My Letter to the Chicago Tribune on Jack Ryan (vanity)

self | July 3, 2004 | self

[SpyderTim]

Serious comments welcome.

[combat_boots]

Were they married? Were they at this club? I don't know all the facts, but I don't see her screaming bloody murder for the sake of "the children." Somewhere I read she's a democrat. Wonder how much she was paid for this...........For shame.

[sam_whiskey]

Well said. I wish there were more editorials making the same points.

[Clintonfatigued]

It sounds like the Chicago Tribune is becoming the Los Angeles Times of the midwest. What a shame.

[SpyderTim]

They were married at the time they "allegedly" went to several clubs. Jack Ryan disputes that they went to more than one club. He said in the child custody records that they went to one club in Paris but left when they both felt uncomfortable.

I'm most frustrated that the media tends to take liberal Democrats denials at face value but never gives the GOP the benefit of the doubt.

[Redbob]

I have no more interest in Jack Ryan's divorce than I do in John kerry's: some things, somehow MUST be off limits!

[mrexitement]

The problem with what Ryan did is show poor judgment in insisting that there would be no embarrassing allegations in his divorce records when he knew there were. He must have known that those records would be released either legally or through some sort of 'bureaucratic snafu'. He should have stepped aside during the primary.
Now we are almost assuredly going to have the dangerously extreme liberal O'Bama win a SENATE seat because of Ryan's poor judgment.
I can't fault Ryan for a divorce, and I don't know about the validity or even care for that matter about any sex club allegations. I can fault him for putting the party and the country in jeopardy through his arrogance and poor judgment.

[SpyderTim]

Seeking your comments.

[SpyderTim]

My sentiments are similar to yours. However, who are we to say whether or not Jack Ryan was embarassed? Sure, such allegations might be embarassing to the average person.

[roylene]

Good points, however papers usually will cut the length. Try cutting about half the length.
Answer to another post - yes they were married.

[mrexitement]

Even if he wasn't embarrassed by them, I think that any reasonable person would know his candidacy would be as dead as Uday and Qusai as soon as the media got hold of that information.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

What I found interesting in the copies posted on Smokinggun.com was the part of her affidavit where she claims they went to Paris, to a sex club where she claims Ryan asked her to engage in intercourse. She indicates vehemently that she refused. Then she indicates that he asked her to perform a sexual act upon him. She then goes on to other subjects (how hurt she felt, how humiliated she was, etc. etc.) but does not immediately follow the claim that he asked for a sexual act to be performed on him - with an indication that she refused the request (as is the pattern in the rest of her statement). Now I know that the purpose of this affidavit was to increase her "throw weight" in the pitched battle for property - but considering she received north of $20M in the settlement, and thus was presumably paying six figures to her lawyers - isn't it reasonable to expect that they can proof read her affidavit well enough to notice the lack of an immediate and specific denial? Let's put it this way - I read her own affidavit to say that she fellated him in the sex club in Paris. Since Jack Ryan has now enjoyed the shortest political career in history, probably at the cost of several $million - if I were him, before entering a monastery, I'd go scorched earth on her ass for having set this time bomb, and I'd release the entire statement, without redaction, along with any "throw weight" from his side of the divorce.

[AmishDude]

I agree about divorce proceedings. What's worse is that divorce records are very unreliable. The truth is often stretched, to put it mildly.

[AmishDude]

I don't think she put this in to hurt his future political career or for any other reason that it was a bitter divorce and she wanted him to look as bad as possible for a good settlement and custody agreement. She's vehemently opposed the release of these records. The Tribune had to sue to get them released, neither of the Ryans wanted it.

I think that the account of this was muddied on purpose. It is not the kind of thing Jack wants to get into during a divorce, but if he did call her on it, she could tell the truth under oath (which is, I'm assuming for this exercise, more like Jack's account) without contradicting her statement.

[EDINVA]

O'bama was already way ahead of Ryan and the GOP assumed a Democrat would take over, so it ultimately didn't matter who said or did what in the GOP primary.

[KeyLargo]

Tribune operates 13 leading daily newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday and Spanish-language Hoy, plus a wide range of targeted publications. The company’s broadcasting group includes 26 television stations; Superstation WGN on national cable; WGN-AM in Chicag.

[mrustow]

Were they married? Were they at this club? I don't know all the facts, but I don't see her screaming bloody murder for the sake of "the children." Somewhere I read she's a democrat. Wonder how much she was paid for this...........For shame.

For shame, that someone who knows nothing about the case would make such nasty, baseless charges. If you had even read the post here through, you'd know that Jeri Ryan also wanted the record sealed. How do you manage to form such vicious opinions based on absolute ignorance?

[mrustow]

Take a look at the following edited version, in which I tried to cut down your letter to its essence, while moving around some sentences. It clocks in at 195 words, still a little on the long side, but I was afraid I'd butcher it otherwise. I cut out references to Obama (did he really use drugs?!) not to protect him, but because it was simply too much for one letter to the editor. You might want to take up the drug issue in a separate letter to the editor, or get a friend to send it in under his name, since the Trib certainly isn't going to publish two letters from the same person on the same topic in short order.

--------------------------------------------------------

The Chicago Tribune claims in its editorial, “Why the Tribune went to court”, that court files are open unless a compelling interest tips the balance in the favor of secrecy, using the example of juvenile court records, which by their very nature refer to children. Why then did the Chicago Tribune choose not to take Jack Ryan and Jeri Ryan’s claim that the records had been sealed in the interests of Alex Ryan at face value? At a minimum, can the Chicago Tribune at least acknowledge the damage they have done? Try explaining sex to a special needs child, let alone the concept of a sex club.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune neglected to mention in their articles that in court, Jack Ryan’s denials of the allegations were found to be more credible on their face than Jeri’s allegations.

I contend that the Chicago Tribune knew that the contents of the divorce records would put Jack Ryan’s candidacy in a straight jacket. This zealous fight for the opening of records sealed by BOTH parties in the divorce borders on malicious intent. As A.M. Rosenthal argued many years ago, the First Amendment was not designed for voyeurs.

[combat_boots]

My meaning is that I have not read the case itself, nor the filing for release as submitted by the Tribune. I have only read what the Tribune has reported, what I have read here and elsewhere, and what I have listened to on television. There can be no claim of absence of malice on the part of the Tribune. Would that the actress had stepped up as vigorously to defend her family as John Kerry and his handlers are his records. But, she didn't, or, her protests went unheeded. It is clear to me that many benefitted from this--everyone, but the child, who is my main concern in complaining of these shenanigans for political gain.