Vindication or Blackmail?
One of the strangest and possibly least noticed political stories of the week comes out of Utah, where State House Majority Leader Keven Garns (R-Layton) has resigned his office in the midst of what is being described as a “hot tub scandal.” This might have quickly passed through the maw of the 24 hour news beast as just another “scumbag politico gets caught” story unless we take a moment to dig a bit deeper into the details.
On the surface it looks pretty simple. A picture comes to light of an adult male – currently a prominent politician – having himself a nude hot tub party with a 15 year old girl named Cindy Maher. The public is rightly enraged and the Speaker is rapidly hounded from office on a very public stage. My immediate reaction, as always, goes a bit further. If you’re an adult man and you’re found having sex (or any sort of related activity) with a fifteen year old child, you should lose a lot more than your office. You should be tied to a phone pole while the parents, friends and family members of the child get to take turns hitting you with a half-brick tucked into a sock. And there’s nothing in the story to come which turns Mr. Garns into a noble figure worthy of our sympathies. But there is a bit more beneath the surface.
First of all, the event took place roughly 25 years ago. This doesn’t factor into the debate too much, since I’m not up to date on where Utah’s state laws stand on statute of limitations questions. But assuming our young victim, now an adult, locates the perpetrator of her childhood abuse, she should be able to quickly notify the police and get some measure of satisfaction, right? Even if he can no longer be prosecuted, he can be punished in the court of public opinion as seems to be happening now. So we’re all set, yes?
Not so fast there, skippy. There are a few more details to come. Again, if you were the woman in question and you had located your childhood abuser in a high profile government position, would you:
1. Go to the police
2. Contact the state government to expose him
3. Go to the press to bring the incident to light
4. Demand some hush money
The Tribune gives us a hint as to which option Ms. Maher selected.
In 2002, when Garn, a Republican, was running for Congress, [Maher] began contacting reporters and Garn arranged to pay her $150,000, provided she sign an agreement not to go public with the incident. She signed a nondisclosure agreement and Garn paid her the money in 2003, well after he had lost the Republican congressional primary.
But a week ago, Maher began sending e-mails to state legislators and reporters laying out her allegations. In an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune , a shaken Garn admitted her story was essentially true. With the news about to break, Garn made an emotional statement from the House floor Thursday night, with his wife by his side, apologizing to his colleagues and constituents.
Again, just to be clear, there’s nothing in this story that turns Garns into a hero here. There is some “he said, she said” to it, of course. Garns claims that he was in the tub but there was “no sexual contact.” Maher said, “there was touching and physical contact, but declined to elaborate.” Even if Garns’ version of the story is 100% accurate, he wasn’t smart enough to get up and leave when a child entered the area and began undressing, so he’s too stupid to hold public office. If Maher’s story is the correct one, we’re back to the half-brick in a sock scenario.
But I’m a bit put off by the young lady’s tearful exhortations about the importance of this story and how it can help young women everywhere.
“I hope Kevin knows I never meant to hurt anyone, but the truth had to come out,” she said Saturday morning in a phone interview from her New Hampshire home. By working with women in crisis or the mentally ill “he can turn this thing around to something positive. … He could really help a lot of people,” she said.
Seems to me that he already started helping at least one of those “lot of people” back in 2003 to the tune of $150,000. I’m sorry, but the moment you decided not to go public and deposited that check, you effectively put yourself in the position of a blackmailer. You weren’t interested in helping any other women for the last seven years. You were busy helping yourself to a pot of cash. And that pretty much removes the mantle of crusader for womens’ rights from your shoulders. Garns may have been a scumbag and possibly a criminal pedophile at that, but by taking the hush money you lowered yourself down a lot closer to his level. And, frankly, I don’t care what sort of extenuating circumstances may have existed. You took the money. End Of Story.
It’s good that this event has been exposed and Garns has exited stage left, but I wouldn’t start printing up t-shirts with Maher’s photo on them just yet.
You may now sharpen up the pitchforks and tell me what a horrible, sexist, pedophile apologist I am. Have at it.
16 Responses to “Vindication or Blackmail?”
“Have at it?” Jazz, this is the first article on TMV I've read that makes any sense!
I'll have to go back and see what other ponies you've deposited in the TMV stables.
As a father to two daughters, I already have my Whacking Sock prepared (I prefer ball bearings for filler, that you very much). I pray I've taught them better than whatever raised Ms. Maher.
