Lawmakers will be personally liable for sexual harassment claims under a deal reached in Congress

title: Lawmakers will be personally liable for sexual harassment claims under a deal reached in Congress

p

Any prior payments should be retroactively included as well.

It took SEVEN months of negotiation for this????? Shouldn’t have taken anymore than say seven minutes tops.

What about all recent claims in the last 10 to 15 years? Those need full disclosure and transparency.

WHY in the Wild World of Sports wasn’t this a thing a long effing time ago?

SNORT. Pay out of their own pockets, my derriere.

Every freaking member of the House and Senate ought to be asked if he/she is party to a non-disclosure agreement. And a refusal to answer should be treated as an admission.

WHY in the Wild World of Sports wasn’t this a thing a long effing time ago?

They've been jumping around like a bunch of Kansas City F@ggots.

They’ll never pay out of pickets. They’ll find a way to make insurance cover it and/or donors. They will never pay out a dime of their own money.

Yes, make it retrocacive 20 years and full disclosure of who was covered and protected with OUR MONEY!

CAUTION: let’s not jump up and down with joy just yet.

The payoffs came in many forms ——not just from the Office of Compliance’s tax dollars:

<><> tax-paid hush money disguised as bonuses to victims
<><> tax-paid severances to victims
<><> no-show jobs to silence victims
<><> tax-paid legal assistance to victims
<><> payouts from the Office of Compliance
<><> payouts from tax-paid office budgets
<><> all other forms of tax-paid bribery
<><> all other forms of tax-paid hush money.

AMERICANS MUST DEMAND TO KNOW THE SCOPE AND DIMENSION
OF TAX DOLLARS EXTORTED FOR POLS’ SEXUAL ABUSE PAYOFFS-——

ACTION NOW-——Call President Trump: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414

CONTACT CONGRESS: Capitol Switchboard 1-866-220-0044

U.S. Department of Justice Comment Line: 202-353-1555 Switchboard: 202-514-2000

The list of previous sexual harassment payments made from the congressional slush fund has to be more carefully guarded than the gold in Ft. Knox or the nuclear codes.

Hey media, leak THAT willya?

Wikileaks? Anyone?

Blow. It. Up.

And, add to the bill that the cases have to be made public to the American people so those guilty can be voted out or forced to resign.

!!!!!!!!!!!

Would be better if it was retroactive

Some of them connived to hide their peccadilloes in other ways.....then came clean when exposure seemed eminent.

Cong Al Green.

THE GREEN TALE---BEFORE AND AFTER

BEFORE Congressman Slept With And Then Sued Allegedly Drug-Addicted Staffer / BY LUKE ROSIAK
SOURCE http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/27/congressman-slept-with-and-then-sued-allegedly-drug-addicted-staffer/

Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green had sex with a staffer who he said was a drug addict and then sued her when she threatened to go public with claims she suffered a hostile work environment, saying he “will not be extorted or blackmailed.”

Lucinda Daniels, his onetime district director, claimed she suffered a hostile work environment, claimed sexual harassment and demanded $1.8 million. Green sued her, saying she was using their sexual relationship to shake him down at the behest of other unnamed conspirators.

“Daniels has threatened to go public with her complaints if the Congressman does not per her money. Green has done nothing wrong and refuses to pay ‘hush money’ just for political expediency. Green will not be extorted or blackmailed by Daniels. He will not be the victim of a shakedown by Daniels and her agents. Green demands vindication of his actions and now sues Daniels for declaratory judgment relief relating to her workplace allegations and her quest for money,” documents Green filed in federal court in 2008 say. Daniels claimed Greene retaliated against her in the workplace because of her gender and because she refused additional romantic requests.” Green rejected her claims as false.

====================================================

AFTER--Dem Congressman Al Green Sends Preemptive Press Release Denying Sexual Assault Allegation
freebeacon ^ | November 27, 2017 | Alex Griswold
FR Posted on 11/28/2017, 6:59:28 AM by MarvinStinson

Texas Democrat Congressman Al Green sent an out-of-the-blue press release Monday acknowledging the existence of a previous sexual assault allegation against him, but denying it ever happened. Green sent an unprompted joint statement to Washington Post reporter Mike DeBonis signed by himself and Green’s former district director, Lucinda Daniels, denying anything untoward happened between the two.

“In the present climate, we wish to jointly quiet any curious minds about our former and present relationship with one another. We are friends, and have long been friends,” they wrote.

