What Stacie Laughton Wants People to See is That She is Just Like Everyone Else.

On June 8th 2012, the Nashua Telegraph did a community piece on then candidate for the New Hampshire House Stacie Laughton.  It opened like this.

NASHUA – What Stacie Laughton wants people to see is that she is just like everyone else.

This theme was repeated throughout the article, but nowhere in the Nashua Telegraph’s reporting, or in any Telegraph content after it that I could find (until a few days ago), is there any mention of her extensive criminal history.  Laughton has previously been charged with felony misuse of 911 services, conspiracy to commit credit card fraud, conspiracy identity fraud, theft of services, misdemeanor criminal mischief, and served a suspended sentence for at least one felony conviction.

Would you be surprised to hear that she was elected to the New Hampshire House in Nashua, New Hampshire anyway?

Laughton was elected to the New Hampshire House as a Democrat for Hillsborough district 31 (Nashua) on November 6th, but  does not appear to have been vetted by the media or even her own party.  But not to fear.  I agree with her completely.  As we embark on an examination of this history we should see her just like every one else…who also just happens to be a convicted felon with a history of criminal misconduct.

Let’s start with the easy question.

Given that Laughton’s criminal history was a non starter for the Nashua watchdog media is this damning evidence of media bias, delinquency,  even utter incompetence on the part of the ‘reporters’ working for the people’s daily at the Nashua Telegraph?

Something easier…

Given New Hampshire House Democrat leaderships history of looking the other way when their members misbehave (break the law), will they continue this trend and turn a blind eye to a House member with this extensive a criminal history?  One whom N.H. Chief Forensics Examiner Dr. James Adams (according to this article in the Laconia Sun) diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, and identified as a ‘maligner’ –someone who feigns illness to avoid duty or service.

And how does a history of criminal mischief, felony fraud and conspiracy fit in with the lefts “Bringing civility back to Concord” narrative?   Same Democrats new Legislative session is all I can say.

And the 800 million dollar question?… if it were a Republican would the Nashua Telegraph and the Democrats have made sure we knew about the extensive criminal history of the candidate before the election?

Voters of Hills District 31 probably would have elected the candidate regardless, by the way; it is hardly the first time New Hampshire Democrats have elected a criminal to public office.

Wait! Perhaps they were just victims of what NH Democrats have claimed in the past (only when they lose by the way); that the size of our State House makes it difficult for voters to make educated decisions about whom should serve.

Whatever the answers to these questions and others, we should make sure we see (see also treat) Stacie Laughton just like everyone else.  That is, after all, what she wants.

So neither she (nor her advocates) can object to us asking questions and exploring (vetting) her competence to hold the office she has achieved, now that “new” and potentially relevant information has come to light.