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

[woolfe9998]

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.

Strict liability means liability without fault. That standard exists only in rare contexts. Not sure what you mean by it here.

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.

That is true, though the campaign might not be liable if he was an independent contractor like many campaign consultants are.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Also, the fact that you're using "criminal" and "tort" in the same sentence suggests that you're confusing criminal liability with civil liability.

When an employer breaks employment law, EEO included, they bear the legal responsibility for them. If an employer were somehow able to wiggle out of it and the victim filed a civil suit against the individual(s) responsible then that is two different things. You've completely dismissed agency law which is most relevant.

 

[woolfe9998]

When an employer breaks employment law, EEO included, they bear the legal responsibility for them. If an employer were somehow able to wiggle out of it and the victim filed a civil suit against the individual(s) responsible then that is two different things. You've completely dismissed agency law which is most relevant.

I haven't dismissed agency law. I'm pointing out that none of this has to do with criminal liability. Everything you are talking about is civil, not criminal.

So far as agency goes, yes, an employer bears civil liability for the conduct of its employees. However, I did also mention above that often times people hired by campaigns aren't employees but independent contractors. Under the law, there is no agency relationship between an independent contractor and whoever hired him. I have a feeling that this "faith adviser" of Clinton's was probably a contractor rather than an employee.

 

[SlowSpyder]

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

I didn't vote for Trump, but I would have if I could do it over. People bitch about Trump, but I always say, what was the alternative? Hillary was bought and sold and look at the company she kept, including her accused rapist husband. We had two tainted options, and trying to claim some kind of moral high ground for voting for one of them while ignoring the issues of the other is plain silly. In a lot of ways this past election was a pick your poison kind of deal.

 

[compcons]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I would have if I could do it over. People bitch about Trump, but I always say, what was the alternative? Hillary was bought and sold and look at the company she kept, including her accused rapist husband. We had two tainted options, and trying to claim some kind of moral high ground for voting for one of them while ignoring the issues of the other is plain silly. In a lot of ways this past election was a pick your poison kind of deal.

I think you just supported the point that was trying to be made. It takes a special set of blinders to ignore the fantastic amount of nepotism, cronyism, etc. from Trump.

 

[interchange]

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.

I'm talking about in civil court if it was clear she protected him for the sake of her political career.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think you just supported the point that was trying to be made. It takes a special set of blinders to ignore the fantastic amount of nepotism, cronyism, etc. from Trump.

it helps he's completely full of shit as well.

 

[umbrella39]

it helps he's completely full of shit as well.

This. Already exposed for all to see... The "morph" from "liberal" to hard right wing nutjob (that he really is) will continue to "evolve". I have always had a near photographic memory for writing styles, personas, certain keywords, and general overall bullshit that gets posted here all the way back to Lord Tyranus, ProfJohn, to current day. Like Geosurface and Incorruptible. Both went out of their way for months trying to convince us that what we read from their keyboards isn't what is actually true. That they have been liberal their entire life but something about Hillary, Obama, and now TRUMP has made them see the light.

Again, who does this assclown think he is fooling?

 

[interchange]

OK @woolfe9998 I trust your legal knowledge more, and your explanations don't leave me trying to fill gaps, which should have been a signal to me with @Puffnstuff. Maybe we can start over. Is there any potential crime Hillary committed here? And is there any potential civil liability resting on her shoulders directly? Does it matter if he was an employee or a contractor? And if the employing/contacting organization no longer exists, what does that do for liability that might be attached to the organization?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This. Already exposed for all to see... The "morph" from "liberal" to hard right wing nutjob (that he really is) will continue to "evolve". I have always had a near photographic memory for writing styles, personas, certain keywords, and general overall bullshit that gets posted here all the way back to Lord Tyranus, ProfJohn, to current day. Like Geosurface and Incorruptible. Both went out of their way for months trying to convince us that what we read from their keyboards isn't what is actually true. That they have been liberal their entire life but something about Hillary, Obama, and now TRUMP has made them see the light.

