Is Ryan Lizza another set up?

[Bibluca]

Lizza I believe is the guy who wrote the article on Scaramucci, where Scar used all that profanity, and was forced to resign.

Scar recently predicted Lizza would pay a price for what he wrote.

Coincidence?

Why do organizations who know better, like the NYer and CNN, keep falling for it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. If he's factually innocent he should sue for wrongful termination.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Virtually impossible to prove.

Our system favors employers. Republicans have seen to that over the years by systematically weakening employee rights.

[ClarendonDem]

2. Seems very circumstantial

To me

[Bibluca]

3. But he was fired from all 3 of his gigs

And he apparently does not know the reason why.

A lone anonymous accuser.

This is getting surreal.

[herding cats]

10. She has an attorney.

She’s protecting herself from a jury of social media. He knows who she is and so does the people at the New Yorker. They chose to believe her, he’s denying her veracity.

You and I, and all the rest of Joe Public don’t have a right to know unless she says so. That’s how this works, she (the victim) has rights, too. Her first right is to not be dragged through the public mud to feed a frenzy of deniers.

[stevenleser]

34. Thats actually not how things are supposed to work at all and there is no such right

to make accusations and remain anonymous while people are punished.

The opposite is true Constitutionally. And that is a big part of our national value system. The accused has a right to due process and part of that due process is to confront the person accusing them.

And yes, I know we are dealing with workplaces and not the legal system per se. It’s still wrong and a very steep slippery slope.

[herding cats]

63. He knows who she is as does the New Yorker.

The people who are involved in this know the details and the New Yorker feels the details warranted his dismissal.

Matt Lauer’s accuser was known to NBC and Lauer. They knew the details and felt they warranted his dismissal.

It’s disturbing seeing so many people thinking they have a right to pick apart the accusers story. We aren’t involved and the ones who are felt there was a valid reason to dismiss him over the claims. That is how this works.

Lizza can sue her and the New Yorker if he genuinely feels he’s being falsely accused. Again, that’s how this works.

[VermontKevin]

73. Lizza has every right to publish her name. He knows exactly who she is.

[mythology]

82. And he would be rightfully ripped to shreds

And destroy his credibility if he did. There is a reason victims of sexual violence are shielded. This is standard procedure for rape victims.

[Demsrule86]

38. It is reported they had a relationship. Corporations will fire employees who cause them trouble

regardless of the right or wrong ...they just want it to go away. This could be revenge. And I notice it is coming against those who lean liberal.

[anneboleyn]

57. Me too. This is why we need to demand due process/investigations over anonymous accusations..

therefore you are fired without any chance to defend yourself.” Using anonymous allegations in this way is highly problematic (Lizza’s case doesn’t seem to be about an anonymous allegation but he definitely should be allowed to argue his case before losing ALL of his jobs)

[Demsrule86]

69. And if it is revenge...then it just sucks.

[Demsrule86]

72. The idea that you can run to court is laughable...folks who suggest that have never been to court.

[herding cats]

67. Lizza can sue if its false.

People seem to be forgetting he has a legal recourse here if the claims are false.

[Demsrule86]

68. That is bullshit...very hard to sue...expensive too...so the idea that anyone wrongly accused...can

run to a court is nonsense.

[herding cats]

70. He can sue her with ease if shes lying.

People do that literally everyday. If he wins his name is clear.

He could also sue the New Yorker, but that would be harder.

[Demsrule86]

71. That is simply not true...nothing easy about suing someone.

So if you are accused of something with no proof...you have to now prove your innocence...I think that is wrong.

[stevenleser]

86. That is not true and a very simple google search will tell you that.

You should research before making such an easily proven wrong assertion.

[stevenleser]

85. You mean Libel or Slander? Do you know how hard it is to meet the three

burdens for those lawsuits?

The accusation can be proven to be a lie and damaging and that is not enough. Malice must be proven which is where most of these lawsuits fail.

