The Biden Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, if he had just behaved like a normal person, the "scandal" could have been managed. Another case of the cover-up being worse than the underlying thing they were trying to cover up.

ETA: Just to clarify the time line though, he threatened and berated the Politico reporter before the puff piece in People was published.

I don't think anyone was even treating it as a scandal at all. The reporter he was dating didn't try to conceal the relationship and was put onto an assignment where there was no conflict of interest at all. The whole thing was handled with transparency and good judgement right up until Ducklo's melt-down.

I think pretty much everyone involved is baffled as to why Ducklo flipped out like this.
 
"But Trump was worse" is going to be the excuse trotted out anytime someone criticizes Biden's admin. It will be true every time, and entirely unsatisfying for the reasons you say.

I think you'll mainly hear "But Trump was worse" when the Biden criticism comes with an implied "see, you should have voted for Trump instead".

I would love to break out of that more.
 
I'm wondering if there could have been another way... if the administration had fired him initially the anti-Biden media could report...
The standard routine response to this kind of thing for every other employer in the country that's big & formal & structured enough to have an HR department and official HR policies is an immediate suspension to investigate, with the option to either fire him or bring him back to work depending on the outcome of the investigation. Why couldn't this administration figure out such a simple, easy, straightforward, obvious thing that no other comparable employer in the country hasn't already had written into its standard operating procedures for decades?

I don't think they would have fired him/demanded his resignation before making sure he would not lose his health insurance.
If they were thinking of that at all, it only makes them look worse. Why does this guy deserve this consideration from them when the rest of the country doesn't? At least if the idea of protecting somebody from the insane disfunctionality of our health are "system" never crosses their minds, they're just absentminded or unaware or whatever and treating everybody equally badly; being conscious of the problem and coddling one of their own through it while leaving the rest of us to the vultures would demonstrate a far worse attitude than mere absentmindedness.
 
Last edited:
.....
If they were thinking of that at all, it only makes them look worse. Why does this guy deserve this consideration from them when the rest of the country doesn't?
.....

It's not a question of what "the rest of the country" does. This particular organization dealt with this particular employee in a responsible, compassionate way. "Off with his head" is not a helpful response, and it's not like a reporter covering the White House for a national publication was traumatized by an unpleasant conversation. She's probably heard worse in her own newsroom. The guy embarrassed his employer and was kicked out for it. That should be enough.

And I say again, a large organization would typically ask for someone's resignation in exchange for some consideration, which might include severance or extended benefits. "You're fired, get out!" is just not the norm.
 
And I say again, a large organization would typically ask for someone's resignation in exchange for some consideration, which might include severance or extended benefits. "You're fired, get out!" is just not the norm.

I assure you, if I were making sexually charged comments and unhinged threats to "destroy" people in the workplace, I would be fired unceremoniously and not negotiating a severance package.
 
I assure you, if I were making sexually charged comments and unhinged threats to "destroy" people in the workplace, I would be fired unceremoniously and not negotiating a severance package.

Would it make a difference if the other party had initiated a conversation with you about her plans to publicize your sex life? I'm not defending the guy, but his bosses' process just doesn't seem unreasonable. And I still would like to hear her side of the conversation, which we don't know anything about.
 
I guess Biden must be doing ok if the worst his haters can throw at him is "his administration didn't fire someone without investigating first! The horrors!”

That is what is puzzling me about this. I've never worked for a large organization that didn't have to run something like this through a number of levels before tossing an employee out on his butt. I've seen examples of folks who committed much more heinous offences, but it still took weeks to fire 'em.
 
Would it make a difference if the other party had initiated a conversation with you about her plans to publicize your sex life? I'm not defending the guy, but his bosses' process just doesn't seem unreasonable. And I still would like to hear her side of the conversation, which we don't know anything about.
Was the article about their "sex life?"

Did it describe what positions they like, who cums first, how many hookups a week averaged over the last few months?

If it mentioned they have a relationship and discussed what implications that has on their professional roles, is it about their "sex life?"

Even if under your version, is the correct response to launch into threats and profanity?

I work for a retail store. If someone at my job has a (personal) relationship with anyone who interacts with our company (professionally), that relationship must be disclosed and processes followed to assure no impropriety takes place. Sure, a lot of romantic types of relationships spring to mind, but it really is a broader rule and ethically sensible.

