Rape

New Wrinkle in UVA / Rolling Stone Lawsuit: Jackie Likely Accessed Imaginary Rapist's Email

Guess who created Haven.Monahan@yahoo.com?

|

UVA
BSD / Wikimedia Commons

Lawyers for University of Virginia Dean of Students Nicole Eramo have produced yet more evidence strongly suggesting that the fictitious Haven Monahan—the villain in Rolling Stone's debunked gang-rape story—was created by purported victim "Jackie" herself. Eramo's legal team is now claiming that someone accessed Haven's email (Haven.Monahan@yahoo.com) from the server at the office of Jackie's lawyers.

Three guesses who that was.

To recap, Jackie told reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely that her boyfriend, Haven, was an upperclassmen and lifeguard who lured her into a trap inside an upstairs bedroom of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Haven and eight other men then took turns brutally raping Jackie.

The story is now known to be a hoax, and Eramo—who was portrayed as unsympathetic to Jackie in the story—is suing Rolling Stone for defaming her.

While mountains of evidence contradict Jackie's story, the most damning revelation was that Haven does not exist. No such person has ever attended UVA. Haven apparently exchanged text messages with Jackie's friends, but those messages were sent using an elaborate system for sending fake messages. It's overwhelmingly likely that Jackie sent these messages and claimed they were from Haven.

It's also likely that she created a fake email account for Haven: according to Yahoo, the email address came into existence in early October of 2012, during the time when Haven (Jackie, in actuality) and Jackie's friend Ryan Duffin were regularly corresponding. Duffin eventually broke off contact with Haven when he realized he was talking to an imaginary entity.

Eramo's lawyers, who are not suing Jackie, have nevertheless asked her to hand over all correspondence she has had with Haven. Jackie's lawyers maintain that they have already done so.

"To be clear, Respondent is not withholding any responsive documents relating to the category identified in your letter," Jackie's lawyers told Eramo's lawyers, according to The Washington Post.

But here is an interesting wrinkle:

In the most recent court filing, Eramo's lawyers note, however, that the data from Yahoo shows that someone on the Stein Mitchell law firm's network accessed the Haven.Monahan@yahoo.com e-mail address on March 18, 2016. Four days later, Eramo's lawyers assert in court filings, Jackie's lawyers sent another letter indicating "that Jackie was not in possession of these emails."

To be clear, someone at Stein Mitchell logged in to Haven's email address: either Jackie, or her lawyers. This undermines the notion that they have made available all documents, according to Eramo's legal team.

And if anyone had lingering doubts, the matter is put to rest once and for all: since Jackie has access to Haven's emails, Jackie is Haven.

(Related: Judge Forces Jackie to Testify Over False Gang Rape Story)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

245 responses to “New Wrinkle in UVA / Rolling Stone Lawsuit: Jackie Likely Accessed Imaginary Rapist's Email

  1. We seem to be glossing over the main thing from this story that’s emblematic of society’s problems today, and that is that people believed we as a culture are capable of naming on of our sons Haven.

    1. Why do you have to be so cisnormative, Fist? Why couldn’t they name their daughters Haven? And how do you know the fictitious Haven didn’t fictitiously identify xirself as female?

      1. Start operating at home with Google! it’s with the aid of a extensive margin the high-quality employment i’ve had. final Wednesday I were given a fresh out of the field new BMW because getting a check for $6474 this ? four weeks past. I began this 10-months lower back and right away was bringing domestic at any rate one hundred dollar each hour. I work thru this connection

        sincerely Faucet tap On This sort of Link

        ???? http://WWW.TodayWeb60.Com

      1. +1 M&M Connection

    2. Didn’t Jackie say it was only a nickname?

      1. What would his real name be? Dakota?

        1. Holden

          Holden Magroyne

          1. Dammit! I was going to say Tuggan. Tuggan MacRotch.

            You win this time, Bob-arian.

              1. And his brothers Rod and Dick.

              1. Phil MaKracken

          2. Holden Magroyne

            Didn’t know Holden….hung out with his brother Pat though.

        2. Not that hip.

          “His last name was Monahan and he called himself Haven. His first name was John or jake or something. And he was there that night but he was a bystander. He wasn’t involved. Not really.”