Greene Spox: “The attached statement is in reference to a circumstance that occurred in 2008. This circumstance did not involve the Cong. Office, nor the Office of Employment Counsel & did not involve the use of any taxpayer money.” 3:04 PM - Nov 27, 2017

“At an unfortunate time in our lives, when both of our feelings were hurt, we hastily made allegations and charges against one another that have been absolutely resolved. As consenting friends, we both regret our former claims and have since then maintained a respectful friendship,” the statement continued.

“We are friends,” they added for good measure.

“The attached statement is in reference to a circumstance that occurred in 2008,” a Green spokesman told DeBonis. “This circumstance did not involve the Congressional Office, nor the Office of Employment Counsel and did not involve the use of any taxpayer money.”

In 2008, Daniels publicly accused Green of forcing her to have sex with him. Green retaliated with a lawsuit maintaining the sex was consensual and claiming she threatened to sue him for workplace discrimination unless he paid her.

Eventually, both parties dropped their accusations against each other and issued a joint statement similar to Monday’s. “Congressman Alexander Green and Lucinda Daniels have both resolved and settled their respective disputes without payment, promise or receipt of any money. They regret the circumstances that created the "misunderstanding."

=====================================

Congressman Al Green is a member of the Black Congressional Caucus and currently serves on the
<><>Financial Services Committee.

And on three financial subcommittees:
<><>Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit,
<><> Monetary https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/green-al.jpgPolicy and Trade,
<><> Oversight and Investigations, as a Ranking Member,

And is Assistant Whip of the Democratic Party.

Not good enough. We must know for whom we have already paid out.

DEMOCRAT ALCEE HASTINGS ASKED A STAFFER WHAT KIND OF PANTIES SHE WAS WEARING
Hastings said: “I did not know until after the fact that such a settlement was made.”

Winsome Packer

Cong Hastings Record sexual harassment settlement exposes byzantine congressional process
by LEIGH ANN CALDWELL / NBC NEWS

WASHINGTON — With new harassment accusations being revealed on a nearly daily basis in Congress, documents obtained by NBC News from the Hastings case shed light on how taxpayer money ends up being used to essentially sweep such incidents under a bureaucratic rug with little accountability. On Capitol Hill, a sexual harassment complaint is a long process. The documents include drafts of a letter approving the settlement and a confidentiality agreement as well as an internal “lessons learned” memo written by a House employment lawyer. And while many of the accusations and details of the case remain in dispute, the eventual settlement is a case study of a process shrouded in secrecy despite being funded by taxpayers.

In 2011, Winsome Packer, a congressional staffer who worked for the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (known as the Helsinki Commission) filed a complaint against the commission, alleging that its chairman at the time, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., made unwanted sexual advances toward her and that she was threatened with retaliation. The details of Packer’s specific allegations are recorded in the complaint she also brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Publicly filed court documents in that lawsuit show that Packer alleged that she “was forced to endure” repeated “unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments and unwelcome touching” by Hastings. In describing the incidents, Packer alleged that Hastings had hugged her multiple times, sometimes in front of witnesses at public events, pressing his whole body against her, and his face to her face. Packer also claimed that after she complained to the commission’s staff director, she was subject to threats of retaliation by both the director and Hastings himself, including “threats of termination.”

Hastings, who has been in Congress since 1993, has denied Packer’s allegations. He called them “malicious” and “absolutely false” in a letter obtained by NBC News. The Office of Congressional Ethics referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee in 2010. After reviewing more than one thousand pages of documents and interviewing eight witnesses, the committee closed the case after finding that while the congressman admitted to having made some unprofessional comments, it had found “no additional evidence supporting [Packer’s ] allegations.”

The federal court also dismissed the case, with prejudice, in June 2014. Both sides maintain they were wronged. But this case, which took four years to settle, shows the system is so flawed that even Hastings’ House-provided attorney issued a retrospective critical of the process. In an internal congressional document obtained by NBC News this week, Gloria Lett, an attorney for the Office of House Employment Counsel, offered some “lessons learned” from Packer’s case that recommended the adoption of new policies to handle such claims.

So how did Winsome Packer end up getting a $220,000 taxpayer-funded settlement in May 2014? And why was that payment, settling sexual harassment claims against a member of the House of Representatives, not included in a disclosure to the House Administration Committee of all such settlement payments in the last five years, provided by Congress’ Office of Compliance, the congressional office that approved the payment?

