Why the David Paterson Story Actually Is a Big Deal
A reader writes! "Now are we to bombshell stage?" He refers to the third story the New York Times has run on David Paterson in the last week or so, which went up last night, rudely disrupting my dessert. The story detailed the hideous personal life of Paterson's aide, David Johnson, whose girlfriend was pursuing a restraining order; Johnson and Johnson's lawyer both refused service on the restraining order; the woman stopped pursuing the issue only after contact from the state police, whose jurisdiction is not such matters, and also a telephone call from the governor. Johnson was suspended last night; this is particularly troubling that this suspension occurred just hours before publication of this story, as a matter of reaction to scrutiny. So local opinion suggests that the answer to the question of bombshell status is "kind of." But in part, based on what we still don't entirely know!
There are, however, dissenters, who consider it "shocking" but not "gamechanging." So, we have griped here about the Times' previous murky references to Johnson's Halloween-costume ripping assault on a woman. Now the paper has given us almost entirely what we wanted on that issue-they went and got the records!-so we will not quibble about this story; it wouldn't be fair.
First, it does seem important to note that Paterson is not Johnson, even while they are extremely close. Part of the frisson of the story is simply that it's Paterson-related. It's highly Paterson-adjacent. And yet the story for the most part, it needs to be said even though it is obvious, is not about Paterson at all.
But here's the part that is about Paterson.
Perhaps you have friends and coworkers with extremely objectionable personal lives! (I sure do.) Let's try this this on for size.
Congrats, you're the governor. And say one of your best buddies works for you. A woman is reporting an assault by him. You've met this woman three or four times. Do you… call her? And ask if there's anything you can do for her? The day before her court date? With what motivation would you do that? I suppose I can see a way in which that was done out of common decency… but the timing, in particular, makes absolutely no sense.
The violent incident occured in OCTOBER.
The court date, the one that took place the day after Paterson made the call to the woman, was IN FEBRUARY.
That is extremely, obviously, highly problematic. That's when suddenly you get an itch to call this woman to pledge your assistance?
And then, why would you later tell reporters that she called you, contradicting her lawyer's statement that you called her?
And when a newspaper goes to talk to this woman, why would you then tell the paper that they are out digging for dirt on you? That doesn't add up, unless it does add up.
And finally, referring to the incident between this woman and Johnson as a "bad breakup," as Paterson did, is pretty unforgivable.
I think you're right.
So far I haven't heard any convincing pushback from Paterson, whereas if he had anything convincing he would be out of the gate with all guns blazing. Cos, y'know, he's known about the NYT raking thins particular plot of much for weeks/months. So occam-shaving this shit up makes me think it's probably a big deal too.
*this mixed metaphor is just an idea to mak horseracing more interesting.
whoa: typos, poor syntax and a forgotten asterisk, it's probably not a good posting day for me.
My take is, after reading the piece – this is a real, actual smoking gun.
There are some genuinely newsworthy details in this one that are fairly scandalous. I can't really figure out why these details weren't in the first story – much of the stuff reported happened a while ago, and is public record. I guess the Times only just found out these details?
Here are the most striking things:
• The added details of the incident (from court testimony) are rather harrowing: She says Johnson choked her, forcibly tore off her Halloween costume, shoved her into a dresser, and forcibly took phones away from her when she tried to call for help.
• She says the N.Y. State Police harassed her to drop the case, and the N.Y. State police confirms that she was visited by a state trooper even though the NY State Police has no jurisdiction in this incident (which took place in the Bronx, and is an NYC Police matter).
• Paterson himself called her only days before her latest hearing on the assault case on Feb. 8. He wanted to know if there's "anything he could do for her" or something. Then, two days later she didn't show up for the hearing and the case was dropped – and her own lawyer can't figure out why.
• Not only has Paterson suddenly announced that Johnson has been suspended without pay, but Paterson's alos asked the State A.G., Andrew Cuomo, to investigate his own office's handling of the matter.
Basically, this is the good story that the Times didn't publish earlier this month.
Totally agree. And Cuomo investigation?!? Ouch.
I don't think the victim was willing to let the Times print her version of the story. She's become a source now.
Yeah, but much of the meat of the story are facts from court proceedings that took place months ago.
This woman has been to at least two family court hearings on the case starting last fall. In both hearings, she told the presiding judges that N.Y. State police were "harassing her" to drop the case. Apparently these details were in the court records. So why weren't they included in the Times' last story? Or reported last fall, for that matter?
Maybe family court hearings of this nature aren't open to the public, and the transcripts were previously sealed or something?
Overall, it looks like this was a really good story that was out there as far back as last November, and everyone missed it until now.
And still no word on what this Halloween costume entailed?
Among many other problems, this gives all those people (Democratic politicians) looking to walk away from Paterson a justified reason to do so.
Yeah, but no one was staying with him anyway. Almost every Democratic state politician in the past six months has either quietly stated support for Andrew Cuomo, publicly stated their disdain for Paterson, or a combination of the two.
What this does do is increase the pressure on Paterson to step aside, which is something I'm sure we'll hear more of in the coming days.
Well, a lot of them were staying somewhat neutral, at least until the budget goes through. But the real issue holding Cuomo back has of course been race. This disaster offers people a very clear out, including other African-American politicians (see my link below to Politico's reporting on Perkins calling for Paterson to step aside).
Sounds like somebody was waiting for sources to confirm.
Yeah, it for sure hell is a real story. Now.
Paterson will pull out of the governor's race before the end of the month. This is a bombshell. His State Police got involved outside their jurisdiction. Paterson personally called the victim (after he had criticized a state senator's aides for circumventing a protective order to contact a victim).
Do we have to wait for Week In Review to get a handy, fill-in-the-blanks timeline for this saga?
Now that we know when the calls and the State Police visits –maybe over coffee, who knows? Just discussing options!–and the court dates happened, can we map it back onto the meta-scandal where the NYT was getting razzed for holding back on their big scoop?
And then map out these three stories, which, after all, were not designated as Part I, Part II, etc. of a series, but were obviously, now, anyway, designed more to shake loose information than to just wrap up a scandal with a bow and present it to readers?
Christ, what an asshole.
+1
Side note: Notwithstanding the fact that the Metro desk at the Times absolutely kills it old-school journalism way (if Paterson goes down, that will be TWO New York Governor scalps nailed to their wall), they got downgraded to a merged section with the Sports section and rarely printed as a standalone section.
I don't begrudge the rest of the country getting national and international news from NYTimes.com (lord knows you can get the print edition in every town, hamlet and city in the country), but I want my local news in the same place!
game over.
Yeah, I would put this is the Really Big Fucking Deal category.
Wow, this is going to make the gubernatorial primary super awkward. "Vote for me, not for the guy who is currently investigating me for all kinds of misdeeds!"
This part: "He said that such an inquiry was customary for the department if an episode involved a high-profile person, and that it was done in the 24 hours afterward." stopped me cold.
So much for "equal in the eyes of the law" eh? He might as well have said, "We treat the rich and the important differently from everyone else."
I mean, it's HARDLY shocking, but to have it acknowledged so cavalierly? I dunno, I'm sure I sound naive but….
yeah, "high-profile doctor" threw me for a loop. Like, really???
"Is there anything I can do to help you help me stop harassing you?"
Word.
The beginning of the final last end.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Key_Democrat_calls_for_Paterson_to_drop_reelection_bid.html?showall
Paterson has to know there's no surviving this. What a poor excuse for a politician (and person) he turned out to be.
Denise O'Donnell (supervises the State Police) has resigned. This is not good for the Guv.