Now for political prisoner Julian Assange. Thomas Scripps and Laura Tiernan (WSWS) report:
Julian Assange was handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice by Belmarsh prison guards on the opening day of this week’s extradition trial in London, his lawyers revealed in court yesterday.
Edward Fitzgerald QC told District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that his client’s legal documents were confiscated by prison authorities, who later moved him to five different cells—vindictive measures aimed at intimidating and oppressing the WikiLeaks publisher.
Baraitser made the extraordinary claim that she had “no jurisdiction” over Assange’s treatment in detention, despite it interfering with his right to a fair trial.
Yesterday, she said it was up to his legal team to issue a complaint with Belmarsh. In the lead-up to this week’s hearing, Baraitser repeatedly refused to protect Assange’s due process rights, including access to lawyers and defence evidence.
Meanwhile, Assange’s closest supporters were openly targeted yesterday morning at court. As proceedings were due to begin, a court official told WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson that he was barred from the public gallery.
“I was standing outside the public gallery waiting to go inside when one of the guards called out, ‘Where is the WikiLeaks editor?’ and then declared, ‘I have been informed that you are not allowed into the public gallery’,” Hrafnsson told the World Socialist Web Site.
Unable to obtain an explanation from court authorities for their outrageous action, Hrafnsson addressed an impromptu press conference outside the court building. He was flanked by Assange’s father John Shipton and brother Gabriel Shipton, who had walked out in protest. With news of the ban spreading on social media, and with Assange’s solicitor Gareth Peirce intervening, the court backed down and Hrafnsson was readmitted to the gallery.
The lawless actions of the court make clear that a show trial is underway. Indeed, journalists covering yesterday’s trial in the press annexe told the WSWS that the measures in place for the Assange hearing—including police checkpoints and court vetting of media credentials—were unprecedented.
Julian needs to be free. We are watching a hideous moment in history unfolding. What has been done to Julian is disgusting and illegal and history will not look kindly on this moment. Julian needs to be freed and the Australian government needs to be standing up for one of their own citizens. Instead, they are so eager to be the America lapdog that they're doing nothing to protect Julian.
No one is protecting Julian.
I want to talk about one more thing. Let me see if Mike's posted yet. Okay, yes, it's "Joe is always a liar." In it, he talks about C.I.'s snapshot today. Mike and I talk a lot and we were talking about the snapshot and Mike told me he was going to write about how C.I. always catches the stuff that others miss -- like how CBS NEWS -- and Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell -- refusing to explore Michael Bloomberg's workplace harassment was a lot like how they looked the other way for years while their own Charlie Rose was carrying out workplace harassment.
Mike pointed out to me (and writes in his post) that C.I. catches so much that just sails past others. And she does. And Mike also pointed out that she writes daily. Never knowing what she's going to write until she starts writing it. She'll tell you she's flying blind herself. But she writes and it's amazing. Meanwhile, people like me blog five times a week and I'm always trying to figure out something to write about.
I wanted to point out one thing in the snapshot. Pete Butthead keeps telling America Bernie is not electable and that if Bernie's the top of the ticket Bernie will hurt lower candidates.
It takes C.I. to point out -- I wish I'd been the one to catch this -- that Pete's living in a glass house. America still has a ton of homophobes. So Pete's calling into question Bernie's electability when Pete's not polling as well as Bernie and Pete being gay would cost votes. How many would be a good question. But I'm a lesbian and I know that it will cost votes. Pete knows that too. Guilty dog barks the loudest?
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, March 26, 2020. The main news story today has to be that CBS
NEWS has a culture of assault and harassment and we all saw why via
Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell last night.
Prime time yesterday, CBS NEWS hosted seven Democratic Party presidential contenders -- or 'contestants,' as Michael Bloomberg termed it (since it's all a game to him anyway) -- for a supposed debate. The contenders were front-runner Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and the previously mentioned toxic Bloomberg.
The . . . Bloomberg didn't think of a term for the ones asking questions. It's hard to call them moderators and I think even host is stretching it. Let's first note the community coverage (I'm including Ann because she's noting Bloomberg being scared of Elizabeth) of the debate:
As many noted in their coverage, there were no rules being followed and the only one who insisted upon the time being followed was Margaret Brennan (CBS' FACE THE NATION). Some will say that Gayle King or Norah O'Donnell would object. Yes, but they wouldn't stop the speaker. Only Margaret was serious. (The two men were worthless we're not even naming them. They were barely present and they looked and acted ridiculous.)
But what Gayle and Norah really drove home was why CBS NEWS has a #METOO problem.