          1. “He called himself Haven.”

            That’s a mentally unbalanced person writing fanfic, is what that is. Can you imagine that shit in real life?

            “Hey, I’m Jake. Call me Haven. It’s a nickname I gave myself.”

            “Uh…later, douchebag.”

        3. Ben Dover?
          Phil McCaverty?

          1. Had a real patient with that name. Pediatric patient with ADHD!

    3. We seem to be glossing over the main thing from this story that’s emblematic of society’s problems today, and that is that people believed we as a culture are capable of naming on of our sons Haven.

      Well, he was an imaginary UVA student, so that explains a lot of it…

      1. Oh, cmon, that’s totally more of an imaginary Vanderbilt student name than an imaginary UVA student name.

    4. I guess there is no Safe Haven at UVA, only rapey ones.

          1. *files in list of potential band names*

    5. I have a Haven on my little league team.

    6. I’m from VA and I thought someone at UVA named Haven was probable.

    7. Jason Day named his son Dash…pretty incredible, eh?

  2. Three guesses who that was.

    Hitler?

    1. That is only one guess.

      Do better next time.

      1. Hitler?
        Himmler?
        Goebbles?

      2. Hitler?
        MechaHitler?
        Fister Roboto?

      3. ISIS?
        A Nigerian Prince with an inheritance?
        Ted Kennedy?

  3. This undermines the notion that they have made available all documents, according to Eramo’s legal team.

    “So sue me.”

    1. This development could be regarded as an ethical violation and hense disbarrment if not properly managed (ie, appology and ‘oops, we missed some’ by Jackie’s lawyers)

      1. That firm had better hope they have a record of Jackie being in the building that day.

        1. I think they’ll be fine with her word against theirs.

          1. Our client is obviously so full of shit that her breath stinks, but everyone is entitled to representation.

  4. This situation and its developments keep getting more and more delicious.

    1. We need something to give us hope in these dark times.

    2. Yet the next time some unhinged woman makes a wild, completely fabricated accusation, the media will jump on it with both feet because they desperately WANT it to be true.

  5. I am still waiting for the police to charge the people who vandalized and threatened the fraternity. I bet there are plenty of photos and videos of the attack, SJW like cameras.

  6. Oh god, he’s in the house!

    1. +1 Menacing laugh

  7. I think Haven Monahan might have been an old sock puppet of mine that got out of hand. Sorry.

    1. But whose sockpuppet are you?

      1. We’re all tulpa here. even you.

        1. He did pretend to be an addiction recovery counselor once.

          1. Dude’s had more jobs than Barbie.

            1. And the same tackle as Ken.

        2. Mea Tulpa

          We are all socks of the mightly Tulpoctopussy’s tentacles.

          1. “Oh that? That’s my little Tulpa.”

            1. Is that a Tulpa in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?

              1. Left a huge Tulpa in the toilet today. Gotta start eating more fiber.

  8. I have to think that Eramo’s lawyers asked Jackie at her deposition if she created “Haven”‘s email address. She definitely would have denied that and since depositions are under oath she has probably now could be charged with perjury.
    I have no idea what her attorney’s were thinking in logging in to the Haven account and then 4 days later saying they have no documents.

    1. They were thinking “let’s get sanctioned by the court!”

      1. Apparently.

    2. ** “her attorneys” meaning Jackie’s attorneys.

    3. They were thinking no one would ever know.

      1. I guess, but there was a case in Virginia (out of Charlottesville coincidentally) wherein a prominent personal injury attorney had his client and paralegal delete FB postings or somesuch. He got caught and surrendered his bar license.
        Hardly seems worth the risk.

      2. I’m guessing Jackie did it herself while at the office – assuming that it would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

        If not then those are some stupid, stupid lawyers.

        1. OK, there seems to be some confusion in the article.

          Paragraph 1 (Rico’s): Eramo’s legal team is now claiming that someone accessed Haven’s email (Haven.Monahan@yahoo.com) from the server at the office of Jackie’s lawyers.

          WaPo article which Rico quotes later in the article: In the most recent court filing, Eramo’s lawyers note, however, that the data from Yahoo shows that someone on the Stein Mitchell law firm’s network accessed the Haven.Monahan@yahoo.com e-mail address on March 18, 2016.

