One of the cruelest characteristics of the coronavirus epidemic is that it strikes fear in the hearts and minds of many causing them to ask for comfort and protection from the God they believe in. And at the same time this virus has made a church service one of the most deadliest places to be in. The combination of singing in close quarters and decreased ventilation is nothing short of a petri dish (or cell plate) for viral growth.
Observed infection rates can be astronomical. In Washington State, a choir practice of 60 individuals who practiced social distancing resulted in 45 infections, 3 hospitalizations and 2 deaths….
Wear a damn mask. And while you’re at it, wear some damn gloves.
Stay Home. Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Good luck to us all.
#FlattenTheCurve
[….] Q: And since that is really U.S. policy to further the rule of law and to discourage political investigations, having the President of the United States effectively ask for a political investigation of his opponent would run directly contrary to all of the anticorruption efforts that we were making. Is that a fair statement?
A: I would say that request does not align with what has been our policy towards Ukraine and many other countries, yes….
A: I believe it is a matter of U.S. policy and practice, particularly since I have worked in the area of promoting the rule of law, that politically related prosecutions are not the way of promoting the rule of law, they undermine the rule of law.
Q: But is that written as a policy somewhere or is that just standard practice?
A: I have never been in a position or a meeting where I’ve heard somebody suggest that politically motivated prosecutions are in the U.S. national interest.
[….]
Yet another Trump sycophant from Missouri weighs in on behalf of Vladimir Putin’s puppet:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
These hearings appear to be an impeachment looking for a problem. I support our President. #SchiffShow 2:05 PM · Nov 15, 2019
Yeah, sure. Heh.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
“…the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings…”
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
This morning, via Twitter:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
Yes, it’s ridiculous that high school cheerleaders are disciplined for supporting the President of the United States. What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events? Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?
[….] 9:50 AM · Sep 18, 2019
Apparently some moron showed up with a large Trump campaign banner at a public high school football game and prevailed upon some high school cheerleaders who were in uniform in front of the stands at the game to hold up the banner. The high school activities association admonished the school’s cheerleaders that this type of political activity did not conform with the standards of the association.
The cheerleaders were in uniform, representing their school.
….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.
Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….
[….]
….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….
[….]
That was about compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. Since 1943, in the United States, no individual can be compelled by the government to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In any setting.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister, in the late 19th century for a children’s magazine with the intent that it was to be used by children in ceremonies celebrating the Columbian Exposition. The original text: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Subsequent additions were made by others in the 1920s during the red scare (so immigrant children would know which flag they were saluting?) and during the Eisenhower Administration (because of fears of godless communism).
The U.S. Flag Code people keep citing as a point of law? It has the same force as Congressional resolutions commemorating motherhood, apple pie, and National Groundhog Day. By the way, that same flag code states that the image of the flag not be used as clothing or on disposable paper products (like napkins and plates) or on advertising. Good luck with that one, huh.
“…What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events…?”
The Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court have long ago decided the primacy of the First Amendment.
So, why have the national anthem sung or performed at sporting events? As if there’s originalist intent expressed in the Constitution? Join in or not, it’s up to you. No one else. If you want to take knee, it’s up to you.
So, some questions of Senator Hoskins (r) and his uninformed and selective outrage.
…It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol — black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam — was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible…
…In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views…
…The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech…
…As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.
Note that the students were acting as individuals, not as representatives of the school.
Does this mean that you disagree with the court in Bong Hits 4 Jesus?:
…We need not resolve this debate to decide this case. For present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles. First, Fraser’s holding demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971) ; Fraser, supra, at 682–683. In school, however, Fraser’s First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute. Whatever approach Fraser employed, it certainly did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker, supra, at 514. See Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S., at 271, n. 4 (disagreeing with the proposition that there is “no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser,” and noting that the holding in Fraser was not based on any showing of substantial disruption).
Our most recent student speech case, Kuhlmeier, concerned “expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” 484 U. S., at 271. Staff members of a high school newspaper sued their school when it chose not to publish two of their articles. The Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Tinker, ruling in favor of the students because it found no evidence of material disruption to classwork or school discipline. 795 F. 2d 1368, 1375 (CA8 1986). This Court reversed, holding that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Kuhlmeier, supra, at 273.
Kuhlmeier does not control this case because no one would reasonably believe that Frederick’s banner bore the school’s imprimatur. The case is nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above. Kuhlmeier acknowledged that schools may regulate some speech “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Id., at 266. And, like Fraser, it confirms that the rule of Tinker is not the only basis for restricting student speech…
So, if you skip school and hold up a banner at a school event, you can be suspended. What do you think about cheerleaders in uniform, representing their school, holding up a partisan political banner?