The puzzle of a byzantine process starts with what Packer says happened when she first made the complaint. Packer claims that from the outset she faced a system that was onerous and intimidating. In an interview, she told NBC News that the process “is designed to totally demolish you and convince you to drop it.” At the beginning, like any accuser who files a complaint with the Office of Compliance (OOC), Packer paid for her own legal representation while it’s the taxpayers who provide free legal counsel for the member of Congress or the office involved in the complaint. Packer completed an initial requirement of a 30-days-or-less, mandatory counseling period for accusers, and then proceeded to a second requirement of a 30-day mediation period. She called that process “worse than the harassment.” She and one of her lawyers describe an attempt to undermine her credibility and intimidate her. George Chuzi, who represented Packer in her first meeting regarding the complaint, said the House lawyers were “unbelievably aggressive.”

Two government-paid lawyers representing Hastings sat across the table, as did her immediate supervisor. According to Packer and Chuzi, among the first things the House counsel said is that Packer is a “liar and an extortionist.” Packer added that the House attorneys also made an initial demand: Packer had to quit. Chuzi said he was “in shock” about the treatment of the accuser. Packer continued to press her case in federal court for three years. How Congress is trying to expose sexual harassment payouts Packer eventually received a settlement payment of $220,000, an amount confirmed by documents reviewed by NBC News and the largest known about since the Congressional Accountability Act was passed in 1995. One document obtained by NBC News details early draft terms of Packer’s settlement, and it is one of few such documents that have become public.

The others have not been released because confidentiality requirements, established by Congress and signed into federal law as the Congressional Accountability Act, bind accuser, accused and other legal entities from disclosing any terms or details. Despite these confidentiality requirements, Packer said she had decided to speak out because the environment has changed for accusers and she has little to lose. Packer, 60, who worked for the commission from 2007 until 2014, said she has not worked since the settlement was reached nearly four years ago, and is now living with her sister in Florida. Prior to her work as a policy adviser to the Helsinki Commission, Packer worked as a GOP staff member on the House Homeland Security Committee from 2003 through 2006. But when NBC News directed questions about the settlement and the payment to the two congressional entities the documents showed were involved in establishing and approving them — the Office of Compliance and the Senate Office of the Chief Counsel for Employment — neither provided answers. In an email, the Office of Compliance’s media representative wrote that “the Congressional Accountability Act requires that the OOC maintain the confidentially of contacts made with the office. The OOC cannot comment on whether matters have or have not been filed with the office.”

The Senate legal office did not respond to questions — including why it reached a settlement in this case even though Hastings is a member of the House. In the “lessons” memo written by Lett, the counsel representing Hastings’ side, she argued that “the manner in which the case was resolved was not ideal, and, going forward, we strongly recommend that the commission consider adopting regulations or policies to avoid this type of situation.” According to Lett’s memo, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who succeeded Hastings as chairman of the Helsinki Commission in 2011, did not favor moving forward with the settlement. Hastings sent letters to Smith and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who was the ranking member of the commission at the time, in 2012, saying, “I strongly oppose any settlement with Ms. Packer that would involve her receiving any money or things of value,” calling her allegations “absolutely false.”

According to the “lessons” memo, Packer contacted the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment’s office and “indicated her interest in settling the case.” A draft confidentiality agreement between Packer and the commission, obtained by NBC News, forced Packer to resign in order to accept the settlement. She also had to agree to never seek employment with the commission again. The agreement was also made with the commission, not Hastings, and required commission employees to attend a sexual harassment training session. Hastings was not required to attend. According to the settlement, the commission’s harassment politics also had to be redrafted and distributed them at the seminar.

The Senate office didn’t communicate with the House office that first opened the case on the terms and details of the settlement, according to Lett’s “lessons” memo. Other than a conversation between Hastings and Cardin in 2014 that a settlement had been reached, Hastings was never provided any details of the settlement until it was reported in the press last week. “Until (last Friday) evening, I had not seen the settlement agreement between the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and Ms. Packer,” Hastings said. “At no time was I consulted, nor did I know until after the fact that such a settlement was made.”

Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green had sex with a staffer who he said was a drug addict and then sued her when she threatened to go public with claims she suffered a hostile work environment, saying he “will not be extorted or blackmailed.”

This is the guy who wants to impeach Trump for "bigotry."

Yuckers.