So, American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership Want Open Borders, But What If They Worked At Disney?

How Fast Would Ms Marin Become Ms Witcher?

Soooo, according to Allahpundit at HotAir.com, the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership have 'writ[ten] off Trump, warn[ed] other candidates not to follow his lead':

And by “other candidates,” I think we know which particular candidate they have in mind.

Here’s the key bit from yesterday’s presser in Boulder, held just a mile away from tonight’s debate. Step one: Pronounce Trump persona non grata among Hispanic Republicans. That may or may not actually be true among rank-and-file voters, but the threat here doesn’t bite without that assumption, does it?

“We want candidates to know: We’re monitoring your language. We are monitoring what you propose. And we’re going to hold you accountable,” said Alfonso Aguilar, head of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership…

Although she did not refer to him by name, [Rosario] Marin, who supports former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, made clear her remarks were directed at businessman Donald Trump, whose rhetoric about Hispanics has worried GOP officials.

“We have not worked on behalf of this party for decades only to see our community work undone by the divisiveness of some candidates,” she added. “I will not name names, but one in particular has earned my absolute disgust and contempt. I will not dirty my mouth by pronouncing his name. In fact, grouping him as a candidate is an insult to the serious candidates we have in this primary.”

In other words, a Jeb Bush backer, who served as U.S. Treasurer under George W., got together with some allies to conveniently declare Jeb’s biggest headache in the race unelectable at the very moment when Bush needs some traction in the polls. But that’s not all: This was also meant as a warning to Ted Cruz, potentially a far more resilient threat to Bush than Trump and a man who’s guilty of … I’m still not sure what. Like I said last week, Trump’s two biggest sins in the eyes of immigration activists — endorsing mass deportation and suggesting that violent criminals are overrepresented among illegals — aren’t sins that Cruz shares. On the contrary, Cruz has never ruled out legal status for illegals. Cruz’s “sin,” as it were, is simply demanding a stronger border and resisting a path to citizenship. Is that all it takes to earn this group’s opprobrium? Because if so, then maybe it’s not so much Trump’s “extremism” that’s really irking this group. Maybe it’s the fact that he’s a border hawk, period.

Let's play a game with Ms Rosario Marin:

Suppose Ms Rosario Marin, an American and Latina, is working for The Walt Disney Company (or Facebook 'cuz I'm looking at you, Marky Mark Zuckerburg!).

Ms Marin graduated from Stanford University cum laude with a STEM degree and a MBA.

She has been employed at Disney for 15 years in its IT department.  She has received multiple awards for excellence for her work, leadership, mentoring of girls with STEM interests, and charity work.

As a mid-level manager, she makes $125,000 per year, plus an array of benefits that include:

1) A Cadillac health insurance policy;

2) Paid family leave of up to 2 years;

3) 6 weeks of paid vacation time;

4) Flex-time when needed;

5) Amenities at her workplace that include free meals at a chef-run cafeteria, a fitness gym with free private trainers, personal therapists that deal with anything from stress to marriage to weight matters, and alternative therapies from acupuncture to massage to high colonics and crystals. 

Further, she can avail herself of:

1) Free parking or free transportation to and from work;

2) As well as a temporary personal assistant that can run errands for her (picking up kids, grocery shopping, dry-cleaning runs, etc) at a nominal fee that is subsidised by the company.

In other words, she has a pretty sweet deal...one that many recent and soon-to-be graduates in the US would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have.

Ms Marin has also been an outspoken supporter of increased immigration - both legal and illegal.

'We are a nation of immigrants!', she recently said during her keynote speech at the 10th Annual Latina Women In Tech and La Raza Luncheon For Expanding Opportunities For Young Millennial Latinas held in the Crystal Ballroom of the The Millennium Biltmore Hotel, a historic hotel that is a ten minute walk from her offices at Disney.

'We must strive to open our hearts, our wallets, and our borders so that we can lift up Latina women and girls by providing them the opportunities that they so richly deserve, but are unlikely to find in their homelands because of centuries of Yanqui imperialism, colonialisation, and plunder!

My candidate, ¡Jeb! understands this. He understands the 'Acts of Love' that represent every act of illegal immigration, which is why he wants to grant amnesty and a pathway to citizenship, as well as expanding legal immigration.

