Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[jcbrown]

8 hours ago, MunichNark said:

Er.......what?

I'm with you. I thought someone had asked how to pronounce it. Thanks for the answer.

Edited September 12, 2021 by jcbrown

[JoanArc]

Quote

There has NEVER been a virus identified as putting CP on a person's computer. 

Thanks for this. Even in this thread a 'Canadian Grandmother' doctor claimed a virus downloaded CP to her laptop, which she dutifully drove to the police station. I knew computer viruses do not behave in such a manner, but it's such a common argument I'm glad to see your professional takedown of this urban legend.

Maybe a computer virus made the Ashley Madison account, too.

Edited September 12, 2021 by JoanArc

[Churchhoney]

16 hours ago, Nysha said:

After reading all of the linked court documents I have come to the realization that I am temperamentally unsuited to be a lawyer or work in any compacity at any legal type employment. The documents repeated the same thing, in the same language, over and over again. 

Plus, Sex Pest is a moron and a disgusting excuse for a human. It offends me that he using oxygen that is needed for mice, rats, and maggots, all who are worthier beings than Pest.

I'd like to hear what lawyers have to say about the upshot of the particular issues the defense raised. To me, some of them --- one, especially -- seems to be so baseless, so in bad faith, so much something that any lawyer would know was pure meaningless garbage, that I wonder what the rationale would ever be for asserting something like that....--- i.e., the one about the Homeland Security official appointed in a way that doesn't meet regulations. ....

Is there really any precedent or any good-faith way to argue that that would be grounds for dismissing the case? I mean, this case is a multi-agency, multi-department thing, it's part of big, long set of investigations on all the same matters, there's no evidence that the DC bad-appointment guy had any knowledge of or role in the case or anything. The case involved DOJ and grand jury and that guy's role at Homeland Security was all about immigration and such.....

What goes through a defense lawyer's mind to say -- I'm going to essentially argue that every single thing related to this federal department should be deemed out of order and thrown out because of that guy's appointment?       And I'm going to do that on behalf of making sure that justice is done for my client!!! Really? really? How in the world does that even relate at all to justice in his client's case -- a case that had absolutely no specific connection to that guy and what he did on his job at all?   Seems to me the most likely thing that would result from that argument is that you'd risk pissing off the judge because it's so grandiose and beside the point and ridiculous....Nothing but a stupid ploy to fling spaghetti both on the wall and in the gears.....

But obviously I must be missing something.....

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Churchhoney

[merylinkid]

There actually was a court ruling that the Director of Homeland Security was not properly appointed so all his regs/rules/directives were not valid.    The lawyers just extended that to this case.    Which lawyers try all the time.   It was a Hail Mary, but not bad faith.   They were just trying to extend an already made ruling.

[Churchhoney]

36 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

There actually was a court ruling that the Director of Homeland Security was not properly appointed so all his regs/rules/directives were not valid.    The lawyers just extended that to this case.    Which lawyers try all the time.   It was a Hail Mary, but not bad faith.   They were just trying to extend an already made ruling.

Yeah, I know about that court ruling. I followed it as a reporter. But this case and the group of cases it's part of had nothing  to do with any regs or rules or anything else that that guy was involved in.  

So how is it a good-faith argument when it was quite clear that that guy had essentially zero knowledge or involvement with anything even vaguely related to this case? And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

The court ruling about the appointee was to shut down anything he was involved in. Not everything in the damn department. And he had absolutely zero to do with this group of cases -- and everybody knew that and every body knows it. 

The idea that that's a good faith argument just completely blows my mind. And I don't think it is. It's an argument all right. But it's not in good faith. '

We may have corrupted our thinking to the point where we tell ourselves that that's good faith. I guess from what you say that we have. But it's crap, nonetheless, in my opinion!

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Churchhoney

[ginger90]

Whataboutism 

Deflection

Bullshit

[hathorlive]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I know about that court ruling. I followed it as a reporter. But this case and the group of cases it's part of had nothing  to do with any regs or rules or anything else that that guy was involved in.  

