So a prominent Nevada Republican — former party chairman John Mason — has alleged that former U.S. Public Printer Bruce James, also a prominent Nevada Republican, engaged in some kind of inappropriate conduct with his daughter five years ago in Washington, D.C.
Of course, Gov. Jim Gibbons — who vaguely recalls being told about the incident by Mason back when Gibbons was a congressman — forgot all about it and appointed James head of his budget-cutting SAGE commission.
First Scandal Note: Clearly, Gibbons either really forgot about the charges (which means he’s kind of an idiot) or he didn’t. If he didn’t forget about them, it means he believed there was some truth to the allegations and appointed James anyway (which means he’s kind of an idiot) or that he didn’t believe them at all. If he didn’t believe them at all, we are compelled to wonder why not. (And no, we don’t think it’s because Gibbons himself has sailed a cruise aboard the S.S. Sex Scandal.)
Second Scandal Note: Mason — who the Review-Journal reminds us once fibbed about being in the group the Surfaris — is certainly behaving as if his story is true.
First, he told people about it at the time, including Gibbons. Any lawyer will tell you a statement about facts made contemporaneous to the incident in question is always more reliable and valuable than one made when trying to recall an incident years later. And apparently, Mason told more than one person. Those people are now witnesses. Except Gibbons, whose credibility is subject to impeachment on his best day.
Second, according to KLAS Channel 8, the White House was involved, in the person of former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Assuming Gonzales doesn’t go into “I don’t recall” mode, the way he did when Congress inquired into why he was such a crappy attorney general, might there be some evidence in the form of phone logs, e-mails, or other documents pertaining to the allegations?
Third, it’s understandable that Mason didn’t raise these allegations until now. James, after serving for several years as public printer, returned to private life in Nevada. (He’s been mentioned as a candidate for public office, but has not taken steps to get on any ballot.) Yet now, thanks to Gibbons, James is in a very public role that could lead to a bid for office, something that would rightly offend and outrage a man in Mason’s position, assuming again there is something to these allegations.
Third Scandal Note: James, however, is also behaving like an innocent person. First, he’s flatly denied the charges. An R-J news flash sent minutes ago quotes James as saying “I am not guilty of this.” If there were something to the charges, even if the situation wasn’t as bad as we’ve been led to believe, wouldn’t James be explaining himself? Instead, he’s flatly denied wrongdoing.
Second, if James did harass or behave inappropriately toward Mason’s daughter, and the White House did know, why was he allowed to stay on as public printer from 2002 until quitting in 2006? Wouldn’t the White House have been worried about an embarrassment to the president? (OK, stupid question. If the White House wasn’t embarrassed by the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina, both of which actually killed people, why should they be worried about a little alleged sexual harassment in an obscure office?)
Fourth Scandal Note: The only way this will be resolved is with proof. Mason, a lawyer, knows this, and yet he’s been vocal and specific about his allegations. We suspect he may have a still-smoking gun.
So, Mr. Mason, the burden is now on you: The R-J has challenged your credibility, and the subject of your allegations has flatly denied them, effectively calling you (and, we must note, your daughter) liars. The next move is yours. If you have evidence, publish it, and let’s put this matter to rest once and for all, shall we?
UPDATE: A tip of our fedora to Chuck Muth whose blog gave us a link to this interesting Reno News & Review report by our colleague Dennis Myers, suggesting that perhaps John Mason was not fibbing when he said he was in the Surfaris.
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.