Paul Ryan ‘will await the findings’ of Jim Jordan investigation

[mystery-ak]

Paul Ryan ‘will await the findings’ of Jim Jordan investigation
By John Bowden - 07/07/18 10:11 AM EDT

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) reiterated through a spokesman on Friday that he is still awaiting an investigation to be completed over allegations that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) knew about claims of sexual abuse involving the Ohio State University wrestling team.

"These are serious allegations and issues," Ryan's spokesman Doug Andres told USA Today in an email. "The university has rightfully initiated a full investigation into the matter. The speaker will await the findings of that inquiry."

Ryan's office had released the statement earlier this week amid the July 4 recess, but reiterated his position after more former wrestlers at Ohio State accused Jordan, a leader of the House Freedom Caucus, of knowing about alleged sexual abuse by the team doctor and not taking action.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/395928-paul-ryan-will-await-the-findings-of-jim-jordan-investigation-spokesman

[Oceander]

Seems a sensible position.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Did Paul Ryan know about the House of Representative's payoff list? 

[Cyber Liberty]

Right.  Or...Ryan wants to drag this enough to ensure he gets his pick for his replacement.  Knowing  Ryan from his act since he became speaker, I vote "dragging."

All the while, rejecting the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."  The rejection of this principle is the next step I expect to see.

[Cyber Liberty]

Did Paul Ryan know about the House of Representative's payoff list?

Of course he did, which is why Congress was successful in resisting its release.  You can do a lot of perfidy if the Speaker agrees with you.

[Bigun]

Paul Ryan

[Right_in_Virginia]

Of course he did, which is why Congress was successful in resisting its release.  You can do a lot of perfidy if the Speaker agrees with you.

I think we need to pass some kind of a law ... elected representatives give two weeks notice and then go .... like the rest of the world.

No more hangers on like Flake and Ryan.  No one needs their last shots at political enemies controlling agendas.

[XenaLee]

I think we need to pass some kind of a law ... elected representatives give two weeks notice and then go .... like the rest of the world.

No more hangers on like Flake and Ryan.  No one needs their last shots at political enemies controlling agendas.

But... until the swamp is actually drained (vs. just recycling the swamp-water).... that law will never be passed.  And the hangers on are part of the swamp that needs to be drained.  Hence, the dilemma.

[libertybele]

Gee, how noble of Ryan to defend one of his own.  He's proven to be despicable, unlikable and quite frankly nothing more than a RINO that has lied time and time again to the American people. 

[Emjay]

Right.  Or...Ryan wants to drag this enough to ensure he gets his pick for his replacement.  Knowing  Ryan from his act since he became speaker, I vote "dragging."

All the while, rejecting the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."  The rejection of this principle is the next step I expect to see.

@Cyber Liberty   Pathetic.  Couldn't Ryan possibly await the decision without announcing that he's awaiting the decision?  He's just giving publicity to the charges which he really wants to stick.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty   Pathetic.  Couldn't Ryan possibly await the decision without announcing that he's awaiting the decision?  He's just giving publicity to the charges which he really wants to stick.

Bingo!

[Oceander]

Right.  Or...Ryan wants to drag this enough to ensure he gets his pick for his replacement.  Knowing  Ryan from his act since he became speaker, I vote "dragging."

All the while, rejecting the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."  The rejection of this principle is the next step I expect to see.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that you continue along as if no allegations have been raised, and nothing else has happened.  It is eminently reasonable to adopt a wait-and-see approach. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that you continue along as if no allegations have been raised, and nothing else has happened.  It is eminently reasonable to adopt a wait-and-see approach.

I would agree if it's an approach honestly taken.  Given Ryan's history of throwing in with the Dems and the leftists in his own party, I have my doubts.

I prefer to wait and see too, but patience is never a part of these DeeCee games.

[Oceander]

I would agree if it's an approach honestly taken.  Given Ryan's history of throwing in with the Dems and the leftists in his own party, I have my doubts.

