Gillibrand Female Aide Resigned Over Sexual Harassment Claim, But Senator Kept Him on Payroll
“He remained on the senator’s payroll ‘for about three months after the incident, even though he didn’t do any work.'”
The Washington Examiner reported Monday night that Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand kept a man on her payroll three months after he resigned in 2017 due to a sexual harassment claim against him.
This happened a year before one aide resigned due to Gillibrand mishandling her sexual harassment claim against another top aide. Gillibrand also kept that aide on her payroll.
From The Washington Examiner:
Marc Brumer, 32, the New York Democrat’s communications director, resigned from Gillibrand’s staff in spring 2017 after making at least one sexist remark that distressed and offended a more junior woman who worked as a scheduler, two former Gillibrand aides told the Washington Examiner.
But Brumer continued to be paid despite his misconduct. He was not dismissed and was kept on Gillibrand’s staff. He remained on the senator’s payroll “for about three months after the incident, even though he didn’t do any work,” one former aide said.
Brumer told the publication he apologized. He also told his friends that his comment “could have been seen as inappropriate,” but he did not intend it to be “sexist or upset the scheduler.”
The Washington Examiner learned from former Gillibrand employees that “it was common to hear inappropriate sexual conversations in the workplace.” One explained:
One of the former Gillibrand staffers told the Washington Examiner that what Brumer said was far from uncommon. “It was so frequent and sanctioned basically by the chief [of staff],” the ex-aide said. “I heard so many off-color remarks from, like, everybody in the office. … It was so common, that it was just like, so you’re firing someone? Why is today the day? Because you’re running for president, or [a journalist] is reaching out to you?”
The former staffer said Gillibrand knew what happened in her office and how complaints were dealt with. “She’s most definitely aware of what goes on in the office. She’s most definitely aware of what people complain about, or [when they] file a complaint,” the aide said.
Her spokesman said:
“Here are the facts: this employee was reprimanded immediately, he offered his resignation and it was accepted. He was never in the office again and was told to work from home to transition his responsibilities after his deputy was elevated to his job and began three months of paid maternity leave. The Senator was proud to promote an outstanding woman from within the office prior to her taking leave.”
A Politico report revealed last week that one aide resigned in the summer of 2018 after the office mishandled her sexual harassment claim against Abbas Malik, who worked as one of Gillibrand’s closest aides.
Gillibrand has tried to convince people that she has handled sexual harassment complaints in her office to the best of her ability. She told a town hall the other day that she made sure the aide who resigned in 2018 knew “she was believed, her allegations were taken seriously.”
Malik remained on the job until a Politico article from three weeks ago exposed more complaints against him.
Gillibrand then fired him.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’ll all roll off Adirondack Barbie’s back like water off a duck’s back. Nothing to see here, please move along and make sure you take a donation envelope on your way out.
Is there a Democrat who doesn’t have issues with sexual assault or anti-Semitism?
Why should he be fired before an investigation into the complaint? Sounds like another “He said, she said” moment anyway.
I think you are missing the point of the double standard.
Gillibrand “believed” this women but kept the man on staff. She received more complaints but did nothing. She fired him when the complaints were aired out to a media source.
In other words, believe all women and metoo are only enforced on political enemies of the left.
No, I didn’t miss the point. I was emphasizing it, in my own modest way.
Maybe Gillibrand just wanted to give a little break to an employee who was shamelessly victimized and railroaded by rampant PC-ism. If so, it’d be the first good thing I’ve ever heard about her.
After the Kavanaugh circus, I really don’t give a towering shit about women whining about anything, imaginary or even real. The
boy’sgirl’s cried“wolf”“inappropriate” too many damn times.If that were the case why wouldn’t she just come out and say so?
Answering my own question: she made a political evaluation about whether being a “stand-up” leader who saw that the value of the accused party to the operation after the me-too crowd abandoned her be made for up by the votes gained from moderates for her good decision, and the continued services of the accused provided a net benefit.
She obviously feared the loss of me-too support more than anything else, even to the point that she wouldn’t even do an investigation of the claim as it might be seen as not believing the accuser.
All of this just underscores the absurdity of the “all accusers must be believed”.
Because if she came out and said so, the women’s “Believe Every Woman Regardless” movement would cut her up like a chainsaw, while not gaining any support at all from the people who are in favor of innocent until proven guilty, because they know better.
So in short, speaking up to defend her accused employee would be a Lose/Lose proposition. Far easier to chuck him under the bus.
Don’t a lot of congress critters keep some side action on call?
HUSH Money!