Next up, Burns Strider, Hillary Clinton's faith and values adviser.

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...adviser-accused-sexual-harassment-report.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...op-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

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


Sounds like Hillary shielded him from getting in trouble after a complaint by a female staffer was logged. Interesting that the guy was fired for harassment a few months into his next role after Hillary's 2008 campaign.

 

[zinfamous]

I would have fired him after learning his name was Burns Strider.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Faith and values adviser?

bahahahahahaha

Jesus why didn't you fire him?!

 

[BAMAVOO]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...adviser-accused-sexual-harassment-report.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...op-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

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


Sounds like Hillary shielded him from getting in trouble after a complaint by a female staffer was logged. Interesting that the guy was fired for harassment a few months into his next role after Hillary's 2008 campaign.

the only thing she does well, protects the pervs, like this and hubby.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Don’t care, she’s not running again.

 

[interchange]

Certainly sounds like he deserved firing, and one could certainly suspect a motive of political optics, which I find morally reprehensible. At least he was disciplined.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don’t care, she’s not running again.

As Drumpf has, somehow, risen to be the leader and voice of the Republican Party, so too does the Democrat nominee remain as such. There is something to be said for someone that had the full faith and backing of one of our two political organizations. As there hasn't been an election for voters to pick a fresh face... the stain of the prior selection still hangs around the neck of the party, warts and all.

 

[glenn1]

Don’t care, she’s not running again.

This over x9000.

 

[UNCjigga]

I would have fired him after learning his name was Burns Strider.

I imagine he probably looks like this:

In all seriousness though, this just adds fuel for people claiming that Mrs. Clinton was an enabler for sexual harassment. At the very least, after the campaign you'd think someone would make a call to his next employer, but I guess if the Catholic Church doesn't do it and most businesses still don't do it, why would this campaign be any different? The culture needs to change.

 

[darkswordsman17]

the only thing she does well, protects the pervs, like this and hubby.

Bullshit. She's also incredible at being smug in the face of conservative bigfoot/witch/ghost/snipe hunts.

Don’t care, she’s not running again.

That's a shit attitude. This guy is still involved in political junk.

Certainly sounds like he deserved firing, and one could certainly suspect a motive of political optics, which I find morally reprehensible. At least he was disciplined.

Agreed. I think it was done so as to keep it from being a controversy. He clearly didn't learn his lesson, but at least the people in charge fired him for it then. Unfortunately at the time people just didn't seem to give a shit about such things (I'm not copping a holier than though, I probably wasn't much different at the time).

Then again, maybe she kept him on because that type of behavior seems to go over very well with evangelists and "family values" politicians and voters, as we've found out.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Sounds like Hillary shielded him from getting in trouble after a complaint by a female staffer was logged. Interesting that the guy was fired for harassment a few months into his next role after Hillary's 2008 campaign.

If it really happened that way then all concerned parties to it should face prosecution.

 

[hal2kilo]

the only thing she does well, protects the pervs, like this and hubby.

Add that to her impending impeachment.

 

[darkswordsman17]

In all seriousness though, this just adds fuel for people claiming that Mrs. Clinton was an enabler for sexual harassment. At the very least, after the campaign you'd think someone would make a call to his next employer, but I guess if the Catholic Church doesn't do it and most businesses still don't do it, why would this campaign be any different? The culture needs to change.

I think he went on to be his own employer (and sorta being a consultant). He's head of the American Values Network and some other pseudo religious/political group. The people at the later place where he was fired were former Clinton campaign personnel so they probably were already aware of it.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I think he went on to be his own employer (and sorta being a consultant). He's head of the American Values Network and some other pseudo religious/political group. The people at the later place where he was fired were former Clinton campaign personnel so they probably were already aware of it.

As a professional sexual harasser he should've been in league with republicans/conservatives/evangelicals right from the start so they could quickly sweep it under the carpet and put a Jesus forgave him spin to it.

 

[interchange]

If it really happened that way then all concerned parties to it should face prosecution.

No idea, but she did take some action. I can't imagine this could be criminal unless you could demonstrate she knew the action was insufficient to protect someone that was actually harmed. That's a high bar.

 

[Puffnstuff]

No idea, but she did take some action. I can't imagine this could be criminal unless you could demonstrate she knew the action was insufficient to protect someone that was actually harmed. That's a high bar.

It would need to be subject to a discovery process if warranted. If someone really did suffer because of the inaction's of their superiors, especially after its been reported, then that is actually criminal and the organization assumes all legal liability under tort.

