President Joe Biden said in an interview on Tuesday that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) should resign if an investigation confirms the allegations of inappropriate behavior and sexual harassment made against him.
Yep
Plainspoken but committed to process, rather than another bullshit Al Franken bum-rush. Good.
Or, as the Texas sheriff said to the mob about to bring the alleged cattle rustler to frontier justice: “Now hold on a minute, boys. First we give him a fair trial; then we hang him.”
Yes. We can STILL be committed to the process. Thanks Joe.
I’m sorry no one would leave Biden alone on this. It’s not something the head of the executive branch needs to be involved in. And its all breathless but you’re another Democrat crap. What? You have to weigh in if you’re a Democrat? I guess so.
Biden did the best he could here.
Anyone think that interviewing Charlotte Bennett for four hours over Zoom is not the best way to conduct an investigation? I would think these interviews should be done in person, not over Zoom.
I’m not going to argue that Andrew Cuomo is a low-profile county dog-catcher sort of figure, but the idea that the President needs to have a public opinion on every political matter at every level of government is just kind of dumb.
Has anyone asked Cuomo when was the last time he sat through the HR dept’s training on “What is appropriate workplace behavior vs what is harassment, sexual or not”?
“I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable,” Cuomo said during a press conference earlier this month where he rebuffed calls to resign. “It was unintentional and I truly and deeply apologize for it.”
So Andrew how did you woo your former wife and girlfriend? I know that he’s been around for more than a minute, and in and around public office for years so this topic of what’s comfortable or appropriate conversation in the workplace has never come up before?
Biden said in an interview
I understand the pressure to say something, and it may help young people to hear it.
So maybe he was right not to say less.
What’s there not to like?
Oh, I dunno, actual lawyers seem to find video depositions more than serviceable.
Are Video Depositions Really as Good as Live Testimony?
Somewhat to our surprise, our experience during the pandemic shows that video depositions have become a viable alternative to live testimony. To start, the technology has improved immeasurably from even a few years ago. By downloading a few files and logging into the remote video platform, deposition participants will find that the video and sound quality appears to be as close to “live” as technologically possible. As for working with exhibits—previously the bane of any remote deposition—the process is now as simple as dragging a document file from a private folder to a shared folder on the remote platform. Once a document is placed in the shared folder, a virtual exhibit sticker is automatically applied and all participants can view it, including the witness who can read the document while answering questions. In a major improvement to the old days, this “drag and drop” process allows documents to be marked as exhibits on the fly and eliminates any need to distribute hard copies of exhibits in advance of the remote deposition.
Perhaps Cuomo’s attorneys can lobby Zoom to develop a rubber-hose or heat-lamp emoticon?
Yeah, when you are testifying about some medical or technical matter, I can see using Zoom. In a case such as this, I don’t agree it’s the best way to do it.
Well, that pretty much defines where you stand.
obviously; its a well establishedfact
yup! its a well established fact that some men are cads…
It may be one way to do it. It does not exclude other ways (as needed).
Why? What would be the advantage to having the same questions asked & answered via live-video be asked & answered in person?
And … I can think of no better case to conduct video depositions than a sexual harassment/sexual assault case. Perhaps the alleged victim shouldn’t be forced to sit across the table from her alleged abuser?
And finally, there’s clear precedence for allowing video depositions in the case where travel might be a hardship or health hazard. Like, you know, during a pandemic?
Courts have also allowed video conferencing when a witness or defendant would bear a hardship in traveling due to health conditions.29 A Washington court held in 2014 that a mother could testify via video conferencing because she showed good cause that her son’s health created a hardship while traveling.30 In another case, the court allowed an elderly man to testify using Skype video conferencing technology because of a stroke that left him too weak to stand.31 While poor health is a compelling circumstance, travel distance combined with poor health has also been persuasive in allowing testimonial video conferencing in court.32
ETA: And you too have made your pro-Cuomo, victim-skeptical stance quite clear.
Less well-established, apparently, is that something ought to be done about them.