[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is my first guest today, and in a different way than usual. As many of you know, the senator from New York generally comes on with us once a month to take calls from constituents, and she will do that today, but today is also different because one of the changes that she's been trying to bring as a member of the Armed Services Committee seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough. Her goal is to have sexual assault cases in the military prosecuted by someone other than the local commanding officer. The reason, they too often protect the perpetrators.

We'll talk about other things too, including the implications for women's rights of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Biden's American families plan, senator's take on reopening New York this summer. Is she more Cuomo and more de Blasio on this? And more depending on time, but her possible breakthrough on prosecuting sexual assault in the military is our lead. Senator Gillibrand, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Brian, it's a pleasure.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, call your senator. New Yorkers first priority, but anyone may call 646-435-7280 on any relevant issue. 646-435-7280, or tweet a question @BrianLehrer. Senator, would you remind people of the problem you're trying to address with sexual assault in the military and how cases of that are handled?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: The problem is there's a scourge of sexual violence in the military. The justice system in the military isn't working to help and to provide justice for survivors. Every two years, the military has an estimate of how many sexual assaults there are. In 2018 that estimate was about 20,000, but when you look at the details of how many people reported and how many people got their cases move forward to trial and how many cases ended in a conviction, the rate of prosecution and the rate of conviction has gone down. Is it the lowest it's been in the 10 years that the military has been tracking these statistics. We're just not moving in the right direction on any measurable.

I've been trying for the last eight years to change how we deal with these cases because when you talk to survivors, and you ask them, "Were you sexually assaulted? Did you report? Why didn't you report?" The reason over and over again is they didn't trust the chain of command would have their back. That's not surprising, because Fort Hood just did a study on what was happening there, and they found that the command climate was so toxic that it was permissible for harassment and assault within the ranks. The problem is that commanders have maintained, for the last 10 years I've been working on this, that they have to be in charge of everything, that they're the only ones who can bring good or discipline, but the truth is they're failing in this very way.

Right now, commanders are the ones who decide whether a case goes to trial, they also pick the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the defense counselor. They're in charge of everything. If you don't believe your commander has your back, then you don't believe the chain of command will be able to move your case and actually get a conviction, and unfortunately, that's what the result is. The other problem has been record high retaliation rates, about 60% of men and women who come forward to report assault, instead of getting justice, they are retaliated against for bringing their cases forward.

Our solution is to let trained military prosecutors do one thing, let them decide whether or not the case should go to trial. If they do that one thing, then survivors will know that's an unbiased individual who's highly trained, and a lawyer, is the one who's going to decide whether their case and move forward. That will create trust in the system, and I believe it will result in more cases going to trial and more convictions.

Brian Lehrer: I saw that a New York Times article on this week cited, Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, and a key member of the other party, obviously, who seems to be coming to your point of view on this in a way that might matter a lot politically, because you've been trying to get this through for a while and have been able to get it passed. Can you say anything about senator Ernst's own story or your talks with her about the issue?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes. We've had about half the senate or over half the senate over the last eight years supporting this bill, wildly bipartisan. Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Liz Warren have all supported this bill for a long time. However, there's just been this last group of people that it's been really hard to convince because they've been unwilling to either take on the chain of command or not follow the DoD. With Joni Ernst supporting this bill, it does change everything because she is not only a combat veteran herself, she's a former commander herself, and she's also a sexual assault survivor.

She has looked at this issue over the last six years with me, we've tried to put in place lots of different reforms together, things that the DoD was comfortable with. We've moved that legislation and none of it is moving the needle. Joni got to the point this year, where she said enough is enough. If the statistics keep going in the wrong direction, then all the things we've put in place over the last eight years isn't enough. We need professionalism. We need a trained military prosecutor to do this, and we need to have transparency and accountability.

Her joining has already resulted in several Republicans joining the bill, and it's given confidence to some of the more moderate Democrats that this is an idea whose time has come. We've just signed on at least a dozen senators who were not with us before, both Democrat and Republican because of this new coalition, and it's really meaningful.

