Indy Council Democratic leader is 'closely monitoring' allegations against Councilor Keith Graves
IndyStar reported earlier this week that Graves, 59, faced domestic violence claims by two women. One woman, Laurin Embry, 29, told IndyStar Graves sexually and physically abused her when they were in a relationship and after they broke up. Another woman who requested anonymity filed and was granted a domestic abuse protective order against Graves last year, before later dropping it to preserve her privacy.
Graves has denied all of the allegations, saying he never "jeopardized anyone's safety, comfort, or dignity."
"I am deeply disappointed by the allegations being made against me," Graves previously told IndyStar. "I unequivocally deny the false and hurtful claims that are now being shared."
However, Lewis, the council's majority leader, said in a July 11 statement that she was "made aware and am closely monitoring allegations being made against one of our caucus members and am committed to confirming their validity."
"If information emerges that negatively affects the integrity of the caucus, we are dedicated to taking all necessary actions to do what is right," Lewis said. "We urge the community to respect the privacy of everyone involved and to be patient as we work to address this issue with council leadership and the caucus."
More: Indianapolis City-County Council Democrat accused of physical and sexual abuse
The Indianapolis City-County Council has investigated how Mayor Joe Hogsett's administration handled harassment and assault claims against his former Chief of Staff Thomas Cook. But the legislative body has increasingly faced scrutiny, particularly after a June 9 incident where City-County Council President Vop Osili ordered sheriffs to forcibly remove a woman, Lauren Roberts, who was trying to express concerns about the council's investigation. Osili later said he "failed" when removing Roberts.
Four members of the 25-member City-County Council have called for Hogsett's resignation and in June the whole Democratic caucus released a statement chastising his leadership but stopping short of calling for his resignation.
Lewis' statement on July 11 referenced that statement, which read in part that "the residents of Indianapolis deserve a city government that is accountable, honest, and reflective of the community's highest aspirations. Public trust is a sacred obligation continuously earned through principled moral leadership and responsible governance.'
"This statement also applies to members of the Indianapolis City-County Council," Lewis said in the July 11 statement.
Following IndyStar's reporting on Graves, most individual councilors and elected Democrats have been silent on the matter regarding their colleague, though Democratic socialist Jesse Brown called for his resignation and for the council to censure him.
Marion County Republican Party Chair Natalie Goodwin released a statement criticizing Democratic leadership of the council.
'It's becoming clear why the Democrats on the City-County Council refuse to hold Mayor Joe Hogsett accountable for the sexual harassment scandal he permitted under his watch,' Goodwin said. "The Council now faces its own allegations, and the lack of leadership from the Council Democrats is appalling. ... The victims deserve respect, dignity and justice, and our current Democrat leadership is failing them."
There have also been responses in support of the women who made allegations against Graves from some former Hogsett administration workers who have been critical of the administration.
For example, Maggie Adams-McBride, a former project manager for Hogsett, posted on social media that Embry showed "immense courage in telling her story."
"At what point is enough enough for Democrats in Indianapolis?" Adams-McBride wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's only slowing down the suffering from her green-energy lunacy
Gov. Kathy Hochul finally admits the state's 'climate' goals are impossible to meet for now, but she offers no reason to trust she won't continue to pursue them to appease green extremists, at huge cost to regular New Yorkers, if she wins re-election next year. The climate law demands the state achieve 100% zero-emission electricity by 2040, but it's still burning as much carbon as ever; its faltering (but hugely expensive) alternative-energy gains aren't even enough to keep up with expected increases in demand. The gov is making the smallest possible concession to reality, while dodging as much blame as she can: 'We cannot accomplish what those objectives were back in before I became governor in a time frame that's not going to hurt ratepayers,' she announced this month. 'So, we're slowing things down.' Mind you, she's burning ever-more of your dollars (via taxes and utility bills) on costly offshore wind projects, still blocking new pipelines, still preventing new-home natural-gas hookups and making non-electric vehicles more expensive. She's simply admitting that it's not remotely enough, even though it keeps driving New York electricity costs through the roof. (Even roofs with solar panels on top!) Yet the gov isn't actually slowing down the 'green transition,' just (barely) admitting the fantasy isn't possible at the moment — and that closing down any more carbon-fueled power plant will mean rolling blackouts and send even more employers fleeing out of state. Whereas her economic-development (reelection) plans hinge on attracting high-paying but energy-intensive industries (chip-makers; AI server farms, etc.) that can't run on sunshine and intermittent breezes. Plus, the battery tech to store power (since wind and solar plants can never be 24/7) isn't remotely where the 'transition' needs it to be — and ever more communities resist building the massive battery plants required. Yet Hochul's simply recognizing that 'climate action' produces the opposite of 'affordability,' a driving issue for voters — and if she wins in 2026, she'll never again have to care what the voters think. Don't forget how she 'paused' congestion-pricing last year until Democrats were able to win several House seats in November, then promptly lowered the boom. There's no 'come to Jesus' moment here; as soon as it's politically safe, Hochul will be back to sacrificing New York jobs, hopes and dreams to please greenies. And the saddest part of all? All the pain she imposes won't move the needle on climate one bit.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The Democratic Party is missing an opportunity to engage Christian voters