Finally, let’s test the selective outrage. If the cheerleaders had been approached in similar circumstances and held up a sign promoting the candidacy of one of Donald Trump’s (r) Democratic Party opponents, do you think that Senator Hoskins (r) would hold the same opinion? Most probably not.
He said he voted for the bill because he is “frustrated with the constant attacks on agriculture,” not just in Missouri but nationally, such as the Green New Deal proposed by some congressional Democrats.
“I’m definitely a supporter of agriculture,” he said.
Some counties, Hoskins said, have passed such restrictive regulations that “you can’t farm.”
While the regulations do not affect existing farms, he said, they could limit expansion of those farms.
[….]
He noted that voters in Johnson County have consistently voted against planning and zoning.
Industrialized agriculture is needed, he said, because small farmers cannot afford the cost of land and equipment and feed.
[….]
And now? The expansion of a pre-existing convenience store on to two adjacent residential lots (which would need to be rezoned) (if approved, with, as it was explained to me this morning, a thirty foot planted buffer between the business and the remaining residential lots) is being challenged by some neighboring Warrensburg residents. The city planning and zoning commission has already approved the rezoning, 5-1. The Warrensburg City Council will vote on approval at a meeting this month.
One letter in opposition to the rezoning:
July 28,2019
Dear Warrensburg Planning and Zoning Commission:
We are writing to you today concerning the proposed change in zoning of the property at 310 East Gay Street and 309 East Market Street from residential to general business. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting, but will be in attendance for the City Council meeting on August 12.
We live at 314 East Gay Street and also own the house next door at 312 East Gay Street. When we purchased our property almost 3 years ago, we knew the lot at 310 East Gay Street was zoned residential R-2. We felt comfort knowing that a residential home could be built on the lot at 310 East Gay, but a commercial building could not be built on the lot.
We have no concerns with keeping the properties zoned residential R-2. However, our realtor as well as another realtor on City Council have expressed their concern to us our home property value will decrease if the request for a change in zoning from residential to general business is approved by planning and zoning and the city council. If the change in zoning is approved, a commercial building could be a mere 30 feet away from our property versus the 96 feet distance under the current zoning requirements.
We have put a lot of time, sweat and tears in remodeling our home which was built in 1905. It would be beyond frustrating to see all of our hard-work and money spent updating and improving our home disappear due to a change in zoning from residential to general business.
We humbly ask that you consider the negative effect on our homes property value if the change in zoning is approved and ask you for your vote against the zoning change.
Sincerely,
s/
Senator Denny and Michelle Hoskins
Capital letter “L” libertarianism at the statewide level meets “but my quality of life and property values” at the local level. It is a very rare thing to witness karma and the closure of a circle of hypocrisy wrapped up in such a neat little package, all within such a short amount of time.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place 4:14 AM · Jul 27, 2019
Well, look at that, openly racist. Not that anyone is surprised.
…Using data from the “Biggest US Cities” website, Nate Sliver…point[ed] out that Cummings’ district has “above-average college education rates and home prices, along with a pretty good mix of urban and suburban area (even some rural), and well-off, working-class and middle-class areas”
Silver also pointed out the district is the second-wealthiest majority-black district in the country, with a $58,000 median household income, trailing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties. Cummings’ district is also the second-most-well-educated majority-black district because 37% of the residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher, trailing Georgia’s 4th District, Silver added…
Senator Denny Hoskins (r) just couldn’t resist retweeting republican propaganda:
So, shall we compare?
Shall we take a photographic tour around Missouri’s 21st Senate District? Just asking.
From Senator Denny Hoskin’s (r) post session e-mail:
….Nothing can compare to my satisfaction with the passage of House Bill 126. The “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” is the strongest pro-life measure ever enacted in Missouri. This legislation, passed in the final hours of the 2019 legislative session, will outlaw the killing of an unborn child after eight weeks of fetal development. The bill also prohibits abortion at a number of stages of development, with the last threshold being the point when a baby can feel pain inside his or her mother’s womb. By enacting protections at various stages of the child’s development, the bill is intended to withstand judicial challenges and ensure the greatest defense of unborn children possible.
The bill contains a number of provisions to discourage abortions and provide expectant mothers every opportunity to reconsider their choices. Language that I proposed in separate legislation to require notification of all custodial parents or guardians when minors seek an abortion was incorporated into the bill, though this provision was weakened in the final compromise. There were also provisions that prevent selective abortions for reasons of disability or race and gender selection.