That was on full display last night and they should be ashamed and CBS NEWS needs to start insisting that all on airs are participating in training regarding what is and is not appropriate in the work place. This is not a joke. What America saw as downright offensive and would have been if two men from ABC had been the main hosts. Coming from CBS NEWS it was appalling.
From CBS' transcript of the debate here's the moment that indicts and embarrasses all of CBS NEWS:
WARREN: I'd like to respond.
O'DONNELL: Go ahead, Senator.
WARREN: He [Bloomberg] called me out by name.
BIDEN: There was a -- I thought...
WARREN: ... and referred to what I talk about as a "sideshow." You know, this is personal for me. When I was 21 years old, I got my first job as a special education teacher. I loved that job. And by the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant.
The principal wished me luck and gave my job to someone else. Pregnancy discrimination, you bet. But I was 21 years old. I didn't have a union to protect me. And I didn't have any federal law on my side. So I packed up my stuff, and I went home. At least I didn't have a boss who said to me, "Kill it," the way that Mayor Bloomberg is alleged to have said...
BLOOMBERG: I never said that. Oh, come on.
WARREN: ... to one of his pregnant employees. People want a chance to hear...
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
People want a chance to hear from the women who have worked for...
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOMBERG: I never said that. And for the record, if she was a teacher in New York City, she would never have had that problem. We treated our teachers the right way, and the unions will tell you exactly that.
(APPLAUSE)
O'DONNELL: Well, Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Warren has raised...
WARREN: Then let us -- let us have -- the women have an opportunity to speak. The Bloomberg corporations and Mayor Bloomberg himself have been accused of discrimination. They are bound by nondisclosures so that they cannot speak. If he says there is nothing to hide here, then sign a blanket release and let those women speak out...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: ... so that they can tell their stories the way I can tell my story without having the fear they're going to be sued by a billionaire.
(CROSSTALK)
O'DONNELL: Thank you. Thank you. We have a number of issues to discuss tonight, but I want to give the mayor an opportunity to respond, because she has raised concerns about women in your workplace. At the last debate, you said some of your female employees might not have liked some of your jokes. Did these women take your jokes wrong? Or were you wrong to make the jokes?
BLOOMBERG: Probably wrong to make the jokes. I don't remember what they were. So I assume -- if it bothered them, I was wrong, and I apologize. I'm sorry for that.
But what happened here is we went back 40 years and we could only find three cases where women said they were uncomfortable. Nobody accused me of doing anything other than just making a comment or two. And what the senator did suggest was that we release these women from the nondisclosure agreement. I did that two days later, and my company has said we will not use nondisclosure agreements ever again. The senator has got it. And I don't know what else she wants us to do.
WARREN: Oh, I'll be clear.
BLOOMBERG: We're following exactly what she asked to do.
WARREN: I'll tell you exactly what I want you to do.
BLOOMBERG: And the trouble is with this senator, enough is never enough for what this -- I'm going to start focusing on some of these other things. We just cannot continue to re-litigate this every time. We did what she asked. And, thank you, we've probably made the world better because of it. And by my company renouncing using these, we probably changed, hopefully, the corporate landscape all across America.
BUTTIGIEG: If you get nominated, we'll be re-litigating this all year.
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: Sorry, Mayor, you did not do what I asked.
KING: Senator Warren, that is a very serious charge that you leveled at the mayor.
WARREN: Yes.
KING: He told a woman to get an abortion. What evidence do you have of that?
WARREN: Her own words.
KING: And, Mayor Bloomberg, could you respond to this?
BLOOMBERG: I never said it, period, end of story. Categorically never said it. When it was accused -- when I was accused of doing it, we couldn't figure out what she was talking about. But right now, I'm sorry if she heard what she thought she heard, or whatever happened. I didn't take any pleasure in that. And we've just got to go on. But I never said it. Come on.
WARREN: What I asked the mayor to do is to do a release of all people who have discrimination claims...
BLOOMBERG: We are doing that, Senator.
(CROSSTALK)
O'DONNELL: We want to get to the -- we want to get to the issue -- we want to get to the issue of electability and the ideological difference within the Democratic Party.
Gayle King: "What evidence do you have of that?"
Time and again, Gayle and Norah painted themselves as the failing kids in class who never cracked a book. There's a reason no one respects Gayle and that she has to whine on Instagram that mean old CBS isn't treating her right. She's not a journalist.
A journalist would have known that THE WASHINGTON POST published the "kill it" story on February 15th
They have a link to the court document but, clearly, Gayle King doesn't read. She certainly doesn't follow the news. This is true of Nora as well and was obvious in their earlier 'topic' of Russia when they were unaware of what Jake Tapper and CNN had reported. They are idiots -- Norah and Gayle and they really showed it last night.
