A Wisconsin Democrat’s campaign confirmed a crude X account was his while denying he wrote its racist and sexist posts, raising hard questions about honesty and accountability.
Story Highlights
- Crowley’s team confirmed the “Dirt McGirk” X account was his but says many people used it.
- Crowley condemned the language and denied writing the offensive posts.
- Reports say another alleged user backed Crowley’s denial of authorship.
- Evidence proving who wrote specific posts has not been made public.
Campaign Confirms Account Link, Denies Authorship
CBS 58 reported that David Crowley’s campaign confirmed the “Dirt McGirk” account was his but claimed 10 to 12 people used it to promote a bar, not to speak for him. The campaign said Crowley did not write the racist, sexist, or homophobic posts. Crowley also issued a statement condemning the language and denying authorship of the decade-old messages. The account’s link to him is clear, but the authorship of specific posts remains in dispute.
The Hindustan Times summarized that the campaign acknowledged Crowley had access but said he did not write the offensive content. That outlet also noted that NBC News updated its story after another reported user, Rayhainio Boynes, expressed confidence Crowley did not author the messages. Townhall described Boynes, known locally as Ray Nitti, as one of the people who operated the account, lending support to the claim of shared access. These reports highlight competing facts and limited proof.
What We Know Versus What Is Still Missing
Reports say the account was registered to Crowley from about 2010 to 2014, which ties the handle to him during the time of the posts. The campaign’s shared-use defense is specific, but it has not been backed by login logs, device records, or named user lists beyond press quotes. No public platform data shows who pressed send on each post. Without that record, the authorship question is open, even as the political damage mounts for the Democrat.
Wisconsin outlets and national coverage focused on the crude and caustic nature of the posts and their political fallout. That broad framing can blur the line between account association and post authorship. It also sets up a fast-moving narrative that treats the account as a scandal, despite unresolved evidence gaps. Voters are left with sharp headlines but not the forensic receipts that assign responsibility for the worst messages.
Why This Matters for Voters Who Value Integrity
Wisconsin families face high costs, crime concerns, and pressure on schools. They need leaders who tell the truth and own their platforms. When a candidate’s campaign confirms a linked account but blames “shared use,” trust depends on proof. The clean path is simple: release platform logs, device and Internet records, and sworn statements from every alleged co-user. That is how you protect voters from spin and show respect for the public’s right to the facts.
Fake news. David Crowley suspended his campaign. Vote Hong for governor.
— Sandy (@indiemusicfan4) July 18, 2026
Conservatives know this playbook. The left often demands accountability from others while dodging it at home. If the account was a group project, produce names, dates, and records. If not, admit what happened and apologize. Either way, voters deserve clarity before November. Until evidence shows who wrote what, the confirmed link to a vile account sits with the candidate. That is not censorship. That is common sense, and it is how trust is earned in a free state.
Sources:
twitchy.com, cbs58.com, townhall.com
