The Scandals Continues

It was announced yesterday that a law suit has been filed against Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips, the suit alleges that Mr. Phillips forced a teenage girl to have sex with him shortly after she turned eighteen, after encouraging her to become involved in politics.

One can only assume that the suit is charging that he used his position of authority within the then Glen Urquhart for Congress campaign to force the girl into this relationship.

Just last year the Delaware State Police investigated allegations in an anonymous letter to legislators that clearly was related to the allegations within this law suit. No charges were filed at that time.

Mr. Phillips was also involved in a physical altercation of some kind with the current Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher that led to a complaint being filed by the Sheriff, but again the investigation found that there was no reason for charges to be filed.

Mr. Phillips has also suffered a fractured spine which he is still recovering from, that was the result of him crashing his ultra light aircraft in Virginia shortly after the original accusations of this relationship surfaced in the anonymous letter.

It seems with this law suit that Mr. Phillips’ troubles will continue and one has to ask, can his political future survive this constant onslaught of scandal?  Mr. Phillips has released a statement saying that he is, “looking forward to telling his side of the story”. But in politics the accusation is often enough to ruin a career.

Only time will tell.

 

54 Comments on "The Scandals Continues"

  1. anon. says:

    Remember the Attorney General never cleared him, just said there wasnt enough info to arrest him. That being said, someone close to the investigation says the problem is that the girl first said it was consentual, then later changed her story and claimed it was rape. She said she changed her story because she was afraid in the first interview, as Phillips had threatened her not to tell anyone.
    I personally think its time for the Republican Party to address this issue. John Reiley be a man and a leader.

  2. anonymous says:

    The Republican Party needs to address this publically. This has been swept under the rug long enough.
    Im calling on John Reiley to ask for Vance Phillips resignation.

  3. Frank Knotts says:

    Not sure it is up to the party to call for the resignation at this time, if at all. First these are still only allegations. Granted they will have negative effects on the GOP as the media will surely link this to the GOP. First the case must be heard and then it will, as always, be up to the voters to decide whether Mr. Phillips should continue in office.
    That being said, this will clearly have a negative effect on the party no matter the outcome, and will be a constant drum beat for the opposition. Mr. Phillips may want to consider the good of the party and understand that his future is questionable at best, and resign from office to limit the fall-out. Forcing the party to take sides in what is a civil suit is a lose, lose situation.

  4. anon says:

    The last elected official that the GOP threw out of office turned around and got re-elected as a Democrat, multiple times.

    So don’t overestimate how much the voters care about personal ethics. In western Sussex, he just needs to wave a Bible around and talk about sin and forgiveness and – BOOM – four more years.

    But in a good and decent world, if any of the allegations are true – legal or not – he should resign immediately and never seek public office again.

  5. Anonymous says:

    anon., there is a HUGE difference in being re-elected after a DUI and a offensive touching vs. the allegations of raping a teenage girl that includes bondage, sex toys, and threats.
    The Washington Post has details of the lawsuit including the Councilman exposing himself, and locking her in a barn and raping her.

  6. anon says:

    “anon., there is a HUGE difference in being re-elected after a DUI and a offensive touching vs. the allegations of raping a teenage girl that includes bondage, sex toys, and threats.”

    Only if you are morally and ethically compromised do you believe that someone should continue to serve in elected office in either case.

    Don’t overestimate the voters’ sick ability to look beyond something like this, as awful as it is.

  7. Anon says:

    Big difference in some one having a DUI and getting re-elected and getting re-elected after lawsuit involving rape of a teenage girl.

  8. anon says:

    So it’s okay for a man to drink, drive, abuse his power to get out of an arrest, then drive some more and then lay hands on his wife (which is what he plead guilty for)? Just because one is worse than the other doesn’t mean either is acceptable.

    If you can’t agree that both are totally unacceptable, then you’re proving my point about voters.

  9. Mike R. says:

    It doesn’t matter if she changed her mind or not, as she was a minor when the “allegations” took place.

  10. Anonymous says:

    First it’s amazing how fast everyone threw Eric Bodenweiser under the bus on 25+ year old allegations, yet continue to make excuses for Vance Phillips. The issue has nothing to do with the voters, acts of moral turpitude are grounds for dismissal period.