I consider House Bill 126 to be the most important accomplishment of the 2019 legislative session. I am proud of the General Assembly for taking a stand for life….
Interestingly, Senator Hoskins (r) did nothing to support Medicaid expansion in Missouri. Or, to abolish the death penalty.
This bill modifies provisions relating to abortion.
PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS The bill modifies the definition of a pregnancy resource center for the purposes of the pregnancy resource center tax credit to include facilities that provide assistance to women and families with crisis pregnancies or unplanned pregnancies by offering services specified in the bill and services provided under the Missouri Alternatives to Abortion Services Program in Section 188.325, RSMo. The tax credit is increased from 50% of the amount contributed to 70% beginning January 1, 2021, removes the cumulative amount of tax credits claimed by all taxpayers in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, and removes the sunset provision (Section 135.630).
THE “RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD ACT” Additionally, an abortion performed or induced upon a woman, unless in cases of medical emergencies, shall be a class B felony and shall subject the person performing or inducing the abortion to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license. This provision has a contingent effective date based on federal law and court rulings (Sections 188.017).
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATORY ABORTIONS These sections assert that the general assembly finds that it is a legitimate purpose of government to remove vestiges of past bias or discrimination against pregnant women, their partners, and their family members, including unborn children. The bill prohibits any person from performing or inducing an abortion on a woman if the person knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, or because of the sex or race of the unborn child. Currently, any attending physician must complete an abortion report for each abortion performed. This bill requires the physician to include a certification that the physician does not have any knowledge that the woman sought the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, as well as a certification that the physician does not have any knowledge that the woman sought the abortion solely because of the sex or race of the unborn child. Any physician or other person who violates these provisions shall
be subject to civil liability and revocation of his or her professional license (Sections 188.038 and 188.052).
THE “MISSOURI STANDS FOR THE UNBORN ACT” This bill specifies that an abortion shall not be performed or induced upon a woman at eight weeks, 14 weeks, or 18 weeks gestational age or later, except in cases of medical emergency. A person who knowingly violates these provisions shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license. A pregnant woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of these provisions shall not be prosecuted (Sections 188.026 188.056, 188.057, and 188.058).
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION IN CASES OF ABORTION UPON A MINOR Currently, an abortion on a minor shall not be knowingly performed until the attending physician has secured the written informed consent of the minor and one parent or guardian, unless a specified exception applies. This provision requires that the consenting parent or guardian first notify any other parent or guardian in writing, except under certain circumstances (Section 188.028). This provision has an emergency clause.
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO PERSONS RECEIVING REFERRALS FOR OUT-OF-STATE ABORTIONS The bill requires in-state abortion facilities or family planning agencies to provide specified printed materials when providing a woman an out-of-state abortion referral. If the referral is not made in person, the facility or agency shall offer the printed materials to the woman and send them either electronically or through the U.S. mail at no cost to the woman (Section 188.033).
ABORTION PROVIDER INSURANCE This bill changes the medical malpractice insurance an abortion provider is required to have from $500,000 to $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the annual aggregate. Additionally, the bill requires a person performing or inducing an abortion to carry tail insurance of at least $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the annual aggregate for personal injury to or death of a child who survives an abortion induced by a drug or chemical that carries a Food and Drug Administration warning that the chemical may cause birth defects, disability, or other injury in a child who survives the abortion (Sections 188.043 and 188.044).
THE “LATE-TERM PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT” The bill establishes the “Late-Term Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” prohibiting any abortion, except in the case of a medical emergency, from being performed or induced on a woman carrying a late-term pain-capable unborn child, defined as an unborn child at 20 weeks gestational age or later. It adds more detailed requirements for information provided to the mother prior to the procedure. If a physician performs or induces an abortion upon a woman in her third trimester carrying a late-term pain-capable unborn child in cases of a medical emergency, the physician shall utilize the available method or technique that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, or if such method is not available, the method or technique that offers less risk to the life and health of the mother. The physician shall document in writing the method or technique utilized and the reason it was selected. In such cases of medical emergency, there shall be another physician in attendance other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall provide immediate care for a child born as a result of the abortion. Any physician who violates these provisions shall be guilty of a Class D felony and subject to suspension or revocation of his or her license (Section 188.375).
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS The General Assembly declares its intention that the state and its political subdivisions shall be a “sanctuary of life” to protect pregnant women and their unborn children (Section 188.010). Makes all of the provisions of Chapter 188 severable if any section is found to be unenforceable or unconstitutional (Section 188.018). The bill modifies the written information provided to a woman regarding the pain capability of an unborn child (Section 188.027).
“Sanctuary of life” – without any understanding of the irony, of course.
