On Predators and Progressive #Politics… (updated 2x)

Let’s talk about a popular political pundit on Twitter. He’s a big fan of the NRA, he’s pro-life, and a proud member of #TGDN, the popular hashtag/political club of right-wing extremists. He loves to butt heads with members of #UniteBlue, the folks at the opposite end of the political spectrum. He’s amassed an audience of 10,000 people following him on Twitter. To the members of #TGDN, that makes him a “big deal.”

We’ll call him @Political_David.

Political David on Twitter

Political David is a popular conservative blogger and is considered a thought leader in the twitterspehere. He’s also he’s got a successful business and sits on the board of #TGDN.

One day, a member of Anonymous finds Political David has an unsavory background. He was charged, and eventually convicted, for dealing drugs and possessing child pornography.  Immediately, the Board of Directors of #TGDN fires him. The people who exposed him are shunned by the right, and people start attacking their families. Michelle Malkin stands up for him and labels it a conspiracy and a smear job.

That’s exactly what a lot of left-leaning people would expect from #TGDN, the fan club for right-wing nutjobs who take Michelle Malkin’s word as bond. We’d laugh at their kookery. When they cried that his criminal charges were spurred by political persecution, or implied he was a party to a massive conspiracy from arrest to conviction, we’d roll our eyes and call them apologists. We’d give them hell, gladly. We’d point to it as an example of a flaw in their value system. The left would scorn them for shaming and intimidating the whistleblower. 

Unfortunately, it’s not @Political_David that has been convicted (he doesn’t exist) and will be sentenced, for the crimes of drug trafficking and possession of child pornography. He pled guilty to the charges you can see at the end of the post. 

It’s a guy who calls himself @Political_Bill. Political Bill, aka Bill  Talley, who sat on the Board of Directors at UniteBlue. And yes, political leaders in the feminist, progressive twitterverse are both defending him and calling it a smear.

UPDATE: This includes Bill Tally himself, who admonished Matt Osborne and implied that it was a setup, saying “Obviously Matt thinks police are 100% honest and tech savvy. Pathetic.

Bill Talley arrested and charged

It appears that Political Bill is only a twitter personality – he’s not a famous political blogger or well-known activist. A look at his LinkedIn.com shows us he’s been a businessman for over 25 years. A google of his name (“Bill Tally” + Tennessee) only turned up his court documents, a few articles on his arrest,  and  his business profile. Records show he has only been on Twitter since 2008, a good three years after he was initially arrested.

Screen shot 2013-03-30 at 5.46.49 PM


There is no defense of this sort of crime. The evidence has been challenged and found sound,  and he has been PLEAD guilty to charges in a court of law.

Possession of cocaine, with intent to distribute, and child pornography should be treated as a serious crime, not dismissed as a political smear.

We want to shun the harsh reality that there are bad people, that do bad things, in our circles on social media. That denies the victims justice. It denies our very humanity to dismiss such vile crimes, especially when this is a “personality” that we only know from his brief time on Twitter.

I don’t want to get into statistics on child pornography – I shouldn’t have to try and convince somebody that this is a terrible thing.

Here’s a few websites that can help you understand why defending its possession is an ENORMOUS PROBLEM and the least progressive thing I’ve seen “progressives” do on Twitter.

That’s all I have to say about this situation. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Below is an example of progressives being wary of the charges. I’ve even had people say that they need to “see” the images to assert that it is, indeed, child pornography he was caught with. I… just… can’t!

its a smear

I don’t understand the denial. Here are the charges. He’s due for sentencing soon.


Posted by the @OpUniteBlue twitter account, you can find case numbers by a name search on FindLaw.


11 thoughts on “On Predators and Progressive #Politics… (updated 2x)

  1. The use of my tweets in this article are out of context and entirely misleading. I specifically stated in that discussion that I was NOT defending Bill, but that I did not know enough about the case in order to RESPONSIBLY form an opinion as to the facts of the case.