          Server =/= network. If they have a server admin, as in a professional IT person, I guaran-fucking-tee you that the lawyers are not let anywhere near the server as a matter of best practices. Nor is there anything special about a server that would require you to use that to access some random Yahoo email account; in fact the last thing you want to do with a server is use it for random websurfing (see earlier point).

          It is much more believeable that someone accessed the Yahoo email account from one of the non-server computers, or possibly via WiFi (although if I was their IT guy, I wouldn’t let clients use the firm’s network).

          1. While I agree that the person who wrote that is probably ignorant of the technical aspects, there are two words that can paste over that plot hole: Proxy Server.

            It would not be out of the ordinary to route the lawyers outbound web traffic through one. Though there would be no way for yahoo to know anything beyond the fact that the address the traffic came from was that of the law firm, so coming from their network would be the more accurate description with the facts on hand.

            1. I think it more than likely that what is meant is that they could trace the access back to some sort of web entry proxy server at the law firm and that the person doing the accessing was Jackie, via her smartphone, thinking that the free wi-fi at the law firm would shield her identity.
              She was logging in to check her story so she could remind herself what bullshit emails she had sent to herself.

              1. Is she sent them to herself, then why not just check the copies she received on her real account?

                1. She sent them to the real guy she was trying to get with, not herself.

                  1. Some of them. IIRC, she sent some to herself and showed them to the real guy she was trying to get with.

                    1. Or maybe she logged in because she couldn’t remember if she had deleted them or not and wanted to check. It’s pretty clear that she has trouble remembering details.

          2. If it’s a nice law firm, they’ll have a VLAN for their clients.

          3. Yeah, my first thought was “Jackie, on her smartphone, via WiFi”, quickly followed by “I would never let clients on WiFi if I worked at a law firm”.

            We (tech company) have a whole separate, unprivileged guest wireless network.

            1. Right, but that IP would be traceable back to your company.

              1. Yep, any sort of discovery would need that next bit of information “that’s the external guest network”. I don’t even know how much logging or access control we do on that – wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve really pared back permitted access.

              2. Some companies I’ve worked with have put in separate internet circuits for things like that.

          4. Nice tmesis: guaran-fucking-tee.

    4. I’ve worked in law firm IT for years, and it’s always a pleasant shock whenever i meet an attorney who can correctly send an email four out of five tries.

      1. I do IT work for major law firms. I’m shocked how computer illiterate and security oblivious lawyers are.

        And shocked how they regard IT as something they buy and works forever without upgrades or maintenance. Do lawyers get the oil changed in their car?

        1. Do you do any work in Glendale?
          My wife’s firm has an IT guy who is constantly shitting the bed.

          1. I have, but not for a law firm in Glendale. Most of our law firms are more downtown.

        2. Do lawyers get the oil changed in their car?

          I’m pretty sure they just get a new car every 5-10k miles.

        3. Why would you? If it breaks down you can sue the manufacturer!

        4. And shocked how they regard IT as something they buy and works forever without upgrades or maintenance.

          Well, lawyers are, by and large, cheap fuckers who never want to pay for much of anything.

          1. Well, lawyers are, by and large, cheap fuckers who never want to pay for much of anything.

            Except parties. I have family members who’d attend every holodai party a law firm put on that they got invited to because they had all the best food.

      2. ^This (Citzy) and again This (PUPB).

        1. Imagine a comment system where you could have just upvoted the two comments.

    5. If they’ve deleted a bunch of Haven’s old emails, they could then honestly say they don’t have them, though I doubt a judge would look kindly on the tactic.

      1. The BAR won’t look kindly on it either.

        1. and cut off their supply of alcohol *gasp* that’s inhumane!

          /deliberately obtuse.

          1. That bar is provided by the law firm.

            You’d be shocked at how much alcohol is sitting around at law firms.

            Particularly in partner offices.

        2. This is what I was wondering about. Thanks.

      2. They could just deny their existence, then when they get called out on that, say they will turn over the relevant ones.