He is not like the racist, xenophobic Donald Trump, who would build a wall between our two countries depriving Latinas, who are American by birth, and Latinas, who are undocumented Americans - as our new Speaker of the House and Friend of Luis Gutierrez, Paul Ryan, acknowledges them - by both necessity and desire.'

Yes, indeed, Ms Marin has led a charmed life.

But, then, something funny happened on the way to ¡Jeb!topia...

About two weeks after her fiery speech about the wonders of immigration, Ms Marin and many of her colleagues were summoned into the carbon-neutral auditorium.

Bob Iger, the Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, made a rare appearance before the lower classes of his workers (His compensation for 2015 is $46.5 million, of which $2,500,000 was salary. $8.9 million was in stock awards, $8.3 million in option awards, $22.8 million in non-equity incentives, $2.8 million in change-in-pension value, $1.1 million "other" compensation, $391,411 for personal air travel and $614,582 for security...so, yeah, Ms Marin is definitely in the lower classes).

 

He took to the stage and made this short, but stunning statement:

'Beginning next Monday, all of you will be partnered with a new colleague, who is a recent immigrant from India.  Each of these immigrants is amongst the highest attaining in their educational institutions and has shown to be technical wizards at IT companies in their home country.

Because of our progressive, generous, and liberal immigration system, The Walt Disney Company is pleased to announce that we have been able to obtain HB-1 visas for these fine men and women, who are the best and brightest and come from some of the poorest and most discriminatory locales on earth.  For goodness sakes, the caste system is still effectively in place!

As a nation with our own history of colonialisation, imperialism, and plunder, as well as slavery, Jim Crow, and continued discrimination, we must begin to make reparations! And, make no mistake: This we will do!  And, we will start by replacing you with your colleague at a salary of $55,000!

So, on Monday, each of you will begin to train your new colleague every aspect of your job.  This you will do for 6 months or until your colleague is proficient in your job and can pass the tests that we have prepared. 

Once your colleague has demonstrated proficiency, you will be asked to clean out your desk and report to Human Resources.

 

Once at HR, you will turn in your ID card, your locker key, any credits at the cafeteria, gym, therapy facilities, your health insurance card, and sign a nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement.

If you sign the NDCA, you will receive a severance package that includes a letter of recommendation, 3 months’ pay, 50% compensation for any remaining vacation days, and a free copy of your therapy and training records.

If you refuse, well, you'll never eat lunch in this town again.

By the way, did I tell you how great of a deal the Obama Administration gave us?

1) We don't have to pay FICA taxes on your replacement for a minimum of THREE YEARS!

2) We don't have to provide them with Obamacare!

And, for you Latinos out there like Ms Marin, who have been so outspoken and concerned about America cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration, don't worry! President Obama has now expanded the bonus under his Amnesty for hiring ILLEGAL immigrants over AMERICAN citizens - both natural born and naturalised!

3) If we hire an ILLEGAL immigrant to say, clean the offices or do the gardening rather than your dad, who is legal and has a business doing such, we get a $3,000 BONUS! 

AMERICA IS A GREAT COUNTRY!!!

Thank you for your attention.  Now, get back to work and train dem Injuns, er, Indians good!

Oh, and by the way, vote for Hillary because she will give us even more immigration reform and amnesty than Obama!

And, for those Republicans out there, keep voting for the Bushes and Establishmentarians! They luv dem sum cheap labour, Dem voters!'

UPDATE: When not sending out résumés and waiting in the unemployment line, she has been seen, in cognito, meeting with Myriam Witcher.

Benghazi: @HillaryClinton Violated A Law Signed By Her Own Husband When She Delegated Security

Following the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999.  The Act, specifically, required the Secretary of State to develop, implement, oversee, monitor, and report to Congress the security provisions enacted at all foreign embassies, consulates, and diplomatic facilities.  Furthermore, the Act SPECIFICALLY prohibits the Secretary of State from delegating this responsibility to anyone.  Period. Story. End of.

As defence attorney and former Department of Justice official, Victoria Toensing, who also represents the Benghazi whistle-blowers, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on 17 June 2014:

'As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board was convened for each bombing. Their reports, in January 1999, called attention to "two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government." 

Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.

Because the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been existing office structures, neither met the State Department's security standard for a minimum 100 foot setback zone. A "general exception" was made. 

The two review boards faulted the fact that "no one person or office is accountable for decisions on security policies, procedures and resources." 

To ensure accountability in the future, the review boards recommended "[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad" and "should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises." And for new embassy buildings abroad, "all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound." 

Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations. It mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary "may not delegate" the waiver decision.

Why is this important?  Well, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said that she had delegated security at the Benghazi compound to her underling, Patrick Kennedy.  This delegation of authority and supervision was specifically prohibited.  For example, here is her interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News:

'I was not making security decisions' [about Benghazi, claiming] it would be a mistake for a secretary of state to go through all 270 posts and decide what should be done.'

Another example: When Secretary Clinton testified before a Senate hearing in January 2013, she said:

'Security requests did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.'

Coincidentally, I am sure, Susan Rice was serving as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and Hillary flunkie and delegate, Patrick F Kennedy, was Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security when local branches of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad sponsored by Al Qaeda committed the attacks, which killed 224 and wounded more than 4,000.

Sid Vicious Blumenthal's Emails Destroy Every. Single. One. Of @HillaryClinton's Server Explanations & Excuses

Chairwoman Mau-Mau

Now, watch her closely...

OMFG! THAT face!

Priceless. 

OK, time to get serious. So, Her Imperial Royal Thighness, Hillary Rodham Clinton (HIRT-HRC, Democrat/'Progressive') said this:

'Well, nothing i sent or received was marked classified at the time. That is an absolute fact. It’s been verified over and over and over again. So i think that we’ll have a chance to explain what that means, if people don’t understand it.'

We know for a FACT that she sent and received ‘born classified’ information over her unauthorised and unsecured email server. 

Just one example: 

A former CIA official, illegally, disclosed the real identity of one of our main operatives in Libya to Sidney Blumenthal. Immediately, upon receipt, Blumenthal was REQUIRED by 18 U.S. Code § 793 to alert the Federal government that he had received highly classified information that had clearly been disclosed illegally.  For the record, the actual names of our intelligence assets overseas are known to only a handful of high-ranking, select people in the government.  Obama doesn’t even know these names unless he, specifically, asks for them.  Everyone else that is cleared to view the information - an infinitesimally small number of individuals - who have the highest clearances, and are on a need-to-know list for that specific identity, can see it.  BUT, even then, they must present the relevant credentials at a specified SCIF reading room and only after that will the information be delivered to the secure room and made available for that person’s eyes only. S/he cannot write anything down or reproduce anything in the room in any way - such is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793. 

This is not voluntary.  It is required by the Federal Espionage Act of 1917.

But, Sid Vicious decided to break Federal law. 

First, he illegally gathered illegally-obtained, compartmentalised classified information of the highest sort. Then, he continued to be in possession of said information. Finally, again illegally, he forwarded said information to Hillary Clinton. All in violation of the law. 

At this point, Hillary Clinton was REQUIRED by 18 U.S. Code § 793 to immediately advise the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the administration that one of our most important operatives had been compromised by an illegal disclosure either made by someone currently with the CIA or the former official. She chose to similarly break Federal law: 

1) By not immediately informing the government that an asset had been compromised; and, 

2) By not immediately informing the President or the intelligence agency that someone either currently in the government or who had previously worked for the government was disclosing classified material of the highest priority; and, 

3) By deciding to possess highly classified materials that had been obtained illegally; and, 

4) By forwarding the name of one of our chief intelligence assets in Libya to one of her underlings at State over an unsecured server. 

All FOUR of the above violate 18 U.S. Code § 793.

Documents or other materials containing the name of an asset doesn’t have to be marked ‘Top Secret’. 

IT IS BORN THAT WAY.

Hillary either knew this and chose to break the law or was so incompetent and negligent that she should never have been given such clearance. Neither portends well for this country under a Presidency of a Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the illegal receipt of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the failure to notify one's immediate supervisor, President Obama, or the CIA of the illegal receipt of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the willful possession and/or retention of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the forwarding of classified information is a violation of Federal law.

'An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.’