SB 366
Establishes the Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act
Sponsor: Hoskins
LR Number: 1846S.01I
Committee:
Last Action: 2/7/2019 – S First Read–SB 366-Hoskins
Journal Page: S214
[….]
Current Bill Summary
SB 366 – This act creates the “Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act”.
This act reauthorizes a tax credit for certain expenses related to the production of qualified film production projects in this state, as defined in the act. Tax credits for such expenses under previous law expired on November 28, 2013.
For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, this act authorizes a tax credit equal to 20% of qualifying in-state expenses, as defined in the act, and 10% of qualifying out-of-state expenses, as defined in the act, associated with the production of a qualified film production project. An additional 5% may be awarded for both qualifying in-state and out-of-state expenses if at least 50% of the qualified film production project is filmed in Missouri.
This act shall sunset on December 31 six years from the effective date of the act, unless reauthorized by the General Assembly.
This act is substantially similar to HB 1661 (2018).
[….]
Oh, that’s rich. Remember this, almost nine years ago?:
…My own questions were based on those I received from constituents concerning the film festival. As you can see, I did not request funding be withheld or rescinded. I simply asked how people who need assistance would be helped by the film festival. Since the film festival was held, I have received even more questions from constituents. The idea of a film festival or similar event to shine a spotlight on the Warrensburg community is not in itself a bad idea. How to pay for this event is what concerns me…
Ah, the benefits of a long memory and a blog archive.
Apparently, supporting the art form of cinema is back in vogue.
State Senator Denny Hoskins (r) had a thing or two to say about gerrymandering on social media yesterday.
Because it worked out so well last time?:
Missouri – 21st Senate District
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
If “Clean Missouri” passes in November, my new state senate legislative district would not have to be adjacent. So it could include “islands” of Warrensburg, downtown Kansas City, Saint Louis and Hannibal…and nothing in between. That doesn’t sound fair and clean to me. #moleg 10:24 AM – 2 Sep 2018
Some of the replies:
This is bullshit and you know it.
Sounds like you are nervous about Clean Missouri passing.
And then, getting schooled by Sean Nicholson from CLEAN Missouri:
Sean Soendker Nicholson @ssnich
Just false.
“Subject to the requirements of subdivisions (1)(a) and (1)(b) [prohibitions on gerrymandering], Districts shall be composed of contiguous territory. Areas which meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.”
Senator Denny Hoskins (r-21) issued the following press release today:
State Senator Denny Hoskins
District 21
For Immediate Release:
April 12, 2018
Capitol Building, Room 227
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[….]
Statement from Sen. Denny Hoskins Regarding the Findings of the House Special Investigative Committee Report
JEFFERSON CITY — State Sen. Denny Hoskins, R-Warrensburg, today issued the following statement relating to findings released by the House Special Investigative Committee Report:
“First of all, I feel sorry for the lady involved, her family and the first lady. None of them deserved or wanted any of this.
That being said, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of House leadership as well as the report issued by the House Special Investigative Committee and its policies and procedures used during its investigative process. I previously served alongside many members of House leadership as speaker pro tem, and I know each of them to be individuals of the highest integrity. I also have the utmost respect for each member of the committee, and I support their continued investigation. This is a serious matter, and it is anything but a political witch hunt.
While I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the disgusting content included in the report, at the end of the day, I want to be able to look my 11-year-old daughter in the eyes when she asks about the governor, tell her I love her and tell her this type of behavior is not okay for someone to do to her or anyone else. I will tell her not to let anyone bully her or touch her without her consent. I will reaffirm to her that she is a strong, smart young lady and she deserves better treatment than what was described in the report. Whomever she dates or marries one day, they should treat her with dignity and respect. She and all women deserve to be treated with nothing less.
With that being said, I now believe the House has sufficient information to pursue Articles of Impeachment. Missourians deserve a leader with strong moral character. The acts described in the report are appalling and bring up more questions about his ability to lead. I’m asking the House to evaluate all of the information they have received and pursue Articles of Impeachment.”
[….]
…I want to directly address the allegations made against the governor on the evening of Wednesday, January 10, after the State of the State address. I’m still processing the details that came out in the media Wednesday evening about an affair the governor had in 2015 and possible blackmail allegations. I personally spoke with the governor on Thursday morning and he vehemently denied the allegations of blackmail. I take the allegations against the governor very seriously and I trust law enforcement will conduct a thorough investigation if they believe one is warranted based on the facts presented. I will continue to listen to the facts and give thoughtful consideration before making any judgements.
[….]
That was rather subdued.
“…he vehemently denied the allegations of blackmail…”
