Bill: Lawmakers Must Pay Sexual Misconduct Settlements Out-of-Pocket

Bill: Lawmakers Must Pay Sexual Misconduct Settlements Out-of-Pocket

Democrats who are hoping that President Donald Trump will face harsh repercussions for paying settlements to women who allege relationships with him passed legislation on Thursday that requires them to make payments for sexual harassment with their own money.

Current law addressing sexual misconduct that was put in place in 1995 — ironically when Bill Clinton was in the White House — requires an accuser to get counseling, wait 30 days, and allowed accused lawmakers to use a slush fund of taxpayer money to pay off their accusers.

At Last, Congress Overhauls Its Awful Sexual Harassment Policy

The Huffington Post reported:
Part of the reason it took Congress all year to get this done is because the House wanted tougher punishments and more transparency when lawmakers sexually harass or discriminate against staff, while Senate Republicans, for some reason, insisted on watering down those provisions.

House lawmakers, for example, wanted to make members of Congress pay out of pocket for discrimination settlements too and wanted to provide legal representation to all accusers. But the Senate, which finally caved on requiring lawmakers to pay out of pocket for sexual harassment settlements, rejected both of those provisions and neither ended up in the final bill.

I think Trump will sign this one. I saw a clip the other day where he was complaining about the outrage over Stormy Daniels payments while Congress has a slush fund to cover these things.

a reply to: toms54

So Trump paid out of pocket and we have outrage because they want people to pay out of pocket?

If they want to talk transparency, let's see a list of who has used the slush fund.
This is a damn good start though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: toms54

So Trump paid out of pocket and we have outrage because they want people to pay out of pocket?

Congress dems were outraged over Stormy Daniels payment yet they have a slush fund to do the same thing in Congress. Trump noted the hypocrisy. Now, they (Congress) are passing a bill to eliminate the slush fund.

Yeah.

So the dems agree with the President and his actions. So much so that they have now made his actions ‘law’.
What a surprise.

Now what do their supporters think of that?

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Yeah.

So the dems agree with the President and his actions. So much so that they have now made his actions ‘law’.
What a surprise.

Now what do their supporters think of that?

We will get a well-written response to it once the NPC's get their afternoon DNC talking points memo.

Until then we will have to wait...

originally posted by: DAVID64
If they want to talk transparency, let's see a list of who has used the slush fund.
This is a damn good start though.

I totally agree.

Publish the list... that way the voters can primary the scumbags on both sides of the aisle out and get some new blood in there.

Transparency, right?

a reply to: toms54

I'm simply wondering why Congress has separate healthcare laws for themselves and separate sexual harassment laws for themselves and separate banking laws for themselves and ... well, you know... separate laws for themselves, period. Why is this new law necessary? Why are they not held to the same, if not higher, standard, than we are, since they create the laws? Most know the answers to these questions.

This is not a victory for the taxpayers. It is a compromise with the scum of the earth to make us feel better. These people in public office that abuse their power to sexually assault others do not need to be fined. They need to be exposed, tried, convicted, tarred, feathered, and driven out of this nation.

ETA: Do not forget that you still pay the salaries and pensions of these degenerates. So even when they pay with their money, they are paying with your money.

--McK177

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Yeah.

So the dems agree with the President and his actions. So much so that they have now made his actions ‘law’.
What a surprise.

Now what do their supporters think of that?

LOL! The idea of using tax payer backed money to pay off..... really just isn't anywhere near paying for it out of pocket and not even the same thing at all. Talk about corruption!

a reply to: MisterMcKill

It is a victory for the taxpayers. Anything that reduces corruption helps. I think this bill also includes protections for the Congressional Aides so our lawmakers can't sexually abuse them as much as before. It's being called Congress's answer to the "me too" movement.

a reply to: toms54

This kind of law will allow too many abuses.

ps

Breitbart's bias is showing.

a reply to: Antipathy17

Making the people responsible pay allows for abuse? Can you elaborate?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: toms54
So Trump paid out of pocket and we have outrage because they want people to pay out of pocket?

Since this subject coming back to life now, shouldn't we (taxpayers) know WHO our dollars paid to "keep quiet and go away", as well as WHO was the offending public servant? (House, Senate, other.)

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So Trump paid out of pocket and we have outrage because they want people to pay out of pocket?

Oh, it's worse than that.

The very definition of sexual harassment includes noncensensual behavior. To date, I have not heard any mention of the Trump/Daniels situation being anything but consensual, and that's assuming anything even happened. For all we know there was never any impropriety.

That's not to say the same thing isn't true of Congressmen who have used the shush fund, but it still doesn't address the issue of consensual/nonconsensual. What is does bring up, however, is the question concerning the present campaign finance allegations against President Trump concerning Michael Cohen. The argument against Cohen was that he broke campaign finance rules because hush money paid to influence a campaign, which these slush fund payments certainly were, as they were designed to keep any settlements quiet, is a campaign contribution that he made illegally. If that is true, then this new bill directly contradicts it... the bill specifies that such monies cannot be considered campaign contributions because they must be paid out of private funds.

Seems someone is backing themselves into quite the corner. It sounds to me like a bunch of Congress critters are trying desperately to cover some butts, the DNC/MSM is trying desperately to pin it on the GOP, and the GOP can't figure out how to remove their respective heads from their respective hind-quarters (which is actually sort of the norm).

TheRedneck

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pay for what? Accusations. Nah. Make them pay if they lose only.

a reply to: toms54

So someone is finally taking action against that slush fund.
Awesome.

Watch who goes against this.

Those are the ones that probably use the fund.

So, before trump it was ok to use taxpayers money to pay sexual assault victims?

Did I wake up in the twilight zone this morning?

I need more coffee!

a reply to: toms54

It says it passed but I can't find the actual bill. Can you link it for us?

I am trying to find out who voted no .

a reply to: scraedtosleep

H.R.4822

Tracker only shows it as introduced... but at least we have the full House version text.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ausername
So, before trump it was ok to use taxpayers money to pay sexual assault victims?

Did I wake up in the twilight zone this morning?

I need more coffee!

Yes. It was.

And The President was NEVER accused of sexual assault, Stormy Daniels CONSENTED.