Lastly, some Federal statutes concerning this area do not require specific intent. Only a demonstration of gross negligence is needed to secure a conviction.  Apparently, the FBI is looking at the gross negligence provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 793, which is a much easier case for the government.  It doesn't have to prove intent to secure a felony conviction.  (Check out the penalties prescribed under the Act.  Whoa, baby!)

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to "gross negligence" in the safekeeping of national defense information. 

Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

Do you know how she is always going on and on and on about how she ‘voluntarily’ turned over all of her ‘work-related’ emails? You know, those 55,000 pages of emails? And, do you remember how she claimed that those she deleted were personal and only concerned things like yoga, Chelsea’s wedding, her mum’s funeral and little notes to her husband, who has only sent one email in his life? 

According to HIRT-HRC, she turned over EVERYTHING 'work-related' and EVERYTHING else was personal. 

Au contraire! 

How do we know that is a flat-out lie?  

Simple. She did NOT turn over the Blumenthal emails. 

The Blumenthal emails were obtained via the hacktivist, Guccifer. 

Dunno ’bout you, but I would think that the true identity of one of our most important assets would fall in the ‘work-related’ category and not that concerning downward-facing dog. 

Now, Clinton drones are trying to waive this all away and continue to claim that what she did was 1) much ado about nothing; 2) perfectly legal; 3) within the policies and guidelines of the Federal government, including those of her very own department and the same ones that she used to discipline her underlings; 4) just a little mistake; 5) nothing she did ever jeopardised our national security, the sources and methods of governmental agencies, and/or all of the former relative to one of our allies; 6) it's just another 'manufactured scandal' concocting by the vast right-wing conspiracy; and, 7) HIRT-HRC is being treated no differently than you or I would be.

Just stop.

PLEASE.

You guys are making fools of yourself.

Let's ask these guys what it is like not to be Her Imperial Royal Thighness...

On Thursday, a group of national security whistleblowers held a news conference in Washington at the National Press Club to highlight what they characterized as a double standard in these types of cases. NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act for sharing unclassified material with a Baltimore Sun reporter. 

Drake, who also went to Congress with his concerns about the NSA, said his goal was to expose government misconduct. 

"This is the secretary of state, one of the most targeted individuals by other intelligence entities and agencies in the world using a private server to traffic highly sensitive information and no doubt including classified information and no doubt including info about sources and methods," Drake said at Thursday’s event. 

He added the whistleblowers’ treatment shows there is a law for the average citizen, and apparently a different set of rules for the powerful. 

"But hey, I'm secretary of state,” Drake said in a sarcastic tone. ”Even Obama gave her cover."

The charges against Drake were eventually dropped. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the process lost his ability to work in national security and depleted his life savings to mount a defense.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling also went to Congress with his complaints, but was sentenced in May to three-and-a-half years in prison for violating the Espionage Act by giving classified information to a New York Times reporter.

Sterling, who is appealing the case, was also convicted on obstruction of justice charges because a single email was missing from his account, even though the government could not show he was responsible for that. 

Clinton has acknowledged deleting some 30,000 emails she considered personal.

In 2015, former CIA Director General David Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor admitting he mishandled classified materials by sharing notebooks with his former mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. He also was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine.

Sterling’s supporters said he shared far less classified information with the New York Times.

'Powerful and politically connected individuals accused of the same and much worse conduct receive, at most, a slap on the wrist. Like General David Petraeus who gave away more secret information, classified at a much higher level, to his mistress and received a sweetheart plea deal for a minor misdemeanor,' Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower and former ethics adviser to the Department of Justice, said Thursday.

'Or Hillary Clinton - she got a primetime TV apologist political spin interview from President Obama himself,' Radack added.

Exactly! We are supposed to be equal under the law with Lady Justice dispensing justice in a fair and legal manner. There shouldn't be two classes of the criminal justice system. One being members of the Ruling Party and the other being you and me. 

Remember when the Left was OUTRAGED over the 'Affluenza case'? 

Recall how they are always screaming about the way the system is rigged and the poor, the minority, and The Other go to prison and the evil rich go to St Bart's? 

Ever notice how much they stomp their feetsies over Obama releasing felons, who are illegal immigrants, that go on to commit serious crimes like murder and rape while sending black men to prison? 

Oh, wait. Forget that last one.

