He liked to hit a woman of color while she called him ‘master’ and he called her his ‘brown slave’. Not only sexually violent but racist as well.
I too was stunned by the Schneiderman story. I really did think he was one of the good guys. One of the women who came forward said it was his hypocrisy which bothered her most.
To me, the worst part of the story is the allegation that he told one woman that if she tried to break up with him he’d tap her phone and have her investigated. If that’ s true…and his failure to deny that specific allegation makes me think it probably is…then he really abused his power.
I don’t know about you, but I won’t question Schneiderman’s feminist work. What he did was horrible and he needed to go, but his good work will remain.
Meanwhile, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, accused of tying up a woman, blindfolding her, ripping off her clothes and photographing her, as well as other sexual violence, remains in office as his own party is frantically trying to get rid of him. Here’s the report prepared by the Missouri legislature (explicit): http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article208633839.html
There are too many sleazebags in the 50 Shades of Greitens story to keep track of. He probably won’t be convicted on the criminal invasion of privacy charge, and there are real Missouri constitutional questions about whether he can be convicted on any articles of impeachment for the current criminal charges, but my hopes are that some of the lying about campaign financing issues (from a guy who ran on the platform of cleaning up the swamp) can be upheld in an impeachment trial.
Note the people financing the attacks on him are affiliated with developers who object to his actions in cutting back on their unconscionably lucrative tax credits. So really, no good guys at all. Just scum fighting it out while we stand back and watch.
The Schneiderman case looks to me like a “simple” case of alcoholism and violence. Alcohol makes some people violent. Apparently it makes Schneiderman violent. That’s not an excuse, but it does suggest that if he uses his copious free time to get sober it may cure the violence as well.
An excellent program called 24/7 Sobriety has made a huge difference in alcoholic fueled violence among the people it targets. The idea is that a person who is convicted of an alcohol-caused violent act (usually drunk driving or domestic violence) that would normally carry a prison term is instead diverted into a program where they are drug tested every single day, twice a day. One skipped or failed drug test, and they are sent immediately back to jail. The punishment is swift and certain, but small, a few days in jail. It works. The offenders know that if they take a drink now, they’ll be in jail tomorrow.
Don’t know what to make of his first wife going on record defending him. Says she has a hard time believing he is capable of what is alleged. She has known him for 35 years. Perhaps the behavior was something that exhibited itself only after his divorce?
I believe she does have an ongoing financial relationship with him.
Maybe his alcoholism has gotten worse since he divorced her?
Yeah, I was wondering if the alcoholism developed later in life and he hid it from the first wife. Or she may be lying on his behalf to protect herself/her family. Or she may still be scared of him.
It’s like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but due to alcohol and whatever was driving that. He knows it too or he wouldn’t have resigned so quickly.
Regarding Spitzer, the problem wasn’t that he simply patronized prostitutes during so-called ‘consensual’ encounters; the problems were that (1) he broke banking laws by dividing up his payments to the escort service so they wouldn’t be traced and (2) he had prosecuted prostitution rings when he was Attorney General. And, from Wikipedia, “Governor Spitzer made his rise to victory in New York City politics promising “ethics and integrity to be the hallmarks of [his] administration.” He had prosecuted several prostitution rings in his career,[36] and his connection with a prostitution ring was felt as a betrayal by some women’s rights and anti-human trafficking groups that had previously worked with him.”
His behavior was the height of hypocrisy.
This and the Spitzer case are Greek tragedies in that both Spitzer and Schneiderman took actions while in office that were tremendously beneficial to the public. They went after people whom exploited the public. Then we discover that each had feet of clay, as the saying goes. Spitzer’s personal conduct is a societal phenomena that’s been going on for ages, while Schneiderman’s alleged behavior is just plain weird…and malevolent.
correction: His spokesperson did deny the threat to tap a woman’s phone, investigate her, etc.
The Schneiderman case makes me rethink my decision to stay quiet. When I was teaching college a few years ago, an older (nontrad) student roped me into getting involved with her entire family. It became pretty severe – I ended up spending over $10,000 to help her allegedly impoverished family (bailing them out of their mortgage, paying their bills, paying their healthcare, etc.). Other faculty members tried to intervene, but I was convinced that it was my role to save this family.
The student pushed her son on me (even though I was older and not available) and was convinced we would make a cute “couple.” I later discovered there was incest going on as well as physical and sexual abuse in the family. The son ended up assaulting me and the police was called. The entire family (including the 87 year old GRANDMOTHER) went after me for months. I began to question whether I should have even called the police to begin with; after all, he hadn’t hurt me “that badly.” My former student messaged people I knew on Facebook, calling me a liar, a w****, etc. The pressure was so intense that I wrote a letter to the ADA begging him to drop the charges and left town. Without my testimony, they had to drop the charges against the kid. I thought this would end the nightmare, but it didn’t. Even though I had (and still have) photographic evidence of this boy’s misdeeds, they continued to intimidate and slander me (albeit from afar, and always through a third party – i.e. messaging mutual people). I also believe either my former student or her son has attempted to break into my social media accounts twice in order to see whether I still have photographic evidence of the boy’s actions as well as a related medical record (the documents were originally transmitted to me via Facebook from another family member).
Now this woman – my former student – is an increasingly prominent “progressive” activist in the state. She is in the news frequently, fighting for “women’s rights” and “healthcare.” Part of me just want to move on and forget these people ever existed; the other part wonders whether the public deserves to know things like this. They have done this to a few other people over the years, and I fear that I will carry some fault if I don’t ever speak up.
Wow, that’s a frightening story.
See, I don’t think Schneiderman’s behavior is weird. It’s weird in the sense that, fortunately, most men don’t get drunk and beat up their girlfriends. But as a case of domestic violence, it seems depressingly usual: a guy beats up his wife or girlfriend when he gets drunk. He is controlling and demanding. He gaslights her about the violence and showers her with affection at other times.
The other thing that’s depressingly familiar is that she doubts herself, she loves the man in spite of the violence, she hopes it will stop. It’s easy to say you wouldn’t put up with relationship violence. I bet the women involved would have said that, too.
@thetransfercoach: I think you should say something. Maybe to a newspaper anonymously, but as you say, they did this to other people as well. The public deserves to know. But be careful, as you don’t want to get sued for libel yourself.
ETA: Since you originally brought charges, even though you later dropped them I would think the ADA would still have all the records from the original timeframe. I think you should see an attorney if you decide to proceed.
I’m no expert, but the descriptions of Schneiderman’s behavior in The New Yorker article reads like a non-consensual “Dom-Sub” sexual kink.
What’s notable about some of these high profile cases, is the eroticism of the sex being non-consensual and often violent.
IOW, these are powerful men who had access to sex due to their fame, money, & power, but they WANT the sex to be non-consensual and often violent. Spacey, Weinstein, Cosby…too many names.
@VeryHappy, I would turn over the records (as I believe the state’s statute of limitations on those particular crimes are coming to a close this summer), but the family member in question has now returned to them (she escaped for a couple of years but decided to return to her family last November). Thus, I don’t think she’d be cooperative anymore even if I turned over the records, and as I learned, no testimony usually = no conviction.
I’m not thinking of a conviction. I’m thinking of your being believed in the court of public opinion, if you decide to go public.
@Midwest67 Absolutely – Wealthy, famous people could get a lot of this for “free.” I think it gives them a thrill to do it to those they deem a challenge.