So how is it a good-faith argument when it was quite clear that that guy had essentially zero knowledge or involvement with anything even vaguely related to this case? And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

The court ruling about the appointee was to shut down anything he was involved in. Not everything in the damn department. And he had absolutely zero to do with this group of cases -- and everybody knew that and every body knows it. 

The idea that that's a good faith argument just completely blows my mind. And I don't think it is. It's an argument all right. But it's not in good faith. '

We may have corrupted our thinking to the point where we tell ourselves that that's good faith. I guess from what you say that we have. But it's crap, nonetheless, in my opinion!

 

I don't think the words "defense attorney" and "good faith" go hand in hand together.  The defense's only goal is to get one person on the jury to think "wow, that last president guy was so corrupt, he appointed a corrupt head of the agency and therefore, the policies and procedures that have been on the books for thirty years aren't valid, so this case isn't valid".  The defense isn't there to be ethical or righteous or anything other than getting their client acquitted. 

And we all think it's a silly argument, but if you had told us four years ago that a global pandemic that killed millions would result in people dissing the FDA approved vaccine for horse dewormer, you would have said that no one would do that. Juries are weird things.  There's always room for a person to be influenced.  CP cases tend to disgust everyone, but if there's a person on the jury who had a cousin accused of sexual assault for dating a girl who was 1 month shy of her 18th birthday and he was 20...you may have an opening.

[quarks]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

I think that's exactly why the prosecution spent so much time/effort refuting that motion - more so than on any of the motions except for the "toss the Bit Torrent evidence out!" one. Not so much because they were worried about the impact of this particular motion on Josh's case, but to discourage other defense attorneys from trying to play this same gambit.

[lascuba]

17 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I'd like to hear what lawyers have to say about the upshot of the particular issues the defense raised. To me, some of them --- one, especially -- seems to be so baseless, so in bad faith, so much something that any lawyer would know was pure meaningless garbage, that I wonder what the rationale would ever be for asserting something like that....--- i.e., the one about the Homeland Security official appointed in a way that doesn't meet regulations. ....

Is there really any precedent or any good-faith way to argue that that would be grounds for dismissing the case? I mean, this case is a multi-agency, multi-department thing, it's part of big, long set of investigations on all the same matters, there's no evidence that the DC bad-appointment guy had any knowledge of or role in the case or anything. The case involved DOJ and grand jury and that guy's role at Homeland Security was all about immigration and such.....

What goes through a defense lawyer's mind to say -- I'm going to essentially argue that every single thing related to this federal department should be deemed out of order and thrown out because of that guy's appointment?       And I'm going to do that on behalf of making sure that justice is done for my client!!! Really? really? How in the world does that even relate at all to justice in his client's case -- a case that had absolutely no specific connection to that guy and what he did on his job at all?   Seems to me the most likely thing that would result from that argument is that you'd risk pissing off the judge because it's so grandiose and beside the point and ridiculous....Nothing but a stupid ploy to fling spaghetti both on the wall and in the gears.....

But obviously I must be missing something.....

 

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

[Cinnabon]

22 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

Right. How many pricey lawyers did OK have again? 5 or 6? Our justice system is so skewed. 

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

The OJ case was essentially over when they moved the trial to less educated part of town.  Today, he would have had a fork stuck in him and been pronounced done.  Too much knowledge of DNA and forensics.  Back then, it was a harder sell.  Heck, I had a trial 8 years ago where the jury wanted to know why the suspect's fingerprints weren't on the antifreeze lid.  You can tell them that some substances do NOT hold fingerprints, but the jury doesn't always process that.

10 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Right. How many pricey lawyers did OK have again? 5 or 6? Our justice system is so skewed. 

I've always said our justice system doesn't see black or white but it sees GREEN really well.

[JoanArc]

19 hours ago, hathorlive said:

The OJ case was essentially over when they moved the trial to less educated part of town.  Today, he would have had a fork stuck in him and been pronounced done.  Too much knowledge of DNA and forensics.  Back then, it was a harder sell.  Heck, I had a trial 8 years ago where the jury wanted to know why the suspect's fingerprints weren't on the antifreeze lid.  You can tell them that some substances do NOT hold fingerprints, but the jury doesn't always process that.