These folks work very close to great power. I think it is fair I expect they follow the same professional before I do, if not much stricter ones.
 
Last edited:
That is what is puzzling me about this. I've never worked for a large organization that didn't have to run something like this through a number of levels before tossing an employee out on his butt. I've seen examples of folks who committed much more heinous offences, but it still took weeks to fire 'em.

Exactly. Those complaining about the timeframe are only demonstrating their own unfamiliarity with standard business practices for most organizations. I mean, sure, the cashier or stock boy at the local retail store might be fired with no notice or investigation, but outside of minimum wage situations this whole "fire first investigate never" just isn't the norm.
 
Exactly. Those complaining about the timeframe are only demonstrating their own unfamiliarity with standard business practices for most organizations. I mean, sure, the cashier or stock boy at the local retail store might be fired with no notice or investigation, but outside of minimum wage situations this whole "fire first investigate never" just isn't the norm.

This is pure fantasy.

Is there a shred of evidence to suggest there was any investigation ongoing that explains the delay?

Occam's razor is that the guy getting fired the day after a negative press hit was fired because his bosses were primarily motivated by the bad PR.

Not even the Biden press sec is suggesting such an absurd explanation:

A reporter pointed out to Psaki that the White House had known about the interaction for weeks but only suspended Ducklo after Vanity Fair reported on it. She said the reporter was "right," but noted that the White House had believed it was "appropriate at the time" to engage privately with Politico "immediately after the conversation occurred."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-suspends-deputy-press-secretary-tj-ducklo/story?id=75856334
 
Last edited:
The article lays out the situation pretty clearly.

The time line is quite clear.

Jan 20: Ducklo has his phone call where he is extremely unprofessional with the reporter

Jan 21: Politico editors speak with Ducklo's bosses. At some point there is a semi-admittance of bad behavior and he writes an apology letter. Ducklo is assigned to not interact with any other politico reporters and is otherwise not reprimanded.

Feb 12: Vanity Fair runs the story. Same day, Press Secretary announces that Ducklo will also take 1 week unpaid leave as punishment.

Feb 13: He "resigns".

I don't know how anyone here is even pretending that the Vanity Fair piece was not the inciting incident for him being suspended then fired. What more evidence do you need?

Should the admin have investigated such allegations? What would that entail? How long would it take?
 
A quote from the press conference when journalists asked about specifically the timing of the suspension. I imagine the very negative and probing questions of the reporters present had a decent impact on the resignation that would come the next day. Especially the question about why it was acceptable for Ducklo to only be barred from interacting with Politico reporters, and not all women journalists generally, given the generally sexist nature of his insults.

Press question:
Jen, if you knew about this conversation for weeks, why wasn't TJ suspended until after the article dropped? He was here up until last night.

Psaki
You're right. He - there were conversations that occurred with the reporter, as well as editors at Politico, immediately after the conversation occurred. That was how we engaged in a private manner. And, you know, that was - that was what we felt was appropriate at the time.Go ahead, Anne.

Strikes me as about as close to an admission as we'll ever get that there were no plans for further discipline prior to the press piece hitting. Can we stop with these fantasies about investigations and deliberation processes? He got a slap on a wrist, and then he got canned when that wrist-slapping was criticized as being inadequate in the press.

If Psaki was aware of any HR investigation or whatever, surely she would have mentioned this here as an excuse for the delay in real disciplinary action, right?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508971-1/white-house-press-secretary-jen-psaki-holds-daily-briefing

Here's a more readable transcript here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/02/12/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-detroit-mayor-mike-duggan-and-miami-mayor-francis-suarez-february-12-2021/
 
Last edited:
The article lays out the situation pretty clearly.

The time line is quite clear.

Jan 20: Ducklo has his phone call where he is extremely unprofessional with the reporter

Jan 21: Politico editors speak with Ducklo's bosses. At some point there is a semi-admittance of bad behavior and he writes an apology letter. Ducklo is assigned to not interact with any other politico reporters and is otherwise not reprimanded.



