We took a breather after Tuesday because shwew.
But, there are things that need to be said and cleared up in the aftermath of that ridiculous public spectacle Robert Adrian knowingly initiated. (I mean, come on. Is he going to claim he was unaware that specifically letting everyone know he intended to say something about the Drew Clinton case wasn't inviting controversy? He knows. And we know he knows.)
Let's go through a few of the insane things Adrian said to various news outlets. We'll start with the hometown hero of this story, Muddy River News.
“I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I will never sentence an innocent person to the Department of Corrections. It’s never going to happen. I don’t care how much the left criticizes me. I don’t care how much the left lies about me. I don’t care how much they try to cancel me, which is what they are doing now. I’m going to do exactly what the law says. Drew Clinton was not guilty of the offenses he was charged with. That’s what the law showed. That’s what the evidence showed.”
OK. So before Tuesday, we had a mind to consider that possibly Robert Adrian did understand that Drew Clinton is guilty, and he was only saying Clinton was innocent because he didn't agree with the mandatory minimum sentencing rules for a Class A felony first offence in Illinois. Apparently not so, not so... Apparently, Adrian is rolling with the idea Clinton is innocent - he's saying Clinton did not commit criminal sexual assault.
For the benefit of Robert Adrian and anyone else who might not understand the legal definition of criminal sexual assault in the State of Illinois, it says this:
A person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and: (2) knows that the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act or is unable to give knowing consent; (4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust… or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age.
So... he is guilty. He did do that. He knew she was unable to give knowing consent due to her compromised condition, he was over 17 years of age, he was put in a position to supervise her in her inebriated state, and she was between the ages of 13 and 18 (she was 16). If Adrian was trying to make some point about how he doesn't agree with the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of a Class A felony first offence in the State of Illinois.....that was one thing. Now we know he is just lying, which is different. And worse.
Also, what's this about "the left," "the left"? Is rape a partisan issue? Are judges allowed to bias themselves toward or against specific political alignments? We're not backed by any partisan interest. In fact, we don't even appreciate that partisanship exists, and we know that there are persons who identify themselves as members of all kinds of different partisan groups who support our cause. This isn't a partisan issue, we aren't partisan - this commentary of his is invalid.
Last note in response to these statements, the evidence actually showed VERY STRONG SUPPORT that this incident did occur, on top of the testimony from Clinton, in which he admits it did occur, so again - please stop spreading abject lies, Adrian.
KHQA:
"They weren't in the courtroom during any of the hearings, but yet they think that they know what the evidence in the case was, and that it was decided wrong. I don't know how they could reach a reasonable conclusion, when they don't know what the evidence was."
The irony of asserting that if a person was not physically present at a certain time and place to first-hand witness an event then they are in no position to claim to know what happened aside....... We actually do have quite a bit of the evidence available. Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office made the DNA evidence, the evidence list, the witness list, and abridged copies of a number of the testimonies available when he filed for leave to file an original writ of mandamus against Robert Adrian. For some reason, the PDF is titled "Clinton_Drew_Mandamus_Record.pdf" which is strange because the mandamus was never against Clinton - it was against Adrian. Remember that "double jeopardy" bit? We're still not quite sure at what point prior Robert Adrian had ever been the respondent to a petition for leave to file an original writ of mandamus in relation to this case, but hey, we did all gain access to a wealth of evidence in this case through that event. And we were disgusted with that whole thing.
“Drew Clinton was not guilty of the offenses that he was charged with.”
Um, Adrian? Drew Clinton himself testified that he DID digitally penetrate Cameron Vaughan at a time he was well aware she'd been sick for hours and hours and he was in the room with her to supervise her in her compromised condition. And she just WAS 16, which is what's known as a fact, factfinder.
We saved a favorite for last, Herald-Whig:
“(t)here was a group, as you can see, who was not at jury trial, not at the hearing, and decided to put out a statement that lied about what I did.”
We'd love to know what the lie was. Is Adrian saying the court stenographer did not take down the transcript of the January 3rd sentencing hearing correctly? Because we only put down exactly what was written that he said. It's true we weren't there - that is why we keep written records. We're not sure how much of the judicial process we're going to need to explain to this guy.
Adrian also said he has not had discussions with law enforcement agents who investigated the original charges, and stated he doesn’t believe they would have any way of knowing what really happened, anyway.
Ah, no faith in the trustworthiness of Quincy Police Department officers. Us citizens paid through the nose for bodycams our officers can wear to collect information, but Adrian says talking to officers and finding out what they know is a waste of time! They aren't trustworthy anyway. Nice.
Adrian’s wife, Martha Adrian, handed out screenshots of a private Facebook group to media members in attendance, though she hesitated in providing a copy to the Herald-Whig.
“Would you like a paper,” she asked. “Since I know you’re a part of the group, ‘Hold Drew Clinton accountable,’ and I have the screenshots showing you’re a part of the group, all that information is already on there.”
On being informed that she was making an unwarranted accusation, Adrian said someone must be using the same name in the group and that she would “take it back with these other” media members whom she apparently told of this involvement.
Huh.....
... ... ...
... ... ...
We don't... there's not really... there's not ... We're just gonna leave this here...
"...consent was the issue.”
WAS IT, THOUGH...?
(-.-)
***
This update has had too much in it already. It was so ridiculous and wrong for Adrian to use this controversy in an attempt to fuel is "retention campaign kick-off" - he made a gigantic mockery of the judiciary, and we hope he gets disbarred.
A final note to Adrian: We can't find exactly in which report it was that we saw you said the Vaughan family "hired a public relations firm," at this very moment, but... We wanted to let you know we took that up with the Vaughan family, to make sure they weren't in any way unhappy with the VOLUNTEER SERVICES "we" have been providing toward their cause. Even asked 'em for a raise! Got 'em to agree to pay us DOUBLE(!!) everything they or anyone else at all has paid "us" insofar! Maybe you're better at math than you are at knowing what words like "consent" and "innocent" mean - what's 200% of $0?
Is my sarcasm too thick? Well. Here's the difference between my position and yours. I'm an unpaid member of the community who does not in any way represent the judiciary, and you're supposed to instill faith in me that you know and uphold the laws. I don't make the laws, and neither do you. But you have had and are looking to keep a position of authority over me, and I PROTEST. THE AUDACITY you must have to make a totally unfounded claim that the only reason I would do any of this would be for money is insulting and wrong. It isn't for money. It isn't even for recognition. The whole world knows your name because of your lies, and no one knows my name because I don't believe THE TRUTH should require any personal attribution. How does that make you feel?
Robert Adrian, you should apologize.
You should apologize to the Vaughan family for all the unnecessary injustice they've suffered because of you, you should apologize to the judiciary for being so flagrantly disrespectful of the law, and you should apologize to us all for corroding our faith that justice is attainable for sexual assault victims who have had the misfortune of finding themselves in your courtroom.