Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[JoanArc]

 

They are certainly not heroes for disseminating child abuse victim's statements that were given in confidence against their will to sell magazines.

Public information is just that. Anyone could've made the request, and it seems to have been public knowledge, an open secret in the area, so it's not like the it's the first time they went through this. FWIW, InTouch professionally handled the investigation. That's more than a lot of other 'serious' publications can say about far more pressing topics. The Duggars also put themselves out there for over 10 years - to sell magazines. turnabout's fair play, and karma's a bitch.

 

The irony that the records would've been sealed if Jim Bob and Michelle had not waited, and gone through the system is lost to them, I'm sure.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JoanArc

[SpottedCoachDog]

There is a picture on the @duggarfam Twitter feed of Boob and Mechelle with the birthday boy.

[JoanArc]

There is a picture on the @duggarfam Twitter feed of Boob and Mechelle with the birthday boy.

Nice circumcision poster in the background.

 

And no, Jim Bob and Michelle, you are not forgiven. Love, America.

[galax-arena]

Honestly, I do think that InTouch's motives for covering the story are suspect, so I'm not going to fall over myself praising them for having the moral fortitude to unravel the Duggars' mask of deceit, or whatever. But I don't think they're villains here either. It's not like they're pulling a Radar Online (referring to that link someone posted in the media thread). And regardless of InTouch's dubious motives, they did society a favor by yanking away the Duggars' platform, IMO. It sucks that five innocent girls were caught up in this but there were victims on the other side too.

Edited June 16, 2015 by galax-arena

[kokapetl]

So if it were the New York Times, then it could be called proper whistle blowing? Keep in mine, the NYT and all those other news sources have utterly neglected to report on the danger this family has represented to the public for nearly a decade. Also keep in mind that all these news sources reported on the Duggars after the story broke.

I'm not American, so I may not understand the average American mind, but I never thought the Duggars had any notable political influence, excluding fellow Kool Aid drinkers. Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

Alerting the failure of the pedo cop to properly report and investigate is whistleblowing. The New York Times would have focused their story on him, and left the victims truly anonymous.

[Churchhoney]

 Partay! https://instagram.com/p/3-TRwdGrWH/

 

And yes, not an adult in sight as they continue to hide behind cute kiddie pics to avoid criticism. 

 

Cowards. 

 

Not that we want to see them, of course.

 

It does seem just so cynical to keep putting all these pictures out of the little kids, when before they kind of ignored them. Clearly a ploy to get back into everybody's good graces, and you should certainly never use your kids for that. Of course, I guess the Duggars have never hesitated to use their kids before, so it's stupid to expect them to begin now, when they're desparate to get back on that tv that they clearly told us they don't actually need.

[JoanArc]

 

and left the victims truly anonymous.

The police are at fault for that, not InTouch.

[galax-arena]

Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

But that's just it. In the US, it can be a struggle motivating people to go to the polls to vote. Sometimes there is a very dismal turnout. It doesn't matter whether the majority believes something or not if they don't go to the polls to vote. More than once I've felt like a particular bill/ordinance was defeated (or passed) because the majority of the people on the other side were too complacent. "Oh, everyone agrees that this non-discrimination ordinance is a good idea, I don't have to worry about it at all, so I don't have to haul my ass out of bed to vote." The problem is when too many think that way, you let the other side win. Because on the other side, you have people like the Duggars whipping up the ones who think like they do, fearmongering that if they don't vote, the godless reprobates and child molesters will win. So yes, their smear campaign was directed to people who agreed with them. That was the point. It was a "get out the vote" effort, and it worked.

[bluebonnet]

I'm not American, so I may not understand the average American mind, but I never thought the Duggars had any notable political influence, excluding fellow Kool Aid drinkers. Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

Alerting the failure of the pedo cop to properly report and investigate is whistleblowing. The New York Times would have focused their story on him, and left the victims truly anonymous.

