....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?

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.

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.

He seems strangely quiet on that issue.

Well, we know what the reaction to it would be, yes?

We know what would have been said about the candidate, yes?

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.

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.

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.

Seems to me she should be raising a stink about this, eh?

It remains to be seen, however.

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.

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.

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!

...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?

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.

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.

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.

he may or may not have known about it.

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.

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.

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."

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.

it isn't effective management.

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!

What does that look like to you? Does the fact that Hillary had to handle these issues as well indicate that she didn’t 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 isn’t really anything to be done about things that occurred in a campaign that’s over. Other than that, what’s the difference between how Hillary and Bernie have responded to the information they received?

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.

...things they:
A: didn’t know about
B: didn’t do

The actions of the people who didn’t send information up the chain is on them as far as I’m concerned. We really have no idea what expectations were set in either campaign.

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.

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.

I'm betting on #2.

Maybe his supporters need to try harder?

Got it.

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.

I assumed you were honest in your apologetics but if you have some hidden agenda I would have no way to know.

Time for new candidates.

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.

Do not allow inequities to exist out of the gate, and if problems arise, address them forcefully and personally.

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.

FUCK

WHEN



WILL



WE



BE



ABLE



TO



DISCUSS



THE



OBVIOUS



AND



WHAT



IS



REALLY



GOING



ON



HERE ! !

...still up, that you responded to, with a link to a story in it. What’s your complaint? You always talk about “the thing you can’t talk about” in threads that address what you believe you can’t talk about! So just talk already!

And the fish aren't biting.

Attempting to do so affords a group the ability to have posts removed and posters banned, regardless of the current validity of the subject.

...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?

Sid

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!!!

The other guy is under perpetual audit.

Hmm...

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.

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.

No excuses.. buck stops at top.

the 24 staffers who wrote the letter, and wanted a sit down, in person, with him and Weaver?

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.

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.

who should have been dealing with it.

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.

that BS is such a micro-manger.. it boggles how this got past him.

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.

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?)

are due to "corporate hate" or "hating" or "corruption" when applied to other candidates.

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!

wasn't working at the time.. now it looks even more ludicrous.

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?

Bernie doesn't lie, I believe him.

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?

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.

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.

does. BS is purported to be a "micromanager".. IOW, knows everything that goes on.

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.

Good examples of those managment styles.