Search
Lies, damned lies, and Yvette Clarke opening her mouth
She's at it again. Yesterday, the Post reported the newest yawning discrepancy between a claim by Yvette Clarke and observable reality.
September 3, 2006 -- Brooklyn congressional candidate Yvette Clarke falsely represented her income on her federal financial disclosure statements, The Post has learned.
Her 2006 statement listed income as $90,000, standard salary for a City Council member.
But the sum didn't include the additional $10,000 stipend she receives each year for chairing a committee.
She also neglected to mention her retirement fund, valued at $35,000 to $60,000.
"These are issues that are in the process of being amended," said Stefan Friedman, spokesman for Clarke's campaign.
Clarke's mistakes are troubling, says Alex Knott, political editor at the Center for Public Integrity. "It sounds like this is probably an oversight," he said, "but it makes you question what else was left out."
Clarke admitted recently that she did not graduate from Oberlin College, as she had previously claimed.
In all fairness, this is probably not a calculated falsehood, merely an oversight; a conclusion that one can arrive at only because there is no conceivable benefit to her from it, as opposed to claiming degrees and endorsements she does not have. The question is, though, what else is out there; I'd bet dollars to donuts that the media are going through her record with the finest of combs right now. The storyline is quickly turning into "Yvette Clarke is a pathological liar"; what's next? She's a guy? A white guy? Ivan Clarke?
Pathological Liar Indeed!
Look, one or two "oversights" are forgiveable. But after awhile one has to admit there is a pattern here. Misrepresenting endorsements, graduating college and income reporting starts to be a serious concern.
How can anyone trust a pathological liar?
Mole, here is a question
Mole, here is a question that I would like you to answer honestly. I know you think highly of Chris and feel that he is the one that should go to congress. Two questions: 1)If Yvette's situation were Chris's situation would that change the way that you feel about Chris? 2) Would you still vote for him?
Yes
If I understand your question, you are asking whether I would lose my enthusiasm for Chris if he had a long-term pattern of lying. Fair question!
The simple answer is yes.
The more complex answer is this: I have to vote for someone and I have four choices. I will vote for whoever seems best. I have been clear that I find both positive and negative qualities in each candidate. I do my best to blog both, at least over time. If you look back, I have praised Yvette in the past and considered her my "second" choice in the race for some time. The pattern of lying changed my mind.
My original stand was to support Yassky. That changed as I got to know Yassky and Chris better and I switched to Chris. If I found a whole slew of negative revelations about Chris, I would have to re-weigh my choice as I re-weighed my original support for Yassky. But I would still be comparing him to the other three, each of whom have some major negatives I would also have to consider.
When one faces the truth and
When one faces the truth and is honest it makes everything simple.
Thank you for being honest.
I have been clear that I
I have been clear that I find both positive and negative qualities in each candidate. I do my best to blog both, at least over time.
Mole, what negative qualities did you find in Chris. I missed that blog.
You did miss it
First of all, there is far less negative to say about Chris than any of the other candidates. Each of the others have glaring negatives...Chris has negatives that are more in the details or will disappear in time.
I objected to the spin both the Owens and Clarke campaigns put on the race issue, though I also point out that Yassky was the first candidate to use the race card. I always felt that Chris was the best candidate separate from the race issue and that should have been his main message. But Yassky's continual baiting on the race issue (he would always introduce himself as "the only white candidate" in the race, for example) got a rise out of both Yvette and Chris. I think they should have left it alone.
Chris is a little to the left of me on Israel, but then Yassky is a little to the right of me and Chris has given the most intelligent and complex answers on that issue of any of the candidates so I am open to his view.
I also once criticized Chris' campaign for neglecting North Slope at Seventh Heaven simply because I saw none of his volunteers north of 10th St. But turns out they WERE out, but were short of their volunteer personnel compared with Yassky's paid army.
I think that is about it. Very minor compared with the lies of Clarke, Yassky's constant fence sitting and apparent lack of actual convictions (other than on gun issues), and Andrews' connection to corruption.
Yvette Clarke and Rance
Yvette Clarke and Rance Huff
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:33am.
Yes, Yvette Clarke was named as being responsible for breaking up the marriage as well as several other women. In the divorce, it stated that Mr. Huff was both mentally and physically abusive towards his former wife. In addition, it was suspected that he had gotten someone else pregnant during the marriage. He also spent time during the holidays even Valentine's Day with a V. sutton and forbade his wife to contact him during the holidays. Ms. Clarke and the former Mrs. Huff did not get along because Mrs. Huff did not understand why Clarke had to have her husband as her date to all events when she had a boyfriend at home. In addition, Ms. Clarke did not support the teachers' union and the former Mrs. Huff was a teacher. Because his wife disagreed with Clarke's views, he literally told her that he would have her condemned a pedophile to prevent her from working as a teacher. He stated that he would make sure that she lost her job as a teacher. These are just a few of the issues that happen. Clarke is not an advocate of women rights', but a user of women's issues for her own needs. I asked her publicly a question for a response,
"When the former Mrs. Huff asked you for help concerning the abuse she suffered from her husband, why didn't answer the call? Why did you cover up the stacks of police reports of both physical and mental abuse concerning Huff? Do not say that you did not know because the call went to your former employee of legislative affairs and to Rance Huff."
I am an advocate of womens
I am an advocate of womens rights' and your post is reall upsets me.
Lets hope that now that she is going to Congress she has people around her that do not tarnish her image.