The two highlighted dates explain the entire delay in firing this guy. They were almost certainly in "You've got to be ******* kidding me!" mode when they heard about this. Because Biden firing this guy literally his second day in office after an offense committed on his first day in office would have dominated the news cycle right at the moment they were trying to send a message of "All is well!"

This is exactly what they didn't need at that moment, and I'm pretty sure they told the guy, apologize, get out of the building, and if you don't make waves, you'll have a job for one more month before we quietly shuffle you out the door, you frigging idiot.
 
Exactly. Those complaining about the timeframe are only demonstrating their own unfamiliarity with standard business practices for most organizations. I mean, sure, the cashier or stock boy at the local retail store might be fired with no notice or investigation, but outside of minimum wage situations this whole "fire first investigate never" just isn't the norm.
Interesting.

The existence of two-tiered justice where special "professional" classes are shielded from consequences is...?

What? How is that good?

Deriding those of us critical of these decisions as "unfamiliar" with business is just a cheap shot.

I know how "the real world works." My not liking it doesn't mean I'm not aware, in fact that's a bit paradoxical.

A different conclusion by others is not an indication of inferior conceptualization.
 
Last edited:
We're still going on about this?

This shows the difference between Trump and Biden. Trump provided a new controversy every day. Sometimes 5 or 6 new controversies a day. People need something to talk about. They are so desperate for controversy, that they will make one out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
This is pure fantasy.

Is there a shred of evidence to suggest there was any investigation ongoing that explains the delay?

Occam's razor is that the guy getting fired the day after a negative press hit was fired because his bosses were primarily motivated by the bad PR.

Not even the Biden press sec is suggesting such an absurd explanation:



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-suspends-deputy-press-secretary-tj-ducklo/story?id=75856334

Your own quote about engaging privately proves investigation. What do you think the engaging was? Were they getting married? For crying out loud, you just keep shooting yourself in the foot here, don't you?
 
Interesting.

The existence of two-tiered justice where special "professional" classes are shielded from consequences is...?

Ducklo was forced to resign. In your world this is being shielded from the consequences? Interesting indeed. Were you wanting more? Perhaps a public flogging? Being stripped naked and forced to walk through town while monks chant "Shame" behind him, ala Queen Cersei?

What? How is that good?

Deriding those of us critical of these decisions as "unfamiliar" with business is just a cheap shot.

I know how "the real world works." My not liking it doesn't mean I'm not aware, in fact that's a bit paradoxical.

A different conclusion by others is not an indication of inferior conceptualization.

No, when you are suprised that professional organizations act differently to long time professional staff than retail outlets treat minimum wage employees, I don't think you do know how the real world works.
 
If they were thinking of that at all, it only makes them look worse. Why does this guy deserve this consideration from them when the rest of the country doesn't? At least if the idea of protecting somebody from the insane disfunctionality of our health are "system" never crosses their minds, they're just absentminded or unaware or whatever and treating everybody equally badly; being conscious of the problem and coddling one of their own through it while leaving the rest of us to the vultures would demonstrate a far worse attitude than mere absentmindedness.
I can see why you say this but I disagree. I don’t think the Biden Admin wants to leave anyone to the vultures as demonstrated by the ACA. So there’s no hypocrisy. Perhaps COBRA covers this as a matter of course. Miss a COBRA payment and you were SOL under the old “system” if you had a pre-existing condition. Once COBRA ran out you had to get a job with comparable benefits which in my experience has become a lot harder and impossible if you’re too sick to work. IIRC Trump threw a disabled 5-year-old nephew to the wolves at one point. Compassion is an explicit value to libs but is seen as weakness by current “conservatives.”
 
We're still going on about this?

This shows the difference between Trump and Biden. Trump provided a new controversy every day. Sometimes 5 or 6 new controversies a day. People need something to talk about. They are so desperate for controversy, that they will make one out of nothing.
Well, yeah. You’re right. But it’s interesting, compared to the rest of the fodder the Biden WH is giving people to yap about.

Yappers gonna yap!
 
Your own quote about engaging privately proves investigation. What do you think the engaging was? Were they getting married? For crying out loud, you just keep shooting yourself in the foot here, don't you?

To me it sounds like they were haggling with Politico to see what the minimally acceptable punishment was to make the story go away, which ultimately didn't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom