This Is Why There's A Vetting Process...

[Lord Jim]

Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson, President Trump's pick to lead the Veterans Affairs Department, has been accused of creating a hostile work environment, drinking while on duty and improperly prescribing drugs to staff during his time as White House doctor to two administrations, according to Montana Sen. Jon Tester.

Tester, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, detailed the allegations Tuesday in an interview with NPR's All Things Considered.

"All I can tell you is we didn't initiate this discussion," Tester told host Ari Shapiro. "This discussion came when we were notified by folks who work with Adm. Jackson, folks in the military."

Tester said more than 20 military employees disclosed the as-yet-unsubstantiated allegations to senators ahead of a hearing to debate his nomination to lead the VA. That hearing was indefinitely postponed to allow further investigation by the committee.

The allegations largely surround Jackson's conduct while on overseas trips. "We were told stories where he was repeatedly drunk while on duty where his main job was to take care of the most powerful man in the world," Tester said, noting the allegations reach back to the Obama administration. "That's not acceptable."

Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has said Jackson denied ever having a drink while on duty.

Jackson also allegedly handed out drugs to staff during trips that involved several time changes.

"Most of them are the ones that make you want to sleep and then make you wake up," Tester said. "These are basically doled out, and by the way, we had 20 military folks and retired military folks tell us these stories, these were doled out on overseas trips where there are a lot of time zone changes."

The detailed allegations came hours after Trump cast doubt on whether Jackson should remain the nominee for secretary of veterans affairs but said the decision was up to Jackson.

"It's his decision," Trump said during a bilateral news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron.

Trump said that if he were Jackson, "I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. What does he need it for? To be abused by a bunch of politicians that aren't thinking nicely about our country? I really don't think personally he should do it, but it's totally his — I would stand behind him — totally his decision."

Trump called Jackson "one of the finest people that I have met." (In fact, at one point, Trump remarked that "actually in many ways, I'd love to be him.")

He said multiple times that he asked Jackson on Tuesday, "What do you need this for?"

But Trump left the next move up to Jackson. "It's totally his decision," the president said, blaming Democratic obstruction and scrutiny.

Jackson showed no indication of withdrawing Tuesday. He was on Capitol Hill, making the rounds with key senators on the committee. Reporters caught up with him on his way to Moran's office.

"I was looking forward to the hearing tomorrow," Jackson said, per video captured by MSNBC. "Kind of disappointed that it's been postponed, but I'm looking forward to getting it rescheduled and answering everybody's questions."

Asked whether he "categorically denied" the allegations against him, he said, "I'm looking forward to the hearings, so we can sit down and I can explain everything to everyone and answer all the senators' questions."

Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Tester sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday requesting additional documentation related to Jackson's tenure as the president's doctor and his role leading the White House medical team.

"We take very seriously our constitutional duty to thoroughly and carefully vet each nominee sent to the Senate for confirmation," the pair wrote. "We will continue looking into these serious allegations and have requested additional information from the White House to enable the committee to conduct a full review."

The letter requested information about rumored Pentagon inspector general reports said to detail allegations into Jackson's conduct.

Jackson himself, though, said there was no inspector general report about the allegations. "No, there was not," he said before brushing off questions about whether he would withdraw.

Earlier Tuesday, two Democrats on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee discussed how and when the committee learned of the allegations of inappropriate behavior in the workplace by Jackson.

"The allegations have come from people that are in the military, or used to be in the military, former military people who came forward. Some I assume approached committee members, others engaged or gave other names that committee staff could call. All of them were willing to talk," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who said that he had not spoken to anyone directly who came forward but that committee staff has and that those conversations began last week.

Brown characterized those speaking to the committee as "people that work with him, many that like him. It's not a question of liking him; it's a question of what he's done in the past that would have an impact on this job."

https://www.wnyc.org/story/ronny-jackso ... legations/

The Obama Administration didn't cover itself in glory with the vetting on this guy either, since a lot of these issues go back to 2012...(Before Jackson was made White House physician...)

I would not have supported this guy for VA Secretary before this, not because of any policy issues, but because he's completely unqualified for the job. Hiring a guy with almost no management experience to manage such an important department of 360,000 employees (where the primary issue has been incompetent management) strikes me as ludicrous...

(But then, I suppose it's easy to understand why Il Boobce wouldn't think being completely unqualified for a job should serve as any sort of impediment to getting it, given his own personal experience...)

My favorite bit was this:

Asked whether he "categorically denied" the allegations against him, he said, "I'm looking forward to the hearings, so we can sit down and I can explain everything to everyone and answer all the senators' questions."

Just what exactly does that mean?

"Well no, I won't categorically deny that I created a hostile work environment, came to work drunk, and handed out prescription pills without prescriptions, but when I get to the hearing, I'll be able to give the context that will show that doing those things was perfectly ok"...

[RayThom]

Fake it until you make it... or eventually fired by the guy who only weeks earlier was praising you.