Brian Lehrer: When is the vote?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: We can ask for an up or down vote on this issue, but we may choose to just wait for the defense bill. We are very close to having a majority of the committee, 60 senators. I'm going to try to lobby this a couple more weeks to see if I can get to 60 co-sponsors or a majority of the Armed Services Committee. If that happens, then we can go to the Armed Services Committee and say we want this in the base bill because we can win this on the floor. If I can assure that this is in the base armed services markup, then we will do it that way because then we just get to turn it into law, which is the goal.

Brian Lehrer: There are now some women in high-ranking leadership positions in the Pentagon where they weren't before. As you know Kathleen Hicks, as Deputy Defense Secretary, second in command there. Christine Wormuth has been nominated to become Secretary of the Army. She'd be the first woman in that position pending confirmation by the Senate. I'm curious how much you think those roles matter to legal or cultural changes that need to take place in our nation's armed forces?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Interestingly, Brian, your gender does not determine what you think on all issues. [chuckles] We have not necessarily had support from within the DoD even amongst female leaders. I do believe that both of these new appointees may well support our position, but they have not made that public yet. I know that President Biden has supported this position, certainly from the campaign trail, and has been an ally for a long time. He has asked his secretary of defense, General Austin, to do a 90-day review, which they've done, and they're soon to release it. That report has been leaked, and they do agree that these decisions should be taken out of the chain of command.

We also just heard that Admiral Mullen who, if you remember, was the leader on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He just came out and said that he has resisted this change for the last decade, but given where we are and the lack of progress, he also now supports removing the decision-making for sexual violence out of the chain of command. We are gaining momentum with military leaders to support this. We haven't though, and this is relevant, had active duty service members articulate that view. The reason why Admiral Mullen's testimony when we were doing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal was so important is because he was serving the administration at the time he gave that statement.

We have not heard a similar statement from active duty service members and commanders largely because, up until now, they have been told they would be reprimanded for articulating support for our measure. There's been a gag order on support. Things are changing, and I think they're changing because our commander-in-chief wants them to change. When President Biden decides he wants to do this, it will be done. I think most of our opponents will at that point realize that this is a change that's going to happen. We are creating the groundswell now and so we will be ready to turn this into law, regardless of how the commission that general Austin is running concludes.

As our job in the Senate to provide oversight over the administration and the armed services, we are standing ready to do our job.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, 646-435-7280. Heather in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Hi, Heather. Heather, are you there? Is it Heather in Brooklyn? Heather once. Heather twice. Let's try Elliott in Manhattanville. Elliot, you're on WNYC. Can you hear me?

Elliot: I absolutely can. Let me take your off speaker. Unexpected. Sorry about that, Brian. Senator Gillibrand, good morning. It's great to talk to you finally. Hi. Senator, I just have to say I've been hearing about you since you were a squash player at Dartmouth.

Brian Lehrer: Your question is about judicial nominations, right?

Elliot: Yes, exactly. Because Senator Gillibrand and I are both lawyers, I know it's probably on her radar somewhere. Senator Gillibrand, I read yesterday that there's about 80 either vacant seats in the federal judiciary or federal judges who are standing ready to take senior status, but there's only 10% of that number of nominations that have as yet been sent over to the Senate. I know that New York senators are sometimes consulted about who should be judicial nominees. Can you give us an idea of how far along that process is, how it's moving?

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Elliot. Senator?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you, Elliot. Yes, I was a squash player at Dartmouth. Are you a player yourself I wonder?

Elliot: Yes. My Harvard roommate's sister was at school at the same time as you.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Did we ever get to play?

Elliot: You and I both went to law school at the same time and et cetera. We worked up parallel firms. I was at Debevoise.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: We are the same people then. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead, Senator.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: In answer to your question. We were contacted by the White House probably about a month ago and asked for recommendations. I put forward over a dozen recommendations for judicial nominations. We've not heard back from the White House on which of those lists that they thought were the best candidates, but we gave them well over a dozen. We solicited recommendations from most of the legal advocacy organizations around the state to give us the highest qualified, most diverse, most eligible candidates that we thought we should put forward, and we did.

We had a really robust list, and I know Senator Schumer also has been forwarding many names. Hopefully, they're working through those lists and making choices about who they'd like to nominate, but we stand ready to vote on them. I think this administration is a little further behind just because of the transition and the fact that President Trump wouldn't allow the transition to happen after November, and he really stalled it by about three months. I think things are happening, just maybe a little slower than the norm because of that three-month delay in getting his administration up and running.