Everything the Duggars have said about the LGBT community has been explicitly political.  The robocall was to influence a vote, Josh's FRC work is to influence law.  This isn't them having a talk at a weekend bbq with a few of their closest friends.  It's not smear campaigns.  It's taking their bigoted beliefs to the political sphere.  This isn't even to comment on the number of political candidates who make sure to get photo ops with the Duggars (at least they did).  

 

To be clear, a lot of people are very ignorant about LGBT issues, especially when it comes to transgender people.  This isn't a criticism, it's just fact.  I often become really irritated at the number of times I have to explain things about myself and people in my LGBTQIA community, but I'd rather teach this than allow someone like Michelle Duggar tell people that certain people shouldn't be allowed to pee because they are child molesters.  (BTW, going to the bathroom is a huge issue for transgender people, HUGE, imagine if it were made illegal for you to pee)  A lot of people don't even know what transgender means and the first tiem they hear about it could be Michelle identifying them as men who are child predators who get to go prey on girls in the girls bathroom.

 

The victims were left anonymous.  The family chose to identify the victims. That the family is public and so a person who knows a lot about the family could figure out who the victims were is a separate issue.  

Edited June 16, 2015 by bluebonnet

[duggarshow]

The victims were left anonymous.  The family chose to identify the victims. That the family is public and so a person who knows a lot about the family could figure out who the victims were is a separate issue.  

 

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

[dillpickles]

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

Anonymous= not identified by name.

The report left them ambiguous, though. Which is the fault of the person who released the report, not in touch.

[bluebonnet]

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

Because YOU could identify the victims does not mean that there weren't reasonable steps made to keep the victims anonymous.  The average person who reads the scandal about the Duggars isn't going to spend the time figuring out who was the victim and who wasn't.  All reports make it possible to identify minor victims even when they are properly redacted to protect identity.  

[Tunia]

Nice circumcision poster in the background.

 

 

I'm not seeing this poster, JoanArc.  They have a hand printed sign behind them about "Character"...is that the one you're referring to?

[JoanArc]

I'm not seeing this poster, JoanArc.  They have a hand printed sign behind them about "Character"...is that the one you're referring to?

Yes. But, I didn't look too closely at it. I was wrong. Thanks for the catch!

 

I thought they were going for a Roman's 2:29 character lesson, but they weren't. I had to zoom in to read the poster 'Circumstances don't dictate your character, they revel it!' is what the poster really says. Odd, seeing as how circumstances reveled that Jim Bob and Michelle's character didn't including doing all that much for abuse victims around Michael's age. Circumstances also revealed what obligate liars Jim Bob and Michelle are.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JoanArc

[GEML]

I guess I don't think Josh and Anna have ever ignored their children. Yes, they are not photographing themselves on social media, but I wouldn't either. I still might post a picture of my child's birthday, if I had people in my feed who would be interested. That doesn't strike me as cowardly or hypocritical, since they have always done it.

[kokapetl]

I don't think we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments may satisfy people reading about cases in the news, but it can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[bluebonnet]

I don't think we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

I definitely agree with this, and I think most others would, too.  I can't imagine that anyone would claim that Michelle and Jim Bob wanted their daughters to be molested.  I think a lot of people would have accepted it if M & JB  said that they recognized they made mistakes.  But this isn't at all what happened.  They have claimed that Josh really did nothing very wrong and made excuses for why it wasn't all that bad, put their family on tv mere months after this abuse occurred, and also entered the political foray by classifying LGBT people as all child predators.   

[Vaysh]

I don't tnink we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. He should have been immediately removed from the home of his victims, been evaluated by trained professionals and then recieved actual real therapy, as should the girls. I absolutely agree that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abuser, but I also believe that the treatment of the abuser is extremely important as well, because obviously there is something very wrong with their behaviour and mindset that needs to be adressed and treated in order for them to hopefully change and not end up abusing more people. What the Duggars did wrong wasn't that they didn't punish Josh but that they at first didn't do enough to stop his behaviour and then didn't provide proper therapy for him or their daughters.