CSI effect. Might work against Josh's favor. The jury would be more inclined to trust (rightly, but still...) the computer evidence.

[Fallacy]

Emily Baker, attorney and YouTuber that many of us have watched explain Josh’s situation before, explains the government’s response to each of his defense motions. She’s very clear and direct. The part about Josh starts at the 49 minute mark: 

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. Most importantly, she believes the court will deny all of the defense’s motions, and as she detailed all of the evidence the prosecution has against Josh, she seemed very confident that he would be convicted if this case went before a jury. She also speculated that Josh may finally take a plea once the judge ruled against him on all the motions. 

[Quilt Fairy]

I want to endorse the Emily D Baker video 100%.  She explains everything in a very clear way and she digs through all 5 of the motions and shows you the important parts. 

[CalicoKitty]

Has Nancy Grace weighed in?  She sort of cracks me up.  In her opinion, there is no correct opinion except hers.

[emmawoodhouse]

4 hours ago, Fallacy said:

Emily Baker, attorney and YouTuber that many of us have watched explain Josh’s situation before, explains the government’s response to each of his defense motions. She’s very clear and direct. The part about Josh starts at the 49 minute mark: 

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. Most importantly, she believes the court will deny all of the defense’s motions, and as she detailed all of the evidence the prosecution has against Josh, she seemed very confident that he would be convicted if this case went before a jury. She also speculated that Josh may finally take a plea once the judge ruled against him on all the motions. 

He has until 10/18 to plea out. The documents have to be on the judge's desk by the 20th. But in between, early October I believe, the judge has called in both sides for a hearing on these motions. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by emmawoodhouse
Got a little comma happy. Just like Jill!

[quarks]

4 hours ago, Fallacy said:

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. 

I feel that's a bit of a misreading about what I said?

I wasn't so much speculating about the possibility of prosecution of bringing more charges, as noting that in at least three of those responses, the prosecution was noting that they could. That is, that the prosecution was none-too-subtly trying to threaten the defense - and scare Josh - with the "you do realize we now have your business records, right?" and "you do realize we found a lot of other images, right?" 

And I'm fairly sure that the extremely lengthy response about the acting HSA secretary had very little to do with this particular case and everything to do with trying to deter other defense attorneys from trying that same tactic.

[GeeGolly]

What kind of statements, if any, do you all think family members will put out when/if Josh is sentenced? I feel they could try and spin it either way. If he pleads they could spin it like an Alford plea to the public. If he's found guilty, they of course can say he's wrongly convicted.

I do feel bad for his siblings, as it can't feel good to have such scum for a brother. I feel bad for Anna too. She did nothing to deserve a situation like this. And I even feel bad for JB & M too. Blame them or not, they never intended to raise a monster of a human.

I bet even Josh is getting a little squirmy by now. His fate will likely be determined sometime in the next 30 - 75 days. He will be seen as the lowest of low in prison. No opportunities for him to be King God Botherer in prison. He'll likely be spending 23 hours a day with just his Bible, his disgusting brain and lonely penis.

[Snow Fairy]

Well, Anna could leave, didn't her brother offered her help?

She stayed with him, she pops out babies. And now still, I feel he is more important to her than her children. That is sad

[Gweilo]

On 9/14/2021 at 2:27 AM, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one.

You're totally listening to You're Wrong About!

[Fallacy]

3 hours ago, quarks said:

I feel that's a bit of a misreading about what I said?

I wasn't so much speculating about the possibility of prosecution of bringing more charges, as noting that in at least three of those responses, the prosecution was noting that they could. That is, that the prosecution was none-too-subtly trying to threaten the defense - and scare Josh - with the "you do realize we now have your business records, right?" and "you do realize we found a lot of other images, right?" 

I also did some speculating that those pictures might be some kind of tool the prosecution could be used to threaten Josh with more charges. Emily says no. Those pictures can only be used to establish that it was Josh who did the crime he’s being charged with. She said it would be unconstitutional for them to go back and file different charges based on the information they had at the time at the time of his arrest.

[GeeGolly]

35 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

Well, Anna could leave, didn't her brother offered her help?