'She is the primary figure and prime suspect in it so why not go after her following her persistent lying about it.' 

- HAGGS99 on October 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM

Her apologists are still under the delusion that she isn't being investigated...her SERVER is! 

Right-O!  'Cuz, like...

The FBI only investigates the gun, not the individual suspected of using it to commit murder. 

The FBI only investigates the drugs, not the individual or group trafficking them.

The FBI only investigates the USD, not the individuals exchanging it in a bribery case. 

It's so easy to be a drone. 

Look, Mum! No hands, no brains!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


UPDATE #1:


FBI: Investigation into Hillary’s email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 YEARS in jail…SHE COULD BE PROSECUTED JUST FOR FAILING TO TELL OBAMA.

Bingo!

18 U.S. Code § 793


UPDATE #2:


So, PROGS… 

What do you think should happen? 

In the Plame affair, Scooter Libby was sentenced to 30 months and served less than that because Bush granted him clemency. He was NOT pardoned. His conviction still stands. All of this even though 1) it was Colin Powell’s underling, Richard Armitage, who disclosed Plame’s name to Robert Novak; and, 2) FITZGERALD KNEW THIS BEFORE HE DECIDED TO BRING LIBBY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. 

We KNOW that Hillary received the true identity of one of our top assets in the Middle East and, while in possession of this illegally-dsclosed, compartmentlised, TOP SECRET, classified information:

1. A current or former CIA agent of high rank sent the name to former CIA agent, Tyler Drumheller…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.

2. Drumheller disclosed the name to Sidney Blumenthal…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.

3. On 18 March 2011, Sidney Blumenthal forwarded this information to Hillary via her unsecured, unauthorised server…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.  

[Instead of informing either Obama or the CIA immediately, Hillary chose to retain the information on her server (a felony and violation of the Espionage Act of 1917).] 

4. Additionally, Hillary hit the ‘forward’ button and sent this highest of the high compartmentalised, Top Secret classified information to, at minimum, one of her underlings at State, who lacked the requisite clearance…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH. 

This is just one email. 

If, as it appears because the FBI wouldn’t have made such a stink, the FBI is leaning toward making a referral, shouldn’t the DOJ AT THE VERY, VERY, VERY MINIMUM present the case to a Grand Jury? 

If not, why not? 

You must realise that, should the FBI refer for prosecution the case to DOJ and Lynch refuses to proceed, THAT. FACT. WILL. BE. LEAKED. BY. THE. FBI. EVERYWHERE. 

Not only will Hillary Clinton take a huge hit, but the Democratic Party and President Obama will be in a shitstorm the likes of which they have never seen. 

You can’t talk about fairness and equality when you sentence young, black men to prison and give an extremely wealthy and powerful old, white woman a pass. 

The Democratic Party's cred-card will be maxed out for a very long time.

Put Down The Pitchforks! Stop The Witch Hunt: When The Mad Get Madder

MP Tom Watson publicly (and falsely) accused Lord Brittan of being a rapist and ‘as close to evil as any human being could get’.

In our desire to right the historic wrongs of child abuse we are contaminating the present. Labour's deputy leader is not to blame (but he bears a good portion of it - SoRo)...We have been living through a period of national psychosis.

By Dan Hodges

Tom Watson should apologise to the family of the late Leon Brittan. They may accept the apology, they may reject the apology. But that’s a matter for them, not Tom Watson. He publicly accused Leon Brittan of being a rapist. And Leon Brittan was not a rapist. The accusation may have been made in good faith, but it was an erroneous accusation, concerning a terrible crime. These are the things honourable men apologise for. And I believe Tom Watson is an honourable men. There is still time for him to do the decent thing, and he should do the decent thing. 

I’ve been writing consistently about what I have described as a “witch-hunt” over so called “establishment paedophiles”. I have also been critical of those who have helped to keep this grotesque circus performing. But we are now in danger of moving from a paedophile witch-hunt to a Tom Watson witch-hunt. And this issue is too important for that. 