[kokapetl]

But that's just it. In the US, it can be a struggle motivating people to go to the polls to vote. Sometimes there is a very dismal turnout. It doesn't matter whether the majority believes something or not if they don't go to the polls to vote. More than once I've felt like a particular bill/ordinance was defeated (or passed) because the majority of the people on the other side were too complacent. "Oh, everyone agrees that this non-discrimination ordinance is a good idea, I don't have to worry about it at all, so I don't have to haul my ass out of bed to vote." The problem is when too many think that way, you let the other side win. Because on the other side, you have people like the Duggars whipping up the ones who think like they do, fearmongering that if they don't vote, the godless reprobates and child molesters will win. So yes, their smear campaign was directed to people who agreed with them. That was the point. It was a "get out the vote" effort, and it worked.

I admit I didn't consider this. Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

For the last state election I may have actually acted unlawfully. I was out of the country, but I was in DC, so I might have been able to vote at the embassy. I was a little disappointed no one followed that up, voting is the most patriotic thing a citizen can do, and I should have been fined.

[Julia]

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. 

 

I'm actually of the opinion that if Jim Bob wasn't willing to let his son be tried as an adult offender he shouldn't have voted for other peoples' children to be tried as adult offenders. He never backed off that opinion after he chose to protect his son at the expense of his daughters so Josh wouldn't be exposed to - what was it Michelle charmingly called them?  "those people"? - who had the questionable taste to do what Josh did while being poor or not white or without political influence. I believe Josh , who knows he dodged that bullet a whole bunch of times, supports roughly the same platform as his father, as does the organization he lobbied for.

 

Under the circumstances, while I agree that exposing a teenager to the current system is only going to do them damage and put the people they meet later in life at further risk, if people will insist on making that the law of the land, I vote their child molesting kids first. Maybe if privileged children faced the same consequences the laws wouldn't be quite so destructive.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Julia

[galax-arena]

Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

I was wondering if something like that was the case! But yeah, we Americans are lazy, especially when it comes to voting on the state/local level. I did a quick google search, and one article informed me that there was a 21% turnout in 2013 Los Angeles' mayoral race. From the same article:

 

But research coming out in a forthcoming issue of the journal Political Research Quarterly found that across 340 mayoral elections in 144 large American cities dating back to 1996, turnout averaged only 25.8 percent.

From another article (on federal/national election turnouts):

 

In countries with compulsory voting, like Australia, Belgium, and Chile, voter turnout hovered near 90% in the 2000s. Other countries, like Austria, Sweden, and Italy, experienced turnout rates near 80%. Overall, OECD countries experience turnout rates of about 70%, while in the U.S., about 60% of the voting eligible population votes during presidential election years, and about 40% votes during midterm elections.

So, yeah, we kinda suck. I'm including myself in that assessment; when I was younger, I used to be very ~omg what's the point of voting, all politicians are corrupt, we're screwed either way~ until I realized how stupid that was. 

 

To tie this back in with the Duggars, I don't know if the true majority of the Fayetteville residents were in favor of the anti-discrimination ordinance or not. Perhaps it would have been repealed either way. But I do think that some bigots who might not have cared enough to vote either way were galvanized by the robocall and fearmongering. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by galax-arena

[Churchhoney]

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. He should have been immediately removed from the home of his victims, been evaluated by trained professionals and then recieved actual real therapy, as should the girls. I absolutely agree that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abuser, but I also believe that the treatment of the abuser is extremely important as well, because obviously there is something very wrong with their behaviour and mindset that needs to be adressed and treated in order for them to hopefully change and not end up abusing more people. What the Duggars did wrong wasn't that they didn't punish Josh but that they at first didn't do enough to stop his behaviour and then didn't provide proper therapy for him or their daughters.

 

I'm quoting this because I think it deserves to be said and read over and over.

I admit I didn't consider this. Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

For the last state election I may have actually acted unlawfully. I was out of the country, but I was in DC, so I might have been able to vote at the embassy. I was a little disappointed no one followed that up, voting is the most patriotic thing a citizen can do, and I should have been fined.