She stayed with him, she pops out babies. And now still, I feel he is more important to her than her children. That is sad

The offer of help was five years ago. I don't know if anyone offered support this time around.

I totally understand why Anna stayed with Josh after the Ashley Madison scandal. A lot of spouses in the real world stay and try and work things out. Her staying with him this time around is a lot harder for me to understand. Even after accounting for the human tendency to believe excuses as plausible, its hard to make sense of Anna staying with Josh with the trail of indiscretions he has left in his wake.

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom). But again, this time around its hard to understand what's going on in her head. I think only a mom who believes her husband to be innocent would let her children around someone like Josh. Which brings is back to Anna ignoring and/or rationalizing current and past events.

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Gweilo said:

You're totally listening to You're Wrong About!

YES! I love that podcast!

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

The offer of help was five years ago. I don't know if anyone offered support this time around.

I totally understand why Anna stayed with Josh after the Ashley Madison scandal. A lot of spouses in the real world stay and try and work things out. Her staying with him this time around is a lot harder for me to understand. Even after accounting for the human tendency to believe excuses as plausible, its hard to make sense of Anna staying with Josh with the trail of indiscretions he has left in his wake.

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom). But again, this time around its hard to understand what's going on in her head. I think only a mom who believes her husband to be innocent would let her children around someone like Josh. Which brings is back to Anna ignoring and/or rationalizing current and past events.

Sunk cost fallacy. She's invested too much time, effort, and emotional bandwidth to leave now. She married him knowing that he molested his sisters (and say what you will about how  much she, in her naivete,  understood, I do believe that the Duggars were honest with the Kellers about that); she defended him when InTouch broke that story; she stayed with him after Ashley Madison because Jesus was going to fix him; she posted countless times on social media about how wonderful he's been since and held herself up as a model of the forgiving wife. She can't admit to herself--let alone the world--that she's been wrong the whole time and in being wrong, has enabled him to escalate his behavior. She's done everything "right" according to her worldview--no way will she back down now and prove the heathens right.

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom).

She has apparently farmed out her kids to relatives so she can be with Josh all the time.   I do not think itis to help out Ms. Rieber.   I think its because she believes her place is by her husband's side.   The kids don't need care, he does in her worldview.   The whole "make oneself joyfully available" at all times thing.   Since he's not in the same house she has to be where he is.

If she were really a good mom, but just unwilling to divorce Josh, him living with the Riebers would be the perfect excuse to avoid him.   " Oh I have to care for all these kids, I just can't be running over there all the time to make sure a GROWN ASS MAN has everything he needs."    You know the separate lives but married thing.   But she CHOSE to dump her kids off and go wait on the ass hand and foot.   Her choice to literally stand by him instead of care for her kids shows that she has bought the fundy thinking hook line and sinker, she is never leaving him.   

[GeeGolly]

9 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

She has apparently farmed out her kids to relatives so she can be with Josh all the time.   I do not think itis to help out Ms. Rieber.   I think its because she believes her place is by her husband's side.   The kids don't need care, he does in her worldview.   The whole "make oneself joyfully available" at all times thing.   Since he's not in the same house she has to be where he is.

If she were really a good mom, but just unwilling to divorce Josh, him living with the Riebers would be the perfect excuse to avoid him.   " Oh I have to care for all these kids, I just can't be running over there all the time to make sure a GROWN ASS MAN has everything he needs."    You know the separate lives but married thing.   But she CHOSE to dump her kids off and go wait on the ass hand and foot.   Her choice to literally stand by him instead of care for her kids shows that she has bought the fundy thinking hook line and sinker, she is never leaving him.   

I might agree if I knew that she's been farming out her kids. I know the boys visited their TX cousins for a short time and the kids attended a baseball game with other family, that Anna may or may not have been at.

Is there other info or posts that I'm missing?

