Aug 11, 2009

Whitewash justifies Kahn’s assault


This past week we saw how Republicans use intimidation and bullying to advance their agendas, and now buying appears to be official policy in the Michigan Senate.

As was expected, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, cleared Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw, of any wrongdoing when he verbally assaulted and charged Sen. Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit, in a Capitol elevator on June 17 following a hearing on the Department of Community Health (DCH) budget.

The Secretary of the Senate, appointed by and an employee of Bishop's, conducted an “investigation,” and as expected it cleared Kahn. Fellow Republican Sen. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, had to restrain Kahn and stepped between the two in the elevator, but his official story is now that, “Never in my wildest imagination did I think Sen. Kahn was going to attack anybody.”

That’s not what he thought at the time. The whitewash justifies Kahn charging at Clark-Coleman with this jewel: “exiting the elevator diagonally toward Ms. Clark-Coleman's side. It concludes that Mr. Kahn "did move toward Sen. Clark-Coleman's side of the elevator. This may be the case because he had to pass in that direction to exit toward the Farnum Building."

Why he couldn’t leave the elevator straight out like most people was unclear. What’s even more disturbing is that the whitewash wasn’t delivered to Democratic leadership or to Clark-Coleman first; instead, it went directly to the press.

As we have seen from the townhall meetings, bullying and intimidation are policy tactics for the Republicans.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming, said the most important thing he wanted was a simple public apology from Kahn, but no such luck. It’s a little funny when you consider what Bishop has punished others for. In fact, he has only sanctioned Democrats, with the exception of his opponent in the Attorney General’s race, and that was because he sided with the Democrats.

Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, was disciplined by Bishop by teaming up with Democrats to discharge a bill on annexation procedures that effects only his district. Bishop, who has a history of pettiness, also disciplined Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, - his possible opponent in the general AG race - and former Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, for also attempting to represent their constituents.

Those that agree with Bishop are cleared, but those that disagree are hammered. This man wants to be the Attorney General of the state?

22 comments:

Not Anonymous said...

Nice spin. Complete lies on your part, but nice spin.

Get that health care yet?

Communications guru said...

If you can find a lie please point it out. Not yet, but for the good of the country and the 50 million uninsured, we will get a health care plan.

Not Anonymous said...

Ok, Here's the lies:

This past week we saw how Republicans use intimidation and bullying to advance their agendas, and now buying appears to be official policy in the Michigan Senate.

As was expected, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, cleared Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw, of any wrongdoing when he verbally assaulted and charged Sen. Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit, in a Capitol elevator on June 17 following a hearing on the Department of Community Health (DCH) budget.

The Secretary of the Senate, appointed by and an employee of Bishop's, conducted an “investigation,” and as expected it cleared Kahn. Fellow Republican Sen. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, had to restrain Kahn and stepped between the two in the elevator, but his official story is now that, “Never in my wildest imagination did I think Sen. Kahn was going to attack anybody.”

That’s not what he thought at the time. The whitewash justifies Kahn charging at Clark-Coleman with this jewel: “exiting the elevator diagonally toward Ms. Clark-Coleman's side. It concludes that Mr. Kahn "did move toward Sen. Clark-Coleman's side of the elevator. This may be the case because he had to pass in that direction to exit toward the Farnum Building."

Why he couldn’t leave the elevator straight out like most people was unclear. What’s even more disturbing is that the whitewash wasn’t delivered to Democratic leadership or to Clark-Coleman first; instead, it went directly to the press.

As we have seen from the townhall meetings, bullying and intimidation are policy tactics for the Republicans.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming, said the most important thing he wanted was a simple public apology from Kahn, but no such luck. It’s a little funny when you consider what Bishop has punished others for. In fact, he has only sanctioned Democrats, with the exception of his opponent in the Attorney General’s race, and that was because he sided with the Democrats.

Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, was disciplined by Bishop by teaming up with Democrats to discharge a bill on annexation procedures that effects only his district. Bishop, who has a history of pettiness, also disciplined Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, - his possible opponent in the general AG race - and former Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, for also attempting to represent their constituents.

