Remember the good old days when this type of thing was considered an “inherited problem” by a certain chief executive and his compliant media?
Justice Department faulted for ‘systemic’ mishandling of sex harassment complaints
The Justice Department has “systemic†problems in how it handles sexual harassment complaints, with those found to have acted improperly often not receiving appropriate punishment, and the issue requires “high level action,†according to the department’s inspector general.
Justice supervisors have mishandled complaints, the IG said, and some perpetrators were given little discipline or even later rewarded with bonuses or performance awards. At the same time, the number of allegations of sexual misconduct has been increasing over the past five years and the complaints have involved senior Justice Department officials across the country.
The cases examined by the IG’s office include a U.S. attorney who had a sexual relationship with a subordinate and sent harassing texts and emails when it ended; a Civil Division lawyer who groped the breasts and buttocks of two female trial attorneys; and a chief deputy U.S. marshal who had sex with “approximately†nine women on multiple occasions in his U.S. Marshals Service office, according to investigative reports obtained by The Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.
“We’re talking about presidential appointees, political appointees, FBI special agents in charge, U.S. attorneys, wardens, a chief deputy U.S. marshal, a U.S. marshal assistant director, a deputy assistant attorney general,†Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in an interview.
What’s missing here are actual dates of occurance, which is a rather obvious attempt to protect Obama while making it seem as if all this occurred under Trump. But, this actually goes to a memo about sexual harassment Horowitz sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein on May 31st. Inherited problem.
While Horowitz’s office investigates the allegations, it is the department that decides on any discipline. In several cases, Horowitz said Justice Department attorneys who were accused of sexual misconduct were not disciplined appropriately and in some cases were later given awards or bonuses.
This was the DOJ of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. With Barack Obama over-seeing them. Not all the allegations are sexual harassment: the #2 in the Marshals Service for Massachusetts was accused of sleeping with nine women in his office. Misconduct of a sexual nature, but not harassment.
There were instances in the Civil Division, especially those dealing with immigration law. Incidents in the FBI. In this, that, and the other. Nice problem Obama left Trump, eh?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
More far right-wing mind reading!
Ironic isn’t it that the current squatter in our White House is accused of many of the same acts, with the rape of a 13 yr old girl tossed in for good measure.
To tRump’s credit, his own sexual assaults and harassment of women has contributed to the high profile #MeToo movement forcing organizational sexual harassment out of the shadows. Whether in government, the military, churches and mosques, law enforcement, education, TV and print journalism, businesses, social organizations or Hollywood, the movement is moving at light speed to upend the status quo.
Good. These high profile cases may lead to reform trickling down to small businesses too. Women need to be urged to report all instances of harassment without fear of retaliation.
Is he still “accused” when all of his accusers have disappeared or stopped accusing?
Disappeared, as if they never existed. How strange.
Perfesser,
Are you suggesting that tRump either intimidated them into silence (the accusations are all still out there, BTW) or paid them off as he did Ivana? Your statement that he is no longer accused is false.
You’ll have to ask the media why they’ve stopped covering tRump’s serial assaults. You’ll have to ask tRump why he hasn’t resigned over his assaults.
The bolded sentences below are admissions of sexual assault, as many of his over a dozen victims described. (We know, we realize that many Con Men do not consider grabbing a woman and kissing her without consent sexual assault).
Jeff,
Please up your game. You cannot expect me to me impressed by the character assassination created by the left for a campaign over a year ago.
1. The quote above is not a statement of intent. It is not an admission of guilt. It is a true statement. Rich celebrities get treated different by attractive women than the rest of us do (I’m assuming you aren’t a rich celebrity). It is not evidence of any wrong doing. The idea that you are throwing it out there as evidence of something makes you look like a mid-wit. Try harder. Use actual facts.
2. WRT rape allegations. Fact: That case was dismissed in California. FACT: Then brought up again in NY and then dropped there, by the “accuser” right after the election. All without revealing her name or any evidence. Thus, it is totally unsupported allegation in an election year where a lot is at stake. Obvious political shenanigans. I totally understand that for your political goals you will try to pass this off as a real rape, but don’t expect me to believe it.
3. For the record, I didn’t believe Hillary was a lesbian either. People who are that in love with themselves don’t have much left to give to anyone of either gender. Nor did I believe the stupid story about Bill Clinton’s love child, or Michelle Obama being a man. It was obvious character assassination. So are your allegations.
4. When all the accusers suddenly shut up right after the elections, the only thing any reasonable person can conclude is that they already accomplished their purpose. That purpose was trying to shave a few points from the vote. In a close election, it might be enough to matter. Democrats have a long history of such things to get a few extra votes. They play to win.
Professor (where and of what?),
We don’t care what you impresses you, or not.
We DO understand why you imagine tRump’s victims have “disappeared”, even as some held a press conference Dec 10 and others were on Megyn Kelly’s show on Dec 11. Do you work for tRump or the RNC?
In fact, there are even victim’s lawsuits against tRump – lawsuits his own lawyers want dismissed, claiming:
Zervos’ lawyers recently subpoenaed tRump for documents. Why hasn’t she “disappeared”?
How did that work for the second slimiest, sleaziest President in history, Bill Clinton?
This “president” went so far as to threaten his victims with lawsuits!
So no, regardless of your imaginings, this is not going away. Neither is Mr. Mueller.
You need to “up” your lies.
Now that the DOJ is under better management all kinds of crap is surfacing about the Choomboy’s DOJ.
Ditto for the rest of the departments.
A Gallup poll resulted in President Obama being the most admired man in America. tRump was second, and was the only first year President not to be the most admired since the poll started in 1946 (Harry S Truman). Even Richard Nixon was most admired his first year.
Most admired woman? Hillary Clinton with Michelle Obama in 2nd. Melania tRump garnered 1%.
The American people are embarrassed by and dislike tRump.
Would those be the same American people who voted for him? Or the ones who voted against him? Stop talking about the American people as if they are all one homogeneous set. The American people are pretty evenly divided on the political spectrum with no middle ground “independents”.
You listed an example of rape. I refuted it. Rather than accept the explanation, you jump to a different story. Typical liberal misdirect. You are a classic example of why discussing anything with a liberal is pointless. Logic means nothing to you and you seem to believe no one else can recognize the most common logical fallacies that have been known for over a thousand years.
“Professor”,
Do you understand how polls work? More people dislike tRump than like him. That’s pretty simple, right?
Even the hapless Hillary Clinton received more votes than tRump.
tRump’s (and Epstein’s) rape victim withdrew her suit. So what? And you didn’t refute anything, you made excuses, and offered your own unsubstantiated conclusion – that it was politically motivated – as a fact. Do you know what “refute” means? What exactly are you a “professor” of?
This is why it’s impossible to argue with Con Men, they rarely tell the truth and consider their own opinions to be facts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/331038-why-the-polls-are-wrong-about-trump-again
Thanks, little guy!