[Loki Liesmith]

51. Show me exactly where she has any such right?

"Her first right is to not be dragged through the public mud to feed a frenzy of deniers."

Don't recall seeing that one before. Did John Stuart Mill think it up?

[anneboleyn]

55. Exactly. Being anonymous goes against our entire legal system. The whole point is that an accused

person has the right to know, and confront in a courtroom, the person accusing him/her of a crime. There should of course also be a consistent system followed by places of employment. Sorry for those that think anonymity is okay in these situations but it goes against our entire system, AND it’s filled with potential abuses that can have enormous effects (and not just on the accused himself — think of Franken).

I also don’t believe that a person’s place of employment should be able to fire him/her summarily based on anonymous charges (c’mon — that is SO obviously open to abuse. It’s very hard for an employee to prove that he/she was fired inappropriately, especially when “anonymous allegations” are being used as evidence. Lizza seems to know the accuser in his case as he stated that he believed their relationship to be consensual). The accused is entitled to a proper investigation and ability to respond. As Loki and others have pointed out, our entire legal system is built on the idea that nobody (even the king, of course, as that was exactly the type of abuse our founding fathers (and the entire system of English common law) wanted to avoid — no anonymous agents) can make anonymous allegations while demanding that a person be punished (Franken deserved the Ethics Committee hearing. Yes, of course, maybe the result would have been the same but he deserved the process. One of the earliest and most vocal of his accusers was clearly politically motivated. The other charges needed to be investigated to avoid any possible political manipulations).

Lizza is apparently saying that the New Yorker can’t even point to a specific code for employees that he violated (he apparently believes he was engaged in a consensual relationship but the accuser says otherwise). If no investigation was conducted then he certainly should be entitled to one.

[PoliticAverse]

90. She's NOT "anonymous". Lizza, and The New Yorker know who she is. n/t

[herding cats]

64. He knows who she is as does the New Yorker.

The parties involved know the details and the New Yorker chose to fire him over the matter. This was the same circumstances as Matt Lauer was fired under. His accuser was also not made public, but he also knew who it was as did NBC.

I cannot fathom why some people think the general public has a right to the details.

If he chooses he can sue them for their decision. That’s his right.

[kwalter66]

81. The me too

movement will go down in flames with a whimper and all will be re-set to square one because of nonsense like this.

"You and I, and all the rest of Joe Public don’t have a right to know unless she says so. That’s how this works, she (the victim) has rights, too. Her first right is to not be dragged through the public mud to feed a frenzy of deniers."

[lapucelle]

89. She's not "anonymous"; she's "unnamed".

Lizza knows who is making the claim.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alleged-ryan-lizza-victim-blasts-his-statement-about-respectful-relationship/

[Bibluca]

4. And since when did non-criminal sexual antics

...done outside of work, become the purview of anyone's employer?

And how is the NYer deemed a judge of what's appropriate? I didn't realize they were part of the judiciary.

[herding cats]

11. You know this was outside of work?

Where’d you hear that?

[mcar]

6. Are we back, so quickly, to assuming all women are liars?

Do you really think the New Yorker didn't look at the charges? Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they are not true.

[woolldog]

7. I hope we are at the point where we judge each accusation on its merits, on a case by case basis.

He was in a dating relationship with his accuser. I suspect she was a subordinate. The New Yorker had no no fraternization policy.

I have no attachment to Lizza, but there's something off about this.

[mcar]

8. And you know this is all true how?

[woolldog]

9. All what?

[herding cats]

13. Stop and reconsider what youre saying.

You “know” nothing. The New Yorker knows the details. They have an on staff legal team which reviews these allegations and chose this course of action, and you’re more enlightened and in the know than they are?

Think.

[woolldog]

15. You can read his account and the New Yorker's account and it's obvious what happened.

He had a dating relationship with a subordinate. The New Yorker had no policy against that. The New Yorker terminated him when it came to light that he had had a relationship with a subordinate using that as the basis for his termination and deeming the relationship "improper."

