Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual Harassment Complaint, Using Taxpayer Money - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )

Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual Harassment Complaint, Using Taxpayer Money: Report
By
Margaret Hartmann
Many people have been speaking out about sexual harassment in D.C. politics in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The Senate is contending with misconduct allegations against Al Franken, and report that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore assaulted girls as young as 14. In recent weeks eight women have accused former President George H.W. Bush of groping them, and many are reconsidering the sexual misconduct allegations against President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton.
While we’ve heard new tales of rampant sexual misconduct in the House, most of those claims were anonymous, and it seemed the lower chamber might be spared from a high-profile harassment scandal. That changed on Monday night, when BuzzFeed reported that Democratic Representative John Conyers, the longest-serving member of Congress, settled a 2015 complaint from a former staffer who said she was fired after refusing his sexual advances. To make matters worse, the payout was the result of a secretive bureaucratic process Congress uses to handle harassment claims, and the money came out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget.
In 2014, the woman filed a complaint with Congress’s Office of Compliance. the legislature does not have a human resources department, and instead the Office of Compliance uses a lengthy procedure to address alleged violations of various employment rules. The Washington Post reports that the office has paid more than $17 million for 264 settlements and awards to federal employees since 1997.
In her complaint, the former Conyers staffer accused him of repeatedly asking her for sexual favors, and ultimately firing her because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.” Per BuzzFeed:
On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.
She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.
In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”
“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.
The complaint includes four signed affidavits from other former Conyers staff members who said this was a no isolated incident. One former staffer reported witnessing a “variety of inappropriate sexual advances” from Conyers, directed toward herself and other female staff members. Another former staffer said, “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers apartments, hotel rooms, etc.”
A male employee said he saw Conyers rubbing the complainant’s legs and other body parts “in what appeared to be a sexual manner,” and saw him doing the same with other women. The employee said he warned Conyers to be “more careful” and he said he would “work on” his behavior. Then the employee set up a December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.” The affidavit says Conyers agreed to make improvements, “as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”
The documents were given to BuzzFeed by the alt-right’s Mike Cernovich, who’s known to peddle conspiracy theories like Pizzagate. He said if he did the reporting himself, Democrats and congressional leaders would “try to discredit the story by attacking the messenger.” While this raises questions about why someone opted to leak the documents to Cernovich, BuzzFeed said it confirmed the authenticity of the documents with four people involved in the case, including the woman who filed the complaint.
The accuser, who wants to remain anonymous because she fears retribution, told BuzzFeed that the Office of Compliance’s process left her feeling like she had no option but to take the settlement and remain silent. “I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said.
The office gives employees 180 days to report sexual harassment. Early on in the process – which involves mandatory mediation and the option to take the claim to federal district court – those involved are forced to sign a confidentiality agreement.
In this case the complainant was offered a $27,111.75 settlement – in which Conyers did not admit guilt – in exchange for remaining silent. While such payments usually come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund, this settlement involved Conyers’ office rehiring the woman as a “temporary employee,” though she would not come into the office or do any work. After three months, once the woman had received $27,111.15 in payments from the congressman’s office budget, she was removed from the payroll.
Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, has been pushing to reform the process for reporting sexual harassment in Congress for years. She and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand recently introduced bipartisan legislation that would add more transparency and resources for victims. It would require the naming of lawmakers who enter into a settlement, and set up a victims counsel to guide accusers through the process (currently the office of the accused can use the House’s counsel for free, but accusers have to pay for their own legal representation).
Conyers’ office has yet to respond to requests for comment, nor have other lawmakers have weighed in on the report, which broke late on Monday night. The one exception was House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who told BuzzFeed she wasn’t aware of the settlement.
“The current process includes the signing of non-disclosure agreements by the parties involved. Congresswoman Jackie Speier has introduced legislation that will provide much-needed transparency on these agreements and make other critical reforms,” Pelosi said. “I strongly support her efforts.”
News of the Conyers settlement raises more uncomfortable questions for Democrats. Franken’s political future seemed even more in doubt on Monday after a second woman accused him of groping her. Conyers has been the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for a decade, he’s one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and he introduced the bill to create a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. One former Conyers staffer told BuzzFeed that people were afraid to speak up due to his reputation in Congress. “Your story won’t do shit to him,” they said. “He’s untouchable.”
In this #MeToo moment, with alleged abusers from various professions facing investigations and losing positions of power, it feels like things might be different. But whether the politicians recently accused of sexual misconduct – from Trump to Moore to Franken – actually face serious consequences remains to be seen. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver notes, “Politics is a male-dominated institution, and a conservative institution, and conservative, male-dominated institutions have pretty much no interest in flipping over the sexual harassment rock and seeing what comes crawling out from underneath it.”
The claims against Conyers may be appalling to outsiders, but it appears he followed the procedures Congress established for addressing such matters. Why would fellow lawmakers call him out, particularly when many of them benefitted from the same process?

President Trump Is Officially Dissolving His Charitable Foundation - TIME

President Trump Is Officially Dissolving His Charitable Foundation
President Donald Trump is dissolving his charitable foundation nearly a year after it admitted to violating federal rules on “self-dealing,” according to newly-filed tax documents.
Internal Revenue Service documents filed this month and obtained by NBC News confirm Trump is making good on his promise from last December to shutter the Donald J. Trump Foundation in light of scrutiny over potential conflict of interest.
“The foundation announced its intent to dissolve and is seeking approval to distribute its remaining funds” to other charities, according to the IRS filing, which was uploaded to charity watchdog website Guidestar.org by the foundation.
In October 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the foundation to halt its solicitation of charitable donations in the state. Now, a spokesperson from the foundation says that it is working with Schneiderman’s office in order to facilitate the foundation’s closing.
“The Foundation continues to cooperate with the New York Attorney General’s Charities Division, and as previously announced by the President, his advisers are working with the Charities Division to wind up the affairs of the Foundation,” the spokesperson told NBC. “The Foundation looks forward to distributing its remaining assets at the earliest possible time to aid numerous worthy charitable organizations.”
The foundation had about $970,000 in assets at the end of 2016, the documents show, according to NBC. The attorney general’s press secretary, Amy Spitalnick, told the outlet that the foundation legally cannot close yet since it is “still under investigation by this office.”
Tax records dating back to 2015 show that the foundation has violated the IRS’ provisions on self-dealing, which bars nonprofits from funneling charity funds to its leaders, their businesses, or their families.
Trump himself acknowledged the violation, saying in a December 2016 statement: “The Foundation has done enormous good works over the years in contributing millions of dollars to countless worthy groups, including supporting veterans, law enforcement officers and children. However, to avoid even the appearance of any conflict with my role as President I have decided to continue to pursue my strong interest in philanthropy in other ways.”
It remains unclear how Trump will seek to continue his charitable interests in the “other ways” he mentioned last year.

Putin to speak with Trump after meeting with Syrian President Assad - CNN News

Putin to speak with Trump after meeting with Syrian President Assad
By Ben Westcott and Jennifer Hauser, CNN
) November 21, 2017
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar Assad met in Sochi, Russian state media reported Tuesday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar Assad met in Sochi, Russian state media reported Tuesday.
(CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to call US President Donald Trump on Tuesday following a rare meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad to discuss the future of Syria, a statement from the Kremlin said.
Putin and Assad met for talks in Sochi, the Russian Black Sea resort, Russian state media reported Tuesday.
During the meeting, Putin was full of praise for the Syrian President and his work fighting ISIS.
"Syria is striving in the fight against terrorist(s) ... the Syrian people are going through very difficult trials and are gradually approaching the final, unavoidable rout of terrorists," Putin said according to Russian news agency Sputnik.
A Kremlin statement issued after the meeting quoted Putin as saying he would be phoning Trump on Tuesday, along with leaders of other countries involved in the Syrian conflict, such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
"Based on our meeting today I will hold consultations with the leaders of those countries... Today, a conversation with Emir of Qatar is already planned and, tomorrow, with president of the United States of America Donald Trump and then with leaders of the countries of the region," Putin said Monday, according to the statement.
Putin (right) praised Assad for his work fighting ISIS.
Putin (right) praised Assad for his work fighting ISIS.
It's the first time the two leaders have met since October 2015, just a month after Russia came to the aid of the embattled dictator with a series of airstrikes against rebels opposing Assad's regime.
Putin and his government have been one of the chief supporters of the Syrian President's government, both militarily and in helping negotiate ceasefires in the country's long-running civil war.
Hostilities between Assad and the Syrian rebels began in March 2011.
The two leaders met for talks ahead of a trilateral summit on Wednesday between Russia, Turkey and Iran, Syrian state media SANA said.
Both men, who are pictured hugging in official photos, agreed that the emphasis in the long-running Syrian conflict has moved from military operations to the search for a political solution.
"Huge successes have been achieved, both on the battlefield (and) on the political level. Many areas in Syria have been liberated from terrorist(s), and civilians who were forced to leave those areas have been able to return," Assad said according to state media.
"We must admit that the operation made it possible to advance the process of political settlement in Syria."


