The Washington Post has a pretty controversial article about Jimmy Carter up.

[BlueStater]

Unlike most of their articles, they’re also not allowing comments on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/17/peter-yarrow-carter-pardon-assault/

I never knew about this until today. I can’t comprehend what Carter was thinking when he did this, but it seems like an ugly stain on his long legacy of public service. I gotta admit that I can’t see how Peter Yarrow is any less of a creep than Ted Nugent, who we all justifiably loath.

[Mr.Bill]

1. Paywall.

[BlueStater]

2. Here's a link about the article that doesn't require payment:

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/music/peter-yarrow-sexual-misconduct

[luckone]

14. Carter is many great things but not clairvoyant

This mentions that more came forward after the Me too movement they are talking about Feb 21 2021 lawsuit
Unfortunately this article ends with saying that the case should probably not have been his first

“It’s unclear exactly how many other claims against Yarrow were brushed under the rug more than 50 years ago. But a Cincinnati Enquirer article about Yarrow’s 1970 sentencing makes reference to at least one more: “A similar charge against Yarrow in Cincinnati was ignored about three years ago by a Hamilton County grand jury”

It’s not right but perhaps Carter being given a slanted version of his crime where it appeared at the time a single incident in his career and some peaceniks or beatniks pushing the Carter admin to include him in his pardons may have influenced his decision.

He should not have listened to them and I’m not that familiar with the music but I don’t think that group did ted nugent type of references so was there a lifestyle clue like with Nugent?
Maybe if it had been one of the Stones or something
Carter would have had a different opinion based on their songs

But he’s the puff the magic dragon guy so that is a big creepy thing l

Perhaps in tnstead of targeting Carter I just looked him up and Peter Yarrow is still alive .

The articleitself looked at the more recent movements and Yarrow, but was not focused on Carter

“In 2019, he was slated to headline a folk festival in New York before his appearance was canceled when his sex crime was brought up.”

So cancel culture has ostracisized him and yes Carter pardoned him for the one crime where they were able to get a conviction so far. Hope for more justice like the new lawsuit filed in February

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Never too late to bring people to justice on something like this.

[hlthe2b]

4. While I find the pardon disturbing, did I miss WAPO's coverage of someone from

Carter's DOJ or administration offering an explanation?

Granted, I read it quickly this morning, but did I miss that?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. From the author of the piece, on twitter:

Over that past few months, I have spoken with as many living Carter administration officials who may have handled this pardon that I could find.

None had a specific memory of why Yarrow's application was approved.

None seemed aware of the significance of this pardon, that it would perhaps be the first and only pardon for a sexual crime against a child in US history.

If you're wondering why President Carter approved this pardon, so am I! His spokeswoman did not respond to my requests for comment, but I still want to know his reasoning, and will add it to the story if they give it.

[W_HAMILTON]

6. Uhh, good journalism would be to find that out ahead of time before publishing such a piece.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Find what out ahead of time?

[W_HAMILTON]

16. An official response to the article (e.g., from the Carters themselves or their spokesperson)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

17. The author requested a comment and didn't get one; that's not necessarily a reason to hold a story.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. lol, for a story about something that happened four decades ago?

Sure it is. What is the rush, other than try to make a name for themselves by putting out a hit piece that they hope will get them some fame? How long had it been since they contacted the Carters' spokesperson till when the author decided to publish this? I can understand waiting months and months, but a few weeks to get an official response so that all sides are appropriately presented in what might be a controversial story? Again, what is the rush? It apparently hasn't been reported on for decades -- is a few more weeks going to change anything?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. There's no rush. She's been working on this article since December.

It's timely because another suit was filed against Yarrow in February.

[former9thward]

38. If no one ever makes a comment or "remembers" anything

then an article can't be published? No way. If people won't comment then publish and that will usually cause their memories to suddenly come back.

[hlthe2b]

8. I agree 100%. Without comment from those involved, it screams "hit piece"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. A hit piece against whom?

[hlthe2b]

10. I should think it would be obvious, especially to any DUer who has witnessed 40 years of

derision and attacks on Carter from the RW.

This pardon occurred 30 years ago in 1981. Do you mean to tell me that his story had to wait until NOW--when many who might have been involved are now dead, to report?

I'm sure you will find many anti-Carter sympathizers to that position, but you can not include me.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. It's never a bad time to question a bad decision.

The reporter started digging into it late last year, because she found that no one had ever tried to talk to the victim to get her story. The particulars of the pardon are extremely unusual and worth interrogating, especially in the era of #MeToo -- we can't do better unless we see how we got it wrong in the first place.

Another woman filed suit against Yarrow in February with similar accusations. If a pardon helped provide cover for Yarrow to continue hurting people -- and it was apparently an open secret that it did -- well, again, it's never a bad time to question a bad decision.

[hlthe2b]

12. I do not argue against questioning--just one-side accusations with no due diligence to find out WHY!

YOU SHOULD TOO

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. But the reporter did try to find out why. She talked to a bunch of people involved.

And it sounds like they all kind of passed the pardon along, unaware of how important it was. Is that how pardons are processed? If so, it's a shitty process that should be reviewed.

She also asked Carter for a comment. His spokesperson didn't respond. This happens a lot in journalism, and is not a reason to hold a story if the reporter has made a reasonable attempt to get comment.