    When I wrote those tweets, I had just barely skimmed one of the appeals cases on a 4th Amendment issue and was seeking additional information. At that point I was listing hypothetical possibilities that I wanted to either confirm or eliminate by consulting reliable materials — the cases and news accounts — on the case.

    Other than the one case I had skimmed, all I knew about the case at that point was what I been told by strangers through tweets. I had read nothing, other than such tweets, stating that Bill had been convicted.

    The appeal case I had skimmed said nothing about any conviction because it was “interlocutory” in nature. That is, the appeal had been heard and decided years *before* any conviction had happened.

    Also in that thread, I was told that Bill had been found guilty by a jury of his peers, a claim that, despite the self righteousness with which it had been advanced, turned out to be FALSE. As my review of the actual court materials demonstrated, there never was a trial on the merits of the case. There was no jury. There was no jury verdict. This should underscore that assertions made in tweets — especially regarding the background facts on a case as serious as this one — are unreliable and potentially inaccurate. To rely on them alone is irresponsible.

    I thought that we as liberals are supposed to be better than “Right Wing Nut Jobs” because we value basing our opinions upon sound, reliable information, not on hearsay — what we heard someone say, especially when what we hear are tweets from someone we do not know.

    To print my tweets out of context, and to characterize them in a manner that I had specifically stated was incorrect and that did not reflect my opinion of the case or of Bill, is disingenuous and outrageous. To identify me as someone who defends Bill is false. To attempt to ridicule or shame me, based upon a position I have never taken is equally incorrect and outrageous.

    The ONLY position that I was taking in that thread was that I was not prepared to form any opinion of the case or of Bill AT THAT TIME, and that I wanted to research the background on the charges and read any available cases and news accounts, so that I could find out what had happened, appraise the facts and decide for myself.

    Kindly print the entire thread. The two tweets you have quoted are misleading out of context and unfairly misrepresent my position on the case.

    Now that I have read all the court documents and materials on the case, that are available online, I will be happy to share my opinions on it once the record has been corrected, as requested.

    Thank you,

    • I will leave your comment here. But I will state that you are the only person that has asked to see the “photos” to determine for yourself if it was child pornography.

      I will not be removing the tweets from this article. I could add the entire conversation if you like, including where you and some others ask to see the photos to prove it’s children? You asked for photos!

      • You misrepresent what I said again! I specifically stated to you that I did NOT want to see the photos themselves. As soon as you jumped to that ridiculous conclusion, I refuted it.

        What I wanted to see was a judge’s decision or report on the facts from the case that stated what a *trier of fact* in the case — the judge or a jury — had determined about the nature of the images. Specifically, I wanted to find out whether a judge or a jury had seen the images and determined that the images were clearly of children or whether it was *possible* that the images could have been mistaken for those of adults.

        That is entirely different from saying that I personally wanted to see those pictures. And, of course, yet again, you have omitted the tweets where I clarified that I DID NOT WANT TO SEE THE PICTURES,.

    • Also, I remember what context these tweets are in, and we clearly were not on the same page. You asked for proof it was children, you asked for photos. I think the few tweets I posted were kind — leaving out the part where you ask to see the photos.

      • I NEVER ASKED TO SEE THE PHOTOS! You cannot produce one tweet that states that. Of that I am positive.

        And if you remember the context so well, I defy you to POST IT. The whole record, not cherry picked tweets that you can cast in a misleading light, out of a discussion that lasted more than two hours.

        Based upon your original blog post here and your responses to my reply, I can only conclude that you would rather manufacture and rationalize your own excuses for claiming offense where there is none to be taken! That is a damn shame because by doing so, you only give credence to the misogynists and RWNJs who claim that victims of sexual violence and women in general cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Your disregard for accuracy in your presentation of the facts undermines OUR cause.

        Shame on you!

    • I will not be posting 2 hours worth of tweets. It’s over 50 tweets. I write about other things and this is just ONE blog posting out of 30-some.

      I don’t know what “OUR CAUSE” is.

      If you say you did not ask to see the photos, FINE. But I distinctly remember you saying that without the photos, how could “we” know.

