Saturday, March 13, 2010

What, do you think I'm stupid?


Rep. Kevin Garn, a top leader in the Utah House of Representatives recently disclosed that 25 years ago he sat naked in a hot tub with a former employee. He was 28 at the time and she was 15. Subsequently, in 2002, he paid her $150,000 to keep it quiet. He is now claiming that “nothing happened” while they sat naked in the hot tub. I’m guessing Mr. Garn that you also believe Bill Clinton really “didn’t inhale.”

Why is it that so many politicians believe their constituents are so stupid that they will believe whatever they say? When you run for office you are asking for my trust. You are asking me to trust that you will work in my best interests. Mr. Garn, let me make one thing very clear, I DO NOT TRUST YOU. I am a republican, I am one of your constituents, and we share other things in common which might make you think that my vote is yours. It isn’t, and that ought to worry you.

The victim in this incident, Sheryl Maher, claims that you are not telling the truth. You need to better define what “nothing happened,” means. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton testified, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” Of course his definition didn’t cover fellatios.

There’s one thing that I’m very sure of Mr. Garn. Something did happen in that hot tub. Inappropriate actions also happened before and most likely after that incident. According to Ms. Maher, alcohol was involved. Did you give alcohol to an underage minor? Do you consider that to be “nothing?” She says there was touching involved. She intimates that you like massage. You state, “we did not have any sexual contact…” Are you speaking solely of that time in the hot tub or does that comment mean, ”Never at any time, was there ever any sexual contact?” Just so you know, I define “sexual contact” as any contact between the two of you that had any sexual connotation behind it. She could’ve been fully clothed working as your employee in the Pegasus Record shop and you not-so-innocently brush up against her body.

As you can see Mr. Garn there are several crimes, some felonious I believe, involved here.

You further erode my trust when you skirt Federal Election law by paying money to keep her quiet. According to The Deseret News , “Federal law defines a reportable expenditure as "a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made to influence a federal election."

Even if the expenditure is not paid by the campaign directly, but instead by the candidate or a supporter, laws still generally require disclosure of the spending. Laws also require a declaration of the money spent as a contribution to the campaign.
While not commenting specifically about Garn, Federal Election Commission spokesman Christian Hilland said Friday, "Essentially, whenever a campaign spends money — whether it's permissible or not permissible — it is required to be reported on their FEC report."’

Though you didn’t return calls seeking comment, your wife, Tanya, states that the payment was made subsequent to the 2002 election. However, you did run for office after 2002 right? And that hush money definitely affected those elections right?

In my opinion sir, you are a pig. You are desperately hoping that we, your constituents, will simply believe that the hot tub was a one-time fluke, that nothing preceded it, nothing followed it, and nothing happened while you were both naked in it. How stupid do you think I am?

6 comments:

Mitch said...

So you think it's ok for the woman to use blackmail? Strange morals you have. I think both are guilty of immoral behavior, but the woman is still involed in her immorality, while Garn is not. Just a thought.

Dan and Wendy said...

Mitch, do your research. "both are guilty of immoral behavior"? As far as the hot tub is concerned she's the victim. He was her boss. He was 28-30 and she was 15. Prior to that, he was her Sunday School teacher, which means they lived very close to each other, and she should've been able to trust him.

My research suggests that he immediately offered her $20K without her asking for anything. That's not blackmail on her part. It's a bribe on his. Her husband thought the amount should be $150K.

If my wife had been sexually exploited as a minor by someone like this, and I was now dealing with the aftermath, $150K wouldn't be enough in my book.

I sent an e-mail to Mr. Garn yesterday morning asking him to resign. Yesterday evening he resigned his position. That's the right thing to have happen.

Wait until it's your wife or your daughter in a similar position before you start pontificating about how immoral the victim is.

Mitch said...

Very silly. She should have never taken money. Period. By taking money she no longer can say she is a victim.

BTW, I never said she wasn't a victim when this happened.

Paul said...

Mitch,

Whether the young woman involved is a victim or not is immaterial. At issue are Mr. Garn's crimes. A mistake? Maybe. A lapse of character? Maybe. Forgiveness possible? Maybe.

But his behavior is still irreprehensible. Keep him away from my daughters.

Mitch said...

Sure, keep Garn away from your daughter. At issue here is also blackmail. She is just as immoral when she takes money to keep Garn quiet. Does not matter if she was once a victim. She now is an adult doing an immoral thing. Where are your morals?

Paul said...

For me, and I cannot speak for the OP, the issue is Garn's behavior. Had he been honest about his original behavior, he would never have been elected. In fact, he likely would have been arrested.