Breaking: John Still to Hang it Up
Word is Prince John hears footsteps. Still’s will be the first retirement of what might turn out to be a republican exodus from state government.
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- Paula on DL Open Thread: Saturday, November 23, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- Slowhorse on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- All Seeing on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- Prelae on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 24, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Saturday, November 23, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Saturday, November 23, 2024
- DL Open Thread: Saturday, November 23, 2024 : Delaware Liberal on SD 5 Candidates With Christiana Care Ties Oppose Hospital Care Review Board
- Alby on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Friday, November 22, 2024
- FWIW2024 on DL Open Thread: Friday, November 22, 2024
- Joe Connor on SD 5 Candidates With Christiana Care Ties Oppose Hospital Care Review Board
- Alby on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- nathan arizona on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- Hip-hop-anonymous on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- Hip-hop-anonymous on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- Alby on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- Alby on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- Joe Connor on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- El Somnambulo on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- El Somnambulo on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
- liberalgeek on Song of the Day 11/22: Was (Not Was), “11 MPH (Abe Zapp Ruder Version)”
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
I’ve got to comment on the new poll. I wan’t to vote for “Nancy Vs. __________” as my least favorite blog topic.
are the footsteps from the grim reaper?
The footsteps were his mistresses.
Go Brian Bushweller!
Uh, nothing really ‘breaking’ about this ‘story’. While it may yet end up being true, a quick check of people I know who should know indicated that, as of now, he’s more likely to run than to not run.
His retirement would set off an interesting dynamic, however. Still is sort of damaged goods, especially with some of the personal baggage, and Brian Bushweller could well fare better against Still than against, say, either Rep. Stone or Rep. Thornburg.
However, both Stone’s and Thornburg’s House districts have very credible Democratic challengers, and, if either of them run for the Senate seat, their House district would be in serious jeopardy.
Anyway, I’m gettin’ my popcorn ready. This is one movie I want to see…
Breaking: News Journal actually fooled into thinking Jason’s posts have legitimacy.
JL Miller reads the internets !
BTW – Still is still out.
The NJ blog FSP linked to quotes Still as blaming this rumor on his opponent “Bushwhacker”.
Assuming the rumor isn’t true, and that Bushweller didn’t start it, I wonder if there is any other party out there who feels justifiably betrayed and abused by Still enough to start such a rumor?
You know this tom-foolery got you onto the DE Dialogue at WNJ today don’t you, Jason/
Oh, he’ll be quitting the race. And if he doesn’t, he’ll wish he did.
From what I understand, Still’s district is conservative and he is considered your typical “family values” Rep. ….That said, it is unlikely that his constiuents are likely to go for his philandering S&M lifestyle, or his penchant for “trolling” sex-based websites, to say nothing of his having phone sex during a ribbon-cutting ceremony….
Madame X just displayed the “Senate Diet”. Somehow, I don’t feel like eating.
She sure brings the kitchen sink.
It’s also unlikely his constituents will ever be presented with proof of any of those allegations.
“It’s also unlikely his constituents will ever be presented with proof of any of those allegations.”
Al…if I were a betting man (actually, a betting woman…and I am)….I wouldn’t be so quick to bet against that….the “powers that be” in the Delaware Rep. party already have the “evidence”….they’ve actually had it for quite some time….apparently, these details weren’t even shocking to Mr. Strine….
Told ya. 😉
I said his constituents won’t see it. ON that basis, I’ll take the bet.
Did Strine get all hot and bothered and demand some “alone” time with the evidence?
“I said his constituents won’t see it. ON that basis, I’ll take the bet.”
Al…how much you betting and how can I be guaranteed collection?
“Did Strine get all hot and bothered and demand some “alone” time with the evidence?”
I can’t really speak to what he did with the evidence, but since they did contain pictures, one can only guess….
woohooo pictures! alright! people never learn
Tell you what, Madame — if the pictures come out, drop by the studio on Shipley Road a little after 12 noon any weekday and I’ll take you out to lunch. If they don’t, you owe me nothing. I just think that, if the photos are as hot as all that, Still will bow out and that’ll be the end of it. Do you think otherwise?
I have no idea what, if any, evidence exists about John Still’s alleged infidelities. However, past experience teaches us that a smoking gun may not be necessary.
Some of you may remember Sen. Bill Slatcher. His wife was, I think, Town Manager of Seaford. Word circulated mostly in Republican circles that Slatcher was engaged in an extramarital affair. This offended the voters in this conservative district and, as a result, we now have…Sen. Bob Venables. You can look it up.