 

Whereas in the U.S., people not only have to be urged and begged and cajoled and pushed to vote, some people spend a huge amount of energy trying to keep the people who might vote against them away from the polls, such as by squelching attempts to expand voting hours and so on so working people have an easier time fitting voting into their day. How many vote is really the issue here, and it creates our laws and creates our Congress and our state governments.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Sew Sumi]

Is that Johanna wearing earrings??

That's Mackynzie. She's had pierced ears since she was about six months old. 

[lookeyloo]

I mean the girl on the right of the scene on the left of Michael who pulls the 4 candle off the cake.

[MrsMommy]

I definitely agree with this, and I think most others would, too. I can't imagine that anyone would claim that Michelle and Jim Bob wanted their daughters to be molested. I think a lot of people would have accepted it if M & JB said that they recognized they made mistakes. But this isn't at all what happened. They have claimed that Josh really did nothing very wrong and made excuses for why it wasn't all that bad, put their family on tv mere months after this abuse occurred, and also entered the political foray by classifying LGBT people as all child predators.

It sounded to me like they knew they made mistakes, thinking your a bad parent is one sign of knowing you made a mistake, they knew what josh did was wrong and they got him help, no it may not meet some people's standards but it met cps standards and he seems "cured" to me. I hate to use the word cured but couldn't think of a better word

[kokapetl]

some people spend a huge amount of energy trying to keep the people who might vote against them away from the polls, such as by squelching attempts to expand voting hours and so on so working people have an easier time fitting voting into their day. How many vote is really the issue here, and it creates our laws and creates our Congress and our state governments.

That's the pretty much why it became compulsory in Australia. Irish Catholic = working class = union members = Labor voters. If everyone was legally compelled to vote, it became extremely difficult to coerce the underclass (or any class) not to vote. Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Sew Sumi]

Yes. But, I didn't look too closely at it. I was wrong. Thanks for the catch!

 

I thought they were going for a Roman's 2:29 character lesson, but they weren't. I had to zoom in to read the poster 'Circumstances don't dictate your character, they revel it!' is what the poster really says. Odd, seeing as how circumstances reveled that Jim Bob and Michelle's character didn't including doing all that much for abuse victims around Michael's age. Circumstances also revealed what obligate liars Jim Bob and Michelle are.

An irony totally lost on JB and Mechelle. Par for the course, really. Irony is often found at the feet of fundies, but in an ironic twist of fate, they always fail to recognize it. 

[Oldernowiser]

It sounded to me like they knew they made mistakes, thinking your a bad parent is one sign of knowing you made a mistake, they knew what josh did was wrong and they got him help, no it may not meet some people's standards but it met cps standards and he seems "cured" to me. I hate to use the word cured but couldn't think of a better word

Based on...his public persona? How cute his kids are?

If we've learned anything about this family, it's not to trust their facade.

[MrsMommy]

Based on...his public persona? How cute his kids are?

If we've learned anything about this family, it's not to trust their facade.

Based on the fact no one else has came forward saying he has done it again. No victims= no crime, seems to me he changed his life after accepting God and that is awesome!

[Satchels of gold]

After they did not seek treatment he went on to victimize 3 others girls, so no that does not meet my standards. CPS did not become involved until the statute of limitations ran out and Josh was an adult, consequently they had no authority over him. They could not did not deem him cured or deem him no longer a threat, their only concern was for the safety of the children in the home at that moment of time. Is Josh cured? I have no idea but the best predictor of future behavoir is past behavoir. He engaged in molestation 20 times.

[Tunia]

Yes. But, I didn't look too closely at it. I was wrong. Thanks for the catch!

 

I thought they were going for a Roman's 2:29 character lesson, but they weren't. I had to zoom in to read the poster 'Circumstances don't dictate your character, they revel it!' is what the poster really says. Odd, seeing as how circumstances reveled that Jim Bob and Michelle's character didn't including doing all that much for abuse victims around Michael's age. Circumstances also revealed what obligate liars Jim Bob and Michelle are.

 

Oh, thank heavens...I was trying to imagine what reason(s) the Duggars would want to have a poster in their home openly celebrating circumcision (even if they do have 10 boys)!  Whew...talk about "defrauding" and "private parts" - LOL!

