Posts Tagged ‘Cook County GOP Chair coverup
URGENT UPDATE: Affidavits obtained today prove Cook County GOP Chair Lee Roupas knew about date rape complaint filed against CYR board member in 2009, but did not act on it for an entire year. Claims he did not know about the complaint until June 2010, but has been caught in his lie.
Crook County GOP Chair Lee "Pinocchio" Roupas, pants afire, lying about the fact he knew about a date rape complaint filed against a Chicago Young Republican board member a full year before he decided to act on it, or acknowledge he knew what was going on in his own county. Shame, shame, shame on Roupas for not only lying, but for being so damn terrible at it. In Chicago, this is actually the worst crime of all.
UPDATE 1121pm CST 7/16/10: We have just secured an affidavit from a prominent Republican who is swearing under oath that Lee Roupas was not only informed about the complaint against “The Prophet” in July or August 2009, but that he was read the entire complaint over the telephone.
As we suspected, Roupas is being deliberately lawyerly in his use of the word “received” in terms of this complaint. He is, in essence, insisting he never TOUCHED the complaint until June of 2010…but he RECEIVED the information in the complaint verbally in July or August 2009, as we have maintained.
This is the first of several affidavits we foresee being secured in the coming week that will prove Lee Roupas to be a liar.
All Republican Committee Members in Cook County need to step up to the plate and challenge Roupas to put in writing that he never:
(1) spoke about the complaint in July or August of 2009
(2) had the complaint read to him in July or August of 2009
(3) had a telephone conversation about the complaint in July or August in 2009
Let’s give Lee Roupas the chance to clear this up, before more affidavits roll in to prove him a liar.
*************************************************
Lee Roupas’ mouth has been moving all day today, though he won’t answer calls and isn’t speaking to the media. He’s been hunkered down in a secure and undisclosed location somewhere, writing this email to Republicans in Cook County:
Click above to embiggen.
Pay attention to that last point, (5), above.
Roupas starts off by admitting he is being represented by counsel at this point…counsel that apparently helped him write this very lawyerly paragraph of parsed words (and poor grammar, so our guess is “counsel” is either someone who went to correspondence school or is a sock puppet Roupas MacGyvered to keep him company in his bunker).
(a) Roupas states he received a letter from Eloise Gerson dated June 11th, 2010
(b) Roupas claims “the first time I received the actually complaint was upon receipt of Chairman Gerson’s letter in June of 2010″
Can you spot a few interesting things in the above?
For starters, Roupas does not acknowledge when he KNEW about the alleged assault on a young female CYR member by a current Cook County employee. We maintain Roupas knew about this matter since July of 2009, August at the latest, which means he knew about this almost a full year before he is owning up to.
He is very lawyerly saying that sometime after June 11th 2010 he RECEIVED THE ACTUALLY COMPLAINT. What’s an “actually complaint”? Does it make a sentence legally null if nonsense words like “actually complaint” are used in them? IE, is this a typo or did Roupas deliberately misphrase this to build wiggle room for himself in the future, allowing himself the option of reworking the whole sentence for later clarification to give him whatever meaning he will want this to have next week or the week thereafter?
What is the “actual complaint”, if we grant Roupas the human spelling error and assume he meant to say he “received the actual complaint” in the letter from Gerson? What defines the “actual complaint”…is it a formal document prepared by someone and notarized…is it a document printed on special paper…would a regular home printer version qualify as “actual”, or did someone need to go to Kinko’s and use “good paper” for it to be “actual”…is it a signed version of the complainant’s account or is it the first July 1, 2009 email she sent to various parties initially informing them of what took place (which subsequently led to her being interviewed and other papers generated).
We were not copied on whatever Gerson sent to Roupas in that letter dated June 11th, 2010 so we don’t know what “actual complaint”, or “actually complaint”in Roupas-speak, means to Lee Roupas. We do, however, know for a fact he was sent the July 1, 2009 document prepared by the complainant that was the initial blush of a problem with the CYR board member known as “The Prophet”. We know this because Lee Roupas was the acting Cook County GOP Chair at the time, and that July 1, 2009 document was sent to him by USPS. This statement was sent to GOP National and the Young Republican National Organization as well.
That statement was then taken to the YR National Convention in Indianapolis where it was given to other Republicans in leadership positions. It was during this Convention we were told the document was hand-delivered to Roupas. That means he should have received it TWICE in July of 2009, one in the mail, and one in person.
But, is that document not the “actually complaint” Roupas is referring to? Depends on how counsel advised him to look at it, actually.
We’re prepping a little study guide and timeline on all of this to show the myriad opportunities Lee Roupas was given to view the “actually complaint” almost a year before he ultimately admits to finally “receiving the actually complaint”. NOTE: ”receiving” is a lawyerly word…it does not mean “see”, as in Roupas could have seen a document but then claims he never touched it, so he never “received” it…it also does not mean “read”, as Roupas could have viewed the document on a crackberry, iPhone, or other computer device that had been opened by someone else, so he didn’t “receive” anything in that case either. Roupas could have been “told” about the document, but that’s not “receiving” in his counsel’s eyes either.
For years, Republicans have mocked President Clinton for his gymnastic abuse of the meaning of the word “is”. Conservatives in Illinois, meet Lee Roupas, student extraordinaire of Clintonian verbiage.
The timeline will establish that either Lee Roupas is lying about when he “received the actually complaint”, and should be removed as the Cook County GOP Chair, or he willfully avoided “receiving” the “actually complaint” because he wanted to have implausible deniability, in which case he should be removed as the Cook County GOP Chair for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
As Roupas notes in his email, the event in “The Prophet’s” apartment happened before Roupas hired the man named in this “actually complaint” to work for the Cook County GOP as a subordinate of Roupas’. That means, once it’s clearly established that a reasonable person in Roupas’ position should have had a working knowledge of the “actually complaint” by the time the decision to hire “The Prophet” was made, and that Roupas hired “The Prophet” while having said working knowledge of the “actually complaint” — and did not bother to launch an investigation into the merits of the “actually complaint” before hiring “The Prophet” to represent the Cook County GOP — then the question needs to be asked whether or not this is acceptable professional behavior on the part of a Republican County Chair in today’s GOP.
What did Lee Roupas know, and when did he know it?
That’s the question we hope to answer with some measure of reasonable certainty tomorrow. Anything you can contribute to help sort this timeline out, please let us know, since a graphic visually representing all the opportunities Roupas had to become familiar with this “actually complaint” blows his round of lies today right out of the water.