Those that agree with Bishop are cleared, but those that disagree are hammered. This man wants to be the Attorney General of the state?
Labels: Irma-Clark-Coleman, Mike Bishop, Roger Kahn, Senate Republicans

Communications guru said...

Oh, how clever, but I’m still waiting for you to point out a lie. Actually, I’m still waiting for you to prove your continuous baseless accusations.

kevins said...

Funny how you failed to mention another senator in the elevator who was a witness and said he saw no evidence of assault or intimidation. That would be state Sen. James Barcia, a Democrat.

In fact the only person who claims an assault is Clark-Coleman. Her story isn't backed up by any of the other senators in the elevator, including Barcia. So we can believe that everyone in the elevator but Clark-Coleman lied; or we can believe that perhaps Clark-Coleman embellished the story a bit.

Did you just forget Barcia was there? Or was that inconvenient for your paranoid story?

kevins said...

Let's see. You weren't there, but you know what happened and you are also inside of Pappageorge's head and know what he thinks better than he does. Typical of your thinking.

Pappageorge said that "never in his wildest dreams" did he think there was going to be an attack. That's what he said. He was there. But you, as always, are all seeing, all knowing.

What about Barcia? He was there. And he confirmed Pappageorge's account.

The Dems approved one of the 2 people assigned to investigate the incident.


No one on the elevator, except her, thought there was an asssault. And you have to wonder if she really believes that since she declined to press criminal charges. Political theater at its worst.

Another lie from you, by the way. You stated without qualification that he committed physical violence. Wrong again.

Communications guru said...

No, I didn’t fail to mention Barcia was there because it wasn’t relevant. He was on a mobile phone during the incident not paying attention, and he, according to Gongwer, “described Mr. Kahn's words as a "sharp rebuke" and a "very intense discussion and being of a personal nature." Then, we have Kahn admitting and witnesses backing up the fact that he did “move toward Sen. Clark-Coleman's side of the elevator.”

The story is 100 percent correct, brett.

Communications guru said...

Let’s see. You weren't there, but you know what happened and you are also inside of Clark-Coleman’s head and know what she thinks better than she does. Typical of your thinking.

What Pappageorge said and what Pappageorge did are two different things, and his actions speak much louder than his words after the incident. Yes, Barcia was there, but he never “confirmed Pappageorge's account.”

The Democrats approved no one to “investigate the incident.” The assistant clerk, appointed by the Democrats and approved by Bishop, took part, but note the word “Assistant.”

Who said she wasn’t going to press charges? She mistakenly believed she would get a simple apology, but she should have known better.

I’m still waiting for you to prove I ever lied, and we will have a long wait, brett. He certainly did assault her, but he did not batter her. Getting stuck in an elevator with a man with an anger management problem used to getting his way and accustomed to not being questioned is not “political theater” it’s a nightmare.

kevins said...

"Who said she wasn't going to press charges" Why, that would be you, you moron. Your post of June 23 said, "Clark-Coleman declined to press police charges." Of course, I probably shouldn't rely on information provided by you.

Let's see. This big bad senator made a physical assault on another person in an elevator, yet it wasn't noticed by another senator on a cell phone?

Barcia was interviewed and failed to back up Clark-Coleman's version. In fact, he even joked about it afterward, saying from now on he was going to take the stairs.

There were four people in the the elevator; the other 3 failed to substantiate Clark-Coleman's claim.

From news reports: "But other witnesses -- there were 2 other senators and an aide in the elevators -- said that while BOTH Kahn and Clark-Coleman were extremely agitated, the encounter did not appear to verge on violence."

There you go. And,yes, this is political theater, given that her complaint to the senate started with a brief discription of the elevator incident and then veered into her complaints about that day's senate vote. I have no problem with her political view, but it had no place in the complaint.

Then...big crocodile tears because the senate denied her a stage to continue talking about it. She told AP that the GOP denied her constitutional right to speak...but the day before she declined to speak to reporters about the specifics of the incident. That's her right, but there was no constitutional denial...she had a right to talk about it, but she didn't want to. What she wanted was a stage where she could given her one-sided version without pesky questions about the fact. Now we know why. Her version doesn't hold up to the versions from the other 3 in the elevator. Nor to the filmed evidence from senate surveillance cameras.

