Clinton says she spoke to staffer who accused top adviser of harassment

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill

BY MAX GREENWOOD - 01/26/18 10:47 PM EST

Hillary Clinton responded on Friday to a New York Times report that she kept a top adviser on her 2008 campaign after he was accused of sexual harassment by another campaign staffer.

In a pair of tweets, Clinton said that she was "dismayed" when she was made aware of the allegations against her then-senior faith adviser, Burns Strider, but was "heartened" that his accuser came forward.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Her tweets did not directly address why she decided to keep the adviser on her campaign.

-snip-

Clinton's campaign manager at the time, Patti Solis Doyle, recommended that she fire Strider, but Clinton reportedly requested that he remain on staff. He was docked several weeks pay and ordered to undergo counseling.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/371013-clinton-says-she-spoke-to-staffer-who-accused-top-aide-of-sexual-harassment

[DURHAM D]

1. The campaign had a procedure in place and

it was followed. He was fired.

Meanwhile, everyone needs to remember that Maggie's source, Patti Solis Doyle, was fired by the campaign for incompetence.

[Omaha Steve]

3. Wasn't FIRED until 2016

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Repeat offender after mandatory counseling in 2008.


Just the facts please.

[videohead5]

6. No

He was hired in 2013 by David Brock and fired the same year.

[Omaha Steve]

12. Wasn't fired in 2008!!!!

[videohead5]

15. I did not say

He was fired in 2008.I said David Brock hired him in 2013 and fired him months later.

[angrychair]

73. No, not true

If he was “fired” in 2013 than how did he give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:

According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”

He was also not a minor staffer for a PAC but was managing “the” SuperPAC ‘Correct The Record’ at the time and do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?
Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[videohead5]

80. That's what I read

They said David Brock fired him months later.whatever I read must have been wrong.

[angrychair]

81. The article was written out of order it seems

Didn’t mean to come across as yelling but this was a significant mistake and we as Dems should acknowledge it without making excuses or creating false equivalences.

[Hortensis]

61. :) Don't get so worked up. SHE remained with the Clinton campaign,

you know, at at least the same level. She was believed and taken good care of by transferring her away from this guy.

But more than that, she was transferred to work under Mike Henry, Hillary's deputy campaign manager, right in the center of the campaign. Before she was just part of an ancillary function.

What an experience being part of all that must have been! In any case, she's never complained publicly ,and she probably wouldn't appreciate how enemies of the campaign she was part of are using this against them all.

I'm a little curious to know what she was doing 8 years later during the 2016 campaign. Hillary is famous for being very loyal to her people and vice versa, so if she wanted to be part of the 2016 team she may well have been.

Stridor, of course, was working for another organization in that period and was not hired for 2016, although he must have wanted to be. Hillary was expected to be our next president.

Beware of Right-Wing Provocateurs. Don't Be a Useful Idiot.

[angrychair]

74. Wow! I doubt she was happy about it...

She was moved while he got to stay and as a supervisor over people, including other women. What message do you think those other female subordinates got from that??

Not only was he not fired but he got an even higher profile role in the 2016 campaign!
He give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:

According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”

He was managing “the” SuperPAC for her campaign ‘Correct The Record’. Do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?

Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[delisen]

91. Actually she appears to have been promoted.

I consider the Haberman article to be a very poorly written article and I don't think it is news.
It was resolved in 2008. If Ms Haberman thinks the attorneys are not being truthful, she should report on that and get more information.

I personally believe in due process. I did not support the forced resignation of Al Franken from the Senate without due process. Was due process followed by the Clinton Campaign. Tell us the facts, not the gossip.

In terms of news I am much more interested in Maggie Haberman's associations. I believe in full disclosure for reporters.

1. Haberman is writing a book with a NY Times high profile employee. Glenn Thrush, with whom she frequently collaborates. Thrush was accused of harassment just recently. He was punished in a fashion similar to the person in the Clinton Campaign.
The Times has stated that they decided to not fire Mr. Thrush but did fine him several weeks pay (not unlike the punishment of the 2008 Clinton campaign harasser). He is currently re-assigned from reporting on the White House-but I don't know whether his move to other duties is permanent.


2. Maggie Haberman reports on the White House. She has some personal connections. McMasters deputy is married to an employee of Haberman's mother who is vp at Rubenstein Communications, a pr. firm.
According to Wonkette, Rubensteins has a related company, Rubinstein Associated. Among their clients are Kushner companies and Jared Kushner.

While all these associations can help in gathering news, they can also work to suppress news and alter the reporting-because those reported upon went to influence the reporter. They can work to turn news into propaganda.

I think Haberman should list some of associations when writing about White House news. Reporters desire access. Haberman has access to Trump and presumably wants to keep it. Trump has publicly called for investigations into Clinton and I believe has called for negative reporting on her.

I think this very poorly written story describing Clinton as "shielding " a harasser would please Trump.

I am reminded of another NYT star reporter, Judith Miller, who ingratiated herself with VP Cheney's office during the disastrous Iraq War. She was embedded with the military operations and served to further the BIG LIE of the weapons of mass destruction which was the phony rationale for killing many Americans and massive numbers of Iraqis.
Miller was let go from The Times-but Bush administration had been successful in using her to reach their goals.

[angrychair]

93. Stop the deflection

I am not dwelling on “shielding” aspect as much as it shows that it’s a clear example of powerful and well-connected people have all the advantages.
Things that are NOT in dispute about this story:
He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!
7 weeks of pay was unlikely to have been of significance to him.
I’m sure he still ate every day.

I am horrified that you imply this was a “promotion” for her, she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor and she got moved and he got to stay a manager and got a significant role in her 2016 campaign as director of operations for Correct The Record, “the” SuperPAC of her campaign.
He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[delisen]

146. I am sorry but these are your suppositions.

I can't simply accept them as facts.

I am dealing with a case right now where the woman filing a sexual harassment complaint. Second one by someone in her department) was offered by Human Resources a move to another department and a position that was her dream job. She decided to take it and be done with her old position. That is her right as an adult to make that decision about her career.

You know very little about the woman referenced in the Clinton Campaign.You do not now whether she was moved without her consent, or whether she preferred to take another position.

You do not know the written policies and procedures governing the two corporations referenced, Companies can be sued by the accuser or the accused for not following written procedures.

I did not simply "imply" that this was a promotion for her. I read the article, researched some facts about the the 2 organizations, and about faith advisors in political campaigns.

Reporting to the deputy campaign manager rather than Burns Stridor does seem to me to rise the possibility that the woman filing the complaint was moved to a higher position in the organization

From the article:

Ms. O’Connell told colleagues that she was concerned that the young woman making the allegations should not be demoted when she was moved from Mr. Strider’s supervision. The woman requested to have no more interactions with Mr. Strider, and she was moved to a different job within the campaign, reporting directly to Mike Henry, the deputy campaign manager.