[hlthe2b]

23. Yeah, sure

Did she have to waste twenty minutes on one day doing so?. My heavens. How impressive.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. Look, I get it. It's no fun to find out that people you like did hurtful things.

It's why people resist looking in a critical way at how power failed victims. But if we want to do better, we have to find out where we failed.

[hlthe2b]

25. YOU may conclude that. I take this as implied wrong-doing with no opportunity to explain

To assume there is not more to the story--especially given this occurred 40 years ago when there was ONLY one incident--while plying the reader with subsequent cases NOT IN EVIDENCE at the time is the worst kind of cowardly and unprofessional journalism.

Someone wants to make a name for themselves. AND after 40 years of absolutely SICK organized destruction of Jimmy Carter and his Presidency by the RW, you should be joining me in demanding BETTER. Some of this reporting makes it seem as though Carter, himself, were guilty of sexual misdeeds!

[yardwork]

15. 40 years ago. 1981 is 40 years ago.

I know. I have trouble believing it myself.

Things were different in 1981. Without any context on why Carter approved this pardon, this does seem like a hit piece. Was he aware of the facts of the case? Who knows.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. According to the article, part of the reason Carter approved it was because he was the one who

had to, if anyone was going to:

Though the pardon power is one of the broadest handed to the president in the Constitution, it applies only to federal crimes, or “offences against the United States,” as Article II puts it. A president cannot pardon someone running a red light in Illinois or getting into a fistfight in Arizona because those are state crimes.

But since D.C. is not a state, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia prosecutes crimes in the city, opening convictions up to the president’s pardon power.

Or as Yarrow told the Baltimore Jewish Times in 2006: “In Washington, it was considered a felony. In New York, it would have been a class B misdemeanor.” But if he had molested Winter anywhere else but Washington, he would not have been eligible for a pardon.

Carter, a born-again Christian and longtime Sunday school teacher, pardoned Yarrow on Jan. 19, 1981. A spokeswoman for the former president, now 96, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

[marble falls]

30. I think Jimmy Carter's motives are clean. There's quite a few odd bits in that story, ...

... what is wrong with adults - letting these girls hang in hotels with unrelated adults at 14/15 years old multiple times knowingly (and unknowingly). That girl was molested and no one deserves that.

Jimmy had nothing to with it.

[hlthe2b]

22. Yeah, thanks... Mental pause today. It is hard to think it has been that long.

[Klaralven]

40. At the time Peter Yarrow was still married to Eugene McCarthy's daughter

Also:

The application included letters of recommendation from McGovern and former New York City Mayor John V. Lindsay (D). Both men are now dead.

[twin_ghost]

19. Don't post washington post articles they are all behind a paywall.

[Mosby]

31. What about the NYT? What is is 40 fucking bucks a month?

Posted here every day.

[twin_ghost]

32. With the NY Times the first five articles are free.

[Celerity]

33. NYT 40 usd a month? LOL I pay 2 euros a month (2.43 usd at current FOREX)

This 'limited time offer' has been around for years

https://www.nytimes.com/subscription

[Mosby]

36. Its 17/mo. I was thinking of the wsj.

Reuters wants 35.

[Celerity]

37. If you are paying 17 USD per month for basic NYT access, you are so overpaying

[Mosby]

41. I'm not paying anything, I just looked up the fee

They do give you a discount for three months, and have student/teacher discounts.

I pay for wapo and Atlantic, thats it. I think wapo is much better than nyt, and the Atlantic has a lot of great writers.

[Treefrog]

39. I know, I get it fairly cheaply too.

WP pisses me off that they give no free articles at all.

[Celerity]

35. Welcome to DU, but no, the WaPo and the NYT will continue to be (rightfully so) posted here, as they

are world class newspapers that are absolutely relevant to socio-political discussion.

If you truly still have concerns, you can contact the administrators:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=contact

BTW, those two papers also have very low discount subscription rates..

I live in the EU and only pay 2 euros a month (around 2.43 usd at current FOREX) for the NYT

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215440473#post33

cheers

[Crunchy Frog]

26. Dammit, I'm not going to be able to listen to Peter, Paul and Mary anymore.

How have I not heard about this before?

The fact that he liked writing songs about childhood innocence seems particularly creepy now.

[msfiddlestix]

27. I know, right? Peter Paul and Mommy was a favorite album

in our home, when my daughter was just a toddler to recently when my granddaughters were little. We could sing and play alongwith every single song on that LP. I was never aware of this issue then, not even later until this moment.

sometimes, I wish didn't check in on DU.

This saddens me.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I grew up listening to the Peter, Paul and Mary In Concert album.

It evokes deep childhood memories for me. I played it for my own kids when they were younger.

Why does there have to be so many creeps in the world?

[marble falls]

29. The thing to remember is that Yarrow and Nugent are independently creepy. Yarrow'd be creepy ...

if there were no Ted Nugent. Whoa. Imagine there were no Ted Nugent.

It's not what I would have done, but I have no questions for Jimmy Carter. I believe his explanation.

But Peter fucking Yarrow and Ted fucking Nugent? Got a few questions.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Here's an article on the Yarrow charges that does not have a paywall to deal with...

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/music/peter-yarrow-sexual-misconduct