We have been living through a period of national psychosis Yes, Tom Watson has made allegations about a Westminster child-sex abuse. So have a series of other MPs, across all parties. The initial allegations were made by the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens. The Home Secretary Theresa May has talked of recent convictions and allegations being the “tip of the iceberg” in relation to abuse by figures in public life. The Prime Minister has authorised an inquiry into historic sex abuse that will span schools, hospitals, the judiciary, the police service, national government and local government. The inquiry could, we have been told, last until 2020. If its virtually open-ended remit and recent experience are anything to go by we can expect it to last for several years longer than that. 

This madness is not the responsibility of one man. We have been living through a period of national psychosis. An almost textbook case study of moral panic. And if we are to snap out of it, running around screaming “it’s all Tom Watson’s fault” will not suffice. 

There are a number of reasons why we have reached this point. The point where some of our nation’s most dedicated public servants – from former prime ministers down – have had their reputations ripped to shreds with the most vile and incredible accusations. 

One is our self-destructive obsession with tearing down anyone and anything that is deemed to be part of “the establishment”. No accusation, no allegation, no matter how patently ludicrous or outlandish can now be justified so long as the target is the malign and shadowy “establishment”. A former Prime Minister abused children, murdered them, then threw them off his yacht, in full view of half a dozen crew members? OK, may sound a little far-fetched. But he was a senior member of “the establishment” wasn’t he? Must be right, then. Police helped cover up the activities of a murderous child torture gang that rampaged sadistically across Westminster throughout the Seventies and Eighties? Seems a bit implausible. But the police are part of “the establishment” too, aren’t they? 

Another is our continued obsession with fame and celebrity. All we have heard over the past few years is the pious mantra “this is about the victims”. It’s not about the victims at all. It’s about the perpetrators. And the fact the perpetrators are famous. When was the last time the police marched the media down to the house of a deceased paedophile plumber to hold a press conference? Who was the last MP who rose in the House of Commons to condemn the failure to prosecute a paedophile electrician? When did we last awake to banner national headlines of “former milkman faces historic child abuse allegations”. Jimmy Savile’s fame masked his guilt. And now the fame of the those wrongly accused of historic sex crimes is masking their innocence.

There is a third factor. The modern phenomenon of the “political crime”. Rape is most obvious. As is any crime with a perceived racial motivation. And now child abuse, when perpetrated by a high-profile public figure. 

Once we assessed innocence or guilt relatively dispassionately. Now we adopt stances – and increasingly find ourselves forced to adopt stances – based solely on the nature of the offence, rather than the facts of the case. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. If I see someone accused of a crime which has a racial component I immediately assume guilt. I have nothing to base that on but my own personal prejudice towards prejudice. My default stance – based primarily on my political world view – is that the accused is almost certainly guilty. 

And this in turn has created the most dangerous component of this modern “historic child abuse” terror. We have now reached the point where there are crimes for which there is no defence. To attempt to refute an accusation against oneself – or to try do to do so on behalf of some one else – is to invite condemnation, or accusations that you yourself are complicit in the crime. 

We have a name for it. We call it “victim blaming”. To even dare to suggest that someone is innocent is to engage in “victim blaming”. To claim that an accuser may be wrong, or mistaken, or themselves motivated by malign intent is to engage in “victim blaming”. To say “I don’t believe the accuser, I believe the accused” is to engage in “victim blaming”. 

We have replaced the judicial process with trial by social media We have now got ourselves into a place where the fundamental principle underpinning our system of justice – the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt – has been turned on its head. With certain “political crimes” there is now a presumption of guilt until innocence can be proven. In fact, we’ve gone beyond that. This “victim blaming” culture is now reaching such a toxic critical mass that even to try to mount a defence against accusations of the vilest crime is of itself to bring accusations of committing a vile crime. “Don’t you understand? When you challenge the account of a 'survivor' you make it harder for other survivors to come forward. And that means you’re effectively letting the abusers go free. Which makes you almost as bad as the abusers yourself." 

This is insanity. Almost literally. 

In our desire to right historic wrongs we are contaminating the present. We have replaced the judicial process with trial by social media. We are tearing up basic principles that have underpinned our legal system for centuries, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence. We have politicians acting like prosecutors, journalists acting like judges, prosecutors acting like policemen, and policemen acting like politicians. 

This whole malevolent carnival is not the product of one man. Every single one of us has, in some part, participated in it. We are all complicit. 

So yes, Tom Watson should apologise. But in truth, so should we all.