They got into a heated argument on the elevator. Both got over-heated. That's it. End of story. Unless, of course, both Pappageorge and Barcia are liars.

Communications guru said...

From Tuesday’s Gongwer, “Ms. Clark-Coleman said Monday she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.”

I never said he was “big and bad,” a bully, yes, especially when you consider he tried to bully a woman in her 70s. This is the legal definition of an assault, “the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger.” The whitewash report had to admit that Kahn advanced toward Clark-Coleman. Kahn is guilty.

An assault is not political theater. “Big crocodile tears?” It is true that Bishop tried to deny her a chance to speak, her Constitutional right to speak. “Filmed evidence from senate surveillance cameras?” News to me.

Kahn tried to bully a woman in her 70s, but a fellow Republican thought enough of the threat to step between them to protect her and his colleague’s reputation. But Kahn still advanced toward her. No one is calling Barcia a liar, and I’m saying Pappageorge’s actions speak louder than his words weeks after the incident. Not the end of the story.

kevins said...

Has she pressed charges? You specifically said in your earlier post that she was not. You conveniently skip that because it shows again how you contradict yourself. Now she says she will press the matter further. That's not filing a police report. That could be releasing a press release. If 3 of 4 people don't support her story; the story won't be any different if she presses charges...and if she waits this long, why? Other than politics, that is.

He didn't try to bully a woman in her 70s. They had an argument. Three of the four people in the elevator say that; only she says diffently.

She refused to offer specifics when interviewed by reporters.

Pappageorge got in between 2 people who were arguing. She was arguing as well. He was a gracious gentleman. But his report to senate investigators was that there was no physical attack or threat. His aide said the same thing. So did Barcia. Why would all 3 say that if it was false. Yes, the aide could be supporting the boss. But what about Barcia? If I'm an aide, I'm not going to lie if another senator is out there telling the truth.

Barcia said there was no physical attack. He, like the others, said BOTH got agitated. Both were out of line. Only she has tried to escalate the matter.

Again, 3 of 4 have one story. She has another, which she won't talk about if reporters are going to ask questions. I think I believe the 3.


Oh, so you don't know about the surveillance cameras? Add that to the long list of things you don't know.

Communications guru said...

I printed the direct quote from the news story. Are you telling me you’re not smart enough to interpret it? Obviously.

Sen. Clark-Coleman thought Bishop would do the right thing and actually do an investigation. I really don’t know why she would believe that with Bishop’s history. All she wanted was an apology. She didn’t get it. From Tuesday’s Gongwer, “Ms. Clark-Coleman said Monday she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.”

I didn’t contradict myself.

Kahn tried to bully a woman in her 70s. He charged her in the elevator. That is not in dispute, and all the witnesses verify that, except Barcia who was on the phone. Kahn assaulted her.

“She refused to offer specifics when interviewed by reporters?” I don’t know where you got that information, but you are wrong again.

Pappageorge escorted her out of the elevator and out of danger. Like I said, his actions speak louder than the words he spoke days later. Kahn assaulted her, and that is verified by everyone in the elevator but Kahn.

I don’t believe there were surveillance cameras, and if there were they didn’t show the elevators.

kevins said...

Question asked and unanswered, as usual.

Once again, Has she pressed charges? Answer: No.

Again, this was a terrible, heinous act in the confined space of an elevator but Barcia didn't recognize it because he was on the phone. You are a fool.

You lie. No one on the elevator except Coleman-Clark said there was an assault. No one.

A non-partisan senate team, with one member approved by Reps and one by Dems, found nothing to verify Coleman-Clark's assertion. It's pretty elistist of you to dismiss one person's involvement because she is merely an "assistant." I'm not sure what you've done with your life to justify that snobbish attitude.

She sought a sanction, not an apology.

You state she was not going to press charges, then you said she was...but as "proof" you point to a report where you said she was going to pursue the matter further. She did NOT say she was pressing charges.

You will never believe Pappageorge or his aide. But what about Barcia? If there was this obvious assault, why isn't he confirming it? Because he was on the phone? That's insane, even for you. If you are saying this was such a minor issue that a guy on the phone in an elevator didn't even notice it...well, I guess that's what you are saying.