24 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Sunk cost fallacy. She's invested too much time, effort, and emotional bandwidth to leave now. She married him knowing that he molested his sisters (and say what you will about how  much she, in her naivete,  understood, I do believe that the Duggars were honest with the Kellers about that); she defended him when InTouch broke that story; she stayed with him after Ashley Madison because Jesus was going to fix him; she posted countless times on social media about how wonderful he's been since and held herself up as a model of the forgiving wife. She can't admit to herself--let alone the world--that she's been wrong the whole time and in being wrong, has enabled him to escalate his behavior. She's done everything "right" according to her worldview--no way will she back down now and prove the heathens right.

How has Anna enabled Josh to escalate his behavior? 

[Snow Fairy]

Can Anna even grasp the seriousness of the charges? Does she even know in full what CP is, how it's made, the kids that are hurt? How much of the real life does she even know, was she sheltered or?

[lascuba]

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

How has Anna enabled Josh to escalate his behavior? 

The same way JB and Michelle have, by thinking their methods work despite all evidence to the contrary, ignoring red flags (because there's no way there weren't a lot of them), and forgiving him over and over again. I'm not saying they're completely responsible for his behavior, but I do think their constant, unconditional support gave him some cover. Forgiveness=Permission in a lot of cases.

I know the popular theme around here are that people who grew up fundie are "brainwashed" and don't know any better, but this generation is pretty plugged in to the rest of the world. And they've proven time and again that they don't think the rules apply to them. Josh knew damn well that if his work-arounds failed and Anna found out, the worst that would happen would be another stint in Jesus jail.

[GeeGolly]

19 minutes ago, lascuba said:

The same way JB and Michelle have, by thinking their methods work despite all evidence to the contrary, ignoring red flags (because there's no way there weren't a lot of them), and forgiving him over and over again. I'm not saying they're completely responsible for his behavior, but I do think their constant, unconditional support gave him some cover. Forgiveness=Permission in a lot of cases.

I know the popular theme around here are that people who grew up fundie are "brainwashed" and don't know any better, but this generation is pretty plugged in to the rest of the world. And they've proven time and again that they don't think the rules apply to them. Josh knew damn well that if his work-arounds failed and Anna found out, the worst that would happen would be another stint in Jesus jail.

I certainly don't think there's anything Anna could have done or could not have done to 'keep Josh out of trouble'. Nor is she obligated to.

Its possible if she divorced Josh, he would have been in trouble much sooner. Josh attending Jesus Camp and having Anna's support post Ashley Madison likely delayed the inevitable.

[CandyCaneTree]

2 hours ago, Snow Fairy said:

Can Anna even grasp the seriousness of the charges? Does she even know in full what CP is, how it's made, the kids that are hurt? How much of the real life does she even know, was she sheltered or?

No in their mind no kids were hurt because it is only pictures of kids not real kids.

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, CandyCaneTree said:

No in their mind no kids were hurt because it is only pictures of kids not real kids.

Considering how obsessed they are with the very existence of any type of porn, it's highly unlikely that Anna doesn't know exactly what cp entails. She might be burying her head in the sand with regards to the specifics of Josh's case, but she knows children are harmed in the creation of such materials. She's either refusing to believe that Josh downloaded those materials, or sees them as no worse than any other type of porn and doesn't care about the children that were hurt.

[Rootbeer]

9 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

 

I do feel bad for his siblings, as it can't feel good to have such scum for a brother. I feel bad for Anna too. She did nothing to deserve a situation like this. And I even feel bad for JB & M too. Blame them or not, they never intended to raise a monster of a human.

 

Anna initially probably didn't know what she was getting into with Josh but there is now a whole lot of water under that bridge.  She has chosen to stay, chosen to have more and more children with this man who she must realize by now is a deeply flawed human being who is not good for her or her children.  I don't feel bad for her at all.  She has had ample opportunity to change course and she hasn't. 

[Zella]

I have some sympathy for the Anna who married Josh (depending on how much she was told about what he did--I'm not sure she was actually told the full extent of what he did as a teen), and I even have some sympathy for the Anna who got blindsided by the Ashley Madison scandal and still decided to stay. I understand why, even if I disagree with the reasoning myself and think it was a bad decision.

