Jeremy Durham does not deserve ouster.

Jeremy Durham

The Tennessean reports today that as of Tuesday evening, 23 members of the state legislature had signed a petition calling for a special session to oust Jeremy Durham. That means that by the end of the day Friday, 43 more House members must sign the petition in order to have a special session to consider ousting Jeremy Durham. I hope they don't get the signatures.  If I were a member of the House, I would not sign.

It is not that I approve of the behavior of Jeremy Durham, but what he did is no worse than Bill Clinton and Clinton was not ousted as President. Clinton was impeached due to lying under oath, not for getting a blow job from an intern in the oval office.  Durham has not lied under oath. From all we know, Durham never raped anyone. There are no rape allegations against Jeremy Durham. There were rape allegations about Bill Clinton; never proved but alleged. Not that I think Clinton should be the standard of acceptable behavior, but I find it odd that these Democrats who continued to support Bill Clinton and support his primary enabler, Hillary Clinton, can be so outraged over Durham. I think the outrage is manufactured and pretend. 

I don't know how many of Durham's "victims" were victims. If he propositioned you, you accepted and then came back for seconds and thirds, I don't think you are a victim. The worst allegation is that he served an alcoholic beverage to a 20 year old intern and had sex with her three times in his office. A 20 year old is an adult and can have sex with whomever she wants.  The offense is that Durham served her alcohol.  I know the drinking age is 21 but a 20-year-old in all other respects is an adult. They can vote, drive a car, join the military, get married, work as a stripper, or have an abortion without their parents permission. I just don't think the offense of serving an alcoholic beverage to a 20-year-old is reason for ouster.

The Attorney General's report on Durham says his conduct revealed a "pattern of harassment."  It seems like if a man flirts with a women and it makes her uncomfortable then it is "harassment."   If it doesn't make her uncomfortable then it is not harassment. That is very subjective standard. It doesn't depend on what the man does, but how the women feels about it.  Also "unwanted sexual advances" is something we often hear men accused of. How do you know a sexual advance is "unwanted" until offered? 

From the Attorney General's report. It seems like Durham really is a pussy hound. From November 2012 to the end of June 2016 he had "interactions" with 22 women, says the report.  That is not to say he had sex with all of them but he had interactions which ranged from flirtation to sex. One says he kissed her, one says he pulled her close in a full frontal hug and said "mmhm", one says he tried to touch her thigh, and one says he made suggestive comments and told her, he was gong to be all alone and bored for the evening. 

It seems like other than giving an alcoholic beverage to a 20-year-old, the next worse thing he did is text some unwanted texts to women late at night. Why didn't they just ignore him and be done with it. Sure he "hit" on women and flirted but their is no allegation he ever swapped his vote for sex.  He "leered" at women, and "looked them up and down." He told women he kept a bottle in his office and mixers in the mini-fridge and they should come by for a  drink after hours. The Attorney General's reports says some of the women were seen holding hands with him and acting flirty in return. Not all of his flirting must have not been unwelcome. I can't help but wonder how many women enjoyed it and never complained.  Maybe only one out of three or one out of four considered the flirtation or sexual advances offensive and unwelcome. Maybe the others were flattered. Maybe they enjoyed it.  We will never know.


If you want to read more of the juicy details, but not really all that juicy, here is a link to the entire report.

Jeremy Durham has already been stripped of his leadership position, had his office relocated to an out of the way location, a memo went out warning women to avoid him, he become a pariah, had his misdeeds exposed in the press, and will most likely lose his election. I would vote against him if I was his constituent but I don't think he deserves to be ousted. The issue of whether or not any one should get lifetime health insurance for serving one term is a different issue than whether Durham needs to be ousted. He is a cad.  I would not trust him alone with my wife or my daughter. He is a jerk and a womanizer.  What happens to Durham should be between Durham and his conscience, his wife, and his constituents however. He does not deserve ouster.

Top Stories