CNN's Matthew Chance and Emma Burrows contributed to this report.

British banks will lose “passporting rights” to do business in the European Union after Brexit - Independent

British banks will lose “passporting rights” to do business in the European Union after Brexit, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said.
Speaking in Brussels on Monday, Michel Barnier said that “Brexit means Brexit” – and that there could be no opt-ins to parts of the single market for certain industries.
“On financial services, UK voices suggest that Brexit does not mean Brexit. Brexit means Brexit, everywhere,” Mr Barnier said in a major speech to a think-tank.
David Davis ‘must be joking if he wants EU to compromise on Brexit’
“The legal consequence of Brexit is that the UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million businesses.”
The pronouncement is bad news for the City, where over 5,400 British firms rely on passporting rights to bring in £9bn in revenue every year to Britain. The British Bankers’ Association (BBA) has said the loss of passporting would be “disruptive, costly and time-consuming”.
It also comes the same day as the EU announces where it will relocating the European Banking Authority, an EU agency currently based in London, after Brexit.
The chief negotiator said the EU might judge some UK rules as “equivalent” to EU passporting rights, but ruled out the City of London having access to EU financial markets under the same passporting deal as now.
Brexit trade talks to be pushed back by another four months, says Manfred Weber
Mr Barnier told the audience at the Centre for European Reform: “Those who claim that the UK should pick parts of the single market must stop this contradiction. The single market is a package, with four indivisible freedoms, common rules, institutions, and enforcement structures.
“The UK knows these rules very well, like the back of its hand. It has contributed to defining them over the last 44 years with a certain degree of influence. We took note of the UK decision to end free movement of people, and this means clearly that the UK will lose the benefits of the single market.
Michel Barnier speaking at the Centre for European Reform in Brussels (CER)
“This is a legal reality; the EU does not want to punish, it simply draws the logical consequence of the UK’s decision to take back control.”
As well as ruling out a carve-out for the financial sector, Mr Barnier appeared to suggest there could be no special deal for the UK’s car manufacturers to stay in the single market, as proposed by industry bodies.
Davis ‘demanded private RAF plane for Brexit talks’
Households are more than £400 worse off after Brexit
Irish border joins divorce bill on pile of reasons for Brexit deadlock
Government sabotaging its own Brexit talks with new law, MPs warn
In the same speech, the senior EU official also expressed disappointment at what he suggested as a fixation in some British circles on “no deal” being a viable option for the UK.
“We have a shared history and this started long before the last 44 years. This is why the no deal is not our scenario, even though we will be ready for it,” he said.
“I regret that this ‘no deal’ option comes up so often in the UK public debate. Only those who want to ignore the current benefits of EU membership can say that no deal would be a positive result.”
Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said the decision was a “major blow” to the Government’s Brexit plans.
“Loss of this access risks blowing a hole in the budget at a time when our public services are already seriously underfunded,” he said.
“All of this could be avoided if the Government chose to stay in the single market.
“Instead, ministers seem intent on killing the golden goose by choosing an extreme form of Brexit that will seriously damage the financial sector.”