That much is obvious. The question is when things ended between them and what were the specific allegations she made that led to the investigation. It is unlikely, but possible, that he is simply making up out of whole cloth that he had a dating relationship with his accuser. Unlikely because that kind of relationship is so easily corroborated with texts, phone records, emails, witnesses etc that it simply doesn't make sense to make that up. It is too readily proven or disproven.

[herding cats]

16. So, this is all about the fact that he dated a coworker.

She obtained an attorney because he dated a coworker. That makes sense to who?

Again. Think.

[woolldog]

17. What misconduct did he commit?

Tell me, oh wise one.

[herding cats]

18. Ask that question of the attorneys at the New Yorker, oh wiser one.

Apparently, they’re the ones you think are intelligently, not to mention legally so challenged.

[woolldog]

19. in other words,

you don't have a clue. You just know that he's guilty, despite having no idea what specific behavior he's accused of by his ex.

[herding cats]

20. You're kidding me right?

I’m really curious how you know more than the legal terms involved.

Me... I know nothing, but I’m smart enough to know hordes of lawyers poured over this and they have access to lots of stuff I don’t. Which is why I’m not pulling feel good stuff out of my bum right now to defend someone I haven’t a real clue what they did.

Seriously, what’s your source? I’m waiting with bated breath to find out.

[herding cats]

22. Wow. Youre not being nice.

Did I upset you?

[herding cats]

23. I dont understand your mean personal reply to me.

I asked honest questions of you, I didn’t mean to make you so upset with me personally. I just wanted you to think about what you were saying.

[woolldog]

24. You're right. On rereading that post, I was too harsh.

I apologize.

I was not upset at all by you disagreeing with me.

These HR departments and "hordes of lawyers" are more concerned with covering their ass and getting rid of any potential headaches (and that includes bad publicity) than any search for truth. The environment now is more fire the accused and ask questions later. Look at what's happened with Harold Ford, Sam Seder, Al Franken. There's a witch hunt going on.

[herding cats]

27. Ok.

You personally attacked me as “ Being right about one thing, that I don’t know anything” but now somehow that’s a systemic problem with HR? Sure. If that gets you to feeling better.

Personally, I laughed my butt off at our conversation. I don’t get upset when someone disagrees with me and make personal attacks on them. That’s just me.

Truth is, stuff does happen. In this case we don’t know the details, and pretending we do based on our preferences is just silly.

Honestly, having deleted your attack on me makes you’re apologizing weak sauce. I’d have felt much better if you’d have actually owned your words, but whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

[woolldog]

29. lol

you complain that my post is a mean, personal attack that hurts your feelings. I reread it and actually agree with you and apologize and delete it because of your complaint. Then you complain about me deleting it.

This is my last post. Feel free to get the last word in. I'm done.

[herding cats]

30. Peace doggy.

I didn’t mean to make you upset by breaking your argument down. Have a good night.

[Me.]

26. Was It Flirting

or an awkward lunch as you insinuated on another thread?

“I hope you see the problem with terminating people for flirting and/or awkward lunches.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029965950

[herding cats]

28. Now apparently its an issue with an overreaching HR and their legal team.

How cute is this that? It can’t be their favored persons fault, so twist, twist yourself into a pretzel to find an excuse.

[Me.]

31. ...

[LanternWaste]

53. It's difficult for many people to infer fire when only smoke

It's difficult for many people to infer fire when only smoke, an acrid odor, the shadows of dancing lights and increased heat are present, though it takes little wisdom one way or the other...

[herding cats]

12. Apparently a victim shielding their identity from the public is now wrong, too.

All victims rights be damned. “He’s one of us” screw her right to use legal representation As her advocate.

[KitSileya]

32. Yeah, notice how the New Yorker carefully shielded the victim's identity to the public,

while Ryan Lizza mentioned enough details that she can be identified by his friends and co-workers at the very least.