The investigation into Mr. Strider’s conduct was described as brief, but it included a review of a number of emails he sent the young woman, who had shared an office with him.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton provided a statement from Utrecht, Kleinfeld, Fiori, Partners, the law firm that had represented the campaign in 2008 and which her advisers said has been involved on sexual harassment issues.

“To ensure a safe working environment, the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken,” the statement said. “This complaint was no exception.”


From Slate on faith-based advisors in campaigns:

Strider was arguably the most prominent member of a very small group of people who make a living as “faith consultants” to Democrats—advisors who make introductions between candidates and religious influencers, and help candidates craft language and policies to appeal to them. It’s a tiny community in large part because contemporary Democratic campaigns do so little outreach to religious groups. Congressional campaigns rarely have faith outreach staffers, and Democratic presidential campaigns hire them much later in the campaign cycle than Republicans do. It’s a job that basically exists for six months out of every four years. In the off-season, many of them run consulting firms that connect corporate and nonprofit clients with “values-based” communities. Strider is the founder of the American Values Network, a lobbying group, and a consulting firm, Eleison Group, whose clients have included the Democratic National Committee. “Eleison” is a part of a Greek phrase used in many Christian liturgies; it means “have mercy.

I won't respond to any of your posts, and would not have responded to this one had I known you would be "horrified."

Thanks.

[Me.]

155. Haberman Has & Always Had Clinton Derangement Syndrome

along with her employer the NYTimes, which is how she gets away with it.

[angrychair]

72. No he was not!!!

If he was “fired” in 2013 than how did he give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:

According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”

He was also not a minor staffer for a PAC but was managing “the” SuperPAC ‘Correct The Record’ at the time and do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?

Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[vi5]

9. Facts

A lot of folks on here never let them get in the way of some good old fashioned partisanship. Especially when it comes to Hillary.

[lapucelle]

63. So true. It's amazing how many people were played by Haberman/Chozick. N/T

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. He was working at Correct The Record up until at least October 2014

And exchanging vegan recipes

Inside the former Clinton antagonist’s operation to destroy the anti-Hillary memes he once unleashed.
PATRICK CALDWELL SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/

A week after Hillary Clinton released her new memoir, Hard Choices, I met Burns Strider for lunch at the Hotel Monaco in Washington, DC. Just as the book hit the shelves, Strider’s organization, Correct the Record, had released 11 pages of bullet points swatting down anticipated criticisms from Clinton’s detractors (“Hard Choices is just another way for Hillary to make money hand over fist”; “Hard Choices is a glossed-over snooze-fest”). It was the kind of preemptive spin that Correct the Record was created to churn out. As Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run, Correct the Record keeps constant watch for any conceivable attacks against her, and then aggressively beats them back before they take hold.

As he picked at his beet and greens salad, Strider told me how he’d ditched eating animal products in 2010 at the behest of the then-secretary of state. “You’ve got to think about your two boys,” she told Strider, who had worked as her senior adviser on faith outreach during the 2008 campaign. That night he got a call from Bill Clinton, who extolled the virtues of his new animal-free diet: “If I can do it, you can.” A few days later Strider received a box of herbivore-themed books and handwritten recipes jotted down by the former president.

The contemplative 48-year-old vegan, who manages Correct the Record’s day-to-day operations, says he has no qualms about his new role in the blood sport of presidential politics. Yet his boss is an even more unlikely figure: David Brock, the former Clinton nemesis and ringleader of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton decried in 1998.

[Loki Liesmith]

27. If the Vegan recipes were good ones

why is that relevant?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. The victim got a transfer.

The perpetrator gets his firing recommendation overruled, a new job and diet advice.

[Loki Liesmith]

39. I dont care.

It’s obvious there was a history between HRC and this guy. Why shouldn’t she exchange recipes with him? You haven’t answered that yet.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. People have been pretending this was never to be heard from again after the 2008 campaign.

Or that Correct The Record is some obscure third party with no connection.

Obviously bull shit.

[angrychair]

75. +++++999999999999999999999

Thank you!!

[ehrnst]

109. Imagine if multiple victims came forward, nothing was done

and a new job in the campaign was created for him, then called a "good friend" by the candidate when he ran for office a year later?

Hillary would be roasted over a spit for that.

Only Hillary.

Right?

Arturo Carmona - google him....

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[mcar]

123. The Clinton Rules in effect still

[Me.]

154. Right

[NurseJackie]

168. I Google'd him. Yes. Your observations are correct. I too, see an obvious double-standard.

[Hortensis]

112. "Human rights are women's rights..."

HILLARY AT THE UNITED NATIONS' FOURTH WORLD CONGRESS ON WOMEN IN 1995

[ehrnst]

110. Why would a serial campaign staff abuser who was protected would be called a "good friend"

by a candidate who had not responded to those accusation, when the abuser runs for office?

You haven't answered that yet.

[ehrnst]

104. But was he given a "demotion upward"

http://www.latinorebels.com/2017/04/01/californias-34th-congressional-district-election-gets-ugly-and-public-with-allegations-of-sexual-harassment/

And referred to as a "good friend" when he ran for office the following year?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-will-bernie-sanders-endorse-his-former-1487700721-htmlstory.html

Now THAT would be worthy of your rage....

[lapucelle]

59. Strider wasn't employed by HRC in 2016.

He never worked for her after 2008.

"Mr. Strider...was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy."

It's dismaying to see the number of people who were so easily played by Haberman/Chozick's crafty use of intervening relative clauses.

Moreover, the NYT needs to do a better job of fact checking. Correct the Record was founded in 2015, seven (not five) years after Strider worked for HRC's 2008 campaign. That is a very sloppy mistake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

[angrychair]

76. Just NOT TRUE

Not only was he not fired but he got an even higher profile role in the 2016 campaign!
He give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:

According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”

He was managing “the” SuperPAC for her campaign ‘Correct The Record’. Do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?

Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. Those were just concerned citizens who happened to hire the "faith" director from 2008

A coinkydink!!

[angrychair]

86. I cannot believe what Im reading here

The equivocation and white washing and actually saying “fake news” like that orange shithole because they don’t like the story...actually saying “ he was only kissing her forehead and rubbing her shoulders so what” it’s depressing and embarrassing.

[Hortensis]

114. Here you go, Hassin.

HILLARY AT THE UNITED NATIONS' FOURTH WORLD CONGRESS ON WOMEN IN 1995

[angrychair]

118. That is deflection

We are talking about this women and this situation. If you want to start a new OP with this story I will be happy to comment but I’m not entertaining a journey down a rabbit hole on an unrelated subject. This isn’t about these people and this situation.

The “he did it too” is childish and a ridiculous way to argue as an adult.

