After weeks of hype, last week's New York Times story on Gov. David Paterson lacked any real concrete evidence of wrongdoing. But it looks like the Times has the goods on Paterson this time.
Late last year, a member of the governor's personal security detail visited a woman who had been trying to press charges against his aide, David W. Johnson, over an incident in which Johnson had allegedly "choked her, stripped her of much of her clothing, smashed her against a mirrored dresser and taken two telephones from her to prevent her from calling for help," according to the police report obtained by the Times. The woman claims the state police, who did not have jurisdiction, had been "harassing" her to drop the case. The Times also describes an incident in which the governor himself spoke on the phone with the woman:
Through a spokesman, Mr. Paterson said the call actually took place the day before the scheduled court hearing and maintained that the woman had initiated it. He declined to answer further questions about his role in the matter.
The woman’s lawyer, Lawrence B. Saftler, said that the conversation lasted about a minute and that the governor asked how she was doing and if there was anything he could do for her. “If you need me,” he said, according to Mr. Saftler, “I’m here for you.”
After the call, the woman failed to appear at the next hearing -- even though she had sought an order of protection against Johnson months earlier. They say the cover-up is worse than the crime, but obviously that may not the case here.
That there had "never been a judicial finding that Mr. Johnson had been violent with women" means that Johnson shouldn't have been in jail, but it doesn't mean that he should have stayed as part of the governor's staff. But it's clear that Paterson had an idea that something had happened, or he wouldn't have called Johnson's former partner in the first place. Paterson has suspended Johnson and ordered an investigation, but that's also probably cold comfort to New Yorkers -- it's clear Paterson thought Johnson had a problem and tried to do somethingabout it, kept Johnson on even though he knew the seriousness of theallegations, and then suspended him only when they became public.
Whether Johnson is guilty or not, it can't be denied that Paterson acted inappropriately. And it makes me wonder whether he'll last to the end of his term, let alone through a re-election campaign that he doesn't deserve to win.
-- A. Serwer