I think Still is likely to face the same type of disapproval from the ‘values’ voters he has so actively courted, although ‘courted’ may not be the best word choice…
“Tell you what, Madame — if the pictures come out, drop by the studio on Shipley Road a little after 12 noon any weekday and I’ll take you out to lunch. If they don’t, you owe me nothing. I just think that, if the photos are as hot as all that, Still will bow out and that’ll be the end of it. Do you think otherwise?”
Al, talk about backpeddling! You wagered that Still’s constituents wouldn’t see the “evidence.”There’s alot of credible “evidence.” Some pictures can’t be printed because of copyright issues (I have done my research!). Additionally, I believe there’s only one of the Good Senator. But the remaining evidence, including his profile and references to the sexwebsite (where he was a “verified” member) that he frequented, his rather raunchy emails referencing his particular “preferences,”you know, blindfolds, restraints and the like, well, that’s all good, solid “evidence” that his constituents are more than likely to see….
btw, Al, lunch is sooo not a wager I’d go for! “Man up” and come stronger than that…
Just for the record. I suggested the name Madame X.
I get the credit. 🙂
OK, then let it cover the other evidence, too. I merely got the impression they were pictures.
Sorry, that’s the best it’s gonna get. If you need money, sell the “evidence.” Until it’s out there, I’m not much impressed. “Man up” yourself. If you’ve got this evidence, show it now. If not, what are you talking so tough for?
“Just for the record. I suggested the name Madame X.
I get the credit. ”
Oh, pardon me! How could I have possibly been so inconsiderate! I definitely didn’t mean to offend you, Dana. You’re absolutely, positively right! You did create my “oh-so-appropriate”name. Please excuse my rather rude behavior.
Al, I’m not talking”tough;” just talking “truth.” You forget, you’re the one that challenged whether or not the information would make it to Still’s constituents, not whether the evidence existed. I merely challenged your assertion. I’m in a position to, you know. I do, afterall, have in my possession no shortage of “evidence” to support the fact that Senator Still is in NO position to judge what anyone else does behind closed doors, nor is he in a position to even open his mouth about the “sanctity” of marriage. And, finally, most importantly, I’m in a position to show at least 500 different reasons why Senator Still should not even consider pushing anymore of his hateful, hurtful anti-gay legislation.
So show it or stow it. Until you do, it’s just a smear.
“So show it or stow it. Until you do, it’s just a smear.”
Al, the fact that you haven’t seen it, doesn’t make it any less real and/or authentic, nor does it make it, “smear.” What you can do is choose to believe it, or not. But to label it as “smear” is just not appropriate.
Has anyone thought of passing this stuff on to the divorce attorneys?
“Has anyone thought of passing this stuff on to the divorce attorneys?”
And who might they be?? I doubt his wife would want for anything.
Absolutely it’s a smear. Something can be true and still be a smear. And until you produce the evidence, there’s no proof that there IS any evidence. You’ve been teasing Dana with this for months. As I said, show it or stow it. The rest of your mouth-running is, whether you like it or not, just smearing Still without proof.
See, I’m an actual person that people can find. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous person who’s been slagging Still for quite some time over this stuff. You don’t have to show it to me; I really don’t care what John Still does in his bedroom (or wherever else he likes to get his jollies). Trust me, after 25 years of getting “tips” like this from people like you, I know bull manure when I smell it.
You have a simple way to prove your side: Out with it. Otherwise, go back to whatever your “legitimate” profession might be.
As an example of a “true smear,” consider how a couple of Clinton backers talked about Obama’s past drug use. He admitted it himself in his autobiography, so it’s obviously true; raising it in the context the Clintonites did — “this will make him unelectable” — turns it into a smear.
And let’s take this one step further: Instead of dropping all these teases, why haven’t you simply opened up shop as a blogger yourself and posted your evidence there? If you were interested in the truth coming out, it would have come out, no? So what are you really interested in?
“Absolutely it’s a smear. Something can be true and still be a smear. And until you produce the evidence, there’s no proof that there IS any evidence. You’ve been teasing Dana with this for months. As I said, show it or stow it. The rest of your mouth-running is, whether you like it or not, just smearing Still without proof.”
Al, “smear” as used in your context (“So show it or stow it. Until you do, it’s just a smear.)
clearly denotes that the information is false. or otherwise invalid. That’s simply not the truth. What I state are simply “facts” and nothing but. The fact that you’re not privy to it, doesn’t make the evidence “smear” or less than credible. There are certainly a number of people on both sides of the political spectrum who have access to that “evidence.” You’ll have to try much harder to bait this girl.
“See, I’m an actual person that people can find. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous person who’s been slagging Still for quite some time over this stuff. ”
I absolutely have not been “slagging” as you say. I don’t have to. Why not call Mr. Strine? Are you frightened of what he might tell you? I’ll tell you what he told me and that was that the release of this information would have catostrophic consequences for the Delaware Rep. Party, or words to that effect.
“Trust me, after 25 years of getting “tips” like this from people like you, I know bull manure when I smell it.”
Al, you must make me this one promise and that is, that when the “evidence” comes out in a more public manner, you’ll invite me over to see the egg on your face. You’ve so clearly missed the boat on this one, my dear man. I hate to think the 25 years you’ve invested discerning fact from fiction was all for naught.
“And let’s take this one step further: Instead of dropping all these teases, why haven’t you simply opened up shop as a blogger yourself and posted your evidence there? If you were interested in the truth coming out, it would have come out, no? So what are you really interested in?”
Thanks, but no thanks to your offer to open up shop as a blogger. I simply don’t know enough about anything of interest that I could write about with sufficient regularity. But I do know enough to know when someone’s titillalated (Is it okay to use that word…here?) You may hate it, but you certainly are.
“If you were interested in the truth coming out, it would have come out, no?”
Al, I have any infinite number of reasons for the information not coming out before now. Know this: None of it, my dear man, is related to validity, reliability, or credibility of the information.
Let’s not forget the proper focus, here. The fact is, you’ve got in your hands a rather senior Senator who has made it a business legislating morality when he clearly doesn’t have any. Typically it’s noone’s business what consenting adults do behind closed doors. However, when an individual is tasked with making the laws, continually breaks them, and who further makes morality and the sanctity of marriage the hallmark of their tenure, doing the complete opposite will always land you on the front page of the news and leave you ripe for scorn.
Cut the crap, sweetheart. As I said, show it or stow it. The fact that you’ve shopped it around without taking it public speaks volumes about your motives.
Titillated? Hardly. I’m calling bullshit, sweetheart. If you had anything that would stand up to legal scrutiny, it would be out by now.
What you’re really up to sounds awfully close to the legal line of blackmail.
You must watch a lot of TV, or else you read a lot of lousy detective novels. Why not tell the whole truth, how you approached bloggers with this information and tried to get them to publicize it? It’s not just a smear, dearie, it’s a really ugly one. Either it’s true or it’s not. To keep saying it’s true without providing any proof is the modus operandi of the bunkum artist. The fact that you’re willing to post this over and over without providing even a scintilla of evidence — c’mon, who’s going to take the word of some anonymous blog commenter? — furthers the connection.
And if you really think any newspaper in Delaware will put this on the front page, you’re even more full of crap than you’ve come off so far. I’ll tell you when they’ll print it — when it makes its way into court papers. You’re blowing smoke directly out your blow hole.
The fact is — and don’t pretend you don’t know it — photos can be photoshopped and any other “evidence” you have could be faked. Frankly, even if/when you go public not many people are going to believe you. Sure, you can ruin Still’s career — and I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it. But I understand why you won’t go public. Someone who would play such games with such information is at least as morally degenerate as the good senator could ever be.
Way I hear it, she couldn’t get any cash for her story, though she tried, tried, tried.
Al, the reason she won’t come forward with the evidence is she’d be public, and then she may have to answer the questions over why she tried to sell the evidence instead of producing it.
Honey, did you ever get the dough from Larry Flynt?
Dr. Mascitti is operating.
However…..there is another instance in which the NJ would publish these items. If the main topic of the story was the fact that a legislator was featured in Hustler magazine.
They could just write around the actual content and make the story about Larry Flint’s jihad against hypocrits touching down in the First state.
Well, that would seem to make my comment moot.
Maybe you’re right, Jason, but that wouldn’t really get the story onto the front pages. Unless the News Journal has changed an awful lot since I left, they would leave the tawdry stuff out, figuring the curious would go to the Hustler site for the details. The State News might run it, and if they did it would probably do Still more good than harm; there’s nothing that makes downstaters rally round one of their own like an attack by an outsider.
