"No, thats just what they'll be expecting us to do."
Posted on 03/13/2010 7:44:27 AM PST by Colofornian
From the article: The speaker's comments drew a loud ovation from representatives --a show of support that some observers thought was distasteful. Conservative blogger Holly Richardson was on-hand for the bombshell and said she understands that, while Garn's colleagues may have been paying respect for his service, "I still thought it was outrageous. He just admitted to paying $150,000 to a woman who he had had an inappropriate encounter with when he was twice her age," she said. "He was married. He was in the hot tub naked with this young girl and to have any kind of applause or anything was just stunning."
I thought the LDS weren't into this sort of thing anymore ~ just the FLDS.
Maybe we can recycle all our posts from last year!
In the meantime, he got caught and if he's a Republican he needs to step down. If he's a Democrat he should hang on a bit longer to prove to us they have some heterosexuals over there ~
It sure took a lot of work reading that article trying to figure out that this guy was a Democrat. That couldn’t have been an editorial oversight could it?
Who knew what when?
Monson has been the 16th President-"Prophet" of the church since Feb. 3, 2008. Did he cover this up?
Lds reporters @ the Deseret News, owned by the Lds church, were falling all over themselves in yesterday's article on this (see House Majority Leader Kevin Garn admits to incident with girl in past ) trying to explain why they knew the details about this in 2002 and yet didn't publish them.
This guy could be a COTFB type, or maybe FLDS just cruising along kinda' undercover.
Makes me wonder how many husbands that woman has had. The article certainly indicates she's had MORE THAN ONE, now is it 2, or 5, or maybe 10?
There could be a lot more stuff going on here than anyone ever imagined.
But you can't blackmail an honest man.
All that wasted effort on your part. If Garn was a democrat why would he be running in a Republican primary.
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I need more caffeine this morning to focus my eyes.
She's no longer married. The request for $ was 8 yrs. ago. And in this article, the legislator described it this way: "I will be happy to pay $150,000 to Cheryl and hope that will bring some degree of peace in her life," Garn wrote in a Jan. 21, 2003, e-mail
I guess Garn thought'd it be "peaceful" -- therapeutic.
If you're Garn in 2002 discussing this with Lds Deseret journalists, & you want them to sit on this kind of story, what would you present it as: blackmail or therapeutic healing $? (Obviously, the latter, lest you fuel more of a temptation to publish it...obviously, it must not have been too tempting for Deseret to publish it since they didn't...hence, Deseret now spends a good chunk of today's article trying to justify why they should be considered real journalists given they patronizingly censored the information from public eyes).
Of course, waffling from one emphasis of your storyline to another is always problematic, damage-control wise. How so in this case? Well, if Kevin Garn was motivated at some point to present this as a "therapeutic healing or peace-filled gift" -- at least that'd be a nice story to present to his wife/family/Deseret News -- then why apparently didn't any ask him re: the ever-so-obvious follow-up question:
"Kevin, why would a woman need $150,000 to therapeutically heal from sharing the same water with you...? (Assuming, Kevin, that for the most part, the bubbled water & night time covered up most that might otherwise be revealed)"
"Kevin!!!?"
"Kevin!!!!!!!!!???" [Think of the movie series "Home Alone" when Kevin's screen mom repeatedly calls out his name, louder & louder each time, with no response]
"Kevin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????"
But Garn likely felt he had to commit to that legal angle in 2002 -- that it wasn't paid as blackmail or a bribe. But now that this is coming out, Garn said yesterday's SL Trib article that he "believed" he was being "extorted" back then; but he paid her the money and had his attorney draft a non-disclosure agreement, where she said she would not go public with her story.
So, in 2002 he legally committed to maintaining one posture to avoid ethical entanglements of catering to blackmail...
...which was all to avoid ethical (& possibly legal) entanglements of conceding to being naked in a hot tub with a minor...
...but now it's 2010 and in order to try to "new hand of Black Jack" he decides he's going to go ahead & try the "she's a blackmailer" angle since that works a little better under these circumstances.
But, you see, all this shows is that's he a spiritual chameleon, changing colors according to what works best ethically for the current situation.
Didn’t the girl make a deal previously instead of making him accountable and what does she hope to gain by bringing it out now?
“”Garn could not be reached Friday. Davis County Republican Chairwoman Shirley Bowhuis said she has not spoken with the representative but expects he will share his decision when he makes up his mind. “”
Why do you think he’s a Dem? If he was, why would the Republican Chairwoman be interested in his decision?
I’ve already acknowledged my error.
Yes. A 2002 agreement.
According to today's Deseret News: She said she does not want to talk about specifics because she wants the focus not on Garn's actions but on "the devastation of my life because of sexual abuse that happens to so many." She hopes that by talking, "others will come forward, too." Later, she sent an e-mail to the Deseret News saying that she was working for Garn at the Pegasus record store he owned in 1985. She also said he had been her LDS Sunday School teacher when she was in fourth grade. She described what she says was a relationship that lasted many months.
See Cheryl Maher says Kevin Garn lied about hot tub contact
"No, thats just what they'll be expecting us to do."
“”I’ve already acknowledged my error.””
I read the later posts..I was hoping it wasn’t me! Do admit it was pretty confusing reading and perhaps it’s too early for me also!
More money.
>>It sure took a lot of work reading that article trying to figure out that this guy was a Democrat. That couldn’t have been an editorial oversight could it?<<
Thank you! I never did find it. Yep, clearly an editorial oversight. After all, they mentioned that the other guy who resigned under pressure was a Republican right away.
paid her $150,000 as part of an agreement to conceal the story
Hasn't Maher broken this agreement by talking to reporters, and thus the law? Shouldn't she be charged? Or sued for the $150,000 plus damages?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.