Rhee alleged to be involved in cover-up of fiance's sexual misconduct

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rhee is not the primary target of the investigation. The lawyers are not going to allow her to comment on it. Period. If you want to know what she has to say on the matter, you're going to have to wait until it is concluded or until she has made some sort of statement or testimony. It's simply inconceivable that she can speak out of turn and against the advice of the attorneys on this.

So far the only thing she's "guilty" of is following the advice of legal counsel.

There is no investigation of Rhee or Johnson. The "investigation", such as it is, is whether Walpin was wrongly fired as IG. Walpin referred charges to the US Attorney, who cut a deal with Johnson. As a result, all the charges have been resolved, yet the sexual misconduct charges were not addressed at all (this was primarily a misuse of funds case).

Also, it is not clear that either Rhee's or Johnson's actions would rise to the level of criminal behavior. Johnson was probably open to an EEOC case, but none of the alleged victims chose to pursue it and probably have no interest in it now (and it's probably too late in any case).

Therefore, I don't see what legal obligations Rhee would have to remain silent. However, it is certainly in her interest to do so. I see that the Post has not addressed this affair outside of a blog posting. Therefore, Rhee can probably count on her "friends" at the Post to help her stay silent.

It is outrageous that the schools chancellor was aware of repeated charges of sexual misconduct involving an executive of an organization on whose board she sat, yet apparently did nothing to assist the alleged victims in those cases. Indeed, the fact that she is now engaged to the alleged perpetrator is surreal.

NP here, and I still don't understand what you expect her to say. How often do people accused of misconduct, whether in a legal or ethical context, offer up explanations to the press?

I agree that the allegations are extremely worrisome. But for some reason you seem to conclude that she should act differently than anyone else would in this situation. Yes, the Post and every other news organization should push her on this, and if they do enough of that, the pressure will mount to the point where she'll have to answer.

And, by the way, Bill Turque at the Post is no friend of Rhee's. Their contentious history is well known. I think you're confusing the editorial page and the news side.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
NP here, and I still don't understand what you expect her to say. How often do people accused of misconduct, whether in a legal or ethical context, offer up explanations to the press?

I don't know what I expect Rhee to say because I would never have expected her to be in this position in the first place. I really don't care how many other people have offered up explanations to the press. How many of those people are currently serving as the chancellor of the DC Public Schools? She is in an extraordinary position of trust. Do you find it acceptable that at least three cases of inappropriate sexual conduct are being pushed under the rug with her cooperation?

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the allegations are extremely worrisome. But for some reason you seem to conclude that she should act differently than anyone else would in this situation. Yes, the Post and every other news organization should push her on this, and if they do enough of that, the pressure will mount to the point where she'll have to answer.

You just said that nobody in her situation would talk to the press. Now, you say she will talk to the press. Which is it? I for one think citizens of DC have the right, if not the duty, to demand answers. We can't sit back passively and hope that the press does its job.

Anonymous wrote:
And, by the way, Bill Turque at the Post is no friend of Rhee's. Their contentious history is well known. I think you're confusing the editorial page and the news side.

Turque was able to post a blog entry about this controversy. I have not seen anything in the print version of the Post or any part of the Post website other than the blog. The Post editors constantly conspire with Rhee to provide coverage from reporters other than Turque. Moreover, it is exactly the Editorial page that should be demanding answers from Rhee about this. But, as you appear to concede, the Editors are in the bag for her.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP here, and I still don't understand what you expect her to say. How often do people accused of misconduct, whether in a legal or ethical context, offer up explanations to the press?

I don't know what I expect Rhee to say because I would never have expected her to be in this position in the first place. I really don't care how many other people have offered up explanations to the press. How many of those people are currently serving as the chancellor of the DC Public Schools? She is in an extraordinary position of trust. Do you find it acceptable that at least three cases of inappropriate sexual conduct are being pushed under the rug with her cooperation?