“If you had anything that would stand up to legal scrutiny, it would be out by now.”
That’s quite a declaration, Al. How can you possibly know what considerations or circumstances might have kept he from publicizing it so far?
“What you’re really up to sounds awfully close to the legal line of blackmail.”
Really? How so? Has she approached the man to blackmail him? Is that something you know, Al? Or are you simply making another declaration in the absence of adequate evidence? Where’s there anything in what she’s written that has the quality of this kind of threat: “So & so if you don’t do x, I’ll publish this damaging information?” For something to be blackmail, it seems to me it should essentially take that form.
So where is it in what she’s said?
“there’s nothing that makes downstaters rally round one of their own like an attack by an outsider.”
LOL! You don’t even know the nature of the evidence or how damning and indisputable it is.
Your pompous certainties and declarations seem to result more from an inflated mood than from any real acquaintance with the evidence.
“Cut the crap, sweetheart. As I said, show it or stow it. The fact that you’ve shopped it around without taking it public speaks volumes about your motives.”
Al, it’s funny that you speak as though you know any facts. The facts are…you don’t know any and that’s why you continue to make unsubstantiated comments, without any basis at all! You know what you’ve been told, not what you have actually seen and/or heard. So with that in mind, your inability to say anything definitive or factual, like I’m able to, is unequivocally clear! Have you spoken to anyone with any real knowledge? Of course, not. You wouldn’t know where to begin! You simply don’t know anything of credible substance and you’ve been outed for the same. You’re reduced to relying on rumor and innuendo because you’re not “in the know” and that bothers you greatly, does it not??
“The fact that you’ve shopped it around without taking it public speaks volumes about your motives.”
Al, once again, when you finally get the “facts,” (as in, the “truth,” something you’re apparently wholly unfamiliar with), you’ll be shocked who learned of it first. And once again, I want to be around to see a little egg on your face.
Btw…if I didn’t have anything to “shop around,” why would this even be newsworthy? Fact is, you KNOW I’ve got the goods.
“The fact is — and don’t pretend you don’t know it — photos can be photoshopped and any other “evidence” you have could be faked. Frankly, even if/when you go public not many people are going to believe you. Sure, you can ruin Still’s career — and I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it. But I understand why you won’t go public. Someone who would play such games with such information is at least as morally degenerate as the good senator could ever be.”
Al, any evidence I have, can certainly be easily verified. How do I know that? It has been. As has been aptly proven by blogging Delawarians (sp), IP addressess can be verified, text messages as well (oh, did I forget to mention text messages), along with signatures on documents. And, further, for example, even gift certificates, say from from Dover Downs, hotel stays, verified memberships on sexbased websites, are all things that clearly can be authenticated. Why would I be so specific, if I didn’t have it? I don’t think for a second you don’t believe I have what I say I do.
“Way I hear it, she couldn’t get any cash for her story, though she tried, tried, tried.
Al, the reason she won’t come forward with the evidence is she’d be public, and then she may have to answer the questions over why she tried to sell the evidence instead of producing it.
Honey, did you ever get the dough from Larry Flynt?”
*LOL* Again, speaking someone speaking without facts. Fact is, I was offered a great deal of money…and that too is detailed in a text message. Flynt was very interested, and, in fact, had an investigator look into it. Did you source allow you THAT information?
It’s not my motives that will be on trial, except if you’re looking for an excuse to keep the Good Senator in office, in which case you’ll have someone who thinks nothing of instructing another person to lie about doing official Senate “work” for the Senator, should that individual be questioned about the nature of the contact between the two. That too, my good man, is in writing. What say you now???
“Either it’s true or it’s not.”
It’s true. I’ve already told you that.
“The State News might run it, and if they did it would probably do Still more good than harm; there’s nothing that makes downstaters rally round one of their own like an attack by an outsider”
Let’s be clear about one thing, Al. And that is, this is not a case of “he said, she said;” nor is this a case where the details can be open to subjective interpretation, like say, the Vitter matter. The overwhelming majority of evidence can be taken only one way, and, as Dana said, it’s INDISPUTABLE. And, unless downstaters are willing to rally around a “family values” Senator who is shown to have lived a VERY alternative life style, all the while attempting to to legislate one way of life for the people of Delaware, but carving out a special alternative one for himself (doubtful), and one in which he encourages, no, make that “orders,” IN WRITING, another to lie about something related to his official duties, in an attempt to cover-up the relationship, all I can say is more power to them. I would certainly give them more credit than that.