A woman's right to choose is at risk. Reproductive rights activists will be rallying in front of the Supreme Court on March 4th. There are several cases winding their way up to the highest court.
But abortion wasn't an issue for 'the ladies' Gayle and Norah.
And they couldn't be bothered with the issue of childcare. (Gayla has no children, Norah has three being raised by help.)
They couldn't be bothered with any issue that touched specifically on the wives of women.
Assault is a crime. They wanted to talk crime in terms of race. That's all they wanted to do with crime. Women of all races can be assaulted.
Hours before the debate started, Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following:
Remember that because we'll come back to it for another reason in a little bit. But Norah and Gayle couldn't bother their feather brains with reality like that.
Gayle wanted to know what proof Elizabeth Warren had -- because Gayle's apparently a functional illiterate. The proof is the report by THE WASHINGTON POST. Bloomberg saying he didn't say it is not a dismissal. It goes to exactly why he needs to release all the women from the non-disclosure agreements. But Gayle and Norah didn't want that conversation -- it was more important to those two idiots to discuss 'electability.' 'Electability' is determined by the voters, not by the candidates. We'll get back to that too.
CBS NEWS has a real problem with harassment in the workplace. Norah used that to get herself a spot hosting the CBS EVENING NEWS. She hasn't helped ratings and won't but she can stay for awhile as CBS tries to live down all they've tolerated and looked the other way on.
Remember Charlie Rose?
Michael Bloomberg does. He's on record saying CBS shouldn't have fired his friend Charlie Rose.
Gayle and Norah were co-hosts with Charlie Rose and they're on record as shocked -- simply shocked -- that all these women could come forward about Charlie and they -- Gayle and Norah -- never knew or saw anything.
As they demonstrated last night in the debate, they don't want to see anything.
A very real and a very serious issue was raised by Elizabeth Warren. Not by Norah or Gayle because women's issues are just too 'icky' for 'the ladies.'
This was disgraceful. This was shameful.
As the nation watched, two CBS employees turned their back on the issue to move on to a fluff issue that was handled in a fluff manner.
CBS NEWS is responsible for the actions of Charlie Rose and their other employees who assaulted and harassed. Last night was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that a lesson had been learned and that it was a new day at CBS. Instead, two uneducated and uninformed bimbos rushed to shut down one of the few real conversations that took place in the debate.
If Bloomberg told a pregnant woman "kill it," America has a right to know -- if he's trying to become president, America has a right to know.
Shame on CBS for putting two bimbos in charge of the debate. Shame on Gayle and Norah for refusing to embrace and acknowledge their own gender or, for that matter, their own participation in the actions of Charlie Rose.
CBS NEWS has a very real problem and last night made it clear that it's not a problem in the past.
Let's go to electability because Pete Buttigieg keeps bringing it up.
That would be low polling Pete.
Pete is convinced that Bernie Sanders is going to hurt the ticket. Pete's launching his own one-boy-Red-scare. Bernie will drive voters away being a Democratic Socialist.
Gloria Steinem is a Democratic Socialist. How many movies and documentaries has she been the subject of recently. America doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Rev Jesse Jackson also calls into question this ridiculous notion. It's not an issue as evidenced by Bernie's support nation wide.
But, Pete, you don't have that same support.
Let's be Thomas Friedman and bring in cab drivers and taxi cab confessions. A Nigerian taxi driver in South Carolina probably explained one of Pete's stumbling blocks Monday morning when he told us he couldn't vote for Pete because every time Pete speaks, all he can think of is that you Pete sucks cock with that mouth. He then apologized for saying "cock."
Pete, are you the best spokesperson for 'electability'? You're polling poorly across the nation and, yes, it is a nation with some homophobes. But you're not defending your own electability -- is it that you can't? -- you're instead attacking someone else's -- someone who is higher in the polls than you.
A real debate -- which we clearly won't get this cycle -- would stop you in the middle of one your tantrums about electability and say, "Hey, do you think that you, a gay man, being top of the ticket might hurt down the ticket candidates?"
The people decide electability. They might decide Pete is, they might not. But at present, Pete repeatedly makes attacks on Bernie's electability while acting as though he himself has no electability issues. Pete, your own brother-in-law is calling you out and won't vote for you. Maybe stop throwing stones at others.
Back to Patty Murray.
Pete loves to play toy soldier, doesn't he. He was a good little secretary in the military. He didn't see combat, he wasn't Tulsi Gabbard, but he was great with the steno pad.
And he's great about bringing up his 'service' without ever telling anyone what he did since he didn't do all that much.