Edited June 16, 2015 by Tunia

[Sew Sumi]

Based on the fact no one else has came forward saying he has done it again. No victims= no crime, seems to me he changed his life after accepting God and that is awesome!

Josh really wasn't given much of a choice now, was he? I also recall his bio on the JA20 website saying he accepted Christ when he was well under 10 years old. Which is it? Again, the Duggars are trying to have their cake and eat it. Those of us who think critically have the obligation to call them out on their bullshittery. Being forgiven =/= answering to the law for his crimes. 

[birkenstock]

Based on the Jim Bob and Michelle's Fox interview, sexual abuse is rampant within the Gothard community and they like to "handle" these problems in house. I'm not saying that Josh has committed further acts inside or outside of the family. However, there can be crimes and victims even if people abused by a sexual predator haven't come forward. 

[bluebonnet]

I think Michelle and Jim Bob using the argument that it wasn't really a crime because the victim was asleep and didn't know is what makes it really disturbing and makes it hard to not at least subconsciously wonder what else has gone on.  All I could think is that they were trying to frame this as the "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound" thought experiment.  I seriously kept waiting for them to say, "If a hand gropes in the sleep, does it make a crime".

[mbutterfly]

Based on the fact no one else has came forward saying he has done it again. No victims= no crime, seems to me he changed his life after accepting God and that is awesome!

I didn't notice any mention of a time line in which Josh accepted God only after he had assaulted the girls. I assumed Josh was already a Christian when he was 14. Did I miss something? 

Oh, I see about Josh said he was well under 10. And if Jim Bob and Michelle are correct about sexual molestation being common in their religious group, then these folks have generally accepted Christ. You can be a Christian and have emotional problems that may cause you do to really bad things unless you receive the appropriate care. 

Edited June 17, 2015 by mbutterfly

[MonicaM]

I find the idea that his victims may have been unaware and asleep even more disturbing than if they were definitely awake.  I think the most appropriate action for Josh to take at this point is to close all of his social media accounts and retire permanently from public life.  His image can't be repaired and pictures of his children only remind everyone that he isn't as child friendly as he would have you believe.  

 

If an unrelated male (that wasn't a member of their faith) had committed similar acts on any of the Duggar children, Michelle and JB would have been screaming for a public hanging.  

[Churchhoney]

That's the pretty much why it became compulsory in Australia. Irish Catholic = working class = union members = Labor voters. If everyone was legally compelled to vote, it became extremely difficult to coerce the underclass (or any class) not to vote.

 

Thanks for explaining this. I knew that voting was compulsory in Oz but didn't know the history.

[Literata]

The most heartbreaking thing about this, to me, continues to be that Boob and MEchelle failed Josh. Every heterosexual pubescent boy is curious about girls: a boy who acts on that curiosity by victimizing anyone, let alone his sisters, is sick.

Forget impulse control; what would go wrong in a young boy's brain to make him WANT to touch the vulva and breasts of his preschool-age sister? I fervently hope he did actually work with a licensed therapist who helped him understand his feelings as well as his impulses.

I hate Josh's smugness, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. But overwhelmingly, I pity him. His parents had a responsibility to help him; they didn't, and his life -- and the lives of his wife and kids -- will never be the same.

[Happyfatchick]

I didn't notice any mention of a time line in which Josh accepted God only after he had assaulted the girls. I assumed Josh was already a Christian when he was 14. Did I miss something? 

 

MB, I'm almost POSITIVE I read that somewhere - I believe JB said it (during the interview???) that after the molestation (not that JB used that word...) Josh had "found Christ" or something along those lines.  I'll research.

 

Having said that, I'll point out that my dear dear SIL (I just threw up a little, in my mouth) has lost Jesus and found Him again about 15 times.  It's a regular roller coaster ride.  But this LAST time... "I was SERIOUS!".  This LAST time:  THIS is the one you can believe. 