 

[interchange]

It would need to be subject to a discovery process if warranted. If someone really did suffer because of the inaction's of their superiors, especially after its been reported, then that is actually criminal and the organization assumes all legal liability under tort.

Do you have a statute for the crime this would be? I have to imagine there would be something like willful disregard, gross negligence, failing to meet a reasonable person standard for the discipline, etc., and of course proven beyond reasonable doubt. If someone non-negligently investigated an allegation of sexual misconduct in the workplace, took an action against the perpetrator that was lighter than most people would like but was still considered reasonable, I'd be troubled to see them guilty of a crime. We can't be expected to predict the future. Especially because we can't often prove what happened in the first place. What are we supposed to do? Fire everyone on the spot who is alleged of sexual harassment regardless of evidence to support the claim or severity of potential harm in their actions lest we be liable for their future actions? Depending on the nature of the local laws, union, contract, etc., what if they then sue you for wrongful termination?

For medical malpractice, for instance, it is not enough for someone to have a judgment against you because you rendered the wrong diagnosis and provided the wrong treatment and harm came to them. They have to demonstrate that you breached standard of care (i.e. negligent in your assessment or treatment provision) and that this breach most likely caused the harm they suffered.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This over x9000.

Shit we agree
Have a good weekend man

 

[Puffnstuff]

Do you have a statute for the crime this would be?

Sexual harassment would be under EEO Title VII where a statute of limitations might apply depending on the state and all federal laws concerning the enforcement of law fall under Title 18 USC § Crimes and Criminal Prosecution. A criminal inquiry would be required in order to determine which statues apply to the actual circumstances and what happened here is unknown to anyone not involved in the case.

There are just so many different actionable items that might apply as one thing leads to another which is why these things take time to sort out. I feel like if a person has suffered wrongfully and did not receive the right due process then corrective action should occur providing them with equitable remedy.

References:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-3-5000-equal-employment-opportunity-program

 

[interchange]

Sexual harassment would be under EEO Title VII where a statue of limitations might apply depending on the state and all federal laws concerning the enforcement of law fall under Title 18 USC § Crimes and Criminal Prosecution. A criminal inquiry would be required in order to determine which statues apply to the actual circumstances and what happened here is unknown to anyone not involved in the case.

There are just so many different actionable items that might apply as one thing leads to another which is why these things take time to sort out. I feel like if a person has suffered wrongfully and did not receive the right due process then corrective action should occur providing them with equitable remedy.

References:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-3-5000-equal-employment-opportunity-program

Ok. I think we were just misunderstanding each other mostly.

If I understand you correctly, evidence of harm in workplace sexual harassment would invite criminal inquiry, and if they were found to not follow a number of relevant codes to handling the claim, then they would face criminal liability, and that would fall upon the organization itself. Since that's the case, I assume the actions that could result are mainly fines, which makes me wonder if more than statue of limitations is relevant given whatever organization that employed him for the campaign is probably dissolved. I guess Hillary's personal liability would then depend on the type of organization it was. I also assume that it there findings of violation of statue, that would certainly be grounds for civil liability, and I'm wondering if Hillary could be personally liable if it were able to be demonstrated she were responsible for violations.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Since that's the case, I assume the actions that could result are mainly fines, which makes me wonder if more than statue of limitations is relevant given whatever organization that employed him for the campaign is probably dissolved.

Under the doctrine of strict liability the campaign also bears the potential for negligence if they did not report his behavior to the next employer if they asked and he then behaved the very same way harming another person. If that employer knew of his prior behavior and then hired him anyway they are guilty of hiring negligence.

I'm wondering if Hillary could be personally liable if it were able to be demonstrated she were responsible for violations.

The organization bears responsibility for the actions of its employees. This is why an experienced law firm would need to conduct a discovery process to determine the essential elements relevant to this case.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I love the total oblivion of those bitching about Clinton on this after voting Trump into office. No self awareness at all.

 

[UglyCasanova]

He looks like Andrew Zimmerman

 

[Pens1566]

Man, this really hurts her re-election chances ...

 

[woolfe9998]

It would need to be subject to a discovery process if warranted. If someone really did suffer because of the inaction's of their superiors, especially after its been reported, then that is actually criminal and the organization assumes all legal liability under tort.

No, none of that is going to be a crime unless you can come up with some hypothetical involving very unusual facts. Also, the fact that you're using "criminal" and "tort" in the same sentence suggests that you're confusing criminal liability with civil liability.