If Tulsi had been on stage, maybe Patty Murray's issue would have been raised. If Seth Moulton was still in the race, maybe Patty's issue would have been raised.
But time and again, Pete uses his military experience to boast and play macho but he never uses it to address these needs of veterans or current service members.
Does no one notice that Toy Soldier Pete came off the assembly line without that function?
I speak with veterans groups regularly. Veterans of today's wars have many complaints. One of the biggest right now is that the long promised electronic record that would start while you were serving and then follow you into your veterans status is still not here. What is going on?
And why is is that Pete can't speak of this issue or any other one that has anything to do with veterans?
There's a reason veterans don't trust him -- and it's not homophobia. They don't trust him because he has a platform and they don't feel he uses it to raise veterans issues.
Pete loves to speak and he interrupts and attacks everyone on stage frequently. But somehow, he never, ever gets around to addressing veterans issues.
The debate was a farce and only Margaret Brennan (among CBS NEWS employees) emerged unscathed. That's not an endorsement of her questions, that is an endorsement of her holding candidates to the rules. Here's another reality. If they speak past their time, cut their microphones off. That will teach them to follow the rules.
During the debate, Michael Bloomberg bragged about buying the Congress in the last election. "Bought." No one bothered to follow up on that or to ask him how he thought "buying" helped democracy. It was a depraved and disgusting debate and it will remain a mark of shame for CBS NEWS.
In Iraq, the protests continue.
Prime time yesterday, CBS NEWS hosted seven Democratic Party presidential contenders -- or 'contestants,' as Michael Bloomberg termed it (since it's all a game to him anyway) -- for a supposed debate. The contenders were front-runner Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and the previously mentioned toxic Bloomberg.
The . . . Bloomberg didn't think of a term for the ones asking questions. It's hard to call them moderators and I think even host is stretching it. Let's first note the community coverage (I'm including Ann because she's noting Bloomberg being scared of Elizabeth) of the debate:
That embarrassing Bloomberg
9 hours ago
Praise for Margaret Brennan -- the debate
10 hours ago
Are there no rules here -- the debate
10 hours ago
As many noted in their coverage, there were no rules being followed and the only one who insisted upon the time being followed was Margaret Brennan (CBS' FACE THE NATION). Some will say that Gayle King or Norah O'Donnell would object. Yes, but they wouldn't stop the speaker. Only Margaret was serious. (The two men were worthless we're not even naming them. They were barely present and they looked and acted ridiculous.)
But what Gayle and Norah really drove home was why CBS NEWS has a #METOO problem.
That was on full display last night and they should be ashamed and CBS NEWS needs to start insisting that all on airs are participating in training regarding what is and is not appropriate in the work place. This is not a joke. What America saw as downright offensive and would have been if two men from ABC had been the main hosts. Coming from CBS NEWS it was appalling.
From CBS' transcript of the debate here's the moment that indicts and embarrasses all of CBS NEWS:
WARREN: I'd like to respond.
O'DONNELL: Go ahead, Senator.
WARREN: He [Bloomberg] called me out by name.
BIDEN: There was a -- I thought...
WARREN: ... and referred to what I talk about as a "sideshow." You know, this is personal for me. When I was 21 years old, I got my first job as a special education teacher. I loved that job. And by the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant.
The principal wished me luck and gave my job to someone else. Pregnancy discrimination, you bet. But I was 21 years old. I didn't have a union to protect me. And I didn't have any federal law on my side. So I packed up my stuff, and I went home. At least I didn't have a boss who said to me, "Kill it," the way that Mayor Bloomberg is alleged to have said...
BLOOMBERG: I never said that. Oh, come on.
WARREN: ... to one of his pregnant employees. People want a chance to hear...
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
People want a chance to hear from the women who have worked for...
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOMBERG: I never said that. And for the record, if she was a teacher in New York City, she would never have had that problem. We treated our teachers the right way, and the unions will tell you exactly that.
(APPLAUSE)
O'DONNELL: Well, Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Warren has raised...
WARREN: Then let us -- let us have -- the women have an opportunity to speak. The Bloomberg corporations and Mayor Bloomberg himself have been accused of discrimination. They are bound by nondisclosures so that they cannot speak. If he says there is nothing to hide here, then sign a blanket release and let those women speak out...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: ... so that they can tell their stories the way I can tell my story without having the fear they're going to be sued by a billionaire.
(CROSSTALK)
O'DONNELL: Thank you. Thank you. We have a number of issues to discuss tonight, but I want to give the mayor an opportunity to respond, because she has raised concerns about women in your workplace. At the last debate, you said some of your female employees might not have liked some of your jokes. Did these women take your jokes wrong? Or were you wrong to make the jokes?
