McCaskill Makes It Personal in Battle Over Military Assaults

None

Senator Claire McCaskill, D-MO, speaks during a press conference announcing legislation on wartime contracting March 1, 2012 in the Senate Radio-Television Gallery of the Capitol in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
Nov. 14, 2013, 6:58 p.m.

The fight over le­gis­la­tion to com­bat mil­it­ary sexu­al as­saults is get­ting more tense.

Sen. Claire Mc­Caskill, D-Mo., the No. 4 Demo­crat on the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, who has long been a lead­er on sexu­al as­sault is­sues, said she is frus­trated that re­forms she has cham­pioned have not got­ten more cred­it. And she ap­pears miffed about the at­ten­tion rival Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand, D-N.Y., is get­ting.

“I’m frus­trated that the re­forms that we have done have not got­ten the at­ten­tion they de­serve be­cause they are amaz­ing and it’s go­ing to make a huge dif­fer­ence,” Mc­Caskill said Thursday. “I’m not sure that I’ve done so well at the pub­lic re­la­tions on this; I’ll give that to her,” she said of Gil­librand.

Mc­Caskill’s com­ments came at a press con­fer­ence where she was joined by two oth­er wo­men on the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Deb Fisc­her, R-Neb., in cri­ti­ciz­ing the Gil­librand pro­pos­al and pro­mot­ing more mod­er­ate re­forms.

Gil­librand is pur­su­ing an amend­ment to the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill that would rad­ic­ally re­form the mil­it­ary justice sys­tem by tak­ing the de­cision of wheth­er to pro­sec­ute mil­it­ary sexu­al as­saults out of the chain of com­mand.

Gil­librand’s bill is favored by vic­tim ad­vocacy or­gan­iz­a­tions and is adam­antly op­posed by the Pentagon and Armed Ser­vices lead­ers on both sides of the aisle.

But one of Gil­librand’s most damning op­pon­ents might be Mc­Caskill. The first fe­male sen­at­or from Mis­souri is a former courtroom pro­sec­utor who spe­cial­ized in sex crimes, helped es­tab­lish her state’s first do­mest­ic/sexu­al vi­ol­ence unit, is more seni­or on Armed Ser­vices, and is com­ing out swinging hard against a fel­low Demo­crat.

“Some­times it’s not easy to do what you think is right on the policy when the polit­ics are hard,” said Mc­Caskill, flanked by Ayotte and Fisc­her. “I’m very proud of my col­leagues to have the cour­age to stand here on policy and sub­stance as op­posed to, I think, the easi­er path of de­cid­ing this is a win­ner-and-loser ar­gu­ment, with wo­men on one side and men on the oth­er. That does this is­sue and vic­tims a great dis­ser­vice.”

For her part, Gil­librand said that she and Mc­Caskill prob­ably agree on 11 out of 12 re­forms and that she re­spects her work.

“It is not per­son­al for me,” she said. “Sen­at­or Mc­Caskill has spent months on this is­sue. She cares deeply. We just dis­agree on this one is­sue. And I’m fight­ing for it be­cause I think it will make the dif­fer­ence … in more re­port­ing, more cases go­ing to tri­al, and more con­vic­tions.”

Mc­Caskill’s press con­fer­ence came the day after Gil­librand an­nounced she is con­sid­er­ing chan­ging her bill to lim­it its pro­posed pro­sec­u­tion sys­tem to only sexu­al as­saults and rape. That would nar­row it from cov­er­ing all ma­jor crimes con­sidered a felony in the civil justice sys­tem, as it is cur­rently struc­tured.

Mc­Caskill took blatant swipes at Gil­librand’s ap­proach Thursday.

“I will say that the goal­posts keep mov­ing,” she said.

“For us it’s about the policy and it’s not as much about vote-count­ing. We are not chan­ging our pro­vi­sions to try to fig­ure out ways to get more votes. We are try­ing to stay fo­cused on what’s best for vic­tims,” she said.

Mc­Caskill ar­gued that be­cause com­mand­ers would be stripped of the de­cision to pro­sec­ute in Gil­librand’s bill, the meas­ure would fail to hold them ac­count­able.

“We just had a fun­da­ment­al policy dif­fer­ence on wheth­er or not it was go­ing to help vic­tims more to hold the com­mand­er ac­count­able or to al­low them to walk away,” she said.

Mc­Caskill’s tem­per flared hot on this is­sue in Ju­ly when Pro­tect Our De­fend­ers, a vic­tim ad­vocacy group, ran an ad in the St. Louis Post-Dis­patch, call­ing her an obstacle to re­form, which she called “un­fair.”

Greg Jac­ob, the policy dir­ect­or with the Ser­vice Wo­men’s Ac­tion Net­work, said he won­ders if that caused Mc­Caskill to feel the need to re­as­sert her­self as a lead­er on the is­sue.

“I don’t know if there have been con­ver­sa­tions go­ing on and Mc­Caskill feels she has to kind of dig her heels in and re­af­firm that she is a lead­er and ad­voc­ate on this, be­cause the re­cord clearly shows that she has been quite ef­fect­ive and very, very good…. She’s still a play­er here, so I don’t know what kind of stuff is go­ing on that would make her feel that way,” Jac­ob said.

He ad­ded that both Mc­Caskill and Gil­librand have con­sid­er­able in­flu­ence. Mc­Caskill has a his­tory work­ing on these is­sues; Gil­librand is the chair­wo­man of the Per­son­nel Sub­com­mit­tee with jur­is­dic­tion, and she has launched a massive cam­paign to talk to every sen­at­or she can to sup­port her bill.

“Wheth­er or not one has more juice than the oth­er in the com­mit­tee—that is the dy­nam­ic,” he said.

The meas­ures that Mc­Caskill wants more cred­it for in the de­fense bill had wide sup­port, in­clud­ing from Gil­librand. They would take away com­mand­ers’ abil­ity to over­turn con­vic­tions and provide a spe­cial coun­sel to provide in­de­pend­ent leg­al ad­vice to vic­tims. The amend­ment Mc­Caskill wants to add to the bill would al­low sexu­al as­sault vic­tims to chal­lenge un­fair dis­charges and would add ad­di­tion­al checks to com­mand­ers’ pro­sec­u­tion de­cisions. It is co­sponsored by Ayotte and Fisc­her and has the sup­port of Armed Ser­vices Chair­man Carl Lev­in, D-Mich. Mc­Caskill said she ex­pects uni­form sup­port across the Sen­ate and would be “stunned” if Gil­librand did not also sup­port it.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×