There is No Question Scalise Must Resign Leadership

I have several liberal neighbors that I am involved with on a social level in the neighborhood. Does that make me a liberal? I took two semesters of evidentiary law to earn my J.D. There is no factual evidentiary substance to your claims. If there was, I would be right there to condemn Scalise. Politics is said to make for strange bedfellows. Guilt by association is false logic. Claiming that there is no question that Scalise must resign his leadership position is akin to Al Gore claiming that global warming is settled science. It just ain’t so. Convince me with substantive facts that Scalise has committed an egregious act of moral turpitude and I’ll gladly call for his resignation from the House Republican leadership team.

So did the Weekly Standard get it wrong, too, Jen? Along with Powerline, Hot Air, News Busters, Fox, and others?

I know who agrees with you: Think Progress, WashPo, CNN, Daily Beast, and other lefty rags.

So, pardon me if I’m a bit skeptical at this point.

Via Fox News:

“Kenny Knight, a longtime political adviser to Duke, told The Times-Picayune of New Orleans that Scalise spoke at a meeting of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association, not affiliated with the European-American Unity and Rights conference that was held in the same Metairie hotel two-and-a-half hours before the white nationalist event started.”

Source:

So are you saying the Jefferson Heights Civic Association is directly tied to the EURO group and Kenny Knight?

I’m simply seeking the facts in this case, minus the partisan hyperbole. This is a serious accusation, that Scalise knowingly spoke before a white supremacist group, and was “friendly to the KKK for votes.”

Like I’ve said, I just want the who, what, why, where, when and how. This is one of the those classic examples of the polarizing left-right divide that exists in American politics. And why it’s so damn difficult to just get the straight facts, particularly on issues involving race. I’ve been reading accounts on this incident from both sides of the political spectrum. And most accounts from both sides are relying on the words of Kenny Knight as their primary source. You might be right. I just need to confirm it for myself.

Quite correct. And between your articles and Jeff Lord’s piece in Conservative Review, the entire case against Scalise and Boehner is very clear. Scalise has absolutely no clue what a conservative is, except when he berates them through the Republican Study Committee.
This case reminds me of that of Rep. Bob Bauman, a terrific parliamentary mind, who got caught looking for boys around Washington, DC. Once this was exposed, the question was whether he should resign. Bill Buckley, who I met the same evening I met Bauman, asked my opinion. I said if it were a Democrat, there was no problem, as Democrats have no moral standards anyway. Republicans tend, however, to have and support standards and morals, and this case put Bauman out on that alone. Buckley said he was thinking along the same lines, and wrote from that viewpoint. Bauman wasn’t happy about that, but resigned in due course. Had he stayed on, Bauman would have been a lightning rod for Democrat criticism of the entire Republican Party, and would be brought up each time legislation came up which required a moral stance.
So too with Scalise, who will be brought up each time a racial issue is discussed, or any issue actually. His presence in a leadership position makes any action Republicans might wish to take concerning the racial issues Democrats are pushing today. And I really dislike how Scalise (and Boehner) know nothing of the left wing Democrat history of the KKK and its membership (see Lord’s article).

Okay. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying, on one hand, Kenny Knight is the primary source, but, on the other hand, he’s not a reliable source? That’s what I’m inferring from some of your previous comments. But, maybe I’m wrong. I just want clarification.

Regarding your point #1: “Kenny Knight is the source. He booked the room and called Scalise who was a neighbor, knew who he was and did not hold it against Knight.”

When you say Scalise knew who Knight was, are you saying he knew Knight was pro-KKK? If so, what is your primary source for this information?

The fact David Duke was Scalise’s predecessor as representative, or his neighbor, does not conclusively prove Scalise embraces Duke’s pro-KKK leanings. That truly is a guilt by association argument, and is immaterial to my query.

In your point #2 you wrote, “Kenny was leader of EURO group before it’s name changed to EURO …” They changed the name from EURO to EURO? I’m confused. Could you clarify, please?

Now, the most damning thing against Scalise is he did, indeed, apologize for speaking to the group. You ask a valid question, why would he apologize about something he either unwittingly didn’t know, or did know? Point well taken. But, some people have admitted to murders they didn’t commit. I don’t why; but it does happen.

Don’t get me wrong. If Scalise is truly sympathetic to the KKK, I want nothing to do with him, and he should step down. But this a very serious allegation. And I think we should presume a measure of innocence before proving him guilty solely on the words of Kenny Knight, et al.

I did not accuse Scalise of speaking before a white supremacist group, he admitted he did. (Though he didn’t and instead spoke at the behest of the poltical operative for David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, who also was the leader of the group EURO though he claimed he wasn’t. Euro is a descendant of KKK)

My argument proves he wanted KKK votes, simply because he admitted to speaking to them even though he didn’t.

He has a point but not in this context. We know that the President can be friends with terrorists such as Ayers and Dorn and hang tightly with antisemites such as Khalidi and yet go virtually unnoticed, and if not unnoticed, then actually defended by the media but that is the way it is. This man is no good but people are sidetracked and outraged over the double standard and, consequently, lose sight of the other points.