  11. anon says:

    Why is it that we continue to have these conversations about prominent social conservatives: Atkins, Bodenweiser, and now Phillips? People who hold themselves up as morally superior and talk about Biblical values and then end up in the news for stuff like this involving sex or violence or both. It shouldn’t be surprising, really. Social conservatism is about controlling people’s lives and is in direct contrast to the principle of freedom.

  12. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Mike R — although we haven’t seen the lawsuit, the news broke apparently after 6 PM on a Friday, and we have only a short blurb from Randall Chase who has gotten other things wrong in the past,

    the news report is that the girl was NOT a minor at the time.

  13. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Anonymous — if the Attorney General and Delaware State Police could not determine what happened,

    how do you expect the Sussex Republican Party to know what actually happened?

    This is important!

    We keep having these kinds of discussions.

    If a thorough investigation by law enforcement – with the power of wiretaps, unannounced searches of emails and text messages — could not find enough evidence to take any action…

    … WHAT is a Republican Party supposed to do about it?????

  14. Anon. says:

    Throw his disgusting ass out of office. Hes always been a scumbag.

  15. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Now, in general, this is horribly sad and disturbing.

    Unless the young woman is completely fabricating everything, which is possible but not likely, then consensual or non-consensual Vance Phillips committed adultery, cheated on his wife, and abused his position of trust within the campaign.

    Even if she loved every minute of it– just for the sake of argument, not saying she did or didn’t — the potential to cause disruption and scandal damaging to the campaign someone is working on makes this an outrageous lapse in judgment and behavior.

    I have worked in a couple of campaigns where the candidate was dating the campaign manager, and it was disastrous.

  16. Jonathon Moseley says:

    But nevertheless, I do have problems with this story… problems with believing it.

    SO….

    The Attorney General and DSP thoroughly investigated this matter, believing that she might have been under-age at the time.

    The prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

    BUT they decided NOT to prosecute someone on charges of raping an 18 year old girl? What ????

    REMEMBER: When a prosecutor takes a case before a grand jury, (a) these are people who couldn’t figure out a way to get out of jury duty as my friend Norm jokes, and (b) ONLY the prosecutor presents the prosecution’s case.

    What I could never get Matt Moran or Rich Abbott to comprehend is that

    — You may never know that a grand jury is indicting you until the cops show up at your door at 5 AM and drag you out of bed in your grungie clothes and hair askew and then march you across the sidewalk with news media — conveniently tipped off ahead of time — videotaping your perp walk.
    — You have no right to respond to anything presented to the grand jury
    — Your lawyer and you are not in the grand jury proceeding.
    — You don’t get to attend.
    — Your lawyer does not get to attend.
    —- Your lawyer does not get to speak.
    — NO evidence in your favor is presented.
    — NO arguments explaining how the evidence might have a different meaning is presented.
    — There is no downside to a prosecutor indicting someone. Who knows? You might get a guilty plea to something more minor. If you lose, so what? You get your name in the paper. You get paid a government salary no matter what you do.
    — Most cases are boring and routine. So prosecutors have an incentive to take an interesting case, or one that will at least be in the news.
    — The only extra “bonus” a prosecutor can get is publicity. He gets his government salary no matter what. But if he can get his name in the paper and his face on TV, that is an extra bonus on top of his salary.
    — THE ONLY THING that can make a prosecutor hesitate IS IF HE WOULD LOOK FOOLISH.

    THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO AVOID BEING INDICTED EXCEPT TO — *PUBLICLY* — DEMONSTRATE HOW THE CHARGES ARE PREPOSTEROUS.

    The only protection a person can have is if the prosecutor would look foolish by proceeding with charges that have already been proven in widespread publicity to be ridiculous.

    This is why a prosecutor can indict ANYONE for ANYTHING at any time.

  17. Jonathon Moseley says:

    THEREFORE…

    The AG chose not to indict Vance Phillips..

    Yet a civil lawsuit says that Vance Phillips RAPED the woman repeatedly?

    HUH?????? WTF???

    You have a woman prepared — apparently — to testify under oath that she was raped repeatedly.

    And the prosecutor won’t pursue that ???????? What????

    Something is very, very wrong here with this story.

    I also don’t understand how what is rumored in brief descriptions could have taken place “repeatedly.” Yes, I know that situations can be complex, people are complex, people do strange things, etc. But it just stretches my mind around the block to figure out how that could have taken place “repeatedly” if it were truly what is described.