Within the next few days, expect her name to dropped to a Lizza-friendly social media site so the doxxing can begin.

[herding cats]

33. I saw it. It was completely by design by his legal representation.

Note: his legal representation hasn’t been brought into question here.

I realize she’s about to be dragged through the mud of social media, and the press. Every private detail of her life is about to be exposed and weighed by everyone with an agenda. Anything they can do to discredit her and pad his case against the New Yorker is fair game. She knew this going in, sadly.

She’s already being tried by the court of his fans online. It’s just going to be become much worse for her once there picking apart a person they have a name for.

But, we’ll still hear how it’s a hit job on the poor likable accused. Because any woman would subject themselves to what she’s about to go through for shits and giggles, right? We’re just that evil after all.

I was literally holding my head here. People on our supposed side enforce this lunacy against the victims when it’s easier than facing facts. Sure, it may not apply to them personally and they get defensive. I get that. Pedophilia and murder doesn’t apply to them either but how often do you see them twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain that away?

It’s about the nature of the crime here. They need to stop and think about what they’re saying before they knee jerk some response that says more about them than the topic they’re addressing.

[Motownman78]

36. It is called the right to face ones accusser

It is a basic tenet of Constitutional Law.

[mythology]

46. He isn't facing criminal sanction at this point

He lost his job, that isn't the government putting him in jail.

And given the details he has leaked, he clearly knows who it is.

[BannonsLiver]

61. Oh who needs that when you can just take the lazy, "all men are pigs" approach?

[OnDoutside]

80. +1

[herding cats]

65. He knows who accused him.

We do not know, and at this point we have no right nor reason to know.

This is exactly like how Matt Lauer’s accuser was not made public. Lauer still knew who it was as did NBC. I’m thinking the issue here is the word anonymous is confusing people. The accuser is only not made known to the general public.

[KitSileya]

37. I think it's time to face the truth. Too many on our side minimize this

because they damn well know they've aided and abetted harassers and rapists in their personal circle. It makes them feel better if they can defend these folks and disparage the victims. Who hasn't a guy friend who they've described as "handsy"? Warned unsuspecting young women not to be alone with a colleague or laughed (albeit half-heartedly) when Uncle Bob jokes about prison rape - instead of confronting them? They've defended the guy who gives unwanted massages by claiming he's socially awkward (but never questioned why he only gives those massages to women, and not men and women.) They've kept a friendship with a guy even when female friends ghosted because he was creepy. They've closed ranks against the problem kid in the family - even though they deep down know that their cousin/brother/grandparent is fishy, and the problem kid only started acting out after spending time with the fishy relative. After all, it's faaaaamily.


We, and especially men who know better, feel guilty, and we attack the victims because we are ashamed of ourselves, because we didn't speak out even though our own privilege means that we could speak out with a lot less chance of backlash than the victims.

[anneboleyn]

60. I totally disagree with you. I believe in due process including appropriate investigations before

a person is fired from all jobs (Lizza seem to be claiming this didn’t happen). Arguing that we follow certain standards that protect any accused person from anonymous allegations seems very fundamental to me. It’s not a question of “minimizing” claims as no claim should be used to fire/force a person to resign etc etc unless the accused has heard the charges and been able to offer some type of defense.

No I’ve never had a male friend that I would excuse as “handsy” nor have I excused any similar behavior that I observed. I’ve never laughed away any behavior I observed that crossed a line into inappropriate or harassment. I’m a woman so maybe that explains it. Who knows. But I think that due process (yes even outside of the courtroom — some type of investigative standard) is crucial. It protects everyone in the long run.

[LisaL]

42. Did New Yorker had to announce the reason they fired him?

They weren't concerned about keeping this issue private.

[herding cats]

66. Take that up with The New Yorker.

For what it’s worth, NBC did the same with Matt Lauer.

[stevenleser]

88. No, that is not the correct answer. Workplaces can not divulge most personnel actions. nt

[PoliticAverse]

91. They most likely can, but choose not to to avoid lawsuits. Just like many businesses these days..

will confirm a former employee's dates of employment but won't comment on why their employment was terminated.