Brian Lehrer: Heather in Brooklyn, we're going to try you again. I think the tech problem was on our end. Hi, Heather.

Heather: Hi, can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: We can hear you now. Sorry about before.

Heather: No problem. Hi, Brian. Hi, Senator. Thank you for all the work that you do in protecting victims of sexual violence and all the work you do in DC, but I'm calling about another type of sexual violence that I worry is affecting children. I'm concerned about the big tech porn industry, and the removal of paywalls in order to use their product. This leaves anyone, including children, to be exposed to very graphic and often violent pornographic content. I wanted to know if there was any legislation that had been put forth to reinstate the paywall to these big tech porn sites, so young people don't stumble into it or can access it.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Well, I don't know. I will look into that. Brian will take your number for us and I will get back to you, but I will look into whether there's legislation being drafted yet. If what you say is true, that's pretty alarming and concerning. I will look into writing legislation if none is being written by any other offices. Thank you for letting me know that that was happening. I have two boys at home so, of course, I don't want that happening to them. Thank you for your concern.

Brian Lehrer: Heather, thank you. Senator, since we're talking about protecting women in the context of your work on the Armed Services Committee, I'd like to ask how you see the President's decision to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by September. That withdrawal began this week, as it affects women in that country, and the brutal rule by the Taliban in that respect, girls' education, women's rights, and safety in general.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: This is a very complex problem, Brian. I believe it was time to draw down our troops from Afghanistan, given the commitment we've made for the last 20 years. The problem with permanent basing in a country like Afghanistan and permanent investment is a huge sacrifice by the American people and our troops that are sent abroad, and it doesn't necessarily make us safer. The deployment of those troops was largely to defeat terrorism and respond to Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. We very intentionally worked very hard to defeat Al-Qaeda, and then the follow on groups such as ISIS and ISIL.

We still have terrorism throughout the world. It's continued to metastasize in different forms, in different places, finding footholds in Africa and in Asia and the Middle East. It is so easy today to find footholds in ungoverned places. Unfortunately, there's so many ungoverned places around the globe. The question is, do we want to spend trillions and trillions of dollars over the next 10 years to continue that investment? While yes, it makes it easier for us to defeat terrorism in that part of the world, it doesn't necessarily protect the United States from terrorism. See the difference? It was a choice we had to make.

Now, you bring up the biggest risk that I think the Afghani people face, is when the Taliban begins to re-exert their power and control over the region, if the elected government isn't able to keep stability in the region, then a lot of the values that we have tried to promote will be deeply at risk. That includes women's rights, it includes their democracy, it includes access to education. Those are the risks. We are hoping that we can collaborate with the world community, with our NATO allies, to continue to strengthen the democratically elected government in Afghanistan, to protect women's rights and democracy. Again, we cannot project our power that far for that long unless it's going to make the difference of keeping America safe or not, and ultimately we can't.

Brian Lehrer: What influence can the US have on women's rights there?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Say that again, what influence does what?

Brian Lehrer: Can the US have on women's rights in Afghanistan? I'm not sure we had any influence on that as a result of the troop's presence anyway, tell me your opinion on that. Without, the Pentagon or the president says, I believe the policy is we would send troops back in if Afghanistan becomes a haven for Al-Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations again that are seen as a national security threat to the United States, but we're certainly not threatening that for the sake of domestic security for women within Afghanistan. Without that, what influence can the US have?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: The way we traditionally project our values is through foreign aid and Democratic support. For example, investments in Afghanistan. We could do joint ventures, help build hospitals, help build schools. We could do support through our allies and NATO, peacekeeping forces if necessary. There's ways to support the Afghan people going forward, but we just can't guarantee it. I think what the presence of our troops allowed for so long was that the Taliban couldn't overrun the government and the Taliban couldn't infiltrate and commit violent acts in the regions where we had control.

