I wondered about that too, but video cameras weren’t exactly inconspicuous in the 1980s and her body language implies she is aware of the camera so it’s not exactly like someone sneaking a hidden recorder into an AA meeting.
She was active in public anti-cult movements by the time her husband was appointed to SCOTUS in 1991 so it seems likely that the recording was made in that context rather than a private support group.
Steven Hassan is marginally more respectable than Phil McGraw. He sensationalizes mental health issues and, while he presents himself as a counselor related to cults and deprogramming, I have very little belief that he actually had consent to release this video. This is him inserting himself into the conversation at the expense of a client, if not an actual patient. She surely knew she was being filmed but may well have not known it would be released. She certainly would not have known it would be released to draw attention to him during a public moment in her life. She’s not my patient/client so I can confidently say “screw her” but if he knew her in a professional capacity he’s very much in the wrong here and betraying a trust.
ETA: I just read @Brainspore’s response. I hadn’t considered that she may have been a co-presenter, which is the only way I can see this self-insertion by Hassan as being anything other than unethical. Still sleazy, though maybe not a violation of professional conduct codes.
I guess it would be an unfortunate if consistent pattern of behavior if even the anti-cult folks she associated with were nutjobs and scumbags.
“She has a type” taken to a whole new level.
I’m not going to watch the whole thing but Dr. Hassan posted a follow-up tweet showing the whole video which provides more context (apparently it actually took place in 1986, not 1989) so I guess viewers can decide for themselves whether or not participants would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Obviously social media didn’t exist back then, but there are nametags and cameras and microphones so it doesn’t look to me like anyone in attendance had any reason to expect that the event would be private and confidential.
I do see what you mean about Steven Hassan coming across as a publicity hound though.
Seems like she never got the real help to keep her out of cults… That’s really sad, in a way… just shows you all the ways in which our society fails all of us. Her inability to move out of that head space (and many others like her) is going to destroy this country.
This is pretty big considering that Romney opposed Jackson’s nomination to the D.C. appeals court last year. Glad he and Murkowski were able to do the right thing, especially since the rest of their party has made it clear that no Democratic President will ever get to appoint a SCOTUS justice again if Republicans take back control of the Senate.
“The tie vote meant Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had to later force her nomination out of the committee via a procedural step known as a discharge petition. Schumer teed up that vote Monday night; the motion to discharge Jackson from the committee passed, 53-47.“
It’s almost done.
Every time it seems like these fuckers can’t go any lower they find a way to keep digging.
(For context, the Judge Jackson Cotton is talking about helped craft the legal framework for the Nuremberg trials but was also very vocal in his insistence that the people being tried have full and adequate access to legal counsel.)
The final vote was 53 to 47, with all 50 Democratic caucus members supporting Jackson.
“Something something without representation”?
Yet again
SUPREME COURT PUNTS ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” ISSUE, AGAIN (johntfloyd.com)
But an innocent state prisoner spending the rest of his/her life in prison is not unconstitutional. Innocence alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by a clear showing of a constitutional violation before a federal habeas court will even consider the issue. Since Herrera was decided in 1993, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to change this position by recognizing a “free-standing” actual innocence claim: Henry v. Skinner (2011), District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne ( 2009), In re Troy Anthony Davis (2009), House v. Bell (2006), and Schlup v. Delo (1995).
Emphasis mine. Just let that sink in for a moment. Fuck.
This is why raising awareness of how cops get and use confessions or witness statements is so important. Once people are imprisoned, it can take an extraordinary amount of evidence to free them. It’s worse in situations where they just want to close a case, and don’t really care enough to search for the actual culprit.
ETA
