Maybe yes, maybe no.
And yes, the # of victims will probably rise. Hopefully not to the degree that Cosby’s did. Don’t think I could stomach that.
Well, the casting couch has been around for a long time. Hopefully it’s less frequent.
It’s not just Ailes, either. Apparently, this type of thing wasn’t uncommon at all at Fox News, and the lawyers would come out and harass anyone who complained outside the walls of the company:
This Wilson person sounds like an absolute pig. According to Bakhtiar’s recounting of the incident:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/how-fox-news-fired-and-silenced-an-ailes-accuser.html
“That is a question I have. I thought their job was to get a Democrat elected, not to provide a fair, equal footing for anyone and everyone. The job is to win the election, and if they have one candidate they feel they can win, and another they feel cannot win, wouldn’t it be their obligation to assist the winning candidate over the others? Kind of think these organizations can do everything the way they want to. I doubt there are any legal guidelines.”
Actually, a good question. It has nothing to do with legality, there is nothing in the law, especially the constitution, about how a candidate gets nominated. Keep in mind that it is only within the last 50 years that we have had primaries to determine the party’s nominee, before that at the convention power brokers wheedled and dealt, potential candidates made promises, until a candidate was found, often a compromise one. From what I remember of the details, in 44 when FDR dumped Wallace for Truman, there was a lot of back door dealing, they knew Roosevelt was a sick man and likely not to finish out his term, and in a sense the VP position was about nominating the next presidential candidate. Truman I seem to recall was kind of left standing after all the battles had been fought (and no, I am not trashing Truman, I happened to have a lot of respect for him, for a lot of reasons…among other things, the man knew history, I wish other candidates did).
The reason for the primaries was supposed to be to get rid of the smoke filled rooms and political wangering and to allow ‘the people’ to decide, that it was fairer. As the posted of the above pointed out, though, the real purpose of a convention is to nominate a candidate they think can win, and the primary process does not necessarily provide that (as shown by the candidates who have gone through the primaries, gotten the nod, and ended up getting hosed, McGovern, Dukakis, and Romney come to mind). Part of the problems, as can be seen by prior nominations in both parties, is that the primaries can be slanted towards a certain kind of voter, even within the party, and ends up nominating a candidate who isn’t palatable to, for example, independent voters, or even more moderate (or extreme) voters in their own party. Primaries themselves are not necessarily democratic or reflective, having early primaries in states that tend to be liberal (or conservative) alone can change dynamics of primaries, and putting a lot of more conservative (or liberal) states in the first months of the primaries can slant things…and yes, the main party, while supposedly neutral, can do things like if an unfavorable candidate is winning, on the QT urge donors to work for other candidates and/or not support the leading one.
I personally suspect that the primary system is going to move more and more towards being making sure that the ‘most electable’ candidate gets the nod, the past has shown that when a party loses presidential elections consistently, as has hit both parties, you see the tables being shifted towards ‘influencing’ the primaries away from the ‘old, losing candidate’ towards one who can be elected and IMO it usually comes about when the central party gets taken over by people with a certain viewpoint, been plenty of that.
Certainly caucuses are undemocratic. Votes should be private. And a lot of people just don’t have the time to spend an entire evening caucusing.
It is alleged that he violated New York City Human Rights Laws by retaliating against an employee because she refused his advances.
Maybe not.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
It should go without saying, but I guess I need to say it. Political discussions are not allowed. Several posts have been edits or deleted.
Cosby and Ailes will never again be speaking to a large group of cheering people.
We will probably never see the final severance contract between Ailes and Fox and I think they are still negotiating. But the term sheet that was leaked last week while never mentioning the Carlson litigation, provided for indemnification of Ailes for legal fees and damages arising out of claims against him. So if that provision stays he basically skates. At least financially.
Regarding whether Ailes should be compared to a rapist: I think it quite likely that there were women who submitted to his proposals in order to get or keep a job. Does that level of coercion equate to rape/assault, using the current definition?
Primaries give a much more accurate result than caucuses, which can easily be dominated by a highly-motivated minority of voters. Our state has had caucuses for the last four or so presidential elections, and they were such an unmitigated logistical disaster this year for both parties that it looks like there is non-partisan unity in favor of going back to primaries, although they are more expensive.
IMO, no, it does not. It’s awful, but it’s still different.
The whole sexual harassment thing for a woman to get or keep a job is nevertheless horrible, and it won’t change until women have power that’s equal to men’s.
A question for a real lawyer… @Hanna ?
The definition of rape and the elements of the crime are a matter of state law, so there is no one answer.
Not a lawyer, hopefully Hanna will answer or one of the other lawyers, but generally with sexual harassment, it is a civil offense where the penalties involve fines or judgements against the person committing the offense, I haven’t heard of anyone going to jail for sexual harassment like we are talking about here with Ailes and the like. (I am not talking where someone stalks someone or exposes themself, that is a totally different case). Even if they retaliate and fire someone for not going along, that will involve civil, not criminal, justice system (and again, I am not a lawyer, so talking only what i have seen in the business world and read).
You are confusing civil and criminal. Fines are usually associated with criminal actions, judgments with civil. Sexual harassment can be either civil or criminal. The person could sue the accused for sexual harassment (and get a money judgment) or a DA could bring criminal charges, although usually the same action would be criminally charged as assault, stalking,etc. It depends what the criminal laws of that state are.
Appears Fox just settled with Gretchen Carlson for $20M and issued a public apology to her.
And Greta van Susteren is out as well. I wonder what happened there.
I don’t watch Fox so don’t know all the on-air personalities, but for twenty million she certainly doesn’t have to worry about who would hire her next. Good for her for exposing his harassment although his payout is breath taking.
Apparently, she was expecting to go on the air this evening but will not.