That's what we were able to do over the last 20 years for the Afghan people, but again, the investment is so significant and the net result of protecting us from terrorism, it just doesn't project far enough, because our risks from terrorism are now global. We have risks from Iran. We have risks from China. We have risk from Russia, and the Middle East. It's a decision that I think was important to make and it was the right decision by President Biden, but we will do everything we can to keep trying to help Afghanistan, protect democracy and protect women's rights, but it's hard.

It's hard when it's not our country. I think this is the best we can do now, and we will stand ready, however, through special operations and other flexibility through our military to respond to terrorist risks, and crises going forward, but I think the permanent long-term deployment has come to an end.

Brian Lehrer: Peter in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Senator Gillibrand. Hi, Peter.

Peter: Hi, good morning. Senator Gillibrand, I'm calling about the PPP loan program. I'm a small business owner, and I applied for and received a second-round PPP loan, but several weeks into the program, the basis for calculating the amount you can borrow was changed, increased actually. I've realized I'm entitled to a greater PPP loan, but nobody seems to understand how one can amend an already submitted application because it's not technically your second loan, because I've already gotten the second loan and there are no third loans. It seems like something that should be amendable. The banks don't know how to do it, and I'm wondering if you have any guidance.

Brian Lehrer: That's certainly a technical question, how to amend a PPP loan application, but senator, do you know?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I don't know, but my smart staff know. I would love to take your information after the call and have my team follow up. Caitlin will give you a call.

Brian Lehrer: Peter, thank you and hang on. Let me ask you about President Biden's American families plan unveiled in his speech on Wednesday night. If it were to pass, it would provide two years of free public pre-K and a cap for most families of 7% of their income for other kinds of childcare for children under five as you know, and in addition to all the other provisions. For example, on that childcare, for our listeners who are confused by the numbers the way they were put out, a family making $70,000 a year with one child would not have to pay more than $4,900 a year for daycare, if I'm doing my math right.

We know it costs so much more than that. We also know women have been hit so much harder economically than men in the pandemic economy because of the kinds of jobs they do disproportionately. My question is, to what degree do you think these early childhood provisions would have gender equity effects and is that part of the point?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, it is part of the point. I think what President Biden laid out is a vision to invest in the human infrastructure that allows our society to function and allows our economy to grow. We've really seen during the pandemic how women have been so disproportionately harmed during this pandemic because of the fact that schools have been closed, childcare centers have been closed, and families have had to make decisions about who will stay home with children. While many families have two parents, more often than not the women have been the ones to stay home.

As a result, 5.4 million women have lost their jobs during this pandemic, and many fear that they will not be able to get their careers back. What this family plans agenda is, it's basically the soft architecture and the soft infrastructure that binds and builds on the hard infrastructure that President Biden wants to rebuild. It allows for childcare to get these childcare centers back open again. Before the pandemic, there was one slot for every four kids that needed it today, there's one slot for every eight kids that need it in our state. That will rebuild our childcare centers.

It will defray costs for childcare so that it's affordable because right now, childcare is very expensive. For infant care in New York, it can be $12,000 a year or more. If you're a minimum wage worker or a low wage worker only earning between $15,000 and $30,000, you can't possibly afford that. It'll make childcare more affordable. There's lots of ways to do that legislatively. I've several bills to make a child care tax credit, double that, a childcare tax deduction, double that, just plain old subsidies. There's lots of ways to get at affordability. It directs money for universal pre-K, to have the three and four-year-olds in pre-K is a structural change that makes a difference.

It's better for the kids because they're getting early childhood education, getting their numbers and letters earlier, and being able to socialize with other children. It also helps parents get back to work during those two years, which really matters. It'll have paid family and medical leave, which is something I've been fighting for since 2013.

Brian Lehrer: Right. We've talking about that for years.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: It's a huge issue. This will be a way to start it to make sure that families who have ill family members, sick spouses, sick children, or new infants, that all of those life events can be covered, and to have the flexibility that we certainly needed during this pandemic but didn't have. Then other things that I fought for, like increasing nutrition programs so kids get more meals at school, so that the pandemic EBT program continues, more money for women and infants through the WIC program, those things matter. This family plan is very, very good news for working people in New York because this is the infrastructure of their life. This is what allows them to thrive in the workplace and their children to thrive in education.

