General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders apologizes, says he didn't know about 30k settlement of 2016 campaign staffer
accused of sexual harassment,
On Thursday morning, after Politico reported that Sanderss former Iowa campaign manager Robert Becker had been named in a $30,000 federal discrimination settlement with two former employees, Sanders told reporters that he thanked the women from the bottom of my heart for speaking out and formally apologized to them.
When we talk about ending sexism, and ending all forms of discrimination, those beliefs cannot just be words, Sanders said. They must be based in day-to-day reality and the work that we do. And that was clearly not the case in the 2016 campaign. The allegations that I have heard speak to unacceptable behavior that must not be tolerated in any campaign or in any workplace.
Sanders said that his 2018 Senate reelection campaign in Vermont had operated under some of the strongest sexual harassment policies in the country and that he had not been aware of the $30,000 settlement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-apologizes-says-he-didnt-know-about-30000-settlement-of-2016-campaign-staffer-accused-of-sexual-harassment/2019/01/10/db2c061e-14fc-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html
This is surprising, as Sanders is known for very closely monitoring money in his campaigns.
Edited to add: Background on the settlement from the original Politico article:
George II
(67,782 posts)....in his campaign, one of his keystone campaign planks, even back then.
While he was railing against income inequality he was paying many female staffers up to 50% less than some male staffers in equivalent positions. There were also promotions of men with lesser qualifications over women.
The sexual abuse notwithstanding, people can make excuses that they weren't aware of those incidents, but what about something as important as the qualification and pay of senior staffers?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)was responsible for hiring staff, and states that everyone was paid according to their experience and skills.
However once a female staffer brought up the pay discrepancy, it was then determined that yes, indeed this woman did have the skills and experience to be paid what her male cohort was being paid!
They seemed to be responsible for carrying out the wishes of the Candidate. Perhaps they were not as qualified to do so as they were believed to be.
Perhaps they hired the attorneys for the federal discrimination complaint, and cut the check, as not to worry the Candidate, who was very busy.
However, I can imagine what the reaction would be if this kind of information came out about HRC's 2008 campaign - the pay gap, the accusations of harrassment by multiple staffers, a federal discrimination complaint and a 30k settlement - and she said that she didn't know about any of it.
I think that 2016 would have looked very different than it did.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the management of his campaign and especially finances. Why would he not have been told about a 30k settlement paid out staffers because of a federal discrimination complaint? Who approved and wrote that check, and didn't tell the candidate? Why would he have been kept out of involvement a federal legal matter that expensive or indicative of a problem that serious?
As for the economic disparity in pay, I would have expected that it would have come straight from the top that income equality was going to be a part of the campaign as well as the messaging.
Response to George II (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cwydro
(51,308 posts)He seems strangely quiet on that issue.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Well, we know what the reaction to it would be, yes?
We know what would have been said about the candidate, yes?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)He was fired and the woman moved and promoted, if I remember how that worked out. Some on DU made a big issue then about Hillary admitting to the problem, but said little or nothing about how strongly she addressed it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2019, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)
The ones that gleefully posted about the one guy on her campaign in 2008, talking about how badly it reflected on her and her feminism...
I'm thinking are hoping this will sink.
It's all over the media now. The right way to handle it was like Kamala and Hillary did.
But it's too late for that - the time for apology - either public or privately to the women was back in March of 2017 when part of it went public. That would have demonstrated sincere concern, both for the women and for the situation that he was informed of.
Silence.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The fact was Hillary took forceful, direct action and she made things right for the victim. She was ridiculed for that by some posters right here on DU, yet Bernie faced much larger problems, nothing happened and now the people that ripped Hillary for proactive action are ok with a belated apology from Bernie.
LisaM
(27,863 posts)Seems to me she should be raising a stink about this, eh?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It remains to be seen, however.
brooklynite
(95,011 posts)But, I guess any chance to get a dig in at Gillibrand (as opposed to every other Democratic Senator) is an opportunity not to be missed.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Why ask "Where's Gillibrand?" when the last time she spoke up (in what was no doubt a coordinated and planned effort because LOL at 30+ senators putting out a message minutes after one another not being planned and discussed in advance) first, she got and remains burned to this day for it.
LisaM
(27,863 posts)Yes, there were others, but I still don't understand why he was railroaded out, so yeah, perhaps I am bitter about it. He was so effective at questioning Sessions, then a would-be conservative journalist jimmies up some charges, and poof!
brooklynite
(95,011 posts)...based on no provided evidence, as opposed to the news reports that the women Senators discussed their response.