      3. Nothing is ever truly deleted. I don’t know if Yahoo has a deliberate (though unwritten) retention policy. Any lawyers out there want to speak to whether it’s in Yahoo’s best interests to preserve deleted emails in high-profile cases like this?

        1. They’ll have it for at least 18 months anyway as part of their offsite backup.

          If they receive notice, they’ll preserve indefinitely.

    6. I have no idea what her attorney’s were thinking in logging in to the Haven account and then 4 days later saying they have no documents.

      This is damning. There is no way they could have logged into the account without either, a) having the password, or b) hacking the account. Since email servers have logs for failed login attempts and there is no evidence shown that this happened, it has to be “a” not “b.”

      This clearly means that she (or a proxy) had to give them the password.

  9. And if anyone had lingering doubts, the matter is put to rest once and for all: since Jackie has access to Haven’s emails, Jackie is Haven.

    That or someone is guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

  10. Start writing her full name. She’s not deserving of anonymity at this point.

  11. Why does Jackie have counsel in the first place? She’s not being sued. Yet.

    1. If I were giving a deposition in this case in her position, I’d sure as hell get an attorney.

    2. Shut up and lawyer up is pretty good advice whatever your situation.

      1. ^This.

    3. For the same reason Hillary has counsel regarding her email server, despite the fact the FBI hasn’t contacted her.

      1. They just reached out. That’s called professional courtesy.

    4. Jackie is embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit against a wealthy university and a national magazine, and her interests do not align with either of theirs. She absolutely should have counsel at this point.

  12. Is Jackie tulpa too??

    1. does this ‘jackie’ post to H&R?

      1. Definitely not, why are you all looking at me?

        1. Where does one get a name like ‘Haven’?

          1. It’s a play on “safe space.” Isn’t she clever?

            1. So… Jackie’s safe space raped her?

              She’s got a twisted imagination.

              1. She wasn’t raped at all, which is a pretty safe way to go about it.

          2. My mother Gloria Aldritch Richlady had strange taste in names and my father Bartholomew “Bertie” Augustus Monahan III didn’t have the heart to stop her, as you can tell by the names of my three siblings, Ferrari, Matriculitis Dancetheater, and Patches McGhee Monahan XII

          3. What is the meaning of the name Haven?
            The name Haven is an English baby name. In English the meaning of the name Haven is: Place of safety; shelter. SoulUrge Number: 6. People with this name have a deep inner desire for a stable, loving family or community, and a need to work with others and to be appreciated.

            1. So it’s a baby name? Does it metamorph into a adult name as the larvae matures?

        2. Because you’re so pollable. Duh.

          1. Strangely, this is not the first time a gay man I met on the internet said that to me

            1. So, you’ve been polled before?

    2. We’re all Tulpa

  13. Robby: Her attorneys accessing the Yahoo account only proves that she had access to the account, and not necessarily that she created it, nor that there was/is evidence that they hadn’t produced. the attorneys could have accessed the account simply to confirm that there wasn’t anything there that hadn’t been produced. Not likely, but possible.

    1. So how did she get the credentials from a nonexistant person?

      If she got them from the sockpupetteer, it would be in her interest to point them out.

      The facts strongly imply she is the sock pupetteer.

    2. The Haven account was created 1 day before Ryan Duffin received his first email from “Haven” and it was created on the UVA network. The only reasonable explanation is that Jackie created the account.

      Your second point is solid. If the only emails sent to/from the Haven account were between Haven and Ryan Duffin, then everything probably had been previously produced.

    3. If she had access to the account, she had control of it.

      1. No question Jackie had control of the account, but if the only emails ever sent and received on that account were to/from Duffin, then the firm probably possibly had already produced all those emails previously.
        I would bet anything Jackie was asked in deposition if she created the email account and that she lied and said ‘no’.

        1. The fact that Duffin may have also been subpoenaed and produced the documents does not excuse them from producing them as well. This is a sanctionable offense.

          1. Jackie’s counsel would have also received the documents Duffin produced in response to his subpoena. If the firm subsequently received a subpoena to produce all documents to/from Haven, confirms that there are no documents other than those to/from Duffin, the firm can then simply re-produce the documents Duffin previously produced and they will have complied with the subpoena to Haven.
            Its sketchy for sure, but it might strictly comply with the subpoena (depending on the actual language of the subpoena).

            1. That’s not how discovery works. You have to produce documents in your custody or control, you can’t reproduce the emails from another subpoena and slap your own bates stamp on top of their bates stamp. There are objections for third-parties when a certain document is best collected from an actual party to the suit but Duffin is not a party.

              You’re right that IF they completely overlap then the Judge may say no-harm no-foul and merely verbally admonish the attorneys instead of fining them but that doesn’t mean they weren’t supposed to do their own document collection and production.

            2. That’s precisely my speculation, every email to/from Haven had already been produced by Duffin because nothing else exists.
              Duffin produces, let’s say, 10 documents. Then, Jackie’s attorneys get a SDT requesting all documents in their possession relating to “Haven”. Counsel tells Jackie they need all ‘Haven” documents; Jackie logs in to Haven account prints out the exact same 10 emails, gives to her attorney, tells them, truthfully, that there are no other emails at all in the Haven account and counsel then produces those documents to Eramo’s counsel. The firm is not required to go behind Jackie, log in themselves and independently verify that she has in fact produced every document in the email account.
              How has Jackie’s counsel failed to comply with the subpoena [same caveat about specific language of subpoena]?

            3. Let’s add an element and say the firm ran a skiptrace on Haven that, of course, came up empty. Once they’ve done that, what, other than rely on Jackie, further steps could they have taken to try and comply with the subpoena?

  14. Was this ever in doubt?

    Also, can we please stop calling Jackie “purported victim”? “Alleged fraudster” is more accurate at this point.

    1. you mean the same shit that also happens when things are regulated?

    2. enjoying a nice millennial vaping session when the hand-held device he was using blew up in his face

      Whoever wrote this can barely conceal their schadenfreude.

      1. That’s some good euphemism.

  15. We already knew this, but there is an interesting wrinkle. In court her lawyers claimed Jackie was “victimized”. Obviously they are hanging by the thin thread that she hasn’t been proven a liar in court. But this new evidence would go a long way to proving the lawyers know that was a lie. They are dangerously close and getting closer to bar sanctions for lying to the court.

  16. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone are very much to blame too.

    They knew. They didn’t care.

    1. Well they are the ones actually being sued, Jackie is just a third-party. So its not like anyone is losing sight of it.

      1. They have money and insurance. Jackie likely does not.

        It’s the tone of most of the recent articles I’ve read that bothers me a little bit. Almost all of the focus is on Jackie.

        Yeah, Jackie totally lied. Confused 18 year old girl on her own in college for the first time, but yeah, it’s her fault for lying. But several “professionals” knew she was lying, and knew the damage it would cause if they gave her lies publicity. They had months to think about it, and did it anyway.

        1. Did Erdely really know she was lying, or is Erdely just an idiot who believes in rape culture so much that she ignored all the warning signs?

          1. Sweet handle.

            Erdely is in the business of lying. She knew.

            If it wasn’t immediately obvious to her at the outset, it definitely was by the time Jackie tried to back out before publication.

          2. she knew and did not care. it was a perfect story at the right time, and she at the very least recklessly disregarded all of the warning signs that this was a lie. that amounts to “knew or should have known” in my book.

            1. Agree with ‘should have known,’ but I think people are underestimating how much ideology can cloud your thinking. They might have thought it was true for the same reason Christians think Noah literally put every animal on a boat and Muslims think Mohammad flew to Jerusalem on a flying horse

              1. I think people are underestimating how much ideology can cloud your thinking

                Yep. After the Duke lacrosse accusations were definitively shown to be false, one of the Duke faculty members was interviewed and said something along the lines of, “yes, well, despite this, I still think something happened. There’s no smoke without fire.”

                1. There’s no smoke without fire

                  That guy clearly did not teach chemistry. (indeed, the buk of the Duke faculty in that witch hunt were from the humanities department, where reason and rigor are absent)

            2. Part of the rape culture issue is never questioning the rape culture issue. I tend to think that Rolling Stone just doesn’t give a shit what they publish as long as it generates buzz. That Sean Penn story they ran was a perfect example of this idiotic nonsense.

              1. Feminists, so concerned about rape culture, couldn’t give half of one flying fuck about how women are treated in the Middle East and Africa. Which is understandable, given the scourge of man-splaining, man-spreading and other various microaggressions that are killing women all across this patriarchal land.

                1. You just don’t get it, America is the problem because white culture. I learned all about it in college.

          3. or is Erdely just an idiot who believes in rape culture so much that she ignored all the warning signs?

            Yes.

          4. Did Erdely really know she was lying…?

            Good question, but that raises some issues. If she was (and perhaps is) crazy enough that she didn’t realize she was doing what normal people would call lying, can her testimony be trusted by anyone? Claiming to be crazy would be in her best interests, right?

            1. For her, maybe. But Rolling Stone is paying for the legal costs. It looks really fucking bad if they don’t fact check articles from a crazy lady.

          5. I see it more as a willful ignorance kind of thing. Erdely has a prior track record of writing poorly sourced sensationalistic articles that turned out to be false.

            Erdely knew better, but probably was salivating at the prospect of writing a blockbuster article on campus rape culture, so she consciously suppressed her bullshit detector. The story was just too good to pass up.

            1. Erdely knew better, but probably was salivating at the prospect of writing a blockbuster article on campus rape culture, so she consciously suppressed her bullshit detector. The story was just too good to pass up.

              I believe the phrase is “too good to fact-check”

              1. It makes me wonder how sick someone has to be to want claims like this to be true.

            2. “she consciously suppressed her bullshit detector.”

              I have a hard time drawing the distinction between that and printing lies.

          6. To Erdely et al, it doesn’t matter if the story si true or not, as long as it serves the narrative.

        2. They had an omelet to make, and Jackie seemed like a good egg.

          1. Jackie, who has borne almost no public censure or legal troubles for this stunt, or the fraternity members and faculty at UVA? A number of eggs were broken, but Jackie wasn’t among them.

            1. Yeah, if anything, Jackie deserves MORE blame, not less. They all knew or should have known she was lying, but let’s not loose sight of who initiated the lying. Let’s not just say “girls will be girls”, m’kay.

              1. It seems “Jackie” is getting the “that poor girl is cray-cray” treatment – which is why she’s still just “Jackie” instead of “Jackie Coakley”. That may even be so, but she was aiming to destroy lives, so fuck her sideways.

                1. I don’t think she was actually aiming to destroy lives. She was trying to get attention.

                  She went so far as to make up a name instead of actually falsely accusing a real person.

                  1. I’ll go so far as to grant she was OK with destroying lives but that wasn’t her primary aim. She made up a lurid crime and went to the authorities with it (Eramo), presumably with the expectation that action would be taken. Those actions would have an excellent chance of ruining the accused’s lives (see also, the Duke lacrosse case).

                    That disregard for any collateral damage makes her a horrible person. She made up Haven Montana to further her own goals, not because it let anyone off the hook.

        3. Agree with Playa here. The alleged professionals here, Erdeley and Will Dana, ran a story that they should have known was false.

          1. Look, women are so empowered and modern that they can’t be held accountable for their childish and mendacious behavior because the patriarchy is keeping them down and controlling their thoughts. Now that Will person? They should probably be burned at the stake for equality.

            /sarc

        4. Virginia has pure joint-and-several liability, meaning all named defendants are liable for the amount of an entire verdict, regardless of their respective percentage of fault. So if Eramo had sued both Jackie and RS and both were found responsible, RS would be on the hook for the whole amount of the verdict, even if the jury found Jackie 99% responsible and RS 1% responsible. (RS would then have the right to sue Jackie for contribution after paying Eramo.) The choice not to sue Jackie isn’t just a deep-pockets one. It’s an indication that Eramo feels RS (and Erdely), not Jackie, is who’s responsible for doing her wrong–which would fit with Jackie’s attempt to stop publication of the story, but RS went ahead with it anyway.

  17. “Look, Jackie, I’m not saying you created that email account, and I don’t want to know. But, IF you did, never access it again. Do you understand? Ok, I gotta go to lunch now. This entire hour is billable”.

    1. Pretty much.

    2. +4 martinis, 20 ounces of steak, and 18 holes at the country club

        1. A euphemism for what? Isn’t that how everyone spends their Thursday afternoons?

          1. Actually, for some of the attorneys i work with “18 holes at the country club” is a euphemism for “4 more martinis.”

          2. +1 Eno.

  18. Who should I vote for Assemblyman from California’s 76th District?

      1. Don’t vote for that leech. Vote for me!

    1. Vote R. We have a problem with the gun grabbers right now.

      1. I thought that was an ongoing problem.

        1. They have a terminal infestation. The only answer is the Luthor plan.

          *looks up property prices in future location of Otisville*

        2. 8 gun bills being voted on today, iirc

          Some so crazy that even Moonbeam will veto.

    2. Winston’s mom.

      1. For 76th District, or whore of the month?

        1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

          1. The 76th District gets to whore for 6 years.

  19. Subpoena its motherfucking documents. Every last one of them.

      1. Whatever it takes.

  20. It would have been nice if Rico had at least pretended that the Great Missing PM Links Debacle of 5/17/16 was due to him chasing down a hot lead, meeting informants in parking decks, etc.

    1. If he can’t handle us at or linkiest, he doesn’t deserve us at our pinkiest.

      *resumes crying over photo of Soave’s hair*

    2. I don’t think he’d tell us if he were deep throating.

      1. [golf clap]

    3. Puking his guts out over the crappy catered lunch Reason brought in?

      1. That’s Hall of Fame material, right there

      2. That was gold. Absolute gold.

      3. oh God I laughed so hard

        is it “antsy” or have I been wrong for 56 years?

  21. Grab its motherfucking emails.

  22. OT: BUTT FOODS CELEBRATES 25 YEARS WITH BRAND LAUNCH

    1. “they sold like hot cakes”

      It seems really weird to use that phrase when describing a bakery.

  23. Even now, Gawker media commenters believe that Jackie was truthing all along.

    hntergren
    Gabrielle Bluestone
    5/19/16 12:21pm
    This case was frustrating for so many reasons, but anyone who has attended a university like UVA knows exactly what goes on, especially at frat parties. One unhinged person’s crazy actions don’t change anything for me?I’ve witnessed enough bullshit first hand.

    1. Let’s not lose sight of the larger narrative. There was no incident, which proves we need a discussion about rape.

      1. We need more real rapes so we can write truthful stories about rape.

    2. , but anyone who has attended a university like UVA knows exactly what goes on, especially at frat parties.

      Frat parties? More like uninhibited rape fests, where male, women, and everyone else is raped.

      Do you think Gab has been to a frat party?

      1. I think the proper term for that kind of event is a “warty”.

        1. No, no, there’s a few degrees below that. This merely describes a Caligula.

    3. Doesn’t seem to stop people from attending.

      1. How did the line go? “College administrators want people to think colleges are hotbeds of rape and racism that everyone should have the opportunity to attend”?

    4. Truthing? That’s what my daughter says when I catch her in a lie “I’m truthing!”

      Anyhoo, doesn’t sound like that person’s saying Jackie COAKLEY is telling the truth. Just that it doesn’t matter if Jackie COAKLEY is telling the truth because that what she described totally happens at every frat party at every college in the country and it’s not talked about because patriarchy.

    5. So…she has witnessed rapes occurring, and didn’t report them?

      1. I’m sure the patriarchy is to blame.

      2. The drunk boys and the drunk girls, even though both parties seem interested, is clearly rape at a frat house. Not one frat boy hasn’t been involved in a gang rape. It’s what they do. At every single event.

        Everyone knows this. But we still go, cuz free beer and kamikaze shots.

  24. I wonder what Anna Merlan is doing and thinking about all this.

    /metaphorically runs fingers through hair.

    1. Hey, she’s got a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia! She doesn’t deign to think of such petty events.

      1. If this is the quality of person who Columbia puts their stamp on, then anyone who has a journalism degree from there should be ignored.

        1. Pretty much that.

  25. Over/under a Jackie porn/sex tape emerges.

    1. Starring Haven Monahan?

      sounds legit

  26. Jackie’s gotta have a screw loose. It’s like self-directed Munchausen syndrome by proxy–with a proxy server.

    We’ve made a fetish of victimhood in our society, and there are so many people who desperately want to be victims. In the old days, women could join a convent and whip themselves into a frenzy through self-flagellation. In my day, they’d just dress up goth and cut themselves.

    When I was a kid growing up in fundie-world, I knew people who believed that they or one of their family members had been the victim of demon possession. Maybe demons are real. My money’s on ‘it was all in their heads’. Subconsciously or otherwise, they invented a story that made them the central victims of a cosmic battle between good and evil. It’s better than just being a receptionist, I guess.

    1. Pretty much. Attention seeking behavior by any means necessary.

  27. I’ve argued for Christianity being necessary for capitalist society by way of the Protestant work ethic, etc., but there are downsides–the aspiration to victimhood being one. You can even see it in the difference between pre-Christian heroic epics and hero stories today–even non-Christians will argue today that real heroes need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. You know who else sacrificed himself for the greater good?

    That’s one way progressives ape Christianity. The good guy is the one you feel sorriest for. It isn’t just progressives, though, who want people to feel sorry for people. The worst thing George W. Bush ever did was make a virtue out of cowardice. Look at all these poor victims. Here I am trying to save you, like a hero–and everyone that won’t let me just doesn’t care about victims. And that’s awful. Because being a victim is the holiest thing you can be, I guess?

    If anybody ever called me a victim, I might want to punch him in the nose–make him feel sorry for himself. Even women who love to play victim generally don’t want to be with a guy that projects victimhood. I feel sorry for people, too, but when that happens, it generally means I’ve lost a certain amount of respect for them. ‘Pathetic” is a word people originally used to describe victims–pathos. It’s now an expression of contempt. Who wants to be pathetic?

    Yeah, I feel sorry for Jackie. She is truly pathetic.

    1. Victimhood is the new privilege.

  28. “Finkle is Einhorn!”

  29. purported victim “Jackie” herself

    Why not say “false accuser Jackie Coakley”?

  30. RE: New Wrinkle in UVA / Rolling Stone Lawsuit: Jackie Likely Accessed Imaginary Rapist’s Email

    Rolling Stone is a notorious liberal rag.
    It can do no wrong.
    What’s wrong with you people?

  31. 10 years from now, the mainstream media will still be saying “alleged hoax.”

  32. Anna Merlan’s salty ham tears are DEEEEELISH!

  33. Prison time for the stupid vicious cunt.

  34. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

    Read more on this site.————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  35. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

    Read more on this site.————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  36. Minor factual correction here, but Haven was the first iteration of her fake attacker, the one she told to her dorm mates immediately “after” the fake attack took place. She “knew” Haven from her chemistry class.

    By the time she told her story to Erdely, her attacker had changed. He was now a real individual who she had known during her stint as a lifeguard at the school’s aquatic center. The name of this person was never made public, but the police and media outlets have spoken with him, and verified that he had nothing to do with any of it. We do know that this person was never part of the phi kappa psi fraternity where she alleged her attack took place.

    The last time Jackie spoke publicly, she stood by the version she told Erdely, i.e. her attacker was the lifeguard, not Haven from chemistry class.

  37. Amelia . although Gregory `s story is shocking… on sunday I bought a top of the range volvo from making $4129 this last 4 weeks and more than ten thousand last-month . it’s actualy the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I actually started 7-months ago and almost immediately started to earn minimum $85… per-hour . go to this website…..
    —- http://www.MaxPost30.com

  38. Amelia . although Gregory `s story is shocking… on sunday I bought a top of the range volvo from making $4129 this last 4 weeks and more than ten thousand last-month . it’s actualy the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I actually started 7-months ago and almost immediately started to earn minimum $85… per-hour . go to this website…..
    —- http://www.MaxPost30.com

  39. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.ReportMax90.com

  40. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.ReportMax90.com

  41. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  42. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  43. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain …that…my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resently paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here….

    Simply tap On This sort of Link –

    =========? http://www.Path50.com

  44. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain …that…my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resently paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here….

    Simply tap On This sort of Link –

    =========? http://www.Path50.com

  45. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…————————- http://www.cash-spot.com

  46. i immediately sense racism in beating this dead horse of a story about a black girl’s made up story.

  47. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  48. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  49. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.