[Demsrule86]

74. It is wrong...people have a right to face their accusers...and I can think of 1000's of ways this

will be misused. And I don't want employers firing anyone because of their personal life.

[RobinA]

14. I Used To Think Like This

A LONG time ago.

[Motownman78]

35. Not all women

but yes, some women are liars. I just broke up with my girlfriend of the last 5 years when I discovered that she had been lieing about a relationship she had with another man.

Sorry, some women lie. It is basic human nature. That is why we have this thing called Due Process.

[Demsrule86]

40. Do you think we should assume that all women tell the truth? and any accusation is all that takes

to ruin someone's life. I can tell you not all women tell the truth. And this would be a great way to exact revenge for a failed relationship or whatever which is what Lizza says this is about. But I have serious concerns about employers firing people for what happens in their personal life-an accusation is all it takes?...big brother. It may start with men- ladies ( I am a woman) but it will not end with men...soon we will all be under the watchful eye of the corporations as well...big brother. I consider this has devolved into a witch hunt and the right is using it to their advantage to exact revenge on those who have crossed them.

[mcar]

48. That is the opposite of what I said

What I'm seeing here is an immediate assumption of lying on the part of the alleged victim. I suspect the New Yorker did investigate the charges and found cause to fire Lizza.

[Demsrule86]

75. I doubt they investigated at all. They washed their hands of the mess by firing the guy.

[Bibluca]

45. No, we're still stuck in the mindset that all men are liars. n/t

[MrsCoffee]

56. Bullshit. We have been stuck in the all women are liars mode for centuries.

Look up a little history. Look up how many rape kits go untested in this country. Look up the statistics on how many women are sexually abused and how under reported the incidences are. The women get put under a microscope and nothing gets done.

Women are breaking their silence. Deal with it.

[kstewart33]

58. Good question. Here's another one.

A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, everywhere a conspiracy.

Lately, that's what DU is sounding like.

Respectfully, it's getting ridiculous.

[anneboleyn]

59. No. We hold them to the same standard as EVERYONE ELSE IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. SIMPLE.

Nobody should be able to occupy a position from which they can make anonymous allegations and demand/expect punishments. We don’t “believe” any person’s claim about another person’s guilt unless there is due process for the accused — as we all would expect for ourselves. The idea that we support victims of abuse and harassment and treat their allegations seriously means that we FOLLOW OUR LAWS. An allegation deserves a hearing because we take them seriously, and the accused has a right to defend himself/herself because we follow our laws. The idea that we “believe” as an article of faith undermines our entire legal system, and it should be obvious that this can be manipulated and used in politically motivated manners.

[stevenleser]

84. I think a number of things are happening. One of them is...

... a question of exactly what the rules are for situations like these.

If anyone can make an accusation and it results in a termination and the ruining of a life is that OK? I would hope everyone would agree that is not fair and is ripe for abuse, particularly in politics.

So what is the due process or fair way to handle these situations? Moreover how do we make it clear that a dozen 14 year olds in red Alabama accusing Moore is not the same as Lizza or Franken to avoid the typical whataboutism charges that will no doubt arise.

So there are a number of things going on.

1. How to be fair to the accuser and address her complaints/accusations
2. How to be fair to the accused and introduce some sort of process that makes these situations fair and accountable on all sides
3. How to address the political concerns.

I have an idea. I think we should make sexual harassment at work or anywhere else a crime and handle it that way. Engage the criminal justice system and invoke due process and prosecute the offenders. The workplace can then suspend, not fire but refer cases to the local district attorneys for adjudication. The accused is suspended with pay during the adjudication of the case and if they are found guilty they are terminated for cause and subject to fines and incarceration. If not found guilty they are reinstated with no black mark on their records.