But I don't have any sympathy for the Anna who has continued to double down and post about what a wonderful husband he is--her social media posts fawning over him before the arrest were just pathetic--and who is willing to stand with him through this. My guess is she trying to convince herself as much as anyone that Josh was a good husband when she would post about him, but it made her look like an asshole. I suspect Anna has the same skewed priorities as her in-laws and was as mad about being ousted from the show as anything else. 

[BigBingerBro]

I'm refraining from making any judgements about Anna, only because we really have not heard from her regarding this last scandal.  Who really knows how she feels?   There are reports of her supposedly spending all of her time at the Rebers so that she can be available for Sex Pest and her kids have been spotted in various locations away from the home.  But this is mostly speculation and from what I have seen, not very credible sources.  For all we know she may be working to "get away" but just keeping things all under wraps.  By no means should she address this if she doesn't want to but eventually she probably will.   I will reserve my judgements until that happens.

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

I'm refraining from making any judgements about Anna, only because we really have not heard from her regarding this last scandal.  Who really knows how she feels?   There are reports of her supposedly spending all of her time at the Rebers so that she can be available for Sex Pest and her kids have been spotted in various locations away from the home.  But this is mostly speculation and from what I have seen, not very credible sources.  For all we know she may be working to "get away" but just keeping things all under wraps.  By no means should she address this if she doesn't want to but eventually she probably will.   I will reserve my judgements until that happens.

I think that's a fair take. We really don't know what she is doing, and if she ends up actually divorcing him, I will be impressed. But I think with her history of standing by her man, she's way more likely to continue that rather than change the approach she's used for years.  

[GeeGolly]

31 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Anna initially probably didn't know what she was getting into with Josh but there is now a whole lot of water under that bridge.  She has chosen to stay, chosen to have more and more children with this man who she must realize by now is a deeply flawed human being who is not good for her or her children.  I don't feel bad for her at all.  She has had ample opportunity to change course and she hasn't. 

I think most on here agree with you.

I think its a big leap for a wife to think I better leave my husband over cheating because he'll likely end up looking at CPA in a few years. So Anna certainly isn't the first, or the last, woman to have children after the husband cheats. As far as this latest scandal, she was already pregnant. 

[Hpmec]

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

[GeeGolly]

I just saw a headline with a paywall, so I couldn't read the article. It stated a guy who made millions providing CPA online was sentenced to 27 years.  I was hoping Josh would at least get ten, now I'm hoping at least five.

[BigBingerBro]

Josh Duggar to Co-Worker: So I've Got This Porn Addiction ...

[ginger90]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I just saw a headline with a paywall, so I couldn't read the article. It stated a guy who made millions providing CPA online was sentenced to 27 years.  I was hoping Josh would at least get ten, now I'm hoping at least five.

Here’s an article: (there was a plea agreement)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/dark-web-child-pornography-facilitator-sentenced-27-years-federal-prison-conspiracy

Edited September 16, 2021 by ginger90

[lookeyloo]

2 hours ago, Hpmec said:

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

And it is easy for anyone of us to say "If I were in that situation I would do XYX" or "she should dump him".  Easy.  No one knows what they would do in a similar situation unless they have been in a similar situation and have done something.  When Ex Dr lookeyloo left me, I was non functional. Money wasn't the issue.  At least he was good about that.  But everything else was a mess.  Should have, could have, etc. went out the window trying to survive.  It was a slow process of getting shit together.  Anna is in a mess now.  Probably hard to think of "I should leave him".  I still loved Ex Dr lookeyloo even though he was canoodling with the nurse he finally married.  People said to me "he is a B...... - you are lucky he is gone" which left me in tears.  I didn't want him gone.   So whatever Anna is thinking, and I am not a fan of this whole group, and I'm sure all the reports of her being a B.... are true, she still has a misery ahead of her.  

[Rootbeer]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I think most on here agree with you.

I think its a big leap for a wife to think I better leave my husband over cheating because he'll likely end up looking at CPA in a few years. So Anna certainly isn't the first, or the last, woman to have children after the husband cheats. As far as this latest scandal, she was already pregnant. 

True, but the raid on the car lot was almost 2 years ago.  Was she really so oblivious that she never asked what they were looking for?  That she never saw the search warrant or wondered why the phones and computers were seized?  She had more than enough time to process the awful truth long before he was arrested.  

