Nobody's Business
Yesterday's revelations about the Jack Ryan Sex File has started, beyond a doubt, the most moronic firestorm in my whole political-watching life.
Republican U.S. Senate nominee Jack Ryan's ex-wife, TV actress Jeri Ryan, accused him of taking her to sex clubs in New York and Paris, where he tried to coerce her into having sex with him in front of strangers, according to records released Monday from the couple's California divorce file.
Jack Ryan denied the allegations when they were made in 2000, when the couple was engaged in a bitter child custody battle a year after their divorce.
It's hard to know where even to start with this story, and the "
coverup" that's become the "problem".
A lot of people have started - from the blogosphere's dim little fratboys, from whom I don't expect much, on up to some bloggers from whom I had hoped for better.
This story is a travesty on so many counts.
For starters: Why the hell did Judge Robert A. Schnider unseal the divorce file? Schnider, who was made a full judge by liberal Democrat Gray Davis, cited "the public's right to know" in opening the records from the couple's custody battle.
Bullshit. The public has no "right to know" any of this. Unless there was a crime involved - against either party, or especially to the child - the public can pound sand.
The fact that the Ryans - after their acromonious divorce - were able to join to fight the release of this file, for their son's good, should tell us something about what is right or wrong, and what the public really needs to know about that situation.
It was a divorce. Every divorce lawyer in the world will tell you that when a custody case gets ugly, every bit of dirt will get blown into a sandstorm. It's estimated that half of the claims of domestic abuse (which Jeri Ryan did not claim) brought up during divorce proceedings are at least inflated, at most false.
Which, I'll bet dimes to dollars, is exactly where the word "coerced" came from.
- MR RYAN: "Let's get jiggy in front of these people". MRS. RYAN: "Ewwww, no!" - Request!
- Continuing: MR RYAN: "Aw, c'mon!" - To any of us, "Follow up". To a divorce lawyer writing a brief, "coercion". Don't believe it? Go have a custody fight, and then get back to me.
As to the "cover-up" - baloney. Just as the public has no right to know what he and his wife did, either does the Illinois Republican Party.
They were two consenting, married adults. Was Mr Ryan's request consensual? The ex-Mrs. Ryan did turn him down, right? The act that Mrs. Ryan found so distasteful never happened. What is the problem?
Consenting adults. Legal activities. Bitter divorce. Moron judge.
Cackling commentators.
Ryan was right. His detractors are wrong. Grow up, people.
Posted by Mitch at
June 23, 2004 10:51 AM
I suppose you didn't like my post on the subject, either ...
I agree with you that the judge should have kept the record sealed, especially since both parties wanted it that way, and children were involved. (Time to check the water in California again.) I agree with you that the material released doesn't have much to do with Ryan's ability to serve in the Senate, unless he's taken family-values positions against sex clubs, which may be the case or not.
Unfortunately, the man was asked by his supporters whether they had any risk by the release of the files and he told them not to worry. It's never the initial action, it's always the coverup, and if he hadn't lied to the GOP (obviously he knew about this), they could have been prepared for the media attention when it came. This could easily have come out in other ways, such as through his ex-wife's family or friends, and Ryan's bluff still would have left the GOP completely unprepared for the consequences. Not smart.
It won't make much difference, from the e-mail I got from readers in Illinois. He was already far behind Obama anyway.
Posted by: Captain Ed at June 23, 2004 12:49 PMIndeed, Ed and Mitch, I've been wondering if somehow some folks wanted these released to get a different candidate in to face Obama, who'd lose to about anyone else. Call it the Clinton-Torricelli Gambit, or something.
Posted by: kb at June 23, 2004 01:06 PMInteresting thing that I that I discovered about this judge was that he was appointed to the bench by Gray Davis in (very) late December 2002 right before the recall petition was certified.
Source:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/comm123102.htm
I wonder if anyone has done any investigatory work to see if there are any links between former Governor Gray Davis and Jack Ryan’s Democratic opponent or the Illinois Democratic machine. I seem to recall that there were a lot of prominent Democrats campaigning in California or lending support to oppose the recall and I wonder if there might be an element of pay-back in this.
Posted by: PJZ at June 23, 2004 01:09 PM