[ehrnst]

119. Not really. It's called pointing out double standards.

I don't think you're going to say that about Right wingers foamed at the mouth every time Obama went golfing, and then reacted just like you did when reminded how much time GWB spent on vacation.

What a childish and a ridiculous way to argue as an adult....

I suggest you create an OP defending him.

You did it here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1654880

I mean it's a good way to show that you are really different than those who were aghast at Michelle Obama's arms in a portrait, while staying silent about Melania's nudie photos.

[R B Garr]

160. Exactly right. Hypocrisy means double standards.

Thanks for that link, too. Situational outrage for sure.

[Demit]

149. Actually, Correct the Record was launched in Nov 2013, per a July 2014 article in Slate.

I was interested in the whole timeline because of the botched way Maggie Haberman wrote her story. So I did some googling:

David Brock was quoted in the Mother Jones article (the one with the vegan recipe you've been seeing posted repeatedly) as saying he first conceived of Correct the Record in the summer of 2013.

But apparently it didn't launch right away, as I learned in this Slate article about David Brock:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html

So the NYT was right on that: Correct the Record was founded five years after HRC's 2008 campaign ended. I haven't been able to pinpoint the month Strider was hired by CTR, or the exact month he was fired, but he was most definitely gone from the organization by the time HRC launched her second campaign, which was in April of 2015.


I offer this in the interest of accuracy. Also because I've spent so much time on this stupid controversy that it might as well be useful in some way. I hate misinformation because I hate the erroneous conclusions it makes people draw (I don't mean you, I mean the other insistent commenters on these threads).

[lapucelle]

156. According to its Wiki page, Correct the Record was founded in 2015 by David Brock.

There was an earlier iteration of Correct the Record that was launched in November 2013 as a subsidiary of American Bridge 21st Century. Strider was tapped to lead this subsidiary group which comprised a group of 15-20 employees. Strider was hired by Brock long before Clinton announced her candidacy.

Correct the Record was spun off as an independent, separate hybrid pac in May of 2015. Based on the Haberman/Chozick timeline, Strider was both hired and fired from the subsidiary in 2013-2014. long before Clinton announced her candidacy.

"Mr. Strider was hired five years later...He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide."

I wonder why Haberman and Chozick made such a muddy mess of the facts of the story.

Cui bono?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html

[ehrnst]

111. Yes, facts. Abusers being enabled, and then called "good friend"

Just awful...awful....

Here's how other "feminist" candidates handled it...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-congressional-candidate-arturo-carmona-1491016048-htmlstory.html

"Arturo is a good friend of ours," Sanders said. "He helped me during the campaign, and he and I just chatted tonight, so we’lll see where we go with that."

Carmona has often talked about his connection with Sanders on the campaign trail, and often posts photos and quotes from the senator on social media.

Link to tweet

/photo/1

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-will-bernie-sanders-endorse-his-former-1487700721-htmlstory.html

[NurseJackie]

165. Wow! Thank you so much for posting this. It reveals much, and...

... and helps to put things into perspective and a sharper focus for me. It also confirms many of my suspicions regarding things and behavior I've observed recently.

[Demsrule86]

166. So? I could give a crap. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen.

[Omaha Steve]

170. Wasn't a private citizen in 2008 or 2016

I'm surprised she bothered to tweet about this issue at all as a private citizen.

[Demsrule86]

171. And? She sent the guy to counseling and handled it...Also, he did not work for Clinton

in 16 and was fired. I fail to see why anyone gives a crap... in fact Bernie Sander's campaign had something similar. It happens...she is a private citizen...I could not care less.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. That's not true.

The "procedure" was overruled by the candidate when the Director of Operations, after an investigation, recommended the pervert be fired.

He got to keep his job.

That's a fact.

[Major Nikon]

16. That's not a fact, it's speculation

Pretty much any large organization will have policies which dictate a table of penalties for various infractions and it's extremely doubtful that firing would have been the only option for such an infraction. Typically a range of penalties is specified based on the severity of the situation and the decision to fire any high level employee isn't going to be based on the decision of just one manager.

If one was to speculate, it's far more likely they had a meeting of several high level campaign officials to decide his fate after the investigation was complete and as a group decided on a particular disciplinary action that was within the range of what their policy dictates.

[angrychair]

78. They decided all right

That a high profile campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, was more important that sexual harassment of a staffer.

He kissed her, groped her and sent multiple sexually harassing emails!

What exactly did he have to to get fired?!? He did everything but actual physical rape. He was in a position of power and dramatically abused it. He should have been fired by any standards.

Not only was he not fired but he got an even higher profile role in the 2016 campaign!
He give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:
According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”



He was managing “the” SuperPAC for her campaign ‘Correct The Record’. Do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?

Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[Major Nikon]

7. He wasn't fired

So the story alleges HRC "protected" him, even though he received serious discipline that was just short of being fired. Any organization which has an effective policy against sexual harassment would have handled it no differently.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Yeah "serious discipline"

And exchanging vegan recipes...

Inside the former Clinton antagonist’s operation to destroy the anti-Hillary memes he once unleashed.
PATRICK CALDWELL SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/

A week after Hillary Clinton released her new memoir, Hard Choices, I met Burns Strider for lunch at the Hotel Monaco in Washington, DC. Just as the book hit the shelves, Strider’s organization, Correct the Record, had released 11 pages of bullet points swatting down anticipated criticisms from Clinton’s detractors (“Hard Choices is just another way for Hillary to make money hand over fist”; “Hard Choices is a glossed-over snooze-fest”). It was the kind of preemptive spin that Correct the Record was created to churn out. As Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run, Correct the Record keeps constant watch for any conceivable attacks against her, and then aggressively beats them back before they take hold.

As he picked at his beet and greens salad, Strider told me how he’d ditched eating animal products in 2010 at the behest of the then-secretary of state. “You’ve got to think about your two boys,” she told Strider, who had worked as her senior adviser on faith outreach during the 2008 campaign. That night he got a call from Bill Clinton, who extolled the virtues of his new animal-free diet: “If I can do it, you can.” A few days later Strider received a box of herbivore-themed books and handwritten recipes jotted down by the former president.

The contemplative 48-year-old vegan, who manages Correct the Record’s day-to-day operations, says he has no qualms about his new role in the blood sport of presidential politics. Yet his boss is an even more unlikely figure: David Brock, the former Clinton nemesis and ringleader of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton decried in 1998.

[Kingofalldems]

17. She's not president.

[Major Nikon]

21. Nonsense

If you lost several weeks pay and were ordered to undergo counseling you wouldn't consider that serious?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. That's speculation. Correct?

You only want to believe the part of the reporting that suits you.

How do we know he wasn't awarded an all expense paid trip to The Bahamas?

Since we are now tossing around "fake news" accusations.

[Major Nikon]

26. No, it was a question that you refused to answer

And the fact that you refused to answer it does offer some information that is useful in regards to speculation.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. You, in post 16, refuse to acknowledge the facts presented in the story.