And you are right. It was an argument. The two senators and the aide all said there was no assault. It was just a shouting match. They both got out of hand. And she invented the assault claim that no one else confirms. That's the truth.

Actually, of the 5 people in the elevator, 4 tell one story and one tells another. If you take away the two directly involved, you have three disinterested witnesses and not one backs Clark-Coleman's story, including a long-term Democrat.

You are so wrong you can't even muster a good lie. You contradict yourself.

I'm sure you will keep us posted on the imaginary criminal charges. Do you also have imaginary friends?

victor said...

Hello People, I was on a holiday for a month just passing by read this interesting post its great to see that every thing here is getting more lively...thanks a lot for these keep them coming....

___________________
victor
Best place for your complete Internet marketing

Communications guru said...

Stop playing dumb: or are you playing?

Once again, Has she pressed charges? Answer, and I quote: “Ms. Clark-Coleman said Monday she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.”

Again, this was an assault, and you need to look up the definition of assault, or reread the one I provided. And, thanks for the compliment, coming from someone like you it means a lot.

No, you lie: everyone in the elevator acknowledged he advanced toward her, but the whitewash report justifies it, somehow.

It wasn’t a “non-partisan senate team.” The assistant has only been on the job a month or so after the position being vacant for at least a year because Mike Bishop refused numerous times to confirm the people the Democrats appointed because he was pissed at Mark Schauer for having the staff photographer shoot the voting board during the tax increase in 2007. This was a GOP whitewash.

She sought an apology.

Again, stop playing dumb. She said, “she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.” She didn’t say she was going to press charges, and she didn’t say she wasn’t.

What about Barcia? Once again slowly for you, everyone in the elevator acknowledged he advanced on her. That is assault under the law. Everyone backs Clark-Coleman's story, including a long-term Democrat and Republican.

Kahn’s behavior is not how Senators are supposed to act, but when you consider Bishop is encouraging people to act like the unruly mobs like they have been at townhall meetings, it’s not surprising that we get this whitewash.

I have never lied, nor did I contradict myself.

kevins said...

He "advanced" on her, and you say that's a crime.

So, in your world, advancing is a a crime. Holding up protest signs is a crime. Voicing your opinion in a town hall meeting is a crime.

She has not said she is going to press charges, just the opposite. Your endless spin doesn't make it so.

I don't know why you continue to denigrate the competence of that assistant. Do you assume all people approved by Democrats are incompetent, or just her?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the criminal charges turn out. How is it out there in Fantasyland?

Communications guru said...

No, in my world assault is a crime, violating the rules everyone else must abide by is a violation and disrupting meetings and shouting down people you don't agree with or people who actually want to her the answer and getting in the face of an elected official is wrong.

You cannot be that dumb. For the fifth time or so, “Ms. Clark-Coleman said Monday she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.”

It has nothing to do with incompetence, and everything to do with what party controls the Senate.

kevins said...

For the fifth time or more, you keep saying that she is going to press charges while then stating that she hasn't decided what her plans are. You are the one who is screwed up.

There was no assault. There was no crime. That's what everyone but Clark-Coleman said. You are now reduced to arguing the path a person should take when leaving an elevator. How ludicrous you are.

Her version has not been backed up by anyone, especially not by Barcia, a fellow Democrat who stays wisely silent about details but who told senate investigating team that there was no assault and no threat. Of course he did, because that's the truth and that's what everyone else said.

The idea that Pappageorge somehow needed to protect her is a figment of her and your imaginations. Pappageorge debunked that allegation in a Saginaw News story a few days after the incident. In that story, he rejected the notion that he had to stand between them to protect Clark-Coleman. He said he stood slightly behind them. Further, he said, "Nobody was threatened from what I could see, so I was kind of surprised with the complaint. I didn't feel that anybody was charging anybody else." Now earlier you said Pappageorge had changed his story from his original version. This IS his original version. He said there was no charging and no threat.

Your argument that all she wanted was an apology is BS. She got an apology from Bishop; both say that happened. She said that wasn't enough. She said, "Just apologizing to me was not sufficient." She wanted him sanctioned, censured and stripped of a committee chair assignment.

