NYT: Hillary Clinton Chose to Shield a Top Adviser Accused of Harassment in 2008

  • Thread starter Deleted member 391673
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 391673

Guest
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...d-of-harassment-in-2008/ar-AAvcYsW?li=BBnb7Kz

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, a co-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.


.....
 
Set him on fire and be done with it.
 
*Surprise... human's are fucking hypocrites.

In other news, the Titanic is still sunk, the sky is still blue (unless you live in WA then it's just sorta gray all the time), water is wet, and Dungeons & Dragons is still for nerds.
 
IMPEACH HILLARY!!!

wut?
 
*Surprise... human's are fucking hypocrites.

In other news, the Titanic is still sunk, the sky is still blue (unless you live in WA then it's just sorta gray all the time), water is wet, and Dungeons & Dragons is still for nerds.

what about warhammer 40k?!
 
I'm not going to promote this type of behavior but at least she tried to correct the situation instead of allowing it to continue.
 
So, she docked him pay and sent him to counselling. Firing might have been better but it's not as if she ignored the problem either. "Shielding" implied that she protected him from any consequences at all.

I'm trying to calculate the over/under of people who are suddenly going to profess to supporting zero tolerance for this type of behavior after previously suggesting that people shouldn't have their careers ruined over these types of mistakes. Let's go with 7.5.
 
So, she docked him pay and sent him to counselling. Firing might have been better but it's not as if she ignored the problem either. "Shielding" implied that she protected him from any consequences at all.

I'm trying to calculate the over/under of people who are suddenly going to profess to supporting zero tolerance for this type of behavior after previously suggesting that people shouldn't have their careers ruined over these types of mistakes. Let's go with 7.5.
Any sort of unwecomed touching should be a fireable offense. Words...meh. Maybe counseling depending on content.
 
So, she docked him pay and sent him to counselling. Firing might have been better but it's not as if she ignored the problem either. "Shielding" implied that she protected him from any consequences at all.

I'm trying to calculate the over/under of people who are suddenly going to profess to supporting zero tolerance for this type of behavior after previously suggesting that people shouldn't have their careers ruined over these types of mistakes. Let's go with 7.5.

I do think he should have been fired. Sorry but no one needs counseling to know not to touch women that sort of stuff is done simply to make it look like you did something knowing damn well it's not going to stop anything. I don't think his career should be over but he should have been fired and then maybe he would truly understand he can't just do whatever he wants with little to no consequences.
 
Any sort of unwecomed touching should be a fireable offense. Words...meh. Maybe counseling depending on content.

That's pretty much my opinion as well. I don't think firing would have been too much depending on the shoulder stuff but I'm also not really upset about it either. Most of #metoo movement is about how these men weren't punished at all previously and the women's complaints were swept aside. In this case, he was punished and the complaints were addressed, although not as strongly as the campaign manager felt was important.

Beyond that I'm not sure what to take from it. It's not like HRC won the election in 2008 and she didn't win in 2016 and she attempted to punish the guy and he was fired from his next job. What more should be done in his case? He hasn't escaped justice for his malfeasance.
 
She defended multiple rapists, molesters and abusers in her career, including her husband. If this new story surprises anyone then they're an idiot.
 
I do think he should have been fired. Sorry but no one needs counseling to know not to touch women that sort of stuff is done simply to make it look like you did something knowing damn well it's not going to stop anything. I don't think his career should be over but he should have been fired and then maybe he would truly understand he can't just do whatever he wants with little to no consequences.

I think firing would have been justified. It's just that when I read the thread title and it said "chose to shield", I was expecting a push it under the rug situation. Instead it was a degree of discipline situation.
 
Back
Top