I agree that most men who cheat on their wives are not likely to abuse children, but, supposedly, Anna went into her marriage knowing that Josh had indeed abused children, his own sisters, no less; and, at the first inkling that he was still sexually interested in children; she should've grabbed her kids and gotten the he** outta Dodge.  Her upbringing is no excuse, I don't care if they'd have to live under a bridge and recycle tin cans to feed themselves; that she and her children stayed even a single night in the same home after she found out what he was accused of doing (and undoubtedly had the means to verify the truth) disgusts me.

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

Here’s an article: (there was a plea agreement)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/dark-web-child-pornography-facilitator-sentenced-27-years-federal-prison-conspiracy

Thank-you!

A guy like this guy should get life in prison. As should all of them, really.

[Fallacy]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

I have some sympathy for the Anna who married Josh (depending on how much she was told about what he did--I'm not sure she was actually told the full extent of what he did as a teen), and I even have some sympathy for the Anna who got blindsided by the Ashley Madison scandal and still decided to stay. I understand why, even if I disagree with the reasoning myself and think it was a bad decision.

If you go back and watch Josh and Anna’s wedding episode, Anna specifically says that her mother sat her down two weeks before the wedding to explain to her how “intimacy” works between a husband and a wife. So I absolutely believe Anna had zero understanding of what Josh actually did when he was 14. Plus, you have to remember that the entire family, including the sisters, were telling her how great Josh was and what an amazing Christian, son, and brother he was, etc. She was likely told that Josh touched his sisters “inappropriately” a few times, repented of his sins, and was born a new man. We have witnessed for ourselves exactly how Jim Bob and Michelle downplay what happened, so you can only imagine the version Anna would have gotten from her father. Her father also would have told her that God wanted her to marry Josh. I just don’t think any of us can judge her for marrying Josh back then. Everyone in her life wanted that marriage and told her Josh was the one “whom God would have her.”

When “In Touch” broke the story, Anna was likely told that this was the liberal, heathen media trying to destroy them. And once again, she would have been reassured by absolutely everyone around her who matters that Josh had long since repented of that  “childhood mistake” as the Duggars liked to call it. And once again, even the victims were telling Anna that Josh was forgiven long ago and that he had more than redeemed himself in their eyes.

With the cheating scandal, yes, Anna was clearly heartbroken, and if you go back and watch those first episodes of “Counting On,” you can see Anna struggling to not cry on camera. Again though, she was trained her entire life to believe that with prayer and counseling, they would be reconciled. And once again, everyone who Anna cared about was telling her that God would work to change Josh’s heart and restore him to her. 

Now we come to the latest. Anna knows that Josh has been arrested on cp charges. He likely confessed that he had become addicted to pornography again, but then lied to her and claimed that he had accidentally downloaded some images of children that he immediately deleted from his computer. Anna is, of course, devastated that he’s again addicted to pornography, but likely in her mind, he didn’t intentionally do the horrible thing he’s accused of doing. 

The point is that none of us know what Anna has been told or what she has read. But I strongly suspect that she’s been told half truths at best and that once again, she’s falling back on her religious beliefs to hold onto to the hope that Josh can be redeemed and restored to her. After all, in her mind, all those prayers worked in the past, so why wouldn’t they work now. She has six kids with him and is pregnant with her 7th. If she turns from Josh now, she literally has nowhere to go. So even if she has doubts or fears about Josh, she must immediately turn that thought off so that she can continue to live in the bubble of her faith and the Duggars. 

I mean she grew up with a father who took her to watch him minister to prisoners, so Anna 100% believes that every sinner can be redeemed by God. Unfortunately that means she will stand by him unless she somehow manages to break out of the religious indoctrination she’s been surrounded by since birth. 

[Cinnabon]

25 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

True, but the raid on the car lot was almost 2 years ago.  Was she really so oblivious that she never asked what they were looking for?  That she never saw the search warrant or wondered why the phones and computers were seized?  She had more than enough time to process the awful truth long before he was arrested.  