So we're on to ad hominem attacks, are we? I'm saying that you are being irrational in your expectations of how she'd respond to an initial press inquiry, and you turn this into a suggestion that I think what she's alleged to have done is OK. Can we have a reasonable debate about this?

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the allegations are extremely worrisome. But for some reason you seem to conclude that she should act differently than anyone else would in this situation. Yes, the Post and every other news organization should push her on this, and if they do enough of that, the pressure will mount to the point where she'll have to answer.

You just said that nobody in her situation would talk to the press. Now, you say she will talk to the press. Which is it? I for one think citizens of DC have the right, if not the duty, to demand answers. We can't sit back passively and hope that the press does its job.

You're right that I was unclear here. I was trying to suggest that generally no one responds to the initial press inquiry but that with enough pressure over time, she'll likely have to talk. We should press for answers, but to suggest that it's outrageous or unusual that she hasn't answered the first questions aimed at her is disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:
And, by the way, Bill Turque at the Post is no friend of Rhee's. Their contentious history is well known. I think you're confusing the editorial page and the news side.

Turque was able to post a blog entry about this controversy. I have not seen anything in the print version of the Post or any part of the Post website other than the blog. The Post editors constantly conspire with Rhee to provide coverage from reporters other than Turque. Moreover, it is exactly the Editorial page that should be demanding answers from Rhee about this. But, as you appear to concede, the Editors are in the bag for her.


OK, this is conspiracy-nut territory. The Post editors are "conspiring" with Rhee? Really? That's what you think? That the Post is cutting deals with juicy targets like Rhee?

What I "concede" is that the [bold]editorial[/bold] page editors are fans of hers; the [bold]news[/bold] editors are looking for the best, splashiest story they can find. I understand that when the news page doesn't report on the thing you're obsessed with, it's convenient to say that the editorial page is influencing the news coverage. More likely, the news team is working on a story, and the blog posting is doing what a blog posting is intended to do--alert readers to a developing story on which there isn't yet enough information to publish a full account.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So we're on to ad hominem attacks, are we? I'm saying that you are being irrational in your expectations of how she'd respond to an initial press inquiry, and you turn this into a suggestion that I think what she's alleged to have done is OK. Can we have a reasonable debate about this?

Oh the irony. You call me irrational and then accuse me of ad hominem attacks? Do you even know the meaning of ad hominem? If I had said that you are irrational, that would be an ad hominem attack. All I did was ask you a question which was legitimate in the context of the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:
You're right that I was unclear here. I was trying to suggest that generally no one responds to the initial press inquiry but that with enough pressure over time, she'll likely have to talk. We should press for answers, but to suggest that it's outrageous or unusual that she hasn't answered the first questions aimed at her is disingenuous.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said it was outrageous that the chancellor was apparently involved in covering up sexual misconduct. I never described her failure to answer reporters queries in such terms. What I've said is that we deserve an explanation.

Anonymous wrote:
OK, this is conspiracy-nut territory. The Post editors are "conspiring" with Rhee? Really? That's what you think? That the Post is cutting deals with juicy targets like Rhee?

Yeah, in addition to being irrational, I'm a conspiracy nut. But, make sure you point out any ad hominem attacks that I commit (especially those that exist solely in your imagination).

Here are examples of how the Post cuts deals with juicy targets:

1) Fenty introduced Rhee to the Post before her nomination was public (even before the Council knew about her). The Post was able to get a scoop, but was only able to contact sources provided by Rhee for quotes. So, the news about Rhee was announced in a Post article that contained only supportive information. In addition, on the same day as the Post news story, the Post Editorial board ran an editorial supportive of Rhee. This was a blatant exchange of a scoop for positive coverage.

2) Rhee didn't like Bill Turque's not totally favorable coverage and stopped agreeing to interviews. Turque is the Post's schools reporter and the paper should have made clear that Rhee had to deal with Turque or no one. Papers don't normally let subjects of the news choose who will report on them. However, in this case, the Post started using the pro-Rhee Jay Mathews to do interviews. This resulted in nonsense such as Turque's two-year review of Rhee in which all Rhee quotes were provided by Mathews, even though it was Turque's article.

