REBUFFED: CPAC chair responds to same-sex assault accusations
Matt Schlapp, chairman of both CPAC and the American Conservative Union, was accused earlier this month of sexual assault when a man working for a Republican political campaign came forward to report his experience.
Schlapp has now come forward with a statement in response.
Schlapp is denying everything, claiming that his accuser was coordinating with media to pursue his “real agenda,” of harming Schlapp and his family.
He says that his family is speaking with their attorneys to consider “counter-lawsuit options” — odd, since the accuser has not yet affirmed that he intends to file any legal claim to ‘counter.’
He may, however — the man so far identified only as a campaign worker for Herschel Walker initially said that he was still considering his legal options (which could include a criminal complaint, rather than a lawsuit).
He also said that if Schlapp denied the assault, he would consider forgoing anonymity and coming forward openly.
Schlapp, who the accuser says groped his crotch without consent and repeatedly tried to force further contact after the accuser texted him that he was upset over “what happened last night,” seems willing to take that risk.
His accuser also says he has call and text logs proving not only the exchanges with Schlapp, but his immediate report to the campaign, and their response.
Now Schlapp says, through an attorney:
“The complaint is false and the Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress due to the false allegation from an anonymous individual. No family should ever go through this, and the Schlapps and their legal team are assessing counter-lawsuit options.”
The statement bears the name of political attorney Charlie Spies, and was published to Schlapp’s Twitter account Tuesday afternoon, a week and a half after the initial allegation was made.
Since the original allegation, right-wing provocateur and self-proclaimed “ex-gay” Milo Yiannopoulos has also come forward to claim that Schlapp made sexual advances toward him, and to imply that his refusal — rather than his infamy around the same time for defending sexual relationships between adult men and underaged boys — was the reason he was banned from CPAC.