They got into an argument. Both got agitated. She as well as he. She played the race card on him and accused him of being discriminatory with his vote to cut services. He admittedly got angry about that because he thought he was being called a racist and he didn't like that. He has pointed out that her district gets better funding than does the rest of the state. There are arguments pro and con, but it doesn't make him a racist for sticking up for his district.

She is overplaying this and doesn't know how to end this soap opera. That's evidenced by the fact that she was going to press charges and then she wasn't and now...well, now she plans to do something but won't say what. Meanwhile, she declines to talk to reporters about the specifics of the incident...understandable because then she would have to stick to facts and be held accountable for her actions.

You'll let me know, won't you, when those criminal charges are pressed? You just insist on saying stupid, nonsensical things over and over. The statement you keep repeating does nothing to support your erroneous claims.

She won't press charges because she will look like a fool. She will waste police time getting the same answers that Pappageorge, Barcia and the aide have already provided. And, if that happens, you will lie about that as well.

Or we could take your version: There has never before been an argument between state lawmakers and if there is one, it's a criminal offense. Amazing.

Maybe one of your beloved bureaucratic government offices can be created to draw colored lines on elevators telling people the proper route to take to "advance" so they aren't accused of a criminal offense.

She's overplaying this and stooges like you are lapping it up.

kevins said...

By the way, both Pappageorge and Barcia told the bi-partisan senate investigation team that neither senator ... Clark-Coleman nor Kahn ... moved toward each other.

Both said there was no assault.

That's a fact. You can call Barcia a liar if you want. But please explain how 4 people and a security camera conspired to tell a false story, and somehow Clark-Coleman (who refuses to press criminal charges) is the only one to be telling the truth. She is playing this for political points, which is why she wisely is not pursuing this with the police.

Communications guru said...

I never said she is going to press charges. She said she has not decided what her next move will be. No. I’m not the “one who is screwed up.”

Sorry, brett, there was an assault. Like I said, the report “concludes that Mr. Kahn "did move toward Sen. Clark-Coleman's side of the elevator.” The report concluded there was an assault, but Bishop justifies it.

“The idea that Pappageorge somehow needed to protect her” is a fact. He escorted her out of the elevator. This claim that he stepped behind her is a new story. What does an apology from Bishop mean? He didn’t assault her, Kahn did. And if there is nothing to the charge, why did he apologize?

“He has pointed out that her district gets better funding than does the rest of the state?” That’s simply not true. She never said she was going to press charges, and she never declined to “talk to reporters about the specifics of the incident.”

There is a difference between an argument and an assault and bullying. I know this; he never would have tried that crap with other Detroit Senators like Tupac Hunter or Hansen Clarke. Bullies only confront people weaker, like a 72 year-old-woman.

kevins said...

The report concluded that there wasn't an assault. You are lying about that.

You think it should be illegal to move to the other side of an elevator? You really do favor a totalitarian state, don't you?

I'm asking again: If it was an assault, why does Barcia say it wasn't? And why won't she press criminal charges? And why does the surveillance camera fail to prove your cheap allegation? And why do none of the witnesses support the claim?

You fail to answer these questions with any facts, because you would rather make a false allegation. Facts are not your friends.

Communications guru said...

I know the report “concluded that there wasn't an assault.” That’s’ because it was a whitewash. It admitted there was an assault, but then tried to justify it. You need to find a legal dictionary for yourself and look up assault since you don’t want to believe the one I provided. It’s an assault to charge here like he did. Lucky, he didn’t batter her.

Barcia didn’t say it wasn't. At first, Clark-Coleman mistakenly believed Bishop would handle it and actually do the right thing. He has sanctioned Democrats, and even one Republican, for less. I’ll provide her quote one more time:
From Tuesday’s Gongwer, “Ms. Clark-Coleman said Monday she stands by her allegations and has said she plans to press her complaint further although she has declined to state her plans.” The surveillance cameras are not focused on the elevator, and the witnesses support the claim.

Someone like you who throws out cowardly, anonymous, slimy insinuation is lecturing me about facts? Give me a break. The facts are on my side, again, brett.