      I don’t know what “OUR CAUSE” is. I’m a sex abuse/rape survivor.

      I always err on the side of trusting the victim.

      This is not about whatever “OUR CAUSE” is. It’s about pedophiles using social networks to gain false credibility and “followers” .

      I am NOT less credible than a man who got caught selling cocaine and consuming child porn. This isn’t about ME, it’s about HIM.

      Why do I consider myself more credible?

      I’ve never even been accused of that and never will. I don’t sell drugs, I don’t use drugs recreationally. I don’t look at young teen girls in sexual positions.

      But I DID once have $600 in cash stolen by a “friend” who had a cocaine problem.

      My only experiences with cocaine users AND pedophiles has been horribly, horrible negative. I’m not going to obsess about this.

      If you do not want something you tweeted to be seen and or commented on, lock your Twitter account. Otherwise, Twitter has stated over and over that nobody owns tweets.

      • I am an advocate for survivors of sexual abuse. That is the cause, and it is a cause which is not in conflict with a commitment to fairness and accuracy in the appraisal and presentation of the facts of any case. In fact the latter is essential to the preservation and support of sexual abuse victims.

        I, too, maintain a presumption that victims of sexual violence are telling the truth about what happened to them because the system is so punitive towards victim and sets up so many disincentives to victims coming forward.

        In Bill’s case, however, there was no victim who had come forward to tell his or her story because his case involved child pornography. There were only images that a judge or a jury might have evaluated and determined to be children. That determination was the closest we’d have come to hearing a victim’s story. That was why I was seeking case decisions and reports on the case, to understand that story.

        It is one thing to presume a victim credible on the facts of her own case but quite another to presume one victim to be most credible on the facts of other cases, in which she has neither personal involvement nor first-hand knowledge of what happened.

        As the full record of our tweeted conversation will show, you got the facts of the case wrong on several accounts. Just one example: You insisted he had been found guilty by a jury of his peers. In actuality, there had been no jury trial or jury verdict. The case on the merits had never gone to trial by a judge or a jury.

        That is why I kept repeating that I could not know what happened or what was involved until I had read and reviewed the actual court documents — not because I don’t believe victims about their own cases, not because I don’t think trafficking, child pornography and sexual abuse of children are atrocities and NOT because I think or thought at the time that Bill was innocent.

        It is not a matter of whether YOU are more credible than Bill. It is a matter of whether YOU are more credible than the official, published legal opinions, briefs and other records of the case. You are NOT.

        THAT was why I refused to form my understanding and opinions of the case based on your tweets about it. Why you had such a hard time with ANYONE wishing to consult the official record of the proceedings is mind-boggling. Your insistence that I take on faith your 140-character second hand characterizations of the case was unreasonable and ridiculous, particularly in the light of the fact that so much of what YOU tweeted about the case — and now about my tweets — was flat out incorrect.

        I’m not saying don’t quote my tweets. I’m saying don’t post out of context tweets I’ve made and misrepresent them in ways that I specifically refuted in exactly the same conversation.

        Based on this unfortunate interaction with you, I will make sure to never take anything you say at face-value, as you have shown yourself to have extremely poor reading comprehension skills and an outright disregard for accuracy and fairness. SHAME ON YOU.

  2. SHAME ON ME? LOL, really? You’re telling a sex abuse survivor and rape survivor “shame on you” ? Because I chose to confront the guy caught selling cocaine and child porn? Because I believed he was guilty from the moment I saw the article and the charges he plead guilty to?

    The criminal charges specify that they prosecute people by providing forensic evidence that they “knowingly possessed” child pornography. KNOWINGLY.

    I won’t be ashamed for believing the worst, especially because he plead GUILTY. I updated this article to reflect the FACTs of the case. I have no obligation to apologize to a pedophile. Such a tiny fraction of cases involving such things are ever even PROSECUTED and YOU DID ask if there were prior victims as a basis of evidence. Read the law. See what he was charged with. I don’t have to trigger myself by reading court transcripts.


    He was charged with class B or C.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s