Again, who does this assclown think he is fooling?

and the really weak attempts as gaslighting just add fuel to the smoldering fire. He's a joke, a 4th tier conman wanna be. No wonder he finds drumpf so enthralling and someone to admire. It's fucking pathetic, that's all it is.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Quite the opposite. Trump is a piece of !@#$ but he is also President in part due to the scummiest person the DNC had being nominated and put up on a pedestal to challenge him.

 

[ch33zw1z]

They got her this time, commence the lock her up chant, Flynn!......Flynn?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Quite the opposite. Trump is a piece of !@#$ but he is also President in part due to the scummiest person the DNC had being nominated and put up on a pedestal to challenge him.

Lame. Decades of evidence told us who Trump was. America votes a black guy into the oval office, and white America lost its shit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lame. Decades of evidence told us who Trump was. America votes a black guy into the oval office, and white America lost its shit.

A good portion of white America enthusiastically supported Obama, but could not muster the same energy for Clinton. Stories like this are precisely the reason why.

 

[ch33zw1z]

A good portion of white America enthusiastically supported Obama, but could not muster the same energy for Clinton. Stories like this are precisely the reason why.

Yet don't seem to mind Trump's disgusting behavior, so...bullshit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yet don't seem to mind Trump's disgusting behavior, so...bullshit.

whataboutism. Trump being disgusting has nothing to do with Clinton being an opportunistic hypocrite

 

[ch33zw1z]

That's not whattaboutism. Look it up. You claimed that stories like this turn people off to Clinton. I countered with an evidence based argument that those same people don't care when it's someone else. So, its bullshit. A sad excuse for reasoning to jasks original assertion. pinning Trump's election win "in part" on Dems. Voters are responsible for their votes, and seem perfectly fine with igoring whatever they want if it fits their agendas. See: evangelicals

 

[woolfe9998]

OK @woolfe9998 I trust your legal knowledge more, and your explanations don't leave me trying to fill gaps, which should have been a signal to me with @Puffnstuff. Maybe we can start over. Is there any potential crime Hillary committed here? And is there any potential civil liability resting on her shoulders directly? Does it matter if he was an employee or a contractor? And if the employing/contacting organization no longer exists, what does that do for liability that might be attached to the organization?

Failing to adequately address an employee's legitimate complaint of harassment is civilly actionable. It's difficult to conceive it ever being criminal. Bear in mind I am not dispensing professional legal advice here. I'm just talking off the cuff based on recollections.

Yes, it matters if he was an employee or a contractor. If he was an employee, then she, or her campaign entity anyway, is civilly liable for all his misconduct regardless of how they themselves handled it. Liability may be worse, including punitive damages, if the company knew and blew it off or retaliated against the accuser. But the plaintiff doesn't need to prove any of that, only that an employee committed actionable harassment because that liability is automatically kicked upstairs to the employer. They're guilty of whatever the harasser is guilty of even if they never even knew about it.

If, OTOH, he was a contractor, they are only liable if they were actually at fault i.e. by blowing it off or retaliating. But they wouldn't be liable for harassment just because he was a harasser. The plaintiff would have to prove they had their own fault in the matter.

I think in many states, in CA for example, you can sue a dissolved corporate entity and recover to the extent of any residual assets it has. But if it's destitute, you'd be out of luck unless you could prove direct misconduct of individuals who have the means to pay a settlement or judgment.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Everything you are talking about is civil, not criminal.

You're correct and I stand corrected as these are crimes against the individual.

They got her this time, commence the lock her up chant, Flynn!......Flynn?

If she deliberately protected the harasser enabling the victim's harm then she should have to face the music for it. The fact that he would kiss her on the forehead points to assault, battery and even unlawful imprisonment if he held her against her will while doing that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

In my head I saw the Fellowship on the Bridge facing the Balrog.

Interchange, am I unstable?

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're correct and I stand corrected as these are crimes against the individual.

If she deliberately protected the harasser enabling the victim's harm then she should have to face the music for it. The fact that he would kiss her on the forehead points to assault, battery and even unlawful imprisonment if he held her against her will while doing that.

You will never hear me say not to apply our legal mechanisms to one party and not the other, that's why I mock it. Cons will bend anything they can to attack a Dems, then support sexual deviants because there's an R next to their name.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's not whattaboutism. Look it up. You claimed that stories like this turn people off to Clinton. I countered with an evidence based argument that those same people don't care when it's someone else. So, its bullshit. A sad excuse for reasoning to jasks original assertion. pinning Trump's election win "in part" on Dems. Voters are responsible for their votes, and seem perfectly fine with igoring whatever they want if it fits their agendas. See: evangelicals

This thread is about Clinton being an enabler, yet again. Countering with "but but Trump" isn't evidence based arguing, it is whataboutism.

Voters are responsible for their votes and their nominated leaders. You cannot be a voice for feminism when you are enabling or protecting sexual predators and harassers out of political convenience.

If you guys want to be intellectually honest, you need to call out the enablers and the predators. The usual suspects in these threads are awfully quiet whenever Clinton is the topic of conversation. The hypocrisy by the Clinton water boys is evident to anyone looking at this objectively.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This thread is about Clinton being an enabler, yet again. Countering with "but but Trump" isn't evidence based arguing, it is whataboutism.

Voters are responsible for their votes and their nominated leaders. You cannot be a voice for feminism when you are enabling or protecting sexual predators and harassers out of political convenience.

If you guys want to be intellectually honest, you need to call out the enablers and the predators. The usual suspects in these threads are awfully quiet whenever Clinton is the topic of conversation. The hypocrisy by the Clinton water boys is evident to anyone looking at this objectively.

You go ahead and read thru the thread there bud. I didn't bring it up out of the blue, and my statement is completely is context to what's going on.

Again, go look up whattaboutism. It's apparently not what you think it is.

so let's rewind, for just you and me. As a liberal, and a supporter of women's rights, if there's wrong doing...then pursue it.

You're better than this.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This. Already exposed for all to see... The "morph" from "liberal" to hard right wing nutjob (that he really is) will continue to "evolve". I have always had a near photographic memory for writing styles, personas, certain keywords, and general overall bullshit that gets posted here all the way back to Lord Tyranus, ProfJohn, to current day. Like Geosurface and Incorruptible. Both went out of their way for months trying to convince us that what we read from their keyboards isn't what is actually true. That they have been liberal their entire life but something about Hillary, Obama, and now TRUMP has made them see the light.

Again, who does this assclown think he is fooling?

and the really weak attempts as gaslighting just add fuel to the smoldering fire. He's a joke, a 4th tier conman wanna be. No wonder he finds drumpf so enthralling and someone to admire. It's fucking pathetic, that's all it is.

Something bad comes out of the Clinton camp, a couple of predictable posters try and make this about me. This thread is about how a guy with a "faith and values" adviser title is a creep and how Hillary protected him. Whining about Trump or me doesn't change that.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Something bad comes out of the Clinton camp, a couple of predictable posters try and make this about me. This thread is about how a guy with a "faith and values" adviser title is a creep and how Hillary protected him. Whining about Trump or me doesn't change that.

You're absolutely right on that point, however the bullshit and pathetic gaslighting you attempt to do need to be called out for what they are, when they are said, but you have a fair and valid point, this thread is about someone accused of sexual harassment and the potential fallout from hillary protecting him and by doing so, being complicit in that act.
I feel there will be a long, and body littered field of people finally brought to light for their actions, and good. Now we need to hold those enablers accountable too.
I know Trevor Noah isn't aligned with some folks views here, but he avoids any partisan rhetoric in a nice takedown of people accused of sexual harassment/assault and even more so, their enablers.

Well worth the 5 mins, IMO