I’ll tell you why Madame X won’t reveal her name. She is afraid that her husband will find out about the affair and blackmail and kick her and the kids out. She doesn’t have a job because she lost her license to practice. So now she blackmails people for money.
“I’ll tell you why Madame X won’t reveal her name. She is afraid that her husband will find out about the affair and blackmail and kick her and the kids out. She doesn’t have a job because she lost her license to practice. So now she blackmails people for money.”
Dear “Know it All”…know this…an affair such as this, would certainly not result in the demise of my marriage. How do I know? It’s no longer a secret. Furthermore, I would be more concerned about a senior politician who engages in behavior that would even leave him open to blackmail, than I would of anyone else’s behavior because that, would it not, would clearly demonstrate poor judgment (particularly if that public servant, even after making a veiled threat about possibly being blackmailed, can’t keep his trousers zipped up) and doesn’t the public deserve more than that. Your esteemed Senator made that allegation some time ago, and guess what????He still kept coming back. Apparently his primal desires were more important than his concern over the possibility of being blackmailed. That too, is in writing. Finally, know this; that license to practice is as easily obtainable as I want and need it to be. Certainly YOU would know that….
Know this, “Know it all:” I’ve held the confidences of at least two people who were a zillion times more powerful and prominent than Still. If I was interested in blackmailing anyone, he wouldn’t register on my list. I should note, those men were not hypocrites trying to sell the public a bill of goods that they themselves couldn’t subscribe to. They were also not bragging about holding important civil rights legislation (a cause to which I am truly committed) hostage. Those confidences will never be disclosed.
Finally, I would have never needed to blackmail Still. Hasn’t he offended enough people such that the information I possess would have certainly garnered more money than he could have ever produced?
Sorry, nobody is going to give the time of day to a blackmailer. If you cared about the principle, the material would already be public. It’s not, so it’s clear that your noble justification is just a rationalization.
If he drops out, I’ll assume what you say is true. If not, you’re pretty much up the creek on the credibility front. It’s not that nobody will believe you, it’s that mainstream newspapers will not print the material. If his opponent makes an issue of it, that’s a different story — the papers will write it up if his opponent releases it. But realize that the reaction will as likely be to defend Still as condemn him. It will be his word against yours — all he has to say is that you’ve somehow framed him. It won’t even have to be believable — most of his constituents don’t even want to think about such things, so they won’t. They’ll believe him because it’s easier. Seriously, you’re sadly mistaken about what people are going to think. They’ll talk and giggle for a few days, but the vast public just doesn’t give a damn. If he has the guts to brazen it out, he could be re-elected. So he’s kinky — so what? He’s not preying on congressional interns or hooking up with men in public bathrooms.
Really, if your goal is to ruin his political career and/or life, go ahead and release the information. You’ve already done nearly all the damage you’re going to do. Otherwise, I can’t really fathom what your motive is, other than trying to make him sweat. Woman scorned?
Having re-read your posts, let me make this clear — I don’t care whether it’s true or not. But let’s look at the possibilities:
It’s not true. This would explain why you talk, talk, talk about the information without publicly releasing it. You could show mocked-up documents privately without worrying about legal ramifications — do you really think none of your material could be faked? — but going public could make you liable in a libel/slander suit, so you won’t release it. There might be other motivations, but that one will do to explain why you might choose this course.
It is true. If this is the case, we’re left to wonder why you talk, talk, talk without releasing the information. You have offered no clue. Have you told Still you wouldn’t release it if he resigned? You imply that, but don’t say so. If that’s not the case, my apologies. Not that anybody but me cares, but what exactly do you want?
“Sorry, nobody is going to give the time of day to a blackmailer. If you cared about the principle, the material would already be public. It’s not, so it’s clear that your noble justification is just a rationalization. ”
Al, I have a difficult, no,make that impossible, time believing that you are not aware of the most basic and common ramifications of my disclosure. I would not be the only person affected. You don’t even have to know me personally to know the likely consequences of such action. It’s not something to take too lightly and I haven’t. I have given it much thought and opted not to release the information previously for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t mean the principle isn’t a big issue. It’s a huge issue.