And our PINO is still attempting to set up nothing more than a figurehead government.

[BoSoxGal]

He should be voted down on his lack of qualifications for the job - but I’ll take whatever I can get.

[Big RR]

I agree; normally I think a president should be able to place whoever (s)he wants in cabinet and advisor positions except some highly sensitive ones that require independent judgment (like secretary of state or attorney general), but in this case the guy appears to be completely unqualified for the job, not to mention that he also appears to be quite the jerk. That's what advise and consent is for.

[BoSoxGal]

Well now, no wonder Trump loves Dr. ‘Candyman’ Jackson:

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Individuals noted a constant fear of reprisal. Specific examples that would identify the individuals concerned have been provided to Committee staff but are not provided here to protect their identities.
Jackson was described as 'the most unethical person I have ever worked with', 'flat-out unethical', 'explosive', '100 percent bad temper', 'toxic', 'abusive', 'volatile', 'incapable of not losing his temper', 'the worst officer I have ever served with', 'despicable', 'dishonest', as having 'screaming tantrums' and 'screaming fits', as someone who would 'lose his mind over small things', 'vindictive', 'belittling', 'the worse leader I've ever worked for.' Day-to-day environment was like 'walking on eggshells.' As Jackson gained power he became 'intolerable.'One physician said, 'I have no faith in government that someone like Jackson could be end up at VA.' A nurse stated, 'this [working at WHMU] should have been the highlight of my military career but it was my worst assignment.' Another stated that working at WHMU was the 'worst experience of my life.'
Jackson was viewed as someone who 'would roll over anyone', 'worked his way up on the backs of others', 'was a suck up to those above him and abusive to those below him', a 'kiss up, kick down boss', 'put his needs above everyone else's.'

Separated at birth, apparently.

[Lord Jim]

Separated at birth, apparently.

Yes, that description certainly does sound eerily familiar...

Makes one think that Trump might have read that before he nominated Jackson and said, "here's my guy!"...

But of course that's impossible...

Trump doesn't read...

[ex-khobar Andy]

I agree that he's totally unqualified in terms of experience although that in itself should not be sufficient to refuse his appointment: history is littered with men (usually) who have nothing like the relevant experience for some major task yet rise to the occasion. But usually they have shown something somewhere that gives a clue that they might make it. Case in point - Harry S Truman who had an unspectacular career as a machine politician and was the 'Missouri Compromise' VP candidate to FDR's final term: obviously totally underqualified to be President. BH Obama similarly.

But if the allegations about his conduct ('too much' drinking on duty (how much is 'not too much???) - drunkenly banging on a female employee's hotel room door - wrecking a govt car while drunk) are true then he is clearly unsuitable. He is denying the car crash one but that should be pretty easy to check because surely there are records of that sort of thing. I cannot imagine that someone would make that allegation out of thin air.

[Big RR]

andy--if it is an elected office we must always accept the vote; but here we have a president who is totally unqualified (by experience and temperament) to do the job surrounding himself with similarly unqualified people is a recipe for disaster. Truman was surrounded by a lot of good people he listened to, ditto for many other presidents and elected officials. But putting someone who has never managed anything in charge of one of the biggest agencies in the government makes no sense IMHO. Yes, they may have very good subordinates, but I have found that people who have never managed before tend to distrust and ignore their subordinates.

But I agree the other allegations are disturbing as well, and it would surprise me if they were fabricated.

Of course this does beg the question--what qualified person would want to work for Trump?

[Big RR]

BTW, this just in re the vetting process. From Trump, "When you talk about vetting, we have the best vetting process of our candidates that ever existed in the history of the world, and have more thoroughly vetted our candidates than any group of human beings has ever been vetted. Realizing the extraordinary level of trust a vast majority of American citizens (a vaster majority than has ever existed for any other administration in the history of the USA, not to mention the CSA and the old republic under the Articles of Confederation (which I know more about than any historian who ever lived), we have returned to the people more than they ever could have imagined. And I stand fully behind the Candy Man, Admiral, Doctor Jackson.

[Burning Petard]

Vetting Process? It is not just the White House, or Trump or Obama. Look at the Department of the Navy. Why did this guy even make flag rank, let alone be listed for a second star?

snailgate.

[Big RR]

sometimes I think the military tolerates/encourages/rewards that sort of behavior (boys will be boys...) so long as they are otherwise competent at their job. this is especially true for senior professionals like physicians who likely could make a lot more outside of the military.

[Econoline]

[ex-khobar Andy]

Apparently the Secret Service has reported that it is unable to substantiate at least some of the allegations against Jackson which came from his colleagues and were reported by both D and R members of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Of course Trump is using this as a rallying call for Montana voters to reject Tester in November.

Why doesn't he just renominate Jackson, if he is such a great man and declared innocent of all these things by the SS? Then Jackson could deny them under oath at the confirmation hearings. That could be fun.