  18. Jonathon Moseley says:

    anon May 11, 2013 writes: “Social conservatism is about controlling people’s lives and is in direct contrast to the principle of freedom.”

    No type of conservatism is about controlling people’s lives. And any movement that is about controlling people’s lives I would condemn as a social and Christian conservative, and I would expect everyone else I know to do so as well.

  19. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Mosely, this is your first and only warning. Please see the rules about run-on comments and multiple comments. If you wish to defend your fellow traveler then do so in short concise comments, and limit them to no more than three consecutive comments I am the only one around here who gets to be long winded and bloviate.

  20. Laffter says:

    The difference Moseley is THE BURDEN OF PROOF,

    Criminal trials need to have ” beyond a reasonable doubt” or 98% certainty of guilt

    Civil trial are” a preponderance of the evidence” or 51% certain of guilt.

    Very different. If you were an attorney worth their salt you would

    1. Know that already
    2. Be able to concisely state it so a lay person would understand it

    But, we know you are not worth your salt, thus we have……bilovating as Frank pointed out

    BTW Frank, I thought that was Ayotts favorite big word. :-)

  21. waterpirate says:

    There were rumors a plenty the first time around. Perhaps now, that come Monday we will know the identity of the accuser, it may shed some light on the other shenanagins by the accused, including his plane mishap.

  22. anonymous says:

    The DUI incedent and offensive touching I was refering to was Rep. Bennetts first of two DUIs. Atkins’ was so long ago I forgot about that one.

  23. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Laffter May 11, 2013 writes: “The difference Moseley is THE BURDEN OF PROOF, Criminal trials need to have ” beyond a reasonable doubt” or 98% certainty of guilt”

    On a superficial level, that is true. But that’s only if a criminal case goes all the way to trial.

    An indictment requires only “probable cause” which is even lower than the burden of proof needed to win a civil lawsuit.

    The standard approach is to try to pressure a defendant into a plea deal. Most indictments don’t go to trial. So if the prosecutor had the slimmest of case to make, it would be enough to get an indictment before a grand jury. Again, you DO NOT need to carry ANY burden of proof to get an indictment from a grand jury, because only one side presents to the grand jury. The slimmest of evidence that a crime might possibly have occurred is sufficient for an indictment… possibly leading to a guilty plea to 1 count.

    And here, the core evidence that could exist would be the same witness in either case — the Plaintiff. So the civil case and a possible criminal case would both hang on the exact same witness — the girl.

    Nevertheless, the lawsuit will of course be extremely damaging to Vance Phillips and others. It will drag on for at least a year, in al likelihood. I don’t see how Vance Phillips can settle the lawsuit without ending his political career. There will be discovery (emails, texts, etc.) and depositions. The Plaintiff’s attorney might hope to develop enough evidence to have the Attorney General revisit the case and reconsider..

  24. Frank Knotts says:

    Laffter, you have to remember, all words are big to Ayotte! :)

  25. Laffter says:

    frank….true dat! 😉

  26. Mike Protack says:

    As always substance gets trumped by anonymous and uninformed posters.

    I worked with Glen’s primary campaign in 2010 in NCC and saw none of the alleged activities. Irrefutable evidence is the only thing which matters and nothing else so wait and see.

    As for the GOP leadership doing something about this matter, there is no GOP leadership. I took damning information to that same leadership when some GOP officials were fabricating information to my employer and Federal Law Enforcement about me and all I received was a big yawn.

  27. Harry Whittington says:

    I can find articles that say the AG’s office has declined to press charges against Vance Phillips for his altercation with the Sheriff, but I haven’t been able to find an article anywhere that says the AG’s office declined to press charges against Vance Phillips for his actions with this woman.

    Can someone please provide a link to an article that states the AG’s office isn’t charging Vance Phillips for this incident with the woman? I would appreciate it.

  28. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Protack, then you should offer yourself up as witness for the defense. However David Anderson made some public statements on another of my post on DP back when the letter came to light, that there had been an intervention to separate Mr. Phillips and the girl, for reasons of some troubling behaviour. Maybe Mr. Anderson was around the campaign more than you.
    Harry, I am not aware of such an official statement from the A.G., but the attorney for Mr. Phillips said he had received notice from the A.G. that no charges would be filed based on the letter.

  29. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Are you sure David Anderson said that? Intense fighting based on imprecise information is commonplace.

