🌎 KTLA News: Swalwell suspends campaign for California governor (reported resignation from Congress.)

[TerryP]

 

[TerryP]

I came close to posting something about this several days ago. The post wasn't going to be about these accusations, but something he did in response to the stories as they first started to break nationally.

A cease and disist letter to Kash and the FBI. That was the subject. My only point was going to be this. If you don't want people to pay attention ... might be a good idea NOT to send something like that and make it public. My thought was, "everyone is going to look now."

And lo and behold.

(Spell check turned that into "And lol and behold." Ironic.)

---

---

Californication is an interesting series.

 

[ElephantStomp]

About time. This dude is a douche canoe. In 2018 he said “we believe survivors”…..he must’ve decided unless it was about him then he doesn’t believe them. Fuck him

 

[TerryP]

In 2018 he said “we believe survivors”

Which is also the line Katie Porter has used this week only to be community noted about her domestic abuse (and staff members.) It's a comedy of errors, it seems.

Steve Hinton, or Hilton (I'd have to look it up) is the leading Republican, right? Coincidentally, an immigrant. I'm assuming dual citizenship.

Then we have the guy I'm seeing reported as the new Democratic leader for Gov., Tom Steyer. Setting aside his past with private prisons now holding folks about to be deported and those upset about that; what's Bernie and AOC gonna say with a billionaire candidate? I'm guessing his wealth will be "excused" under the guise of "look how much money he's given to climate change groups." But hey, maybe he'll get the bridge for butterflies finished.

 

[24and7]

Swallwell will hopefully go on a revenge tour against the D's now.. He knows a lot of dirt and where the bodies are rotting.. but he may end up getting Seth Rich'd for that.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Swallowell...

D or R, he needs to fade - as Mike Tyson put it so eloquently - into Bolivian.

 

[TerryP]

Swallowell...

D or R, he needs to fade - as Mike Tyson put it so eloquently - into Bolivian.

I agree with this; to an extent. There are questions I believe we need to have answered.

As example, why does a grown man, married with kids, have a premium SnapChat account? Inquiring minds know.

On a serious note, if the stories are true that there is a "slush fund" for Congresional member to pay off accusers? I want him to remain in the news IF more of this is brought to light. My tax dollars shouldn't be a "get out of jail card."

 

[Krimson]

I agree with this; to an extent. There are questions I believe we need to have answered.

As example, why does a grown man, married with kids, have a premium SnapChat account? Inquiring minds know.

On a serious note, if the stories are true that there is a "slush fund" for Congresional member to pay off accusers? I want him to remain in the news IF more of this is brought to light. My tax dollars shouldn't be a "get out of jail card."

Lots of things I'd prefer mine weren't spent on, fraud and the politicians involved in it being the top of my list. If the federal government would quit growing and let the states decide which programs they want to run I think our money would be better managed, or at least allow us to move to a state where it was.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I agree with this; to an extent. There are questions I believe we need to have answered.

As example, why does a grown man, married with kids, have a premium SnapChat account? Inquiring minds know.

On a serious note, if the stories are true that there is a "slush fund" for Congresional member to pay off accusers? I want him to remain in the news IF more of this is brought to light. My tax dollars shouldn't be a "get out of jail card."

This is an easy, red meat issue for someone to get on their soapbox, rant, and score points; however, it's not as clear cut as it's made out to be. This is an account for all employment disputes, including but not limited to claims of sexual harassment. Claims based on age/sex/race/pregnancy/orientation - you name it - have been paid. As in the private sector and elsewhere in government, many claims are settled without an admission of responsibility out of expediency or as middle ground compromise over factual disputes. My agency made payments to avoid litigation on claims of discrimination, usually to the dismay of managers and executives in their chain of command. I've had it happen to me when I was chomping at the bit to testify publicly on the poor performance/unacceptable conduct of employees. Once you have a situation documented and are closing in on a termination, many employees will allege an age/sex/race claim to deflect from their performance or actions.

It's rarely as simple or clear cut as it is with these two Congressmen.

 

[TerryP]

It's rarely as simple or clear cut as it is with these two Congressmen.

I'm very aware of how encompassing the "coverage" is ... well, as aware as one can be without delving deeply into the "transactions." It doesn't change my opinion.

Claims based on age/sex/race/pregnancy/orientation - you name it - have been paid.

I don't look at what Swallwell is accused of and call it "a mistake." I don't look at these examples as mistakes either. If someone, today, discriminates due to age, or religion? That money should come from them.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I'm very aware of how encompassing the "coverage" is ... well, as aware as one can be without delving deeply into the "transactions." It doesn't change my opinion.

I don't look at what Swallwell is accused of and call it "a mistake." I don't look at these examples as mistakes either. If someone, today, discriminates due to age, or religion? That money should come from them.

Again, the examples of Swalwell and Gonzalez are clear cut.

What about the Evangelical Christian mail carrier who took his case to the Supreme Court to avoid working Sundays (SCOTUS ruled against USPS, 9-0)? Should the first supervisor who insisted he work on Sundays pay the USPS' legal bills and those of the carrier? His supevisor? USPS leadership who continued to purse the matter? What if the carrier is passed over for a promotion or merit raise and claims religious discrimination? Case law and business practices have established a long precedent that the liability for employee civil allegations rests with the company.

 

[TerryP]

What about the Evangelical Christian mail carrier who took his case to the Supreme Court to avoid working Sundays (SCOTUS ruled against USPS, 9-0)? Should the first supervisor who insisted he work on Sundays pay the USPS' legal bills and those of the carrier? His supevisor? USPS leadership who continued to purse the matter? What if the carrier is passed over for a promotion or merit raise and claims religious discrimination? Case law and business practices have established a long precedent that the liability for employee civil allegations rests with the company.

How do you equate that with a Congress member? He would be the employer in your scenario.

It's ironic you mention the mail carrier. A guy who works at the 7-11 was there Sunday and I asked why. It was the third Sunday I'd seen him in the last few weeks after never seeing him there. I knew he was at church.

Now, does his boss know that she's breaking the law? She should. (SC 53-1-120c) In your case scenario, his first supervisor should have known the law. My first thought is the buck should stop there and then that supervisor take it up the chain. If it was inadequate training? The fault is extended.

You're asking for a comparison between a congress member and a business owner and I see nothing but contrast.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

How do you equate that with a Congress member? He would be the employer in your scenario.

It's ironic you mention the mail carrier. A guy who works at the 7-11 was there Sunday and I asked why. It was the third Sunday I'd seen him in the last few weeks after never seeing him there. I knew he was at church.

Now, does his boss know that she's breaking the law? She should. (SC 53-1-120c) In your case scenario, his first supervisor should have known the law. My first thought is the buck should stop there and then that supervisor take it up the chain. If it was inadequate training? The fault is extended.

You're asking for a comparison between a congress member and a business owner and I see nothing but contrast.

Elected, appointed, hired, inherited...leaders of organizations are one and the same.