Why am I going to go down the "speculation" path with you on other pieces of the reporting.

You apparently think the story is fake news. Just say so and move along.

[Major Nikon]

34. I'm glad to acknowledge facts, less so with nonsense

So yeah, I am going to move along because instead of answering relevant questions in the interest of substantive discussion, you want to cast aspersions and throw around Trump's favorite crutch when he too has nothing useful to offer.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. Then acknowledge the facts presented in the story that he was investigated by the ...

... responsible authorities, recommended for firing, and overruled by The Candidate-- much to the dismay and discomfort of several people in the organization.

Instead, you've speculated on high level meetings and some other chain of events that led to him keeping his job. That's pure speculation on your part and a refusal to deal with the facts as presented.

You want me to acknowledge part of the facts presented but only the facts that suit your argument.

Speaking of policies and procedures. Assuming things went down as you SPECULATED. Since when are short term temporary jobs in campaigns treated like a mid level management employee with a career and pension at risk?

People get bounced from campaigns at the drop of a hat for minor infractions like wearing the wrong t-shirt in a Facebook photo.

But this guy got treated like he was owed this job. What I kind of campaign keeps a married guy after he gets busted perving on a young woman? Seriously.

[Major Nikon]

47. You still haven't answered the question

Just sayin'

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. You still have only acknowledged part of the facts.

[Major Nikon]

53. Regardless of how much you whine about it, I'm not going to accept a non-fact as fact

The claim that HRC "overruled" anyone is just more pure speculation because you have absolutely no idea what their actual policy was. It's entirely possible, if not highly probable, that their policy dictates certain decisions can't be unilateral at anything below the top level. Is this "speculation"? Absolutely, and it's clearly identified as such. The reason it's offered is because it provides an entirely reasonable alternate explanation that proves what you're claiming is a "fact" is really nothing more than pure speculation.

Furthermore that's not the only alternate explanation. The information for the story comes from someone who was fired for cause by HRC. There's good reason to believe they aren't offering all the "facts" in this case at best and may be even flat out lying about it at worst.

PS:

You still haven't answered the question

[mcar]

65. That's what NYT did with Glenn Thrush - in 2017

Funny how there seems to be a double standard when it comes to HRC.

[angrychair]

82. WHAT?!?

He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!
7 weeks of pay was unlikely to have been of significance to him.

He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[Loki Liesmith]

28. lol at the recipe obsession.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. I have the same reaction to friendship with a married perv "faith adviser" Karl Rove clone.

[Cha]

100. I know, right.. But but but..

"THE VEGAN RECIPES!!!!!1111" LOL

[ehrnst]

106. Just imagine if he had been demoted upward!

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-congressional-candidate-arturo-carmona-1491016048-htmlstory.html

WAIT - that's wasn't Hillary, so it's all good.

[George II]

153. What does all of that have to do with what happened back in 2008?

[CentralMass]

20. That firing came 8 years later on the 2016 campsign

For the record he was not fired in 2008. He was fired in 2016 over another incident.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

"WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.

He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management."

[zentrum]

37. About the young woman

…who reported him—as I understand it—she was the one moved to another job so that he could, after "counseling," return to his original job?

I'm wondering how she felt about that. I wonder if it was an equal or better job that she was moved to. I wonder if her career trajectory took a hit and if her salary remained the same.

Maybe she needed counseling too—wonder if it was offered to her.

The story simply has the shape of her having to make more adjustments than he did. But on the other hand, she may have liked the changes.

People always focus on the perp and don't really follow up with the victim. Which is part of the problem—the woman remains invisible.

[lapucelle]

62. He didn't work for HRC's 2016 campaign.

He was hired seven years later as a senior advisor by an independent group.

"Mr. Strider... was hired five [sic] years later to lead [sic] an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

[angrychair]

83. That is not true!

Are you trying to insult our intelligence? To imply that running a major SuperPAC that was virtually tied at the hip with, so much so it faced both legal and FEC reviews, is not working for the 2016 campaign is ridiculous.
Not only was he not fired in 2008 but he got an even higher profile role in the 2016 campaign!
He give an interview in September of 2014 with Mother Jones:
According to a Mother Jones interview with Strider from September 2014, he managed the organization’s day-to-day operations, including “building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton’s career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents.”

He was managing “the” SuperPAC for her 2016 campaign ‘Correct The Record’. Do you honestly think HRC had no input into that decision?

Link to MJ article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/
(Keep in mind as you read he was yet again sexually harassing yet another young women at this very same time)

[R B Garr]

164. Thank you, great posts lapucelle! It looks like there is

some not-so-subtle mission creep about PACs as if they are all under Hillary’s vast global purview. /sarcasm

The double standards are truly glaring.

[delisen]

94. The organization firing him was founded in 2015

(Correct the Record) Strider was fired from Correct the Record in 2016. So it appears he lasted just several months.

Maybe we should all ask him to publish his resume. (I'm serious).

I'm tired of poorly written articles by so-called ace reporters.

[lapucelle]

157. Strider was hired to lead Correct the Record in 2013

according to both the NYT and Slate. At that point, Correct the Record was simply a subsidiary of American Bridge 21st Century rather than the hybrid pac established in 2015 that most people are familiar with.

Strider was fired "several months later" according to the NYT story. That would make the date of his termination early to mid 2014.

HRC did not declare her candidacy until May 2015, a full year later. There was no campaign when Strider was either hired or fired by David Brock.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html

[CentralMass]

162. The point is that Strider was not fired in 2008.

[Demsrule86]

167. He was sent to counseling...seems like a fair way to handle it to me. But again

who cares...Hillary is a private citizen...some here support Sen. Sanders for 2020, I would be more concerned with the college scandal. Imagine what some could do with that story (not saying they would be telling the truth...but right wing smears are inevitable).

[CentralMass]

169. I only posted because there are some inaccuracies being stated here.

From that same NYT article. Strider never ATTENDED the counseling and albeit for another reason the campaign manager who recommended the firing was fired herself

"Ms. Doyle was fired shortly after that in a staff shake-up in response to Mrs. Clinton’s third-place finish in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. And Mr. Strider never attended the mandated counseling, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation."

[mcar]

2. A good response

I sense a hit piece in this story. Haberman wants to stay on Dotard's good side soooo, hit piece on Hillary!

[angrychair]

85. What?!?

A “hit piece”?
He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!! Who not only got to stay on in her 2008 campaign but got to be the director of operations for her leading SuperPAC Correct The Record for her 2016 campaign.
The staffer got reassigned.

He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[mcar]

92. Hit piece

Why is this being reported now, 10 years after? Why is the campaign's consequence being treated as suspect by the NYT when they issued the same consequence to their own staffer - in 2017, said staffer being the book writing partner of Haberman?