  30. anon. says:

    Yes. Frank is correct, David Anderson said that.

  31. Jonathon Moseley says:

    David Anderson answered me by email about this:

    From: David Anderson
    To: Jonathon Moseley
    Date: Monday, May 13, 2013 07:52 pm
    Subject: Re: Ddi you say this re: Vance Phillips? Fwd: [New comment] The Scandals Continues

    You are correct, I did not say that. It was more like you say that if people saw signs of trouble and confronted them, that is to be praised not condemned.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In true conspiracy theory mode, if someone especially in this context David Anderson says “IF someone did X….” and then that gets turned into “David Anderson confirms that David saw X”

    This is why discussing what MIGHT have happened is so damaging and unhelpful. People will pretend they are only talking about possibilities — but they are actually forming and hardening their actual opinions about supposedly real events.

  32. waterpirate says:

    My problem with this whole encheladda is this. Where was the village?? It was up to the village to point out to the rest who thought a relationship between a adult 50 year old and a child of 18 was O.K. It was the village that failed. That is a very sad barometer of the world we live in.

  33. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Waterpirate, why do you think anyone would know who is having sex? Don’t you suppose they would be doing it behind closed doors?

    You are assuming that they would be having sex out in the open with people watching?

    And that goes to the question of what should the GOP do. If the only 2 people who know what happened were the 2 people in the hotel room (or whatever it was), then what do you want anyone to do about that?

    Suppose you (married or not) have a female friend over to watch a video at home, and nothing happens. Then she claims you raped her. HOW SHOULD we approach that? What would you want people to do if it were you — i.e., The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  34. Laffter says:

    @waterpirate- now don’t get mad….but, I agree with your comment

    Whole heartedly…..

    See, the village didn’t look behind the mask and didn’t think to say the emporor had no clothes.

    The village bought the bill of goods that ” Godly” men ( and women) are beyond reproach
    People who go to church
    Quote the bible
    Talk openly about their “faith” and then try to shove it on others

    Are beyond reproach. Cannot be questioned….etc….

    I would rather be an absolute Godless heathen, liberal , assumed to have NO moral compass, but willing to not be led down the primrose path nor will ALLOW a child to be exploited and taken advantage of simply because that predator claims to have “FAITH”

    Spare me PLEASE,

    In just Sussex there exists three STUNNING, absolutely STUNNING examples of religion gone haywire

    Eric Bodenweiser

    Vance Phillips

    Jeff Christopher

    All three vain, arrogant, and without a moral compass.. I don’t care WHAT don Ayotte, Bill Christy , wolfie etc and their ilk say or how they support them.
    No matter how guilty they may be- their supports will say it was a liberal conspiracy, in fact Bill Colley is already there!

    The issue is……organized religion rots your brain and allows predators to exist. look at the Catholic Church as a prime example – oh no, ONE MUST NEVER QUESTION THOSE HOLY MEN

    Come on people, wake up…….God created us, I think we can talk to him directly with dealing thru wolves in sheep clothing..

    If I want religion, I will go to church, if I want a building permit, I will go to town hall.
    We need to keep these functions SEPERATED and as soon as someone in politics starts with the religious rhetoric……color me GONE…

    the FIRST SIGN OF A PROBLEM…..IS WHEN THEY BRING OUT THE BINLE, QUR’AN etc….

  35. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Well, Laffter, as I have explained to you before, you shouldn’t trust someone because they are “godly.”

    And this is why (one reason why) it is important to have an accurate understanding of Christianity.

    A Christian — even one who prays in public, quotes the Bible, etc — is NOT in ANY way a better person. He or she is someone who realizes that they are hopelessly depraved and have no hope other than being forgiven, guided, and changed by God.

    Rather fear an atheist who thinks he is good in and of himself. Someone who thinks they are good is a real danger.

    But a Christian who reads the Bible knows that he is sinful —

    ROMANS 3:

    9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

    “There is none righteous, not even one;
    11 There is none who understands,
    There is none who seeks for God;
    12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
    There is none who does good,
    There is not even one.”

    You are much safer with an alcoholic who KNOWS they have a problem than with an alcoholic who DOESN’T admit they have a problem.

  36. waterpirate says:

    LOLOLOLOLO!!!!!
    The emporors new clothes, truer words were never spoken. If it walks and quacks like a duck?? it prolly is a duck.