There's also no evidence this was an intended to block a competing Presidential candidate (as opposed to other candidates like Booker, Brown, Klobuchar, Harris...), but why should that stop anyone?
LisaM
(27,863 posts)What really is at issue is that a good Senator seems to have been forced out of office by what many feel is slim-to-no evidence, and it rankles. I think he should have stood more firm, but that's obviously not what he chose to do.
However, as more of these stories emerge about Sanders' staff, I think it bears at least equal scrutiny.
brush
(53,978 posts)and she threw Bill Clinton under the same one. I heard an interview early on with her on progressive satellite radio about the Tweeden/Stone/Hannity rat fucking before the big uproar had even hit and she first out of the gate calling for Franken's head. The interviewer also asked her about the 20-some-year-old Clinton/Lewinski consensual affair and she jumped right in and drop kicked Clinton to the curb as well.
This was right after the Tweeden's accusation against Franken first hit and before any other Democratic legislators were even talking about it.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)for the others involved.
Last I checked, Gillibrand was the junior senator from New York. She has next to no power or sway over the other 30+ Senators. They called for his resignation of their own volition. It's just hilarious how "She's so powerful. She convinced everyone else to do the same" is to go to feeling when 30+ Democrats acting in unison is typically a decision decided by the leader with individual buy in.
Frankly, as to Franken, he chose to resign. I'm not going to shed any tears over that. He could have stood his ground, categorically denied every accusation, and just waited for the news cycle to end. He didn't. It was practically radio silence after each accusation and tbh, I'm surprised the caucus held together long enough for 5 women to accuse him without a hard pushback on his part. Maybe he was too nice. That's on him though. You don't wait until the trial to proclaim your innocence. Even a guilty man will proclaim his innocence until his punishment is served.
Gillibrand was fighting for women in the military to get a fair hearing on their complaints of sexual assault and harassment when that was an unpopular position to take. So, it was logical to me that she would have led the way on Al. What we don't know is whether she had a private meeting with Al Franken and found his explanations unconvincing before she publicly called him out.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)MaryMagdaline
(6,859 posts)he may or may not have known about it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bernie knew about it before that, and when the story came out Bernie didn't try to get in touch with her.
She states she was blackballed by Sanders supporters.
Then she saw this, taken in December, and it was so disheartening.
The other main harasser and enabler is now Chief of Staff for Rep. Chuy Garcia. I guess he didn't get a bad reference.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Difference. I do think that his actions in the heat of battle did not match his words. The time to address discrimination is when hiring people, make is perfectly clear that if they discriminate or harass, they are fired and if they did something that violated existing laws, it will be reported to police and prosecutors.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sanders was told prior to Carmona's run for office in early 2017, and Sanders was still considering endorsing Carmona.
So Masha Mendieta, one of the other hispanic outreach staff went public with Carmona's harassment history in the LA times.
Bernie did not call her or try to contact her after it went public to express sympathy, concern or anything. Silence from him, and blackballed from Sanders associates and staff.
Only after several instances of it were made public did Sanders say anything, and it was that "he didn't know."
You can find out more details by googling "Masha Mendieta" and "Be your own hero."
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)One of the easiest things to say is I did not know. There is a reason why it is one of the first things a child learn to say. Cha and NurseJackie have it right, the number of circumstantial issues around Bernie's campaign are growing to a level where just saying he did not know does not cut it, and actually makes him look like a weak and ineffective leader.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)it isn't effective management.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)As StevieM so thoroughly pointed out, Hillary disciplined a lower level staffer and made things right for the victim in 2008 by setting that very standard for her direct reports, the information got to her and she acted appropriately on it. No excuses!
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)What does that look like to you? Does the fact that Hillary had to handle these issues as well indicate that she didnt set expectations? You say the information got to her...that seems to be a key difference here.
Sanders literally thanked these women for speaking up and apologized to them. The campaign is over now so there isnt really anything to be done about things that occurred in a campaign thats over. Other than that, whats the difference between how Hillary and Bernie have responded to the information they received?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Information on misbehavior came up the chain to Hillary, she felt that resolving it was so important that she handled it herself, that is what real leaders do. Bernie says he didn't know, so by definition he DID NOT set an expectation that he get told about lower level staff misbehavior, or if he did say something, his more senior staff blew him off. The former did what a leader does (Hillary), the later did what excuse makers often do.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...things they:
A: didnt know about
B: didnt do
The actions of the people who didnt send information up the chain is on them as far as Im concerned. We really have no idea what expectations were set in either campaign.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Bernie and Hillary said that treatment of female staffers was important.
When a person is at the top of an organization a lot of things are going on under that person. But, a leader of an organization must set an ironclad expectation that when something happens that impacts one of the core principles of the organization, he or she gets informed in REAL TIME, else heads will role. Hillary in 2008 set up mechanics that worked the way they should have. Bernie in 2016 is left to say that he did not know. NO organization that need to succeed will succeed with the top person not knowing that a core principle of an organization or a business has been violated, it all just does not work.
I hate to sound like an arrogant asshole. But a person at the top of an organization or business almost daily goes around picking up little turds at 1am, because there is no one else who can or will do that. But if the claim is that a principle or policy or product is important, those turds come to the leaders desk and get dealt with firmly, Hillary did that when facing a turd in 2008.
Cha
(298,077 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,510 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,510 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He states he knew nothing about the widespread harassment nor the federal discrimination complaint by two staffers, or the 30K settlement that his campaign paid out to those staffers.
I'm not sure how a campaign's legal counsel handles a federal complaint from two staffers, and someone writes a check for 30K from campaign funds without the candidate knowing about any of it.
DavidDvorkin
(19,510 posts)I'm betting on #2.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)They were most certainly in new territory, and some vetting does end up not being as good as it needs to be. Responsibility has to be taken, but unless you can point to other similar examples of sudden wildfire where everything went swimmingly, you can't simply compare the challenges to those of other campaigns.
DavidDvorkin
(19,510 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Maybe his supporters need to try harder?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Got it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)what has happened in his campaign. He has also vowed to improve upon those issues. I know you want to make it more about him personally than that, and certainly so does a media continuing to carry the water for those with the most money...(gotto crush those progressives into either dust or submission because their message is dangerous to the status quo)...but you have to know just how biased media coverage is by now. You have to know that this is not a problem that was unique to Sanders campaign, and yet....
this is the standard operating procedure. People like AOC and Sanders will be concerned about for every little detail. Establishment dems will mostly be lauded by the more "liberal" news establishments. Republicans will barely be vetted at all or even questioned about like 80 percent of their shitty dealings that are far more egregious than anything progressives or dems ever do. Then, once the progressives are sidelined and have no chance at getting elected, they will suddenly get all the positive attention in the world and the insider democrats will start getting all of the media bashing, AND STILL, republicans will be mostly ignored for all of the same or worse behaviors. That's the fucking game. I wish you were as tired of it as I am.
Cary
(11,746 posts)No, you don't.
You made yourself clear. You have no use for.personal responsibility. I got it.
And I am not surprised. That explains a lot.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)I assumed you were honest in your apologetics but if you have some hidden agenda I would have no way to know.
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Time for new candidates.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)Even if Sanders himself may not be addressing the income inequality yet, there's no way they'll get away with it again. The same applies for the sexual assault and harassment. All thanks to these brave women.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)backtoblue
(11,348 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Do not allow inequities to exist out of the gate, and if problems arise, address them forcefully and personally.
mcar
(42,474 posts)Bit of a double standard, isn't it?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but he said nothing to all the people posting on FB not to share the anti-hillary posts that were being posted to his FB page by what they found to be coming from the Ukraine.
He could have said something.
He said said himself later that he knew.
Silence.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)FUCK
WHEN
WILL
WE
BE
ABLE
TO
DISCUSS
THE
OBVIOUS
AND
WHAT
IS
REALLY
GOING
ON
HERE ! !
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...still up, that you responded to, with a link to a story in it. Whats your complaint? You always talk about the thing you cant talk about in threads that address what you believe you cant talk about! So just talk already!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And the fish aren't biting.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Attempting to do so affords a group the ability to have posts removed and posters banned, regardless of the current validity of the subject.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...something related to a post they replied to that is still up. Wouldn't that first post be gone if it was something they couldn't discuss?
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
True Dough
(17,392 posts)Trump claimed he didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels (which we now know is bullshit) and Trump says he didn't know Manafort provided polling data to the Russians.
NOBODY KNOWS NOTHING, I TELL YA!!!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)True Dough
(17,392 posts)The other guy is under perpetual audit.
Hmm...
dem4decades
(11,322 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)and it is Bernie v Trump, emails will miraculously pop out of the ether implying that Bernie was in the loop of allegations and payoffs. The Russians wanted Hillary beaten, Bernie was useful to them then, so they kept a lid on damaging information.
brush
(53,978 posts)LexVegas
(6,121 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Especially given that he was a known micromanager.
Bottom line, it was his campaign. He's not only ethically responsible for what goes on there, he's legally responsible. And being "too busy" is not an excuse; at least it's not a good one.
Cha
(298,077 posts)No excuses.. buck stops at top.
Cha
(298,077 posts)the 24 staffers who wrote the letter, and wanted a sit down, in person, with him and Weaver?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They didn't make it public, they just wanted to meet under the radar. Then it leaked.
Now they're being smeared by the HR person and the LGBTQ outreach person as wanting to 'kneecap' his chances in 2020.
They're trying to set the record straight. The one woman, Masha Mendieta, only went public with the Arturo Carmona story because he was running for office. Bernie was still deciding whether or not to endorse him, even after he had been told. She heard not a word from Bernie even after the story broke.
You can google "be your own hero" and "Masha Mendieta" for more on this.
She said that the pictures of Carmona at the Gathering with Jane, with him talking about how Jane invited him felt so disheartening, like it was all just going to be forgotten. One of the other offenders is now the chief of staff for Rep. Chuy Garcia.
That's why several alums got together to ask for a meeting with Sanders and his staff, off the record.
Cha
(298,077 posts)did get together or we might not have ever heard about these "sexual harassment" charges.
Their horrible experiences should not be swept under the rug.
And, why would BS supporters want to "derail his campaign". That's a little paranoid and not a good excuse. shame on them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who should have been dealing with it.
Cha
(298,077 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bernie is not saying a thing in response to the public smears from his former HR person against those women. Just a very belated apology and "I didn't know about it, I was busy" after nearly two years of silence since the Carmona harassment was made public in March 2017.
Cha
(298,077 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Cha
(298,077 posts)that BS is such a micro-manger.. it boggles how this got past him.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)backabby-blue
(144 posts)ecstatic
(32,798 posts)It was all about Hillary and her emails. I hope he understands that he will be thoroughly vetted this time around. No free rides like last time.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)Actually, Trump go a lot more vetting than Bernie.
Where are those tax returns by the way? (Or are they still too busy to make copies for the media?)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)are due to "corporate hate" or "hating" or "corruption" when applied to other candidates.
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)Crickets from those who spammed false equivalencies about Clinton. Dozens of Sanders female staffers complaining of unequal pay, a $30,000 payoff to cover up a harasser/abuser, dozens of female staffers complaining of a hostile work environment. Lordy!
Cha
(298,077 posts)wasn't working at the time.. now it looks even more ludicrous.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)That is utterly unbelievable.
Any leader of any organization knows of lawsuits against his/her organization and the results thereof.
It is either disingenuous or incompetence ..... is there a rational explanation?
SirElaih
(37 posts)Bernie doesn't lie, I believe him.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Him not knowing about a 30k settlement against his campaign because of a federal discrimination complaint by two staffers against another staffer is very, very odd.
Why do you think that someone who is known for micromanaging his campaigns - especially the spending - would have that sort of a hole in the process?
How or why could such a major incident - federal, even - and a check that large be written and signed without the candidate even being told?
Why/how was it kept secret from him? What else was kept secret from the candidate about his own campaign by his own lawyers and accountants and managers?
Doesn't that seem curious?
SirElaih
(37 posts)but that line of argumentation is something I would expect to hear on "Faux & Friends" You say he is 'known' for micromanaging, ok - that doesn't prove that he micromanaged this transaction though, does it? I just don't believe that Sanders would lie about something like that, given the risk that a lie could easily be uncovered by someone attached to his campaign. So far I've not heard anyone with inside knowledge of his campaign come forward to say that he's lying. This whole thing seems like the typical prelude to what will be a very hard-fought nomination process, with all the nasty little rumors that always accompany such a process.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No one said that he micromanged this expense.
No one is saying he lied about it. People are discussing how odd it is that he didn't know about it.
So, nasty implications that people here said that he lied about not knowing about it aren't accurate.
And I stand by my statement that all people lie. All people. That's not an accusation of a particular lie.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Cha
(298,077 posts)does. BS is purported to be a "micromanager".. IOW, knows everything that goes on.
LuvLoogie
(7,078 posts)keeps you from being caught off guard.
You notice the difference between a leader like Nancy Pelosi and an activist like Bernie. One is task oriented. One is slogan oriented.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Good examples of those managment styles.