BLOOMBERG: Probably wrong to make the jokes. I don't remember what they were. So I assume -- if it bothered them, I was wrong, and I apologize. I'm sorry for that.
But what happened here is we went back 40 years and we could only find three cases where women said they were uncomfortable. Nobody accused me of doing anything other than just making a comment or two. And what the senator did suggest was that we release these women from the nondisclosure agreement. I did that two days later, and my company has said we will not use nondisclosure agreements ever again. The senator has got it. And I don't know what else she wants us to do.
WARREN: Oh, I'll be clear.
BLOOMBERG: We're following exactly what she asked to do.
WARREN: I'll tell you exactly what I want you to do.
BLOOMBERG: And the trouble is with this senator, enough is never enough for what this -- I'm going to start focusing on some of these other things. We just cannot continue to re-litigate this every time. We did what she asked. And, thank you, we've probably made the world better because of it. And by my company renouncing using these, we probably changed, hopefully, the corporate landscape all across America.
BUTTIGIEG: If you get nominated, we'll be re-litigating this all year.
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: Sorry, Mayor, you did not do what I asked.
KING: Senator Warren, that is a very serious charge that you leveled at the mayor.
WARREN: Yes.
KING: He told a woman to get an abortion. What evidence do you have of that?
WARREN: Her own words.
KING: And, Mayor Bloomberg, could you respond to this?
BLOOMBERG: I never said it, period, end of story. Categorically never said it. When it was accused -- when I was accused of doing it, we couldn't figure out what she was talking about. But right now, I'm sorry if she heard what she thought she heard, or whatever happened. I didn't take any pleasure in that. And we've just got to go on. But I never said it. Come on.
WARREN: What I asked the mayor to do is to do a release of all people who have discrimination claims...
BLOOMBERG: We are doing that, Senator.
(CROSSTALK)
O'DONNELL: We want to get to the -- we want to get to the issue -- we want to get to the issue of electability and the ideological difference within the Democratic Party.
Gayle King: "What evidence do you have of that?"
Time and again, Gayle and Norah painted themselves as the failing kids in class who never cracked a book. There's a reason no one respects Gayle and that she has to whine on Instagram that mean old CBS isn't treating her right. She's not a journalist.
A journalist would have known that THE WASHINGTON POST published the "kill it" story on February 15th
But others
viewed them more darkly, seeing them as blunt examples of what they
considered to be a hostile environment, artifacts of a workplace
employees said was saturated with degrading comments.
Several lawsuits have been filed over the years alleging that women
were discriminated against at Bloomberg’s business-information company,
including a case brought by a federal agency and one filed by a former
employee, who blamed Bloomberg for creating a culture of sexual
harassment and degradation.
The most high-profile case was from a former saleswoman. She sued
Bloomberg personally as well as his company, alleging workplace
discrimination. She alleged Bloomberg told her to “kill it” when he
learned she was pregnant. Bloomberg has denied her allegation under
oath, and he reached a confidential settlement with the saleswoman.
The Washington Post interviewed a former Bloomberg employee, David
Zielenziger, who said he witnessed the conversation with the saleswoman.
Zielenziger, who said he had not previously spoken publicly about the
matter, said Bloomberg’s behavior toward the woman was “outrageous. I
understood why she took offense.”
As Mike
Bloomberg celebrated his 48th birthday in 1990, a top aide at the
company he founded presented him with a booklet of profane, sexist
quotes she attributed to him.
A good salesperson is like a man who tries to pick up women at a bar by
saying, “Do you want to f---? He gets turned down a lot — but he gets
f----- a lot, too!” Bloomberg was quoted in the booklet as saying.
Bloomberg also allegedly said that his company’s financial information
computers “will do everything, including give you [oral sex]. I guess
that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”
At the time, some Bloomberg staffers said, they laughed off the
comments in the 32-page booklet, “The Wit and Wisdom of Michael
Bloomberg,” as a macho side of one of the nerdiest men on Wall Street.
They have a link to the court document but, clearly, Gayle King doesn't read. She certainly doesn't follow the news. This is true of Nora as well and was obvious in their earlier 'topic' of Russia when they were unaware of what Jake Tapper and CNN had reported. They are idiots -- Norah and Gayle and they really showed it last night.
A woman's right to choose is at risk. Reproductive rights activists will be rallying in front of the Supreme Court on March 4th. There are several cases winding their way up to the highest court.
But abortion wasn't an issue for 'the ladies' Gayle and Norah.
And they couldn't be bothered with the issue of childcare. (Gayla has no children, Norah has three being raised by help.)
They couldn't be bothered with any issue that touched specifically on the wives of women.