Brian Lehrer: Course between that and the President's Jobs Act, there's $4 trillion of new spending on the table right now, and so far no Republican support. The Washington Post, ABC News fallout this week shows people tend to like these kinds of programs, but a majority also worries about the implications of so much government spending on inflation, and maybe the future debt for those very kids that people would be subsidized to help raise. How do you balance those concerns?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: The truth is that our economy is really in shambles. This pandemic has hit our country and the globe extremely hard. What is expected and what is needed is robust response, and we have to rebuild this economy. What's so brilliant about this plan is it rebuilds all aspects of the economy, not just one part. Many Republicans would say, "We're happy to do the heart of a structure, we're happy to spend money on roads and bridges and sewers," and maybe they're happy to spend it on high-speed rail or rural broadband or health IT, but they don't want to do the childcare, they don't want to do the paid leave, and they don't want to do education. They just don't want to go in that direction.

The truth is, if you're just talking about rebuilding roads and bridges, that's a lot of good jobs, good middle-class jobs for men, largely white men. You're just leaving out whole swaths of the economy and good portions of our workforce. You need to be more holistic. Infrastructure has always been redefined over time based on who's talking about it. Certainly 100 years ago, rural broadband and healthcare IT wouldn't be considered infrastructure, but today of course it is, and so should be paid leave and early childhood education and daycare, because the economy can't function without it.

I think this is a very smart and thoughtful approach. I think politics is politics, so they have to criticize it somehow, but there are ways to pay for this that are fair and equitable. There's been 500 billionaires made during this pandemic. There were true swaths of the economy that not only thrived but benefited exponentially. I think having a progressive tax code that allows for people who are ultra-wealthy, and I'm talking about making more than $5 and $10 million a year, the ultra-wealthy can pay more to ensure the infrastructure that has frankly allowed them to succeed.

Anyone who has made billions of dollars, it's because our infrastructure saves the economy, saved families, and kept everything up and running. That success for them was on the backs of our critical workers. It was the fact that men and women showed up to work at hospitals and pharmacies and grocery stores every day, largely women, largely women of color. If anything, they should be paying it back because they are the winners of this moment, and they did not have to make the sacrifices that so many Americans had to make. I think you can definitely harmonize these ideas with our tax code in a way that's very fair and equitable.

Brian Lehrer: Sammy in the Bronx, you're on WNYC with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Hi Sammy.

Sammy: Good morning. As an economist, I studied the central and northern New York under Hillary Clinton. She wiped out close to quarter off a million jobs, which led to a lot of drug addiction and hollowness on this area. Looking at this small margin of what the Democrats have in Congress, you had Claudia Tenney just win by 12 votes. As a result of all the decimation of jobs from coning to software jobs to India, and coning jobs to China, what are you going to do to bring back those jobs that Hilary shifted overseas?

Brian Lehrer: Senator, I'm sure you'll want to respond to that Hillary shifted those jobs overseas?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes, I don't think Hillary sent them overseas, but let me tell you what I would do about it. Unfortunately, the tax code allows companies to create a huge deduction when they move their facilities, even overseas, and that's a crazy tax credit. We want to eliminate that one for sure. I have a bill called the End Outsourcing Act, which takes away tax benefits when companies do ship jobs overseas, and takes them back retroactively. If they benefited at any point the five years before from generous American policies to help workers and to help businesses grow, they need to return it all. It's a way to incentivize companies to stick it out, stay in America, work with us to make sure you can grow and thrive, and to really reward that.

We also have a partner in President Biden and that he wants to create benefits for Made in America. His whole jobs agenda is all about creating more US-based jobs. We want to support programs like employee ownership, there was a great story in the Buffalo Paper about a company that was able to create employee ownership instead of going out of business. It was just a win, win, win for the company, the employees, and the country. There's lots of good solutions about keeping jobs in America, and I think the Biden administration is going to be a great partner for the Senate in promoting legislation that does exactly that.

Brian Lehrer: I want to ask you a different India question. When we were talking on the show earlier this week about the horrible COVID situation there, an issue of patents came up, which is that pharmaceutical companies still have patents on their vaccines. The United States and several other countries have thus far blocked negotiations in the World Trade Organization about a proposal led by India and South Africa that would waive the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies to allow developing countries, I should say, to also produce COVID-19 vaccines. Do you think that the United States should push to waive these patents, or are there really safety reasons, as the other side argues to keep these patents in place?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I don't think the patents is where the solution lies. I think where the solution lies is what Biden is calling vaccine diplomacy. We can have the vaccines made here, and we can send them. We can buy them for these countries that are at risk. In fact, for example, AstraZeneca vaccine, it was approved for use in a lot of countries, but not yet here. We can send 7 million doses that are in our stockpile to other countries that need it like Mexico, or Canada, or anywhere else abroad. I think that might be the better approach because we know that we can manufacture these vaccines safely in America.

The way we can, again, protect our values, like I said earlier, is through investments in other countries. This is a way we can make that investment and give these vaccines to the global economy for the benefit of global health.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, and we're almost out of time, let me get your quick take on some New York local issues. Mayor de Blasio, who will be on at 11:30 this morning, wants to fully reopen the city on July 1st. Governor Cuomo says with the spikes taking place in other parts of the country, maybe what's going on in Oregon and Washington State, we can't know here on April 30th, that conditions will be right on July 1st. Are you on a de Blasio side or Cuomo side to this?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: [chuckles] I've been in politics long enough to know that you really don't need to get into between those two. [laughter] I definitely am not doing that, but in general, I think it's great to have an aspiration of opening on July 1, but I think everybody in public service knows everything is conditions-based. If we were in the middle of a huge resurgence, that would change everything. I think it's good to be cautiously optimistic, it's good to let people look forward to things. I feel the same way. I can't wait to start doing more things outside with more friends and doing more things with constituents, but I'm going to be doing things only outside at least till the winter.

I think everybody has their own view of how much risk they're willing to take, and I think it's important to protect the health of others. I'm going to stick with what the CDC tells me to do and keep supporting our state by sending money because that's largely my job for both the governor and the mayor.

Brian Lehrer: Are you saying that the CDC guidelines would argue against reopening the city fully on July 1st?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: So far, the CDC guidelines have now said you can have indoor events, but only at reduced capacity, that's still the standard, mask still inside. You don't have to wear your masks when you're outside, which is great. For all the people who like to go running, or do things outside, take walks, it's so freeing not to have to wear a mask. I'll just keep listening to the--

Brian Lehrer: If you're vaccinated and if you're not in a crowd, they say just to be clear.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Correct. You need to be vaccinated, not in the crowd, and not close to people. I follow the CDC, and that's okay. If we can be fully back up and running by July, we'll be so excited, but I don't know that we will be. We'll just wait and see. This pandemic has always been wait and see, but I can certainly be excited that it could be possible. I think that's what people are torn between.

Brian Lehrer: You've called on Cuomo to resign because of the sexual misconduct allegations against him. Do you have a take on what comptroller Scott Stringer should do? Some people are calling on him to drop out of his mayoral campaign because of the new accusations against him.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: From what I've read, and I haven't read much, there's one accusation. Of course, that should be fully investigated, but these things, Brian, they often take time. What we see over time is that when you have multiple allegations that are similar, that are credible, and that are corroborated, that begins to become untenable for people to do their jobs well. I haven't seen that yet, but again we just don't know. There should be an investigation. I think with the governor, his elected partners got to a point where there were so many multiple allegations that were credible and corroborated that many people called on him to resign.

When I personally saw that he did not have the support of his governing partners and that we're obviously still in the middle of a pandemic, that's how I made my decision. I think for anybody who does come forward with these kinds of allegations, they have a right to an investigation. I think that is appropriate, and I think that's what's going to happen right now. I don't know what else will happen, so I'll just leave it as I think there should be an investigation.

Brian Lehrer: Last question, related, have you endorsed? I should know, but I don't, or will you endorse in the mayoral primary?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Wow. No, I've not endorsed anybody, but the nice thing about the New York City primary is the diversity and strength, and talent of the people running. I have at least five friends in the race, so it's very exciting for me. I probably will not endorse and I will let the primary play out without picking a favorite. I have to say there's lots of great candidates, and I'm really looking forward to working with whoever wins because there's just a lot of talent out there.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, we always appreciate it. Talk to you.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thanks, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.