I agree that most men who cheat on their wives are not likely to abuse children, but, supposedly, Anna went into her marriage knowing that Josh had indeed abused children, his own sisters, no less; and, at the first inkling that he was still sexually interested in children; she should've grabbed her kids and gotten the he** outta Dodge.  Her upbringing is no excuse, I don't care if they'd have to live under a bridge and recycle tin cans to feed themselves; that she and her children stayed even a single night in the same home after she found out what he was accused of doing (and undoubtedly had the means to verify the truth) disgusts me.

I agree. If kids weren’t involved, I might understand her position. But they have a passel of young kids she need to protect.

[GeeGolly]

22 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I agree. If kids weren’t involved, I might understand her position. But they have a passel of young kids she need to protect.

I have a hard time with that too. But then again, she has cops who didn't swarm in to protect her kids while they were investigating and a judge who said sure, your kids can be around Josh. I'm guessing Anna wants to believe Josh is innocent.

[Cinnabon]

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I have a hard time with that too. But then again, she has cops who didn't swarm in to protect her kids while they were investigating and a judge who said sure, your kids can be around Josh. I'm guessing Anna wants to believe Josh is innocent.

Someone needs to sit down with her and explain that attraction to children is something that really can’t be treated (AFAIK). I have some small amount of compassion for those who are truly attracted to kids because I don’t think we can change our sexuality, who we’re attracted to. But if these guys are able to come forward and try to get help before they offend, then measures can be put into place to try and avoid the chance of offending. Of course, that would mean he couldn’t live with or have contact with kids, without supervision . That would be extremely difficult in this family. He would have to live separately. No computer access and therapy and group therapy. The whole family would have to be aware that he needed supervision. On one hand, this family is already so big on “accountability partners “ that it might be possible. On the other hand, I don’t know if they have the capacity to understand mental health disorders and that they cannot be “prayed away.” At all. Of course, it’s too late now for any of that now that he’s acted out. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Cinnabon

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

On the other hand, I don’t know if they have the capacity to understand mental health disorders and that they cannot be “prayed away.” At all. 

Unfortunately, I think there is also significant pressure within the family to maintain the illusion that they're a wonderful Christian family and role model unto others. I think even if they did understand this isn't something could be prayed away, I'm not sure most of them are willing to admit that. Banishing Josh away from the family would be an admission of failure in their eyes, IMO. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Zella

[lascuba]

3 hours ago, Hpmec said:

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

See, if I thought that was where she was coming from, I might have some sympathy for her.  How she'd support her children after a divorce doesn't matter because divorce is not something she wants at all. Until she states otherwise, I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.

4 hours ago, Zella said:

I have some sympathy for the Anna who married Josh (depending on how much she was told about what he did--I'm not sure she was actually told the full extent of what he did as a teen), and I even have some sympathy for the Anna who got blindsided by the Ashley Madison scandal and still decided to stay. I understand why, even if I disagree with the reasoning myself and think it was a bad decision.

But I don't have any sympathy for the Anna who has continued to double down and post about what a wonderful husband he is--her social media posts fawning over him before the arrest were just pathetic--and who is willing to stand with him through this. My guess is she trying to convince herself as much as anyone that Josh was a good husband when she would post about him, but it made her look like an asshole. I suspect Anna has the same skewed priorities as her in-laws and was as mad about being ousted from the show as anything else. 

In the first Counting On specials, she said that she liked being on the show and being an example of a good Christian. I just...can't see sympathize with her at all. 

[Cinnabon]

7 minutes ago, lascuba said:

See, if I thought that was where she was coming from, I might have some sympathy for her.  How she'd support her children after a divorce doesn't matter because divorce is not something she wants at all. Until she states otherwise, I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.

In the first Counting On specials, she said that she liked being on the show and being an example of a good Christian. I just...can't see sympathize with her at all. 

If they did divorce, I imagine she would get some child support . And she would be eligible for quite a bit of welfare for so many kids. The Duggars might even be compelled to give her one of their many properties to live in. But you’re right, I doubt she would ever consider it. She is too caught up in her image of herself as super special, and quite frankly, she seems like someone who would shy away from any real work outside the home. I’m sure she thinks she is “above “ that.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Cinnabon