when perpetrated by an elected official, but if Jordan maintains the lie under oath, he commits perjury.
The case against Jordan may well come down to whom you believe, his accusers and their contemporaneous written records or the protestations of avid Trump supporter.
Jordan does not state that he did not hear the locker room chatter, Jordan simply maintains that locker room talk about the alleged sexual assaults in his presence does not constitute a report to him concerning the alleged sexual assaults. Under cross examination, unless it is before a committee convened by Paul Ryan, Gowdy or Nunes, Jordan will find that politics will not triumph over the truth and facts. Jordan will be called to testify under oath, and before that he must remember that lying to the FBI and other police agencies is a crime.
There are two glaringly obvious problems with Jordan's current assertions about the case against him.
First, there are a growing number witnesses (more than 100 at the time of this posting) several of whom state that they brought the sexual assault allegations to Jordan's attention on more than one occasion. And second, several of the witnesses that have come forward and obtained legal representation, have not only made sworn statements to authorities, but have also submitted to lie-detector tests at the request of their legal representation. Others will follow in due course.
Although lie-detector evidence is not admissible in a court of law, often legal representatives request or encourage their prospective clients to voluntarily avail themselves to the test. Especially, when the person they are accusing can get the President of the United States, who knows nothing of the case, to so publicly declare Jordan faultless, blameless and wholly without liability.
The lie-detector test gives legal representation several insights into their prospective clients. Not the least of which is the veracity of their claims, but also their ability to tell their story under stressful circumstances, such as when being examined by a judge, Grand Jury, or cross examined in a court of law.
And, of course, Jordan's accusers have parents, friends and relatives who were told about the sexual assaults and their conversations with assistant coach Jordan at the time as well as their contemporaneous written records, such as, text messages recorded and enshrined on their ubiquitous cell phones.
Jordan must realize surely that the alleged sexual impropriety occurred over a period of some twenty years and there are potentially hundreds of victims, even during the eight-year period that Jordan was an assistant coach.
Jordan’s assertion that although there is multiple witness evidence that he heard the allegations of sexual assault spoken about in the intimate atmosphere of the university athletic locker room, Jordan maintains that locker room talk does not constitute a report de jure of the allegations to him as an assistant coach, is nevertheless an admission that Jordan was made aware of the allegations.
The idea as advanced by Jordan that in the locker room he was not a paid employee of The Ohio State University with all the rules and regulations that govern his relations with and responsibilities to students and athletes of that university, but was just one of the lads, illustrates a frighteningly ignorant understanding of American Jurisprudence and administrative regulations on the part of a soon-to-be former member of the United States federal legislature.
The evidence is that Jordan was made aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct on multiple occasions and he did nothing about it.
In a word, Jordan wants us to believe that this entire affair, in substance and timing, came about because there is a conspiracy directed towards him. It follows therefore that Jim Jordan claims that he is also a victim of the sexual assault allegations.
This sets the stage so that when Jordan is forced to resign inevitably, it will not be because he turned a blind eye to sexual assault when he was a coach, but like Pruitt, he was forced to resign because of the relentless pressure put upon him and his family by an all too anti-Trump and anti-white-nationalist agenda 'fake' press.
Perhaps, Jordan ought to consider that demeaning the seriousness of the allegations in any way also demeans the victims, and that is a poor defensive as well as a baseless offensive posture to assume and maintain over the course of what will be a long and detailed investigation into the facts.
It is noted however that this is the same Jim Jordan who asserted on several cable news programs that Trump had never lied to him, personally. Trump has lied to the American people repeatedly, Jim Jordan is a representative of some of the people that Trump has lied to, and yet Trump, Jordan claims, has never lied to him, posing an inexplicable disconnect between reality and the truth. Notwithstanding that a member of the Christian-right could so easily ignore Matthew 25:40 (whatsoever you do ...), the willingness to construct and advance such a false argument is proof positive that critical thinking, the modern nomenclature for the study of logic, is a vital part of a classical education that must remain an essential element of curricula at every level.
Before the number of accusers had grown to more than 100, Trump had said that he believed Jordan’s protestations that at no time was he aware or ever informed about the alleged sexual assaults by the team doctor. Trump,,the one who has never lied to Jordan, also maintains he knew nothing about the nothing meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians in July 2016 and, the payment to the Playboy model was without his direct knowledge or input. As the number of accusers have grown, Trump, Ryan and McConnell have pulled back from their blanket pronouncements of Jordan's innocence.
Inexplicably, for an innocent man, Jordan has been using his congressional staff to run background checks on his accusers. Using taxpayer money to attack taxpayers. And, Jordan has recently declared that one of his accusers is a criminal. A recent statement by another coach from Ohio State that Jordan asked to make a statement in his behalf, perhaps put it best, 'I am willing to speak on Jordan's behalf, but when he has to testify under oath in a court of law, he is on his own.'
Jordan will shortly be given the opportunity to claim under oath that he heard nothing, saw nothing, and knew nothing about the lurid behavior in Larkins Hall. Disinformation before the press is regrettable and demeans the body politic when perpetrated by an elected official, but if Jordan maintains the lie under oath, he commits perjury.
The case against Jordan may well come down to whom you believe, his accusers and their contemporaneous written records or the protestations of avid Trump supporter.
Jordan does not state that he did not hear the locker room chatter, Jordan simply maintains that locker room talk about the alleged sexual assaults in his presence does not constitute a report to him concerning the alleged sexual assaults. Under cross examination, unless it is before a committee convened by Paul Ryan, Gowdy or Nunes, Jordan will find that politics will not triumph over the truth and facts. Jordan will be called to testify under oath, and before that he must remember that lying to the FBI and other police agencies is a crime.
There are two glaringly obvious problems with Jordan's current assertions about the case against him.
First, there are a growing number witnesses (more than 100 at the time of this posting) several of whom state that they brought the sexual assault allegations to Jordan's attention on more than one occasion. And second, several of the witnesses that have come forward and obtained legal representation, have not only made sworn statements to authorities, but have also submitted to lie-detector tests at the request of their legal representation. Others will follow in due course.
Although lie-detector evidence is not admissible in a court of law, often legal representatives request or encourage their prospective clients to voluntarily avail themselves to the test. Especially, when the person they are accusing can get the President of the United States, who knows nothing of the case, to so publicly declare Jordan faultless, blameless and wholly without liability.
The lie-detector test gives legal representation several insights into their prospective clients. Not the least of which is the veracity of their claims, but also their ability to tell their story under stressful circumstances, such as when being examined by a judge, Grand Jury, or cross examined in a court of law.
And, of course, Jordan's accusers have parents, friends and relatives who were told about the sexual assaults and their conversations with assistant coach Jordan at the time as well as their contemporaneous written records, such as, text messages recorded and enshrined on their ubiquitous cell phones.
Jordan must realize surely that the alleged sexual impropriety occurred over a period of some twenty years and there are potentially hundreds of victims, even during the eight-year period that Jordan was an assistant coach.
Jordan’s assertion that although there is multiple witness evidence that he heard the allegations of sexual assault spoken about in the intimate atmosphere of the university athletic locker room, Jordan maintains that locker room talk does not constitute a report de jure of the allegations to him as an assistant coach, is nevertheless an admission that Jordan was made aware of the allegations.
The idea as advanced by Jordan that in the locker room he was not a paid employee of The Ohio State University with all the rules and regulations that govern his relations with and responsibilities to students and athletes of that university, but was just one of the lads, illustrates a frighteningly ignorant understanding of American Jurisprudence and administrative regulations on the part of a soon-to-be former member of the United States federal legislature.
The evidence is that Jordan was made aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct on multiple occasions and he did nothing about it.