 

I'm thinking that (because of his youthfulness - and I'm back to Josh now) the "line" by the family would be that OBVIOUSLY, he hadn't turned his heart fully over to God that first (or first 14) time(s).  You know.  Once he was fully "outed" (and he was being watched too closely to continue his nighttime forays), THEN he fully turned his life over to God.  So at that point, I'm guessing he was saved.  This is just a guess, but a pretty good one I think.

 

Whatever, dude.

[cmr2014]

It sounded to me like they knew they made mistakes, thinking your a bad parent is one sign of knowing you made a mistake, they knew what josh did was wrong and they got him help, no it may not meet some people's standards but it met cps standards and he seems "cured" to me. I hate to use the word cured but couldn't think of a better word

 

When I very very little (4-5), I occasionally had a nightmare where I was being chased by a man in a mask wearing a black cape (a bit like the Hamburgler). I mention this because we are hard-wired to want to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. We want to believe that we could identify a child molester (e.g. creepy guy in raincoat hanging around the park), but we really can't.

 

I would like to believe that Josh hasn't re-offended. He seems like a nice enough guy (except for his politics), and he has a lovely family. That's not how it works, though. That is how known offenders manage to molest children for years and years -- the church  sex scandals, the Penn State scandal, and even Gothard himself whose sexual harassment was known for years before he was finally forced to step down.

[Sew Sumi]

MB, I'm almost POSITIVE I read that somewhere - I believe JB said it (during the interview???) that after the molestation (not that JB used that word...) Josh had "found Christ" or something along those lines.  I'll research.

 

Having said that, I'll point out that my dear dear SIL (I just threw up a little, in my mouth) has lost Jesus and found Him again about 15 times.  It's a regular roller coaster ride.  But this LAST time... "I was SERIOUS!".  This LAST time:  THIS is the one you can believe. 

 

I'm thinking that (because of his youthfulness - and I'm back to Josh now) the "line" by the family would be that OBVIOUSLY, he hadn't turned his heart fully over to God that first (or first 14) time(s).  You know.  Once he was fully "outed" (and he was being watched too closely to continue his nighttime forays), THEN he fully turned his life over to God.  So at that point, I'm guessing he was saved.  This is just a guess, but a pretty good one I think.

 

Whatever, dude.

Yes, the party line during both interviews was that Josh had a "life change" when he went to build the new Gothard compound in Little Rock. That's all well and good, but again, being forgiven does not equal being accountable to the law for one's actions. I'm sure there are plenty of guys sitting on death row who are really sorry they did what they did, and asked Jesus to forgive them. It doesn't make them any less guilty. 

 

Back to Jim Holt, being a chaplain and counselor at a facility meant to treat youth offenders like Josh, wouldn't he have also been a mandated reporter? But he instead put on his Church Elder hat to resolve this situation. 

 

It's so messed up when you realize that if Holt had done what he was supposed to do, the case would have been dealt with through proper channels and the records SEALED for good. Add Holt to the list of those who failed the Duggar children. 

 

Talk about some heavy duty irony. 

[Emme]

In all of the body guards in all of the world, he chose THAT one. It certainly sounds like a TLC pick to me especially if both are under contracts with Discovery.

TLC seems to have a contract with the security firm for which Steve works.  He's been seen around the talent of several of their shows.  From the stories over the years they are there mainly to keep fans and photographers/paps from getting too close to the filming or to keep them from harassing the talent.

Yeah, Steve Neild is the TLC bodyguard go to. Also, his home is in the Maryland suburbs (other side of the city from Josh and Anna), so he could easily help put on the Maryland end.

[Emme]

FWIW, Josh and Anna rejoined social media tonight, feting Mike, who turned 4 today. Party with cupcakes at the TTH. No Sierra cake to be found, just some cupcakes and Josie (probably licking them).

I forgot about Sierra! She (and her so-called) career have been victimized too! LOL

Yes, they totally ignored Jackson's b-day.

So, business as usual?

[zenme]

I assume he would feel guilt that what he did has harmed his victims (after it all came out in InTouch), it might be the first time he felt guilty about their suffering though

 

It's possible.  A decent human being would feel guilt, but given Josh's inappropriate jokes throughout the years, I don't know.  Plus, I guess we wouldn't even know.  We just have to take Michelle and Jim Bob's word for it.  His release barely touched on his victims (no pun intended), and was more about his own life and the "road he was going down."  I think he's angrier that his secret was found out and that he's losing money as a result.

[Chicklet]

After reading tons of interesting viewpoints here and watching the Duggar family spew their reasons for the coverup I get the idea that they aren't embarrassed, they aren't ashamed, they are irritated that their gravy train has been overturned. This is all insignificant crap that doesn't mean anything, "look over here at what we pretend to represent, heathens!" If I want hypocrisy I can look at a politician- a real one- to find it.

I'm done with the Duggars even if I have to miss cute Izzy and spawn of Jessa.

[Anne Elk]

The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that Josh really was foolish to take that position with the FRC with something like this lurking in his background. DC politics, particularly culture-war politics, is a total bloodbath, and people have been taken down by much less. After the Oprah incident the whole family knew that this was not a secret and there were plenty of people in Arkansas willing to talk about it. Were they really that naive, or just overconfident in themselves? I guess they wouldn't be the first people to believe that fame made them immune.

 

I'll bet there were a lot of pissed-off people at the FRC when they found out. They're all professionals who worked for years to get where they are, only to find their organization stained by some reality-TV bozo they hired basically for PR value. Josh has really burned his bridges there. I'm certainly not sorry about that.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Anne Elk

[kokapetl]

It's possible. A decent human being would feel guilt, but given Josh's inappropriate jokes throughout the years, I don't know. Plus, I guess we wouldn't even know. We just have to take Michelle and Jim Bob's word for it. His release barely touched on his victims (no pun intended), and was more about his own life and the "road he was going down." I think he's angrier that his secret was found out and that he's losing money as a result.

Well I'd assume he knows he's ruined his life, along with Anna and the kids. Upon his return to Tontitown he would have been greeted by some pissed off Duggar sisters. I hope he's realised he's figuratively fucked them as well and feels guilty

Edited June 19, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Aja]

Well I'd assume he knows he'd ruined his life, along with Anna and the kids. 

I genuinely do not think that's how he's processed this whole thing, although it definitely should be. I think Josh sees himself as he always has--God's special boy. Think about it. If you MOLEST YOUR SISTERS and the "consequence" is to have them get up in front of a church and declare that they've forgiven you--and then, when the public you've been deceiving for nearly a decade gets understandably indignant, your parents go on national TV and blame the police, blame the media, blame everyone but you, and go to extreme and downright disturbing lengths to convince everyone that what you did was no big deal? I really don't think Josh has the intelligence to circumnavigate all of that reinforcement and truly reflect on himself. No way.

[kokapetl]

Perhaps not, but he's gotta know that what he did, and the revelation to the entire world of what he did, has screwed them all.

He's the kind of person who would've appeared on Megyn Kelly's Softball Hour on Fox News to blame someone else if he could, but he didn't, because he can't.

[Wellfleet]

The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that Josh really was foolish to take that position with the FRC with something like this lurking in his background. DC politics, particularly culture-war politics, is a total bloodbath, and people have been taken down by much less. After the Oprah incident the whole family knew that this was not a secret and there were plenty of people in Arkansas willing to talk about it. Were they really that naive, or just overconfident in themselves? I guess they wouldn't be the first people to believe that fame made them immune.

 

I'll bet there were a lot of pissed-off people at the FRC when they found out. They're all professionals who worked for years to get where they are, only to find their organization stained by some reality-TV bozo they hired basically for PR value. Josh has really burned his bridges there. I'm certainly not sorry about that.

 

Boob and Me-chelle might have been overconfident and/or naive - but I think they were just plain stupid. I'm not sure it ever occurred to them that things would go the way they have. Neither one of them have shown any capacity for examining anything from different viewpoints and thinking "What if?" I think Boob was born thinking he was right about everything; finding Gothard, where all men are always right and always in charge - was icing on the cake for him. And Me-chelle, I think, is so lazy that she loves having Boob being the one who has to make all the decisions. Means she doesn't even have to be bothered thinking about X at all.