It happens to all of us. I do real work during the day. I promise. Yet, on breaks I found myself doing what we all have done at one time or another. I got stuck going down the rabbit hole. I had done preliminary research on Mellissa Carone (the star witness in the Michigan fraud case) and found out that she was the same woman that appeared on Lou Dobbs program three weeks ago. I made a note of it in my last post.
Just to remind everyone, I am posting both “performances” back to back so you can do the side by side comparison. Perhaps she was just drunk for both appearances by happenstance. Maybe she is just drunk all the time. It seems more likely that she is the kind of person you would blow into their ear and shout, “refill!”
But wait, there’s more. Apparently, Ms. Carone has a criminal record. Let’s keep in mind that the basis of her testimony was the fact that she was serving as a free lance IT professional to service the voting machines. Just file that away as we consider the following:
She has a certification from ITT Technical Institute. I’m not here to denigrate ITT Tech. I’m sure their graduates are fine computer professionals. However, she could be a graduate of MIT. I don’t see how anyone on probation for a “computer crime” as recently as September gets a job in November anywhere near an election or a computer.
It says that a first degree obscenity charge was dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to a lesser charge. I was interested so I looked up obscenity in the first degree. “A person is guilty of obscenity in the first degree when, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote, any obscene material. Obscenity in the first degree is a class D felony.“
So, if we add two and two together, she had charges of a computer crime and the obscenity in the first degree dropped, so we can paint a picture of what must have happened. She was eventually charged and plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Certainly those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, but I can honestly say that no one is pinning any hopes of being president on any of our characters.
At this point it is fair to ask what this all means. I’m glad you asked because someone needs to reign me in. First, our enterprising young Republican (I can officially call a 33 year old young) is complaining that no one will offer her a job after all of this. She is being harassed for her support of the president. She’s had to take her Twitter account down and she is being mocked on all forms of social media.
Yet, it is fair to ask why she is struggling to find work. Is it because she is being blackballed for her heroic defense of the president? I suppose anything is possible. It seems a lot more likely that people have seen these two performances and her criminal record and have decided to go in another direction. Of course, I’m just speculating there. Her certificate from ITT Technical Tech does look good on a resume though. It’s just so hard to figure out why she’s being passed over.
The greater lesson goes to those that decided to thrust her into the limelight. Now, we have two examples of people that decided to shove a camera in her face without verifying her story or checking her out. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, well I guess I am the fool.
We just finished reviewing Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail in one of the English classes I support. Boy are we far off from the high minded ideals in that piece. Yet, in that piece he talked about the process of self-purification before using direct action. There is no direct action here, but the lesson is still not lost. Sure, you can claim that her obscenities online have nothing to do with whether she witnessed voter fraud. Sure, you could claim that she could down four scotch and cokes before testifying and it wouldn’t change if she saw fraud. You got me there.
What you can’t deny is that someone’s credibility is not necessarily judged purely on what they say but whether that person has a history of credibility. Getting arrested and convicted of a crime tends to hurt someone’s credibility even if the crime is unrelated. Appearing to be intoxicated in an official proceeding or on the air is bound to affect your credibility. If that’s the best witness you can come up with then maybe your case is in serious trouble.
I find myself feeling very bad for this young woman and disgusted with those continuing to peddle this nonsense at all costs. A competent lawyer would vet her story and send her back on her way, A competent television producer would vet her story and refuse to put her on the air. It isn’t even that what she is saying isn’t true or credible. The worst part of it is that you are allowing her to destroy her life for absolutely nothing. She will be the butt of every joke throughout this news cycle. What has she gained from all of it? We can all laugh at her, but that somehow seems cruel after awhile.
halloffameindex 