Assault is a crime. They wanted to talk crime in terms of race. That's all they wanted to do with crime. Women of all races can be assaulted.
Hours before the debate started, Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following:
Senator Murray and five of her Senate colleagues sent a letter
to the Veterans Affairs (VA) Inspector General requesting an
investigation regarding allegations that VA officials—led by Secretary
Wilkie—attempted to discredit a veteran after she reported being
assaulted
ProPublica: VA Secretary Looked for Dirt on a House Staffer Who Reported Sexual Assault in a VA Hospital, Complaint Says – MORE HERE
Senators:
“The Secretary’s failure to take corrective action and, even worse, to
retaliate against the veteran, is absolutely unacceptable”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday,
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate
Veterans’ Affairs Committee, led Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Richard
Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Tammy
Duckworth (D-IL) in demanding an investigation into the Department of
Veterans Affairs’ (VA) handling of a sexual assault reported by a
veteran at the Washington, D.C. VA Medical Center (DC VAMC). The letter
follows recent reports that VA officials, led by VA Secretary Robert
Wilkie, actively sought to discredit the veteran who reported being
assaulted, and mischaracterized the initial VA Inspector General (VA IG)
investigation of the reported assault.
“Secretary Wilkie’s decision to
cast doubt, paint the individual as dishonest, and discredit her
traumatic experience demonstrates VA’s continued inability to ensure
women veterans are welcomed and supported by the country they have
served,” wrote the senators. “Furthermore, this type of
toxic leadership undermines the hardworking, dedicated professional
staff at VA, and makes it less likely that women veterans – the largest
growing demographic of veterans – will seek the care and benefits from
the VA that they have earned through their service.”
The veteran, a senior policy adviser
for the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s Women Veterans Task Force,
first reported the assault to several VA employees who declined to take
any action, and it was not until she notified her doctor that police
were called and an investigation began. The investigation ultimately
didn’t result in criminal charges due in part to a lack of functioning
cameras in the DC VAMC. Secretary Wilkie afterwards mischaracterized the
assault allegation as “unsubstantiated,” which the VA IG quickly
corrected as false. Subsequent media reports
have alleged that starting in October, Secretary Wilkie sought out
damaging information on the veteran and discussed with VA officials and a
member of Congress potentially using the information to discredit her.
If true, as Senator Murray and her colleagues argue in their letter,
these actions by Secretary Wilkie and the lack of counter-action from
other VA officials constitute an egregious abuse of power and create a
dangerous environment at VA facilities, especially for women veterans.
“The failure of the DC VAMC to
protect and support this veteran at the time of the incident – from the
lack of bystander intervention, to a lapse in following protocol –
should have been immediately corrected by the Secretary. The Secretary’s
failure to take corrective action and, even worse, to retaliate against
the veteran, is absolutely unacceptable,” the senators’ letter continued.
In response to these allegations, and
in order to ensure that VA is creating a safe environment for all
veterans, the senators in their letter call for a full investigation
into Secretary Wilkie and other VA officials’ actions.
A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:
February 24, 2020
The Honorable Michael J. Missal
Inspector General
Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave NW
Washington, DC 20571
Dear Mr. Missal:
We are writing to request a full
investigation into Secretary Wilkie and the Department of Veterans
Affairs’ (VA) handling of a sexual assault reported by a veteran at the
Washington, D.C. VA Medical Center (DC VAMC), including the deeply
concerning reports that VA officials improperly sought information about
the individual’s past and mischaracterized the results of your
investigation into the assault in order to discredit her.
When the assault took place in September
2019, the individual reported the incident to several VA employees who
took no action. VA police were not called until the veteran notified her
doctor. As you know, the matter was referred to your office as required
by federal regulation and the investigation was closed without bringing
criminal charges, apparently due in part to the lack of functioning
cameras – which is a deeply concerning failure of the DC VAMC to
maintain a safe environment.
On January 15, after your investigation was
closed, Secretary Wilkie sent a letter to House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee Chairman Mark Takano referring to the sexual assault claim as
“unsubstantiated,” stating that such a claim “could deter our Veterans
from seeking the care they need and deserve.” We appreciate that your
office responded the same day, clarifying that the independent
investigation did not find the claims to be “unsubstantiated” and
reminding the Secretary that VA leaders had already been warned against
mischaracterizing the outcome of the investigation. While that
clarification was helpful and appreciated, it cannot reverse the damage
done by Secretary Wilkie.
Media reports on a complaint made to the
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee allege that between October 2019 and
January 2020, Secretary Wilkie sought damaging information about the
veteran, including attempting to investigate her military record.
