House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took some heat over the weekend for offering a bizarre defense of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., on Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press. Conyers stands accused of sexual harassment, allegations of which Pelosi had to reaffirm she takes “very seriously” in a statement after her interview on the program.
“So, define zero tolerance. You said there’s now a zero tolerance,” host Chuck Todd asked Pelosi.
“Yes,” she confirmed.
Todd continued, “John Conyers. What does that mean for him? Right now. In or out?”
Here’s how Pelosi responded (emphasis added):
We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused — and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be — John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women — Violence Against Women Act, which the left — right-wing — is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don’t, I believe he will do the right thing.
We are strengthened by due process in the court system, Pelosi is right. But she doesn’t seem to want the same for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, as Guy Benson and Jonah Goldberg have pointed out.
Here’s another perspective to consider: As Moore’s defenders decried the lack of due process in his case, one group of young Republicans in Alabama issued an articulate statement of rebuttal to those complaints.
“The Greater Birmingham Young Republicans believe in innocence until proven guilty, but not electability until proven guilty,” they wrote in a resolution withdrawing their support for Moore’s candidacy. (Over at the Federalist, David Harsanyi helpfully offered a similar argument.)
If Pelosi agrees with that statement, and she certainly seems to, it stands to reason she should also logically believe the same standard applies to members and candidates with a “D” next to their names.
In a statement denying the allegations Conyers emphasized the importance of due process as well, writing, “… it is important to recognize that the mere making of an allegation does not mean it is true. The process must be fair to both the employee and the accused. The current media environment is bringing a much-needed focus to the important issue of preventing harassment in workplaces across the country. However, equally important to keep in mind in this particular moment is the principle of due process and that those accused of wrongdoing are presumed innocent unless and until an investigation establishes otherwise.”
“In this case, I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so,” he said. “My office resolved the allegations – with an express denial of liability – in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”
As Chris Cillizza noted, on Meet the Press, Pelosi appeared to misrepresent the accusations made against Conyers, for instance, that “[i]n 2015, Conyers’ office settled a wrongful dismissal claim with a former employee who said she was let go because she rebuffed the congressman’s sexual advances” and “[f]our other former female Conyers’ staffers signed affidavits in that case alleging that they, too, had been the victims of sexual harassment by the congressman.”
Like the allegations made against Moore, the allegations made against Conyers are specific and credible. Legal innocence until proven guilty is one thing, but electability — or one’s worthiness to remain in elected office — until proven guilty is another.