"Shielded?" A loaded word like that in the headline screams hit piece.

Should the Clinton campaign, and HRC herself, have handled it differently? That can be argued, once all the details are known.

But this NYT piece? I stand by my statement. Hit job.

[angrychair]

96. What details?

We know for a fact:
that he was her supervisor.

That he touched her without her consent “rubbed her shoulders” that he kissed her without her consent “kissing her, kissing her forehead” and sent multiple sexually harassing emails.

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!

He was not fired from the 2008 campaign.

He ended up as the director of operations for the SuperPAC Correct The Record for her 2016 campaign. It was a significant role in her 2016 campaign.

These things are not in dispute.

What is there to dissect or analyze here?

Are you implying she deserved it? Was she wearing the wrong outfit? That there is an excuse that minimizes it?

I am a shop steward and a supervisor and if this happened in any workplace I’ve ever worked at, even in 2008, you are fired.

[mcar]

101. What????

Are you implying she deserved it? Was she wearing the wrong outfit? That there is an excuse that minimizes it?

You are impugning my integrity on a board where I have been a member since 2002. You have no cause to do that.

Actual details of how it was handled and what the victim's feelings are. We don't know either.

Take your outrage at and false accusations of me somewhere else.

[angrychair]

103. What I said is a fact

We know for a fact:

that he was her supervisor.

That he touched her without her consent “rubbed her shoulders” that he kissed her without her consent “kissing her, kissing her forehead” and sent multiple sexually harassing emails.

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!

He was not fired from the 2008 campaign.

He ended up as the director of operations for the SuperPAC Correct The Record for her 2016 campaign. It was a significant role in her 2016 campaign.

These things are not in dispute.

My questions about what she was wearing was a rhetorical example of what victims of sexual assault hear when people attempt to minimize or deflect from their situation (for the record, I am a survivor of sexual assault as a child)

The reporter on the article and their situation is irrelevant to the former staffer’s situation and what happened to her. Don’t lose sight of it being aboutvthe sexual harassment/assault of a young women by her supervisor.

FYI I’ve been a member of this site since 2006 but I’ve been wrong before but I’m not in case.

[mcar]

122. The reporting of this, the timing, the reporters

is most certainly not irrelevant. They have a history. The double standard WRT the NYT's own HR standards is most certainly not irrelevant.

I never once attempted to minimize the victim's experience and deeply resent the implication. I am very sorry for what you experienced.

The facts as we know them are:

1. The victim made a complaint and was heard and believed.

2. Action was taken.

One can certainly disagree whether 2 was appropriate to the crime. But the NYT stating that HRC "shielded" the guilty party is wrong and constitutes a hit job.

[angrychair]

130. It is irrelevant

This is an off-topic rabbit hole. It’s full of speculation and insinuations.

2 was certainly inappropriate and hiding behind policies is ridiculous. This person abused his position of authority and sexually assaulted a subordinate.

He was part of the senior leadership that interacted directly with the Clintons that was continued to remain as a senior leader despite these very serious issues.

It gives every appearance of favoritism.

[mcar]

137. We disagree

The motivation of reporters is relevant. See News, Fox.

I'm off to watch the Warriors/Celtics. Good evening.

[angrychair]

139. As long as we disagree

Without being disagreeable. We are ultimately on the same side. Enjoy and have a good evening! 😄

[ehrnst]

129. Do you think that this should have disqualified her from running in 2016?

Or was how she reacted to the situation appropriate enough not to warrant that kind of censure?

Curious as to what you think about that.

[angrychair]

135. I campaigned for HRC in 2016

And would again, even knowing of this mistake because I believe she really does care.
This was a mistake, a significant one, but she has shown that she recognizes when she was wrong and try’s to be better.
My point is not to attack Clinton but to address the failures, on multiple levels, that allowed this asshole to continue in his position. Don’t lose sight of the fact that this behavior continued, even many years later.
As a supervisor and a shop steward, I take great exceptions to abuse of power by supervisors and senior leadership, this is no exception.

[ehrnst]

136. Well, that's a change of heart, isn't it?

When do you think that supervisors and senior leadership will recognize the mishandling of Arturo Carmona?

I haven't seen that. Perhaps you have heard any regrets or lessons learned concerning that, to indicate that they know they were wrong and would try to be better?

[angrychair]

141. Really?

We are talking about this women and this situation. If you want to start a new OP with this story I will be happy to comment but I’m not entertaining a journey down a rabbit hole on an unrelated subject. This isn’t about those people and their situation.

The “he did it too” is childish and a ridiculous way to argue as an adult.

[R B Garr]

161. Laughable. Its more about the hypocrisy of holding

politicians to different standards. Having one set of standards for one politician and another set for another means you are not serious about the issue at hand - harassment. Harassment is not an “unrelated issue.”

[lapucelle]

95. You have your facts wrong.

Random "outrage" punctuation doesn't help the case.

There's a reason why comments were disabled on the NYT hit piece. Those who need to express their misplaced indignation would be better off directing it at Times' money man Dean Baquet, pig-in-residence Glenn Thrush, and the odious Maggie Haberman who has no problem collaborating with a serial sexual predator if it will earn her a bit of money.

[angrychair]

97. I do?

We know for a fact:
that he was her supervisor.

That he touched her without her consent “rubbed her shoulders” that he kissed her without her consent “kissing her, kissing her forehead” and sent multiple sexually harassing emails.

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!

He was not fired from the 2008 campaign.

He ended up as the director of operations for the SuperPAC Correct The Record for her 2016 campaign. It was a significant role in her 2016 campaign.

These things are not in dispute.

What is there to dissect or analyze here?

Are you implying she deserved it? Was she wearing the wrong outfit? That there is an excuse that minimizes it?

I am a shop steward and a supervisor and if this happened in any workplace I’ve ever worked at, even in 2008, you are fired.

[lapucelle]

105. You have your facts wrong.

Mr. Strider...was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock. He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide.

It is nice that you work in an enlightened environment. Perhaps you can contact the Times and advise Dean Baquet and Maggie Haberman on exactly why Glenn Thrush needs to be fired and counsel them concerning the perils of choosing money over morals.

It is bewildering that so many are in thrall of a decade old episode that is long gone when they should be busy channeling their righteous indignation by fighting a systemic problem that is occurring as we speak at the New York Times.

[angrychair]

113. An independent group!?!??!??!

Are you serious or just insulting my intelligence?

That “independent group” was the most influential of her SuperPACs leading up to her 2016 campaign ‘Correct The Record’ which was virtually tied at the hip to the daily interactions of the campaign’s message.

He wasn’t a staffer but the director of operations. He was interviewed by Mother Jones about his role in September of 2014:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record/

I get this story is not the best but we do ourselves no favors amby ignoring it or minimizing the importance of harshly dealing with supervisors that are sexual predators in their workplace.

[lapucelle]

117. Here are the FEC documents and filings.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/085/15031431085/15031431085.pdf#navpanes=0

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00578997

[angrychair]

120. Ok, so?

Here is the Wiki for it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

It coordinated with Clinton's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign via a loophole in campaign finance law that it says permits coordination with digital campaigns.[1][2]

On paper it was “independent” but there are dozens of stories, even the campaign’s own public stance, that it was an intricately tied component, leading up to and during the 2016 campaign. To say otherwise is misleading.

[lapucelle]

131. Then you concede that it was independent.

The organization was not part of the campaign. The campaign did not hire the accused. The independent organization that hired the accused fired him after several months.

Why go to Wiki when you can read actual FEC filings? The FEC is pretty strict about those filings, and primary sources are less susceptible to manipulation by the unscrupulous.

[angrychair]

138. Im trying not to turn this into a rabbit hole

I could go on for a long time about the “independence” of this particular SuperPAC that was specifically created and structured to work hand and hand with the campaign without outright violating the law. It was a story of serious debate leading up to and even during the campaign.

Are you trying to imply that a organization full of former Clinton staffers and former campaign (08 and 16) staff was not known to or approved by Clinton to perform such a critical task you are not looking at it with open eyes.
Not that staffing like this is wrong, I would do it that way too but it is very much a critical component to the campaign, any campaign.

[lapucelle]

145. I'm stating facts.

I leave the fallacious assumptions and faulty inferences to others.

[ehrnst]

132. Well, if you want to claim that contracting organizations are the same as campaign employees

Then Old Town Media were "employees."

Right?

Do you think that Hillary's actions concerning this incident should have disqualified her as a candidate?

Or was it appropriate enough to not deserve censure?

Or to cast doubt on her claim to be a feminist?

What are your thoughts on that?

[lapucelle]

140. Maggie Haberman tweeted her concerns in February 2016

but never followed up or pursued the story. I wonder why?

[mcar]

99. And other NYT reporters are doing their

thin-skinned defensive routine on Twitter.

Hit job!!!!!

[lapucelle]

107. No wonder online comments to the story are disabled.

Has anyone been tweaking Maggie over her book collaboration with serial predator Glenn Thrush?

[mcar]

127. Oh yeah

As is usual with them, it's a reporter unrelated to this story who is on defense. It's not going well for him, I wonder why they bother.

[angrychair]

108. Was this young woman sexually assaulted or not? (The answer is yes)

Was she reassigned while her supervisor got to keep his senior leadership position and continue as a manager of other women? (Yes as we know he was not demoted)

Was he hired to be the director of operations at Correct The Record, the SuperPAC of the 2016 campaign and a major component of her 2016 campaign? (Yes)

Is this yet another example of the rich and powerful getting a pass while the common folk get screwed (Yes, not just in this one Women’s case but in all the other people he sexually harassed/assaulted while connected to the campaign after that incident came to light)

These are serious issues and we do ourselves no favors nor the scores of assault victims and survivors by deflecting or in some cases here by actually blaming/shaming the victim (by saying fake news or saying “he just rubbed her shoulders...”)

[ehrnst]

102. You mean like Arturo Carmona was?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-congressional-candidate-arturo-carmona-1491016048-htmlstory.html

[Bradical79]

143. It's news, but the timing makes it a likely hit piece too.

It's a pattern with the NYT to try and "balance" some of the Trump negativity. I consider these seperate topics of discussion though.

[still_one]

5. One has to wonder why maggie haberman and glenn thrush didn't go to directly to

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 01:01 PM - Edit history (2)

Hillary to ask her side of what happened?

One also has to wonder why Haberman is teaming up with Thrush, a known sexual harasser, writing book with him? Perhaps Haberman wanted to get the perspective from a sexual harasser for the book, she sure didn't appear to want to ask Hillary directly.

I wonder if Haberman will now get another exclusive interview with trump

[MaryMagdaline]

11. Good questions all

[karynnj]

43. Nothing in Clinton's tweets disputes the story in the NYT

This may be an example of when there was not a "zero tolerance" policy, but a strong policy that took sexual harassment seriously. Here, it seems that they might have thought that what this man brought to the campaign was sufficient to keep him on staff after a suspension and mandatory counseling. Clearly she believed that that action would make him never act inappropriately while working for her again. She might have thought this win/win. She kept a valuable employee, ended his known transgression and even possibly getting him to permanently clean up his act.

Ironically, what he brought to the campaign was that he was a respected person, writing in places like Soujouners magazine (sojo.net), which was associated with people like Jim Wallis. Following 2004, many people, like Wallis, argued that the Democrats could make progress gaining evangelical votes IF they were more open about their own religious values and how they informed the values they brought to governing. The object lesson of Wallis and others was that though Kerry had high moral standards and was a relatively observant Catholic, he never spoke of that in 2004. This was taken seriously by many Democrats at the time.

I was an active member of DU JK and would argue that his incredible speech on faith and governing at Pepperdine University ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046.html ) was influenced by exactly that argument. For my fellow DU JK friends from MA, it astonished them that their somewhat reserved Senator would speak so openly on what he through his career would have considered deeply private beliefs. In addition, supporting NH candidates, he gave a speech that Democratic values were consistent with religious believes - like helping the needy.

Hillary Clinton clearly took that seriously or had independently came to the same solution. She was active in her church's youth group as a girl and she was inspired by hearing MLK speak.(Here's a CNN article - http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/politics/clinton-methodist-minister/index.html ) In 2008, all of this was a big part of the narrative her campaign put out. Burns Strider was very likely the point person in her campaign on that issue, which I assume she thought would be more important in the general election, which she was working towards.

Here is a NYT article from May 2008 on what he brought to the campaign. In addition, Burt Strider was likely one of the people behind the many stories about Clinton's strong Methodist religion.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03strider.html

In fact, 2016 tells us that the PERSONAL religion/morals/integrity of the candidate is NOT what motivates the evangelical voters. Even if the Democratic candidate would have never committed a single sin in their life, they still would have voted for Trump. Likewise, I suspect the reaction would have been the same as in 2004 when the only evangelical I personally know told me that her minister told them they were obligated to vote for the more moral and religious candidate. She was completely at a loss of words, when I argued that meant voting for John Kerry.

However, in the context of 2008, where she likely thought that gaining some of the evangelicals, based on healthcare and other issues, she might have seen Strider as a strong voice helping her on this. Also note that it was NOT that her campaign ignored and allowed these things to continue. What they did not do was have a zero tolerance policy that would have dictated that firing him was the only acceptable solution.

[still_one]

46. No she didn't, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Did Habberman and Thrush even try to

contact Hillary for this story? There is no indication in the story they did. Also, why in God's name would they even consider putting a known sexual harasser, Glenn Thrush to co-author that story, when he was disciplined in a very similar manner that they are being critical of Hillary for, that she didn't take stronger measures

[DeminPennswoods]

57. That's an excellent point about Thrush

He got nearly the exact same discipline as Strider, suspended, then moved to a different beat, but not fired.