[DeminPennswoods]

39. Sadly, there are and will be women

who are motivated to make charges and/or hire lawyers to avenge some past relationship slight or employment situation. It will detract from other women who are/were true victims and make it more difficult for them to be believed.

[Demsrule86]

41. This is what I believe. In the end, this will hurt women

[anneboleyn]

62. This is why the accused must be protected as well. This thread is depressing as so many seem to

think that anonymous allegations resulting in the loss of entire careers, a senate seat, etc are just fine and can’t possibly be motivated by politics or abused by say a Mooch type.

[mythology]

83. I find it depressing that people continue to mistake

That they don't know the accuser's name for the people and reporters and companies involved don't know. The New Yorker didn't fire him because they got a random email from an unknown source. They fired him because they were presented with evidence and he couldn't refute it.

[stevenleser]

87. I find it depressing that folks like you dont know the difference between that

and what confronting ones accuser really means. Which is an open court cross examined analysis of the claims before any punishment can ensue.

[brooklynite]

43. any actual evidence?

[Bibluca]

44. Nope

Why is the accuser treated so differently than the accused? Lizza's name was put out there in negative statements by the NYer and CNN. There was no reason to do so, other than to cause trouble for him. They could have quietly removed him, and put him on leave.

The accuser remaining anonymous is awfully convenient. How do we know she hasn't done this before?

Seems like, in some minds at least, the accuser is always right and righteous, and the accused is automatically guilty.

And the fact that Scaramucci publicly predicted something would befall Lizza doesn't sway the pro-accuser crowd?

Contrary to what some seem to believe, the rights of women are not more important than the rights of men.

Stop feeding Rush Limbaugh.

[mythology]

47. Do you feel the same way when a rape victim isn't named?

We shield the victims of sexual crimes because of the way people will drag them through the mud and claim they deserved it as well as the intensely personal nature of the offense.

[Bibluca]

49. Another straw man

Are you saying the Lizza accuser was raped? How do you know?

If not, then your question is, of course, another straw man argument.

But if a woman (or man) goes to someone's employers and lists charges apparently enough to warrant dismissal, at least the accused has the right to know the accusers name, and frankly the public should know too. That some might harass the accuser online is beside the point. He lost his career; apparently that means little or nothing to you.

[Demsrule86]

76. This is not a sexual crime...this was a relationship outside the office.

You folks muddy the water...rape and sexual harassment and private relationships are not the same.

[alarimer]

50. Most employers are within their rights to fire anyone for almost any reason.

Exceptions being where there is an actual contract or something.

It sounds to me like there was enough "there" there.

We have to be careful that just because we think Franken was railroaded, it doesn't mean everyone was, not even folks we like. People can also screw up without being completely irredeemable. They do not have to be under the bus forever, especially if it's minor. But there MUST be consequences for actions.

[Bibluca]

52. Lizza says there's nothing there

And there's no more reason to doubt him than to doubt the NYer.

Yes, his employers have the legal right to fire him for whatever they like. No one said they didn't.

The issue is whether or not they were correct and sensible in doing so. Also, the manner in which they did it certainly opens them up to repercussions, since they publicly trashed him. His career might be ruined.

And you think there's enough "there?" Even though zero facts were given? Because women always speak the truth and men always lie, is that it?

[alarimer]

54. Obviously the New Yorker thinks it was enough.

I'm okay with that. No one is OWED a job or a living.

Why has this site all of a sudden become the "women always lie" site? Just because one of our own got a raw deal does not mean that THIS is similarly a raw deal.

[Demsrule86]

77. That doesn't sound progressive... The fact he was fired is meaningless...

they don't want to be bothered.

[Demsrule86]

78. Women don't always lie...women don't always tell the truth. And if you notice ...most people losing

their jobs are of the left.

[PoliticAverse]

79. So little information to go on...

Last edited Tue Dec 12, 2017, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

New York Times article with statements from The New Yorker, Lizza and the law firm representing the woman involved:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/ryan-lizza-sexual-misconduct.html