It’s the clearest and easiest thing for him to claim, blackmail, that is. I mean, what else can he say? But he can’t really avail himself of that “out” because he once attempted to make that accusation (which was as untrue then as it is now) and yet continued to seek me out. Also, there’s a papertrail a mile long which would clearly indicate that I didn’t need to blackmail him. And yes, I know you haven’t yet seen it, but it exists.
“If he drops out, I’ll assume what you say is true. ”
Please don’t give credit where credit is not due. Still felt screwed by his party when he wasn’t re-elected to his position as Minority Leader. I saw him after that happened, and he indicated an intent to retire at that time.
“But realize that the reaction will as likely be to defend Still as condemn him. It will be his word against yours — all he has to say is that you’ve somehow framed him.”
This is not a case of “he said, she said.” IP addresses can be checked, text messages (the content of which would clearly defeat any argument that he was somehow “framed”) can be easily traced back to their originating sources, handwriting exemplars can be used to verify signatures, etc. This is the furthest thing from “he said, she said.”
“Have you told Still you wouldn’t release it if he resigned? You imply that, but don’t say so. If that’s not the case, my apologies. ”
Your apology is accepted. I have not ever implied or even suggested that.
“do you really think none of your material could be faked?”
Not a shred of it.
So I don’t get it. You’re telling everyone about it, but not releasing anything that proves it. How do you anticipate the material becoming public? Believe me, the newspapers will not touch this unless and until it comes from either his opposition or in court records, both of which offer the newspaper protection from legal action.
Which goes to your contention about the paper trail, etc. First off, anything can be faked; all he has to say is you faked it and the onus will be on you to prove it’s real. But I doubt it would ever come to that. Nobody will delve that deeply into it unless it’s a court case. Have any laws been broken? If not, do you anticipate some civil action? Remember what happened in the Shaefer case in Smyrna. That IP address came out because legal action was involved. Absent that, nobody would ever have learned that the relevant emails were sent from Shaefer’s house.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t get understand your intentions here. What is it you’re looking for, and how do you intend to get it?
Am i imagining it or does Madame X sound an awful lot like Dana?
the newspapers will not touch this
If it was Protack they would have published it yesterday.
“the newspapers will not touch this
If it was Protack they would have published it yesterday.”
Protack is not without skeletons. Don’t kid yourself.
Thank you Madame RickJ.
No, she’s real. I had heard about this before. Her existence isn’t the issue. I’m just trying to point out that without the release of any documentation, this is as far as it will go, though of course it will further the whispering campaign sure to start up against him.
Any injustice to John Still from a whispering campaign is as immaterial and unfair as accusing Senator Craig of hypocrisy. Still and his buddies Ron Smith and Mayor Schaeffer will garner my sympathy for any injustices against them 100 years after Hell freezes over.
“Know this, “Know it all:” I’ve held the confidences of at least two people who were a zillion times more powerful and prominent than Still. If I was interested in blackmailing anyone, he wouldn’t register on my list. I should note, those men were not hypocrites trying to sell the public a bill of goods that they themselves couldn’t subscribe to. They were also not bragging about holding important civil rights legislation (a cause to which I am truly committed) hostage. Those confidences will never be disclosed.”
So, let me get this straight. You are ruining a man’s reputation because he doesn’t share you view on “civil rights legislation?” Wow! If I set up every legislator with whom I didn’t agree with . . . Or is it that he had an affair with you and you are a woman scorned? Sounds more like the latter to me. And you did set him up. How easy it is to make evidence look bad against the other person, when you set that person up. But, perhaps you don’t understand the word entrapment and blackmail.
“Finally, I would have never needed to blackmail Still. Hasn’t he offended enough people such that the information I possess would have certainly garnered more money than he could have ever produced?”
So, are you saying you are in it for the big bucks?
“If he drops out, I’ll assume what you say is true. ”
Al,
You can’t assume just because he drops out of the race, that any of this is true. I think the truth is that she just did a “bang up” job of setting him up.
“Know this, “Know it all:” I’ve held the confidences of at least two people who were a zillion times more powerful and prominent than Still. If I was interested in blackmailing anyone, he wouldn’t register on my list. ”
So you do this alot, huh? You know what that makes you?
Where’s Dana when you need him? It is odd he disappears whenever Madame X speaks.
“Know this, “Know it all:” I’ve held the confidences of at least two people who were a zillion times more powerful and prominent than Still. If I was interested in blackmailing anyone, he wouldn’t register on my list. ”
“So you do this alot, huh? You know what that makes you?”
Thanks for pointing that out KnowledgeIsPower.