Considering the guy was her Sunday School teacher he had a hand in her moral upbringing, or lack there of. Personally I think these hush payments and the contracts that go with them should just be flat illegal implicating both sides if they come to light and involving jail time for both sides. What happened had already effected her and though she deserves compensation for that the way to receive it was through the courts. This would have ensured the safety of other little girls that had not yet come into contact with him. She punted on that until, and I could be wrong about this, she was older and maybe now has daughters herself and no longer see's this as the innocent or non-predatory actions she once did? That is my only guess, she has gotten her money and will not be looked upon well so I cant really think of any other reason to go public now other than a sudden realisation that what happened to her could happen to her daughter/'s and the only way to stop it is to prosecute and/or go public. The allegations currently be investigated by Salt Lake City Weekly into the cover up of these allegations in the early 00's by local newspapers and the Mormon church is what I find more worrying.
Here's a full collection of the ponies in question:
http://themoderatevoice.com/author/Jazz/
Cheers
Who took the pictures? Why were pictures being taken of 30-year old and a 15-year old, naked in a hot tub? I do not buy any explanation that nothing untowards was going on.
But there is no way he can be prosecuted. The age of consent in Utah in 1985 was 14.
“This would have ensured the safety of other little girls that had not yet come into contact with him. She punted on that until… and maybe now has daughters herself and no longer see's this as the innocent or non-predatory actions she once did?”
I think her 25 year old daughter is safe from these things. (Humor…. I don't know if she has a 25 yo daughter.)
As far as predatory actions… didn't she engage in her own predatory actions when she blackmailed him?
If the age of consent in Utah was 14 back in 1985, then what grounds did she have to blackmail him? I know that some states have convoluted consent laws, where an adult can not have sex with a someone below a certain age, even if that younger person can have sex, but only with people of similar age…. Perhaps that's what's going on here?
Of course they are predatory but I do not think that equates to the danger a sexual predator poses to society at large. My main issue here is this guy had known her and been close to her for years…he had been her freaking Sunday School teacher. I just find it utterly depraved and pity what that must have done to her outlook on the world of adults. It seems to have turned her into, if she already wasn't, a slime ball but again that is why I think these types of deals should be illegal.
I agree with you…. I was pointing out that she is predatory, too. Though as you rightly point out, the sexual predator actions he quite possibly engaged in is more of a menace to society at large.
SB – she blackmailed him as a p[politician running for office. It didn't matter if criminal charges were possible. Look what has happened now that it has come out.
No politician can run for office with something like that as open knowledge.
AustinRoth
Schade- Yes, I see your point, thanks! I guess I'm a little slow today because of the time change.
“I already have my Whacking Sock prepared”
If you garden, don't forget the pruning shears!
[in honor of my goddaughters]
“she has gotten her money and will not be looked upon well”
For violating the agreement, she should go to jail or prison.
For attempting blackmail, she should go to jail or prison, as well as suffer a big-damages lawsuit by him.
One other point that I cannot let go without a comment.
While in no way excusing Garns, it is interesting how his hot tubbing with a 15-year old is perceived as compared to Polanski drugging and raping a 13-year old girl, at least by some people.
Polanski's conduct should be considered much worse than Garn's as the former incident involved an under the consent age minor as well as aggravated assault considering the minor was drugged and forcibly raped.
Of course an under consent aged child cannot give consent even if force was not involved. Garn seems to have met his match with this girl, he got what he deserved
As a lefty, I hate to agree with you. But then, much as I loath the man and his judicial philosophy, I felt the same way about Clarence Thomas. One does not have to agree with pedophilia or sexual harassment to wonder why it takes so long to report them? And those who exploit them are pretty loathsome. (Even though I was and will remain forever a big Teddy Kennedy fan, nobody's perfect.)
Oops, there go my lefty credentials.
If it flops like a fish and it stinks, it's fishy.
“Oops, there go my lefty credentials.”
No problem. I consider Thomas as mistreated in his own way during confirmation as the scummy treatment of Bork by left-activists and die-hard fanatical defenders of illegitimate judicial activism (which has been the rule and notorious in our modern decades, since the late 1930s, become worst of all with the Warren Court — and Bork long ago described the conservative as well as liberal activism that happened prior to the 1930s, especially in the nineteenth century in the case of conservative activism).
If it's any consolation, Thomas has been something of a disappointment since going on the Court — I'd like to see more in his opinions that he provides.