I prefer to wait and see too, but patience is never a part of these DeeCee games.

It isn’t situational the way you seem to think it is.  The allegations are there, and until the university finishes its investigation, everyone is entitled to take those allegations into account as they wish. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Correct.  Which is why I say "Innocent until proven guilty" is likely to be the first principle to be thrown away.  It's part of the game of using allegations in place of proof.  It's like saying "I'm going to wait until he's shown to be guilty, then I'm going to hang him high."

[Oceander]

Correct.  Which is why I say "Innocent until proven guilty" is likely to be the first principle to be thrown away.  It's part of the game of using allegations in place of proof.  It's like saying "I'm going to wait until he's shown to be guilty, then I'm going to hang him high."

“Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in criminal trials; it does not apply as a general rule of conduct, and applying it in that manner often leads to very poor outcomes. 

And selective outrage on this basis for partisan political purposes is grotesque.  I don’t recall quite such a delicate sensibility toward all of those Obama administration people who were routinely lambasted as criminals. 

Where were the protestations over Lois Lerner being accused by republicans and conservatives of criminal conduct when she invoked her Constituional right to silence, for example?

If you want to discuss good faith and bad faith, be careful. 

[Bigun]

“Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in criminal trials; it does not apply as a general rule of conduct, and applying it in that manner often leads to very poor outcomes. 

And selective outrage on this basis for partisan political purposes is grotesque.  I don’t recall quite such a delicate sensibility toward all of those Obama administration people who were routinely lambasted as criminals. 

Where were the protestations over Lois Lerner being accused by republicans and conservatives of criminal conduct when she invoked her Constituional right to silence, for example?

If you want to discuss good faith and bad faith, be careful.

Your memory seems to be a tad faulty councilor.  Lois Learner only  invoked the 5th AFTER making several self serving statements as I recall.  That is a 

[Cyber Liberty]

Your memory seems to be a tad faulty councilor.  Lois Learner only  invoked the 5th AFTER making several self serving statements as I recall.  That is a 

Correct.  As Trey Gowdy pointed out, she waived that right by her testimony.  Trey may have his faults, but I think he was correct on that.

As a extra-legal matter, I think government bureaucrats who plead the Fifth should be immediately fired and stripped of their Pensions, since we're talking about how wonderful it is to punish unproven allegations.

[Cyber Liberty]

“Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in criminal trials; it does not apply as a general rule of conduct, and applying it in that manner often leads to very poor outcomes. 

And selective outrage on this basis for partisan political purposes is grotesque.  I don’t recall quite such a delicate sensibility toward all of those Obama administration people who were routinely lambasted as criminals. 

Where were the protestations over Lois Lerner being accused by republicans and conservatives of criminal conduct when she invoked her Constituional right to silence, for example?

If you want to discuss good faith and bad faith, be careful.

I might be tempted to agree with some of that if charges aren't routinely dropped as soon as the desired damage is done.  Might.  As for the aforementioned Lois Lerner, isn't she sipping adult beverages in Tahiti or somewhere?  She, and other miscreants, were allowed to retire on our dime.

[skeeter]

“Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in criminal trials; it does not apply as a general rule of conduct, and applying it in that manner often leads to very poor outcomes. 

And selective outrage on this basis for partisan political purposes is grotesque.  I don’t recall quite such a delicate sensibility toward all of those Obama administration people who were routinely lambasted as criminals. 

Where were the protestations over Lois Lerner being accused by republicans and conservatives of criminal conduct when she invoked her Constituional right to silence, for example?

If you want to discuss good faith and bad faith, be careful.

General rules of conduct have proscriptions against slander, because making unprovable accusations can do immense damage to a persons public image while incurring little risk to the cowards seeking to benefit by making the accusation.

It is now a political tool commonly used by the political class because of symbiotic relationship they have with the media.

Good luck proving that 'both sides do it', meaning conservatives. The MSM doesn't carry our water.