[Anonymous]

You know when someone from th left engages in a coverup, the right does the dirty work to expose it. It doesn't mean their facts are wrong. Something really stinks here. In addition to the alleged inappropriate touching, there are serious allegations of misuse of federal funds, serious stuff. And the whole firing of the IG was odd, and folks noted that when it was announced. I find this summary fair:

http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/06/who-is-sacramento-mayor-kevin-johnson.html

[Anonymous]

Wow, just read the link above. What is KJs or Rhee's pull with the Obama administration? I can't imagine why an educator, particularly and educator with young daughters, woudln't be pressing for an investigation rather than trying to sweep it all under the rug for him, then getting engaged to him. Rhee must have some issues. Is she so arrogant that she thinks this won't impact her own reputation? KJ sounds like someone who would fit right in in DC.

[jsteele]

I've just posted a story about this on the DCUM blog:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/rhee-walpin/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, just read the link above. What is KJs or Rhee's pull with the Obama administration? I can't imagine why an educator, particularly and educator with young daughters, woudln't be pressing for an investigation rather than trying to sweep it all under the rug for him, then getting engaged to him. Rhee must have some issues. Is she so arrogant that she thinks this won't impact her own reputation? KJ sounds like someone who would fit right in in DC.

I can't either, unless she knows those accusations to be unfounded.

[Anonymous]

Good job on story. 16:05 she can't know if the accusations are unfounded. Of course we can assume he is telling her they are not true. But she wasn't there.

[Anonymous]

Then it would be inappropriate for her to comment.

[Anonymous]

Actually that is not true at all because she was on the board and there were allegations of misuse of funds and she did damage control and one would think she had access to the books. I absolutely think she should comment. I also cannot help but suspect that this engagement announcement was strategic, he's out there in California, but she's here, and she's Fenty darling, so that might find ways to muffle the rumblings on the Hill. I used to be a reporter and this situation stinks on so many levels, it's uneffingbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Look, I'm NOT a fan of Rhee, but I nonetheless don't agree with the nature of these demands.

If you truly want the answers to the underlying charges, then you should be asking Kevin Johnson, not Michelle Rhee. Otherwise you're just trying to opportunistically slime her for something that isn't necessarily real - much less something of which she should be guilty.

It doesn't make HER look bad, it makes YOU look bad.

(Again: not a Rhee supporter and J Steele can look up my previous posts via my IP address to prove it!)

[Anonymous]

22:02 She did damage control. She's on the board. She is in charge of our children's schools, and her fiance has a string of allegations involving teenage girls. Emphasis on allegations. But still ... If this were her fiance and she had no business connections to St. Hope, yes, I'd say it's personal. But it's not personal. This is not about anyone looking bad, her or you or me. It's about accountability.

[Anonymous]

“I think we deserve to hear an explanation from Rhee about her role in this affair.”

“The facts are exactly what we'd like to know.”

“It is outrageous that the schools chancellor was aware of repeated charges of sexual misconduct involving an executive of an organization on whose board she sat, yet apparently did nothing to assist the alleged victims in those cases. Indeed, the fact that she is now engaged to the alleged perpetrator is surreal.”

So much for waiting for an explanation . . .

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:“I think we deserve to hear an explanation from Rhee about her role in this affair.”

“The facts are exactly what we'd like to know.”

“It is outrageous that the schools chancellor was aware of repeated charges of sexual misconduct involving an executive of an organization on whose board she sat, yet apparently did nothing to assist the alleged victims in those cases. Indeed, the fact that she is now engaged to the alleged perpetrator is surreal.”

So much for waiting for an explanation . . .

Rhee actively sought out information about at least one of the cases of sexual misconduct. There are no documented actions by Rhee on behalf of the alleged victim. Are you suggesting that needs no explanation?

Of course, when Rhee learned that her future fiance had spent the night in another woman's apartment, her interest may have been personal rather than professional. That of course would raise an entirely different set of questions.