When Josh Shapiro ran for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2022, he was up against Doug Mastriano, an outspoken Christian nationalist who wanted to impose his faith on others. As an evangelical pastor myself, Mastriano and I come from the same religious tradition, but we fundamentally disagree when it comes to how we interpret Christian values. On the other hand, Shapiro and I come from different religious traditions, yet our values align around upholding the common good. My organization worked with Shapiro during his 2022 campaign as he spoke directly to faith voters both within and outside of his own Jewish faith. His message was clear: He wanted to welcome all of God's children into this campaign and promised to fight for them equally as governor. I wholeheartedly believe that this message helped Shapiro win. The theory of change isn't about running on religious ideals. It is about doing outreach differently, which could help many other Democratic candidates win their elections, especially in critical swing states. A new poll from Vote Common Good and Change Research proves that there is an opportunity for Democrats in 2026 and beyond to deepen their connection to voters of faith, including those who voted for Democrats in 2024 and some of those who did not. The generally accepted narrative is that religious voters must vote Republican, but this is not true in practice. Christian voters already make up a sizable bloc for Democrats. In fact, 77 percent of Harris voters either identified as 'born-again' or 'evangelical' Christians, or said that they pray, that religion has some importance to them, that they attend church or that they identify with a religion. In our poll, 80 percent of self-identifying Christian voters say that they are willing to vote for a Democrat, which includes 38 percent of those who said they have only ever voted for Republicans. These are the gettable Christian voters that Democrats should be looking to reach. Nearly 14 percent of Christian voters have low Christian identity, believe churches should stay out of politics and say they vote for Democrats all or most of the time. Another 3 percent of Christian voters split their ticket between Democrats and Republicans. Small hinges open big doors. In a polarized political climate where elections are won in the margin of error, it is time for Democratic candidates and their campaigns to take notice. By moving an additional 2 or 3 percent of Christian voters, Democrats could garner millions of votes and win pivotal races in key battleground states. But the poll clearly shows that there is more possibility beyond attracting 3 percent of Christian voters. Around 30 percent of respondents identify as having medium or low Christian identity, often vote for Republicans, but either aren't sure or don't think that churches should be involved in political matters or favor one candidate over another. These voters are gettable for Democrats with the right outreach. That means speaking directly to religious voters, and letting them know: 'I like you, we need you.' Again, I'm not suggesting that the Democratic Party should change its values or its policies in future election cycles. I'm also not suggesting that the Democratic Party should run religious candidates. I am suggesting that the Democratic Party should reevaluate the degree to which it engages with faith communities. In building profiles of Christians who will vote for Democrats, attitudes of Christian identity and the role of organized religion in politics will be most helpful in separating those who will consider voting for Democrats from those who won't. Don't get me wrong, serious challenges exist for Democrats. Faith voters reported a significant lack of trust in the Democratic Party and a general sentiment that the Democratic Party is unfriendly to faith voters. It will take significant investment and effort to change that. Democrats need to take the opportunities available to them — which Republicans are already doing. Just this week, the IRS decided to allow churches to endorse candidates, leveling a playing field that has been lopsided for decades. For too long, Republican politicians and their allies have spoken freely from pulpits, while too many Democrats and faith leaders held back, worried they would cross an invisible line. This decision removes that roadblock. Shapiro's campaign is a great example of how letting faith voters know that you hear them, see them and even like them, makes a big difference. In my experience, Democratic Party politicians who spend time reaching out to Christian voters see the same positive results of their efforts—the exact same way that it works with other constituencies. In recent years, we've also worked with Reps. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) from California and Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) from Minnesota to help them reach voters of faith. The Republican Party, and especially MAGA Republicans, may want to claim religion as a part of their party's identity, but it is clear that the Trump administration is not one grounded in faith or Christian principles. Voters who do not agree with what they are seeing in U.S. politics right now need to know that there is a place for them in the Democratic Party — for people like me, an Evangelical pastor by trade, who cares about the common good. Much has been written over the past six months about what Democrats need to do in order to win elections in 2026, 2028 and beyond, and I would argue that the answer is clear. To become the majority party again, Democrats cannot ignore America's religious majority — Christian voters. Doug Pagitt is the executive director and one of the founders of Vote Common Good. He is a leading voice for progressive Christianity, as well as an author, pastor and social activist.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Mike Lee's church isn't happy with his posts
Mike Lee (R-Utah) set off a backlash in the wake of the murder of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband, when he issued social media posts blaming the killings on 'Marxists' and suggesting that Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz had something to do with it. His mentions overflowed with calls for him to resign, and both Minnesota senators gave him an earful. Washington and X were not the only places that took notice. In Salt Lake City, senior leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Lee is perhaps the most prominent member currently serving in politics, were concerned about how the insensitive posts would reflect on the church itself — and they started to discuss how to respond. 'As extreme as the situation was, the issue at the center of the firestorm was nothing new,' writes Samuel Benson in this week's Friday Read. 'For two-and-a-half years, Lee has been sliding deeper and deeper into a hyper-online echo chamber.' For the first four months of this year, he posted about 100 times per day, or once every 15 minutes. Lee's social media presence has won him a major far-right online following. 'But for Lee's church, that bellicose online alter ego poses a problem,' Benson writes. 'Even as some Christian denominations have delved into Christian nationalism or partisan politics during the Trump era, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as the Mormon Church) has consistently called on members to do the opposite: to be 'peacemakers' in the civic square.' Read the story. 'This is like me dunking on my 8-year-old and his friends on the short hoops at school. They set themselves up for it with their MAGA base, and now the pedo chickens are coming home to roost.' Can you guess who said this about Republicans amid the ongoing backlash to the DOJ's Epstein memo? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.** Even Architecture Boards Are Weapons Now ... You probably haven't heard much about the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel that oversees urban planning in Washington. At a recent meeting, Capitol City columnist Michael Schaffer sat alone in the media section. But what he heard from the members, with whom President Donald Trump replaced former President Joe Biden's appointees on Wednesday, was markedly more dramatic that the wonkery of architecture nerds: They 'promptly took aim at one of Trump's political foes, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell,' Schaffer writes. 'Powell has resisted Trump's demands to lower interest rates. In response, Republicans have launched a campaign on social media and in Congress against the Fed chair, himself a first-term Trump nominee.' Now, in yet another marker of Trump's hold over D.C., even this small commission has transformed into a weapon to wield against his enemies. Not sure why you've been hearing the name 'Epstein' so much lately? Don't let your friends find out that you missed the DOJ memo saying that Epstein did in fact die by suicide, and that there was no evidence of an 'Epstein list' of clients. Just deploy a few talking points like these, and you won't look so out of the conspiracy loop. (From Associate Editor Dylon Jones) — Hint that you're a sharp observer of the intra-MAGA social media wars — and please, try not to sound like any of these are new names to you: 'Did you all see Laura Loomer coming after the AG? She posted that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are all-caps 'LIVID' at Pam Bondi.' — Speaking of intra-MAGA disputes and the Bondi vs. Bongino tension, show off what an up-to-date news consumer you are, at least when it comes to palace intrigue: 'Interesting that Bongino took Friday off work, huh? Axios wrote that it was over him clashing with Bondi, and multiple outlets are saying he's thinking about quitting.' — Everyone should know the DOJ is facing backlash from parts of Trump's base, but you have details for both the Washington set and the hyper-online crowd: 'It was like a month ago when Judicial Watch lit up Patel and Bongino over the nothingburger on Epstein. And Tom Fitton's team ain't the only ones. Now, you can pull up basically any political talk-podcast, and you'll hear some backlash. Shulz and crew are pissed.' — Prove you're watching how the Democrats handle this, too: 'They've been grasping about for a message for months, but a lot of them seem to think this MAGA-vs.-MAGA moment could finally give them a rhetorical foothold, even if it means getting over the party's willies over touching 'conspiracy theories.' Electeds are hammering this on socials — AOC, Eric Swalwell, Brian Schatz, to name a few. And you know Democrats love to write letters; Jamie Raskin, Dan Goldman and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent one to Bondi saying they can't help but wonder if 'the massive redaction efforts and the withholding of the files were intended to shield your boss from embarrassing revelations within those files.' Why Grok Became 'Mecha-Hitler' ... X users wondered what to expect when Elon Musk announced improvements to Grok, the platform's AI. They found out this week, when it praised Adolf Hitler, dubbed itself 'Mecha-Hitler' and associated Jewish surnames with 'anti-white hate.' Dylon Jones spoke with AI expert Gary Marcus about the episode, and what it suggests about the future of AI tech and policy. 'I think that what Musk ultimately wants to do is quite Orwellian,' Marcus said. 'I don't think we want a world where a few oligarchs can influence our beliefs very heavily, including in subtle ways by shaping what their social media sites do.' Kentucky Made Thomas Massie Trump-Proof ... Rep. Thomas Massie, the libertarian maverick representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional district, has done what others in his party have found impossible: repeatedly rebuked Trump, without paying a political price. Despite voting against the president at key moments — from keeping the government open back in March to opposing the 'big, beautiful bill' in May and recently decrying strikes on Iran as 'not Constitutional' — Massie has shrugged off Trump's threats to primary him. 'After all, Trump failed to oust him in 2020,' writes Alex Keeney. 'Whether Massie means to or not, his defiant stand for libertarian principles is offering a roadmap for other critics of the president to do something many believe is impossible: Turn some of his most ardent voters against his policies.' From the drafting table of editorial cartoonist Matt Wuerker. **Who Dissed? answer: That would be Democratic strategist Eddie Vale, speaking to The Hill. politicoweekend@