Additionally, according to media reports, the Secretary discussed the
information he had collected with other VA officials and even a member
of Congress, and suggested to Department public affairs officials that
the information could be used to undermine the veteran’s allegations. If
these reports are true, such an abuse of power and government resources
would be outrageous and inexcusable. If the reports of a member of
Congress being involved are true, the matter should be immediately
referred to the Ethics Committee for their investigation and
disciplinary action.
Secretary Wilkie’s decision to cast doubt,
paint the individual as dishonest, and discredit her traumatic
experience demonstrates VA’s continued inability to ensure women
veterans are welcomed and supported by the country they have served.
Furthermore, this type of toxic leadership undermines the hardworking,
dedicated professional staff at VA, and makes it less likely that women
veterans – the largest growing demographic of veterans – will seek the
care and benefits from the VA that they have earned through their
service. The failure of the DC VAMC to protect and support this veteran
at the time of the incident – from the lack of bystander intervention,
to a lapse in following protocol – should have been immediately
corrected by the Secretary. The Secretary’s failure to take corrective
action and, even worse, to retaliate against the veteran, is absolutely
unacceptable.
Veterans trust VA to provide them with the
highest quality care. When that trust is violated, all veterans suffer,
and when individuals who report misconduct are retaliated against,
survivors are less likely to report assaults or harassment. In order to
restore confidence in VA’s ability to foster a safe environment, we are
requesting a full investigation to review any missteps that occurred in
this case and recommendations to correct course.
It is important that VA take all forms of
sexual violence seriously and that VA employees enforce policies to
prevent future incidents from occurring. This investigation should
assess the response at every level to review if DC VAMC employees were
informed of appropriate sexual assault response and reporting
mechanisms, and if they took appropriate action when the sexual assault
was reported to them. The investigation should also evaluate the
effectiveness of existing policies to prevent and respond to sexual
violence at the DC VAMC and agency-wide. Additionally, we ask that you
examine the roles that VA officials, including their subordinates and
former officials, played throughout the handling of the reported
assault, including the agency’s initial response and the Secretary’s
January 15, 2020, letter to Chairman Mark Takano. This should include
whether any current or former VA official sought information on the
individual or directed another employee to do so.
Survivors of sexual assault, including
survivors of Military Sexual Trauma and sexual assault at VA facilities,
need to know the Department – and the justice system at large – will
take their reports seriously and provide them with adequate support.
This example must be set at the top, with the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the
second largest federal agency and should be a leader in best practices
for preventing sexual violence and supporting survivors. We expect your
findings will support initiatives to improve VA’s policies on sexual
violence. We appreciate your efforts to ensure all veterans can receive
the care and support they have earned in a safe, welcoming environment.
Sincerely,
###
Remember that because we'll come back to it for another reason in a little bit. But Norah and Gayle couldn't bother their feather brains with reality like that.
Gayle wanted to know what proof Elizabeth Warren had -- because Gayle's apparently a functional illiterate. The proof is the report by THE WASHINGTON POST. Bloomberg saying he didn't say it is not a dismissal. It goes to exactly why he needs to release all the women from the non-disclosure agreements. But Gayle and Norah didn't want that conversation -- it was more important to those two idiots to discuss 'electability.' 'Electability' is determined by the voters, not by the candidates. We'll get back to that too.
CBS NEWS has a real problem with harassment in the workplace. Norah used that to get herself a spot hosting the CBS EVENING NEWS. She hasn't helped ratings and won't but she can stay for awhile as CBS tries to live down all they've tolerated and looked the other way on.
Remember Charlie Rose?
Michael Bloomberg does. He's on record saying CBS shouldn't have fired his friend Charlie Rose.
Gayle and Norah were co-hosts with Charlie Rose and they're on record as shocked -- simply shocked -- that all these women could come forward about Charlie and they -- Gayle and Norah -- never knew or saw anything.
As they demonstrated last night in the debate, they don't want to see anything.
A very real and a very serious issue was raised by Elizabeth Warren. Not by Norah or Gayle because women's issues are just too 'icky' for 'the ladies.'
This was disgraceful. This was shameful.
As the nation watched, two CBS employees turned their back on the issue to move on to a fluff issue that was handled in a fluff manner.
CBS NEWS is responsible for the actions of Charlie Rose and their other employees who assaulted and harassed. Last night was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that a lesson had been learned and that it was a new day at CBS. Instead, two uneducated and uninformed bimbos rushed to shut down one of the few real conversations that took place in the debate.
If Bloomberg told a pregnant woman "kill it," America has a right to know -- if he's trying to become president, America has a right to know.