[still_one]

60. I need to make a correction. Thrush did not co-author the specific NY Times article, but is will be

co-authoring a book with Haberman, which still is ironic since his disciplinary treatment from the NY Times is very similar, except this is 8 plus years later

[karynnj]

69. I could say the same thing -- that was not my point

I will admit that maybe I should have written what I did as a response to the overall thread or maybe even a stand alone thread.

I responded to yours, because I disagree that the NYT was wrong to report this. If they - or any media - was not allowed to "cast the first stone" unless their entire staff was not guilty of anything similar, we might not have any content in any media.

What I was addressing was whether there is reason to criticise Clinton here. If I had to boil down my response - it was to identify extenuating circumstances and to question whether there should be a zero tolerance policy. I have long thought that zero tolerance policies on almost anything end up with some cases where most would agree the rule was never intended to create that consequence for those few cases.

[still_one]

70. Go st of all I misstated that Haberman wrote the article with Thrush

That was a ring. She is co authority Ng a book with Thrush

Of course The NY Times as any news outlet can report what they consider newsworthy, even though they treated Thrush in a similar disciplinary action as the Clinton campaign dealt with this harasser over 8 years ago

[calimary]

79. Thanks for this, karynnj!

There’s always context. But unfortunately there seems also to be an iron-clad unforgiving zero-tolerance attitude toward certain female politicians whom some evidently feel haven’t quite been persecuted enough...

[dalton99a]

8. Maggie "Bothsiderism" Haberman - making NYT fair and balanced

[lapucelle]

98. When a NYT star reporter harrasses, it's simply "bad judgement"...

...over, and over, and over, and over again.

“I don’t lure anybody ever,” [Thrush] wrote, according to screenshots provided by Padró Ocasio [a victim's friend]. “I got drunk because I got some shitty health news. And I am acutely aware of the hurdles that young women face in this business and have spent the better part of 20 years advocating for women journalists.”

If Thrush is acutely aware of what young women face in the business of political journalism, he should also know it’s because he himself is one of the problems women face. Five years ago, when Thrush and I were colleagues at Politico, I was in the same bar as Padró Ocasio’s friend — perhaps the same booth — when he caught me off guard, put his hand on my thigh, and suddenly started kissing me. Thrush says that he recalls the incident differently.

Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.

How dare the NYT keep this man on their staff. How dare the two-faced Maggie Haberman collaborate with him on a book. Is there anything these people won't do for money?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16678094/glenn-thrush-new-york-times

[sheshe2]

148. From what I have read about them...

How dare the NYT keep this man on their staff. How dare the two-faced Maggie Haberman collaborate with him on a book. Is there anything these people won't do for money?

Apparently not.

[MaryMagdaline]

10. Wow the obsession with "Hillary did it, too"

Just never ends. First the RWers tried to shame the left with Harvey Weinstein's democratic fundraising, now it's "Hillary had a harasser on staff," too. Let's just stipulate that everyone who has ever lived has socialized or worked with harassers. There is no longer cover. Hillary's handling in 2008 was actually above the ridiculously low bar for that time. We are learning as we go. I don't think the staffer bragged about grabbing people by the pussy, though. Maybe I am wrong.

[Wwcd]

58. The name in the news SHOULD BE the guy who did the dirty deed.

He's been absolved by virtue of not being named Hillary.

Old what's his name, again? Something something Strider?
His name has all but disappeared from the "scandal".

No one gives a shit about who he is nor what he did.

pitiful disgraceful hound dogs of RW propaganda.
Money & Media..cha ching

[MaryMagdaline]

67. Yes it seems it is only important how women react.

[rockfordfile]

128. No kidding. just another attempt at hit piece by a hack.

[MaryMagdaline]

133. Agreed

[Danascot]

13. Senior Faith Adviser?

She should have known that a senior faith adviser is not to be trusted and shouldn't be be allowed to be one-on-one with anybody, female or male.

[shanny]

31. That jumped out at me too.

And even if it didn't for Hillary, why on earth would she retain such a person as a "senior faith advisor" afterwards?

[still_one]

35. While it is easy to say that in hindsight, President Obama also had issues with Rev Wright during

his campaign, and while they didn’t involve sexual harassment, Wright’s broad based generalizations about white people was problematic

Billy Graham had issues with “Jews” and minorities, and a good number of evangelicals have no issue with any of trump”s behavior

That is not meant to dispute your point but rather point out it isn’t unique

[Zen Democrat]

42. The target of Rev Wright's incendiary remarks was white power, not white people.

Franklin Graham removed the family sheets and displayed a white supremacist, which is what Rev Wright was condemning. Don't blame President Obama.

[still_one]

50. I wasn't blaming President Obama at all, only demonstrating that candidates and nominees spiritual

advisors are not the paragon's of virtue that some like to think of them as

[lancelyons]

18. Every situation is different as we should have learned over the past 3-6 months.

Every situation is different as we should have learned over the past 3-6 months.

Frankens scenario was not like Weinstein or Roy Moore.

In some case the penalty for something could be jail or loss of job or a fine and requirement for counseling, help,etc.

Franken should have got the fine, requirement for counseling, etc not the loss of job.

This guy Burns could have also warranted a fine and counseling.


You do have to give people A chance to correct and redeem themselves in many cases.

[videohead5]

24. It was

Unwanted touching no doubt but it was her shoulders and kissed her on the forehead.it's not right in any case but he did not grab her by the you know what or pull something out and masturbate in front of her.it was also 10 years ago.it was not ignored.I think Hillary also had a blind spot because he was a friend.

[angrychair]

87. What?!?

He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!
7 weeks of pay was unlikely to have been of significance to him.

He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[Paladin]

23. Get back to me for my outrage over this matter......

....after we get rid of President Mulligan P____ Grabber.......

[shanny]

32. isn't this the vaunted "whataboutism" everyone complains about? nt

[trixie2]

33. Faith adviser?

Oh for Pete's sake of course it's a faith adviser.

[onecaliberal]

51. Like the faith advisers who think fucking a porn actress while your wife is pregnant is cool.

[videohead5]

36. Ok Who Would Still?

Rather have Hillary in the white house right now than Trump?

[GaryCnf]

40. I swear before God or any other force greater than I

I am beyond outrage.

I am as far from a Hillary "fan" as any Democrat can be. What's more, I believe that the very subject of sexual harassment was a major factor in our loss in 2016 (no, I will not discuss why again), but this current attack is total bullshit.

At our current level of "concern" over sexual harassment, it is possible (but only "possible" ) that Strider would have been driven from public life and forever shamed (after all, isn't that what happened to Al Franken?). However, ten tears ago . . . hell, 1 year ago . . . the steps taken by Clinton would have been viewed as exemplary. Strider was disciplined and the victim was placed in a safe environment which was equivalent to her former position. At the same time, Weinstein, Wynne, AND TRUMP were committing sexual assault and destroying the lives of their victims AND the same "concerned" people now attacking Hillary were WILLINGLY looking the other way.

Whether this meme is being pushed to trivialize the #metoo movement, whether it is a diversion from the evil which is Trump, or even whether it is simply people who honestly believe that anyone who wasn't prescient enough to see THEIR current standards regarding sexual harassment and punishment should be called out, it's just wrong.

[still_one]

44. and the irony that Maggie Habermann is writing a book with Glenn

Thrush, should not be lost on anyone, or the fact that Thrush was never fired but suspended until January 20th, and then resume work to cover other duties other than the WH.

The hubris of the Haberman allowing Thrush to co-author a book with makes one wonder what is she thinking?

[Demit]

49. Small correction: her co-author on the story was Amy Chozick. She's writing a book with Glenn Thrush

On, what else, Trump. The rest of what you write, however, holds true

[still_one]

52. Actually that isn't a small correction, I really thought he co-authored that article, but when I

looked at it again today, I sure was wrong on that attribution. I appreciate the correction, and I do think it is unfortunate that she is writing a book with Glenn Thrush. What the heck is she thinking about

Thanks again

[Demit]

55. Understandable that the two were linked in your mind.

There've been stories about how he was quietly reinstated at the NYT, around the same time as Al Franken was being forced to resign. I don't know what Maggie Haberman's position on Glenn Thrush is (ugh, no pun intended) but it's definitely problematic that she would write such a slimy piece about sexual harassment and how Gasp! Hillary Clinton prevented her slimy advisor from being fired, and doesn't that make her just the WORST? When her employers are doing exactly that with her slimy coworker.

[still_one]

56. I agree with your entire analysis

[GaryCnf]

54. This

It is just f'ing outrageous.

[Angry Dragon]

64. PRISON!!

[left-of-center2012]

66. Good to know she made him pay for his abuse

I always knew she was a strong leader.

[angrychair]

88. What?

He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!
7 weeks of pay was unlikely to have been of significance to him.

He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[vi5]

68. It's stupid that this is a big story now.....

....but if someone on "our side" is o.k. with what happened in this story (and that Hillary's non-denial denial sort of confirms was true), and thinks it's not reprehensible, then there's not much daylight between that level of hypocrisy and what the Trumpbots are o.k. with on their end of things.

[angrychair]

89. +++++999999999999999999999

Some of these responses are stomach-churning and depressing.

[Akoto]

71. Trump loves this. Wave a shiny thing while he's at his most vulnerable, Dems pile on each other. n/t

[samnsara]

77. she did the right thing...

[angrychair]

90. Did she?

He was a major campaign leader, Clinton’s religious advisor, who was doing unwanted groping, unwanted kissing and sending sexually harassing emails to a subordinate!!!

He was not some “staffer” but a very well connected, powerful, wealthy and influential member of the Democratic Party!!
7 weeks of pay was unlikely to have been of significance to him.

He should have been fired from the 2008 campaign!!!!

[ehrnst]

121. And he misused campaign funds as well as taking credit for female staffers' work

AND was accused by multiple women of abuse before being posted by the campaign to a newly created position!

And THEN was praised as a "good friend' by the candidate!!

OH, wait...

Not Hillary's staffer. Nevermind...

https://medium.com/mashamendieta/the-secret-sexism-of-arturo-carmona-candidate-for-cd34-a31173f21350

[angrychair]

124. Deflection

We are talking about this women and this situation. If you want to start a new OP with this story I will be happy to comment but I’m not entertaining a journey down a rabbit hole on an unrelated subject. This isn’t about these people and or their situation.

The “he did it too” is childish and a ridiculous way to argue as an adult.

[ehrnst]

126. Not really. It's called pointing out double standards.

I don't think you're going to say that about Right wingers foamed at the mouth every time Obama went golfing, and then reacted just like you did when reminded how much time GWB spent on vacation.

What a childish and a ridiculous way to argue as an adult....

I suggest you create an OP defending him. I mean it's a good way to show that you are really different than those who were aghast at Michelle Obama's arms in a portrait, while staying silent about Melania's nudie photos.

[angrychair]

144. Deflection again

You are again trying to make it about something different.
I am specifically talking this story, this situation, about a staffer and the abuse of power by her supervisor and how it was managed.

I have never seen an OP about your subject but if you feel so strongly about it than start an OP on it and we can discuss it.

Trump’s golf habits and other things I won’t dignify with a comment are also not related and comparing how people argue golf stories of political figures to the very serious subject of the handling of a sexual assault of a woman by her supervisor is baseless and grasping.

[Cha]

142. No, it's not "deflection".. it shows you are

living in a glass house.

[melman]

150. No

It doesn't actually show that at all.

[Cha]

151. Oh yes it does.

[LanternWaste]

172. I'm guessing it's rather tough to deny the enjoyment one may receive gnawing on red meat.

I'm guessing it's rather tough to deny the enjoyment one may receive gnawing on red meat.

[helmedon1974]

134. I don't really understand what some folks are

blowing nuts over here. The woman in question never made a public complaint. She was promoted, basically, and transferred to another post. Perfectly common in a situation like this, mainly because co-workers can and do give accusers a hard time for "snitching" on a co-worker, regardless of the offense. Disgusting, but it happens.
As for the accused, I'll play devil's advocate. Did he admit the allegations were true? Were there witnesses? I don't know, I'm not really interested enough to find out since the situation was clearly resolved to the alleged victim's satisfaction. The accused was punished within existing standards for harassment. Docked pay and forced into counselling. Were there further incidents with the guy within the 2008 campaign? I haven't heard. He apparently was hired by someone else several years later, and some here take issue with it? Was it for an official campaign? DNC? I'm looking at 8 years after the fact. Are there further allegations connected to Clinton or her campaign?
What are the issues here, that he wasn't fired? That's pretty common too, especially back then. Firing someone without proof (I honestly don't know if there was) will get you in trouble. It doesn't sound to me that the victim is complaining. Point me to her complaints if she has.

[Yavin4]

147. It's truly amazing the standard that Hillary is held to. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly stated

that he wants to fuck his own daughter. Yet, we're still bashing Hillary, and it's 2018. Unreal.

[Cha]

152. And, they're doing it from Glass Houses.

[R B Garr]

163. ++++++++Great comment. nt

[hydrolastic]

158. k

k

[dawg day]

159. how about we just don't sacrifice Democrat after Democrat

Franken's gone.
Now we're going to go after Clinton when she wasn't the harasser? Good grief.

Just once, cut the Dem a break.