    J.M.
    your ablility to bloviate about things not rellavant to you are legandary on the other site. I am saddened to see you here. Your analogy falls far short of a responsable village. It has been reported that this was a long term ongoing mentorship of a 16 year old girl by a 50 year old man. That alone would have raised some alarms on my radar, and on the radars of most of the rest of the village. We failed, plain and simple.

  37. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Again, you make reckless assumptions, which is the cause of your political beliefs.

    You are imagining in your own mind that someone KNEW about a sexual relationship — which we don’t know for sure even now.

    So you are simply imagining things, rather than dealing with facts.

    How would your “village” respond to something that nobody knew about?

    HOW does that work exactly?

    Waterpirate, why didn’t Obama put a stop to the IRS targeting people based on their political beliefs? Obama says I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT.

    So how is your “village” supposed to act upon something that nobody knows about?

    And how likely is that? Do people normally have sex outdoors with everyone watching? Not that I’ve heard of. Most people don’t let other people know whom they are having sex with.

    So why do you imagine the contrary? You have a vision in your mind of vance Phillips having sex in the lobby of a hotel with the leadership of the Sussex GOP standing around cheering him on.

    The fault, dear Waterpirate, is in your imagination, not with the facts.

    Once again, “bloviate” = respond to your accusations and point out where they are mistaken.

    HOW DARE someone point out where your own comments might not be right?

  38. Frank Knotts says:

    Laffter and WP, I agree with both of you.
    Mr. Mosely, yes he said it and here is the quote directly from my previous post at Delaware Politics,
    “I do so assuming it is true (which I do not know is a fact, but believe at least the making out part is likely true). The people who suspected something was wrong and intervened should be praised not condemned. It is the politicization of this that disgusts me.”
    Notice Mr. Anderson says he believes that the “making out” part is true and in the comment actually defends it as not being illegal.
    Here is a link to the entire post and all the comments, but hurry over there folks before the freedom loving Ayotte deletes it all,
    http://www.delawarepolitics.net/anonymous-letter/comment-page-3/#comments

    so you see Mr. Mosely, people did know something was wrong, yet they have the ability to justify it as not being illegal, even though they know it is wrong. Why? Becuase they believe in redemption. Because the person is their friend, because the person says all the right things and contributes to all the right charities and campaigns.
    Until people learn to see with their eyes and their hearts and not their personal agendas, we will continue to see this type of scandals.
    If this did happen as Mr. Anderson says, then the people involved showed more compassion for the reputation of Mr. Phillips then they did for the alledged victim. And we wonder why people of faith are accused of being hypocrits?

  39. Dave says:

    @wp

    That’s very true. And one wonders why it didn’t raise some flags.

    I suspect that it was because Phillips was a God fearing, Christian Republican and the woman and her family were also. Giving those references to someone’s character, I imagine there was never a thought that any thing would happen.

    Of course that belies the rumor that what was going on was common knowledge in certain circles.

    What probably began as a mutual infatuation progressed to much more simply because of nature. Older powerful guy, pillar of the community and God fearing is attracted to a younger pretty woman, who “idolized” the man. It’s an old story which has often been repeated throughout history. Much more biological than logical.

    Now the woman (and her family), embarrassed, with her good name tarnished, seeks societal redemption by portraying the guy as sort of a Svengali. Each party will attempt to minimize their role and responsibility for the affair.

    It’s the sort of story we enjoy, but really it’s just a remake of a rather common and old story.

    What might be interesting is to understand what role their faith played in the affair. If one or the other had not been overtly Christian, would a flag had gone up sooner? Did their Christianity overshadow the signs that should have been seen? I suspect that the answer is, at least partially, yes.

    Often in cases like this, there are negotiations leading to settlement with financial compensation, but in this case the woman apparently wants to go to trial which indicates she is looking for cleansing of her reputation.

    In the end, this is another loop in the long slow death spiral of the far right Chistian conservative in Sussex County. But what can you expect when you have people like Sam Wilson from the SC Council countering information on sea level rise by relying on the bible (http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/state-reaches-out-on-sea-level-rise-county-not-ready-to-act/1001303).

    One word comes to mind for this segment of the county: primitive.

  40. Jon Moseley says:

    No, as David Anderson confirmed to me by email, he knows NOTHING about this topic, and was only arguing if it MIGHT be true — would it matter?

    People are often put in the position of saying: If this happened, I would have to condemn it. But I don’t know if it happened or not.

    And this is important: Why do Republicans and conservatives have disputes? Sometimes it is carelessness with language — language can be very imperfect and problematic, far more than we acknowledge — and “the telephone game” and loose thinking.

    Often the topic is: We don’t know, but is it important enough to find out?

    And the response is: Yes, if it were true, it would matter, so yes it is important, even though we still don’t know if it is true or not.

    And — very often, over many decades, everywhere — when someone says: “Yes, it would matter if it were true, although I personally have no idea if it is true or not”

    …. then gets transformed into supposed “confirmation.”

    I learned in kindergarten that if you sit kids (or adults) in a circle and whisper a sentence in one person’s ear, by the time it gets whispered from one to the next, it will end up as a completely different, garbled sentence that has little to do with the original sentence.

    Did no one else learn that?

    You badger people into a choice between agreeing with the bad behavior on the one hand or rejecting the behavior on the other hand, and then take the response as confirmation that it actually happened.

    We still don’t know that anything happened.

  41. Jonathon Moseley says:

    And remember, you are selling a new and better Republican Party in Delaware, above the petty disputes. Okay….

    So it goes like this (currently): I accuse WaterPirate (whose real name I don’t know — so that’s why I am using a meaningless example)…

    …. of being one of the lizard people from another galaxy, wearing a human disguise, here to enslave the planet.

    I then demand to know: “DONT YOU CARE???? if lizard people are here to enslave the planet?”

    If I finally badger you into admitting that you are NOT in favor of the planet being enslaved by lizard people, suppose I then turn around and claim that Frank Knotts has CONFIRMED that WaterPirate is in fact a lizard people invader from another galaxy.

    No. All you said was it would bother you if the planet were in fact invaded by people from another galaxy. You wouldn’t really like that or be in favor that.

  42. meatball says:

    ” It has been reported that this was a long term ongoing mentorship of a 16 year old girl by a 50 year old man. That alone would have raised some alarms on my radar, and on the radars of most of the rest of the village. We failed, plain and simple.”

    Not being a member of the circles that supposedly knew of the more intamate nature of the relationship, I wouldn’t think anything of it. 50 year olds mentor 16 year olds and younger all the time as coaches, instructors, teachers, and preachers. This girl just happened to substitute politics for softball or piano lessons and Mr. Phillips is an expert politician. Hindsight aside, why wouldn’t you trust him any less than others who mentor children?

  43. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay Mosely, don’t start your bullshit here. Read the quote, Aderson said he believed that the “making out” part was true. Learn to read and read to learn. If you can’t accept fact as stated by Mr. Anderson then go back to that dark little idiot corner at Delaware Politics where they value your so called opinion. I don’t plan on putting up with your blind defense against a written quote that I have provided you with.

  44. Jonathon Moseley says:

    “believed”

    That does not mean that David Anderson has any actual knowledge.

    David Anderson did not say that he actually knew if it is true. By email, he confirms that he did not claim to know anything about whether any of this is true.

    And why does this matter?

    Because without precision in language and logic, many, many mistakes result.

  45. waterpirate says:

    Trust a politician?? shurely you jest?

    Low hanging jokes aside this entirely diferent. The examples you gave are in the public employee, and or are smart enough, and educated in how to behave, and conduct yourself in regard to impressionable minors. The number one rule= alone time is to be strictly avoided for the reasons Dave cited. quite simply biology.

    One of the first lessons learned in my sand lot was to allways play with kids your own age. Duh. I also find an infatuation with politics at the age of 16 rather than normal stuff, a red flag in itself.

    Frank nailed it. whether it is legal or not, is not the measure of right and wrong in the village , common sense and your values are.

  46. Frank Knotts says:

    Mosely, you are playing the lawyer game, and if it goes to court your points about language may prove to be true, but I have also heard that a trial has nothing to do with the truth, only what you can prove. That may be enough to ease your conscience, but it does not mean it didn’t happen.
    I would direct you back to Mr. Anderson’s quote once more. First he says he believes the making out part is true, I would ask what he is basing that on, did he see anything that leads him to believe that the older man was making out with the young girl?
    Also he states, “The people who suspected something was wrong and intervened should be praised not condemned.” He made this as a statement, not with any qualifiers, he spoke as if he had knowledge of an intervention taking place. So why was there an intervention? What was being broken up? Who was present at this intervention. Now call them as witnesses and ask what they saw that caused them to intervene.
    Like any lawyer you are only interested in getting your client off, you do not care about the truth.
    As for Mr. Anderson’s email? Well I would ask whether he was telling the truth then or now, and how do we know if he was telling the truth then and lying now, or lying then and telling the truth now.
    Also I know David to be an honest man who holds his faith very close, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say when sworn in on a Bible.

  47. Laffter says:

    I would like to draw a parallel here

    What other nation has a political party that is very conservative, and based on a holy book.
    Where older “holy” men are involved in the politics of the country and often take much younger women as partners or wives?
    And where the general populace is mostly afraid of these men that weird such power and the women are afraid of losing their “good” reputations?

    Hmmmmmmm, sounds like:

    Afghanistan under the Taliban

    Or Yemen
    Or Somalia
    Or Iran

    Is the picture getting clearere?

    Oh, and they don’t Like free speech or gays either……

    That is the world they are creating and they can deny it all they want but with a hat tip to Waterpirate

    Ducks……walks, talk quacks like a duck….must be a duck

    On a side note- now that Bill Christy is Lacy Lafferty’s campaign treasurer he has been awful quiet…..
    Not posting much under his real name and showing up at trooper parties…….
    Rubbing elbows with retire DSP types, who dispose him actually
    Kinda funny what is said when his back is turned…..

  48. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank, you are the one playing games.

    David Anderson explicitly says he saw nothing and didn’t know of anything going on between Vance Phillips and the girl.

    You can try to twist his words — like a lawyer — all you like.

    But in respond to the post you are discussing, David Anderson months ago clarified that he does not know anything himself. He was responding to discussions about people who CLAIM — in the anonymous letter to know something.

    So, if it goes to court, and someone asks David Anderson:

    Question: “Do you have any knowledge of any romantic or sexual relationship between Vance Phillips and XYZ?”

    Answer: “No. I have no knowledge on that subject of any romantic or sexual relationship between Vance Phillips and XYZ, other than what I read in the newspaper. All I know first-hand is that they worked on the campaign together. I did see them doing campaign work together.”

    It is as simple as that, and there is no twisting that one way or the other.

    It’s not a question of opinion. ASK David Anderson… as I did.

  49. Frank Knotts says:

    Laffter good points.
    Mosely, not surprised that Mr. Anderson is saying that now. But I remember the conversation at the time and what was driving it and the tone. As I said before, was he telling the truth then or now, at best he becomes a damaged witness for both sides.

  50. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Not only do I remember the conversation at the time, but it is still posted at Delaware Politics.

    At the time, you and others tried to twist David Anderson’s words — and other people’s words.

    At the time, not just now, David Anderson immediately posted a reply that you were twisting his words and that he never said he had any first-hand knowledge of EITHER (a) any sexual or romantic relationship between Vance Phillips and anyone but his wife, OR (b) anyone else discussing or mentioning such a relationship prior to the news breaking in public about an anonymous letter.

    Why is this important:

    The fact that you are loose and careless with these matters is why you reach the political and policy issue conclusions that you do.

    It is the same sloppiness with the facts that causes you to support the political issues that you do and the candidates that you promote.

  51. Jonathon Moseley says:

    At the time this was discussed previously, David Anderson wrote:

    ” I will make no further statements because I only know allegations not facts.”

    http://www.delawarepolitics.net/anonymous-l1etter/comment-page-3/#comment-77995

    The idea that “the village” knew anything when things were happening is simply a flight of fancy, pure imagination, and creative writing.

    Blaming the DEGOP for not taking action about something they knew nothing about is not reasonable.

  52. Frank Knotts says:

    Mosely, do you have any first hand knowledge of anything? If not, you re-telling of what David Anderson has said to you is merely hear-say.
    And saying that when you were around those involved, that you saw nothing is not proof that nothing happened when you were not around.
    As for saying something and then thinking better about it and taking it back is not the best defense either.

  53. waterpirate says:

    To speak or comment about the village, it is helpfull to live in the village in question.

  54. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Waterpirate, nobody lives in the village you are imagining. That’s the issue. You want some magical people with crystal balls to know everything that goes on behind closed doors.

    Perhaps in your village all the hotel rooms should be bugged with hidden cameras so that the village will always know who is doing who?

Got something to say? Go for it!