And just to think that Reps. Speier, and Sánchez will be part of the attack when the Democrats try to impeach President Trump for allegedly paying “hush” money to Stormy Daniels from campaign finances when new members are sworn in on January 3, 2019

Impeachment-Obsessed Congress Still Hiding Its Sexual Harassers



Salacious accusations that Donald Trump paid “hush” money from campaign finances to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with him, have suddenly become the latest drive to impeach him. But the burning unasked question to the media of the day should be: How can we take seriously any of your accusations when Congress paid its multiple sexual harassment victims a whopping $15 million out of the Treasury—keeping the identities of the harassers a well-guarded state secret?

As usual 90 percent-plus of the mainstream and social media are so gung-ho to portray the president as a criminal in a last-ditch attempt to impeach him, they virtually ignore that some $15 million was taken from the public purse to keep sexual harassers holding public office in their well-paid jobs. Why is it that “credible” allegations of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill of senators openly exposing themselves right on the House Floor have continued to go straight over the media’s heads since November of 2017? Why is it that Trump is being media-portrayed as ‘The President, the Criminal’, while Congress remains mum on the criminals who cost taxpayers $15 million to protect their anonymity ? According to three female Democrat politicians, settling sexual harassment accusation cases on the QT has already cost American taxpayers some $15 million over the last 10 to 15 years. One year after this shocking revelation, NOTHING has ever been done about it. Writing for The Hill, Jenny Beth Martin called it the “shush” fund, managed by the “Office of Compliance,” which itself was created following the 1995 enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the first law enacted by the first Republican House in four decades.

“The CAA sought to make changes in how Congress dealt with charges of sexual harassment against its members and staff, too. Prior to enactment of the law, a victim of sexual harassment by a member of Congress had virtually no legal recourse at all. With whom would such a victim lodge a complaint or seek redress? “So the CAA created the “Office of Compliance” to deal with such issues. Complainants begin the dispute resolution process with a mandatory (yes, really) course of counseling that can last up to 30 days. Only after completing the compulsory counseling may a complainant pursue mediation. That, too, can last up to 30 days. “If mediation fails to resolve the issue to the complainant’s satisfaction, she or he can then go to an administrative hearing, or file a federal lawsuit. “Here’s the kicker: If the dispute is resolved in favor of the complainant (read: victim), funds for the settlement don’t come out of the offender’s personal bank account, or his or her campaign account. Instead, they come out of a secret account maintained by the Office of Compliance. It is so secret, in fact, that taxpayers don’t even know they are funding it. “According to the Washington Post, there were 235 complainants who received compensation totaling $15.2 million between 1997 and 2014. That’s more than one settlement per month for 17 years and nearly $1 million per year. We, the taxpayers, have no idea on whose behalf we’ve been paying to settle these sexual harassment claims. That’s wrong. “We, the taxpayers who have been paying for more than two decades to quietly settle literally hundreds of sexual harassment claims against members of Congress and their staffs, have a right to know which members and staffers have made use of the hush money over the years. Going forward, taxpayers should have knowledge about how that fund is used.”

What exactly is sexual harassment, Congress style? Incredibly, some of it congressmen, who expose their genitals and who grab private parts—on the House floor, who not only get away with it but get the privilege of remaining unnamed. We’re not talking about the deeds of these sexual harassers before running for public office—but what they got away with as elected officials! Genital-exposing politicians (GEP, for short) are said to come from both the Democrat and Republican parties, and, incredibly continue to find protection in the system as it currently stands. (CFP, Nov.17, 2017) Congress concern for sexual harassment among elected officials seems to be one shameless sham. Long before the 2016 election of Trump, the White House was a second home away from home for Hollywood, and because, until he was outed, alleged sexual predator movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was hosted by the White House many times during the 8-year tenure of Barack Obama, who, along with his protégé Hillary Clinton, accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in Weinstein campaign donations. “Efforts to combat sexual harassment on Capitol Hill gained momentum on Tuesday as female lawmakers shared stories of male colleagues engaging in predatory behavior. (The Hill, Nov.14, 2017) “Those stories ranged from comments asking “Are you going to be a good girl?” to harassers exposing their genitals and grabbing private parts on the House floor.” “What possible good are any of their stories if the perpetrators get to go unnamed? (Canada Free Press, Nov. 17, 2017)





“Lawmakers in both parties had already expressed support for mandatory sexual harassment awareness training, which is currently voluntary for legislative branch staffers. But they went further in a House Administration Committee hearing on Capitol Hill’s harassment policies and said even more can be done in a male-dominated workplace where sexual harassment can be pervasive.” (The Hill) “What good was “voluntary” sexual harassment awareness training for legislative branch staffers if support exists for “mandatory” sexual harassment awareness training now? (CFP) “Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, told The Associated Press earlier this month that a male colleague had ogled her and touched her inappropriately on the House floor when she first began serving in Congress. (The Hill) “Sánchez declined to name the lawmaker when asked about the incident on Tuesday. “She never filed an official complaint, but learned to avoid being near him.” “Since then, Sánchez told reporters, she’s advised newer members to do the same.





In other words Sánchez maintained a silence that kept the offending lawmaker on the loose, and one that put others at risk of potential sexual harassment. Silence, Rep. Sánchez, is not always golden. “When you are new to a workplace, you don’t always understand what the policies and procedures are, or what the avenues for reporting those kinds of incidences are,” Sánchez said. (The Hill) “Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), in testimony before the panel, said at least two current members of Congress have engaged in sexual harassment. “Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) offered another example. She shared a story of a male lawmaker — still in Congress — who asked a young female staffer to bring materials to his residence. He opened the door dressed in only a towel, invited her inside and proceeded to expose himself. “The staffer subsequently quit her job. “That kind of situation, what are we doing here for women right now who are dealing with somebody like that?” Comstock asked. The answer is: Nothing, Rep.Comstock, absolutely nothing. Even if the staffer quit, wouldn’t whom she worked for be easy to determine? “Speier had previously shared her own experience of having a chief of staff forcibly kiss her when she was working as a congressional staffer in the 1970s. (The Hill) “Since then, Speier said she’s received a multitude of calls to her office from people sharing their own stories of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. “None of the three female lawmakers accused any of their colleagues by name of sexual harassment. Comstock said she heard the story secondhand and did not know the lawmaker’s identity, only that he is still a member of Congress.” How is it possible that Comstock does not know the lawmaker’s identity but that he’s still a member of congress? Members of the public at large “don’t feel comfortable” that lawmakers are keeping mum on the names of congressman who expose genitals and grab private parts on the House floor no matter the reason. And just to think that Reps. Speier, and Sánchez will be part of the attack when the Democrats try to impeach President Trump for allegedly paying “hush” money to Stormy Daniels from campaign finances when new members are sworn in on January 3, 2019.

Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives Copyright © Canada Free Press RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com. Older articles by Judi McLeod

{/exp:ce_cache:it}