Shame on CBS for putting two bimbos in charge of the debate. Shame on Gayle and Norah for refusing to embrace and acknowledge their own gender or, for that matter, their own participation in the actions of Charlie Rose.
CBS NEWS has a very real problem and last night made it clear that it's not a problem in the past.
Let's go to electability because Pete Buttigieg keeps bringing it up.
That would be low polling Pete.
Pete is convinced that Bernie Sanders is going to hurt the ticket. Pete's launching his own one-boy-Red-scare. Bernie will drive voters away being a Democratic Socialist.
Gloria Steinem is a Democratic Socialist. How many movies and documentaries has she been the subject of recently. America doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Rev Jesse Jackson also calls into question this ridiculous notion. It's not an issue as evidenced by Bernie's support nation wide.
But, Pete, you don't have that same support.
Let's be Thomas Friedman and bring in cab drivers and taxi cab confessions. A Nigerian taxi driver in South Carolina probably explained one of Pete's stumbling blocks Monday morning when he told us he couldn't vote for Pete because every time Pete speaks, all he can think of is that you Pete sucks cock with that mouth. He then apologized for saying "cock."
Pete, are you the best spokesperson for 'electability'? You're polling poorly across the nation and, yes, it is a nation with some homophobes. But you're not defending your own electability -- is it that you can't? -- you're instead attacking someone else's -- someone who is higher in the polls than you.
A real debate -- which we clearly won't get this cycle -- would stop you in the middle of one your tantrums about electability and say, "Hey, do you think that you, a gay man, being top of the ticket might hurt down the ticket candidates?"
The people decide electability. They might decide Pete is, they might not. But at present, Pete repeatedly makes attacks on Bernie's electability while acting as though he himself has no electability issues. Pete, your own brother-in-law is calling you out and won't vote for you. Maybe stop throwing stones at others.
Back to Patty Murray.
Pete loves to play toy soldier, doesn't he. He was a good little secretary in the military. He didn't see combat, he wasn't Tulsi Gabbard, but he was great with the steno pad.
And he's great about bringing up his 'service' without ever telling anyone what he did since he didn't do all that much.
If Tulsi had been on stage, maybe Patty Murray's issue would have been raised. If Seth Moulton was still in the race, maybe Patty's issue would have been raised.
But time and again, Pete uses his military experience to boast and play macho but he never uses it to address these needs of veterans or current service members.
Does no one notice that Toy Soldier Pete came off the assembly line without that function?
I speak with veterans groups regularly. Veterans of today's wars have many complaints. One of the biggest right now is that the long promised electronic record that would start while you were serving and then follow you into your veterans status is still not here. What is going on?
And why is is that Pete can't speak of this issue or any other one that has anything to do with veterans?
There's a reason veterans don't trust him -- and it's not homophobia. They don't trust him because he has a platform and they don't feel he uses it to raise veterans issues.
Pete loves to speak and he interrupts and attacks everyone on stage frequently. But somehow, he never, ever gets around to addressing veterans issues.
The debate was a farce and only Margaret Brennan (among CBS NEWS employees) emerged unscathed. That's not an endorsement of her questions, that is an endorsement of her holding candidates to the rules. Here's another reality. If they speak past their time, cut their microphones off. That will teach them to follow the rules.
During the debate, Michael Bloomberg bragged about buying the Congress in the last election. "Bought." No one bothered to follow up on that or to ask him how he thought "buying" helped democracy. It was a depraved and disgusting debate and it will remain a mark of shame for CBS NEWS.
In Iraq, the protests continue.
In Baghdad's busy protest site of Tahrir Square, hundreds rallied against Iraq's ruling elite, despite pleas from the Ministry of Health that demonstrators steer clear of public places and remain at home
And the attacks on the protesters continue.
Riot police is once again using deadly tear gas canisters agaisnt protesters near Tahrir Square in #Baghdad which can easily extract a human’s body. This photo is from an activist named Haider. He also shared the moment of a protester has his head split.
#IraqProtests #العراق
And responses?
The world was rightly shocked by the gruesome fatalities these military-grade grenades inflicted on #IraqProtests. In Oct we @amnesty investigated what they are. New forensic analysis with @situ_research will show why they’re so deadly. Coming soon...
Coming soon? Oh, goody. You've been working since October and it's coming soon? It's the end of February, so I guess there's no real rush, right? We're just talking about people's lives, right? Take that coffee break, Amnesty International, take it all month long.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
Elizabeth Moss and THE INVISIBLE MAN10 hours ago
-
That embarrassing Bloomberg10 hours ago
-
The unimportant question -- the debate10 hours ago
-
-
-
Praise for Margaret Brennan -- the debate11 hours ago
-
Are there no rules here -- the debate11 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment