BREAKING: New York Governor Paterson Ends Reelection Bid Amid Scandal
After fending off a recently-reported bombshell rumor, New York’s Governor David Paterson, the man who succeeded Eliot Spitzer after a sex-scandal resignation, has decided to not seek reelection, amid reports of his own scandal.
Via The New York Times:
“[M]any had said publicly this week that Mr. Paterson’s chances had been damaged, perhaps irreparably, by the disclosures that the governor himself had stepped in on behalf of David W. Johnson, 37, a close confidant who rose from being a young intern to being Mr. Paterson’s driver and scheduler and, later, to a wider role in Mr. Paterson’s operation.
“Last fall Mr. Johnson’s longtime companion accused him of brutally assaulting her, telling the police that he had choked her and thrown her against a dresser. She also said that Mr. Johnson had kept her from calling for help.
“Twice, the woman was granted a temporary order of protection against Mr. Johnson. But she complained in court that the State Police had pressed her to drop the allegations.
“Then, on Feb. 7, the day before a court hearing about a final protective order, Mr. Paterson spoke to her on the phone. She did not show up for the hearing the next day, and the judge dismissed the case.”
Paterson’s rise to New York’s chief executive came amid shock. Spitzer was a highly-respected attorney general who handily won the Governorship with 69% of the vote. But Spitzer’s tenure as governor was rocky, and months before his resignation his popularity quickly diminished, especially over “Troopergate.” Spitzer resigned from office on March 12, 2008, two days after the New York Times reported Spitzer had repeatedly patronized prostitutes.
Paterson, the day after his own inauguration as governor, confessed his own marital infidelities, as did his wife. But the people and the press, tired of the Spitzer sex scandal, were willing to ignore Paterson’s indiscretions and he received wide support.
However, Paterson quickly lost that support. His leadership stumbled several times, and when the time came to appoint a replacement for the senate seat held by Hillary Clinton, who accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama’s White House, Paterson’s performance was called into question as his office was slow to respond to rumor. Several candidates were rumored but not announced. Then, when Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy, announced her interest in the seat, but was publicly rebuffed by Paterson’s office, Paterson quickly lost whatever support he had left. To this day, he has been reported to be the governor with the least support in New York State history.
Both Paterson and Spitzer, early in their tenure as governors, announced they would pursue enacting marriage equality. Paterson ensured New York State offices recognized same-sex marriages from any other jurisdiction, and in April, 2009, Paterson announced his intent to sign a gay marriage bill. He labeled Prop 8 an “unfortunate accident,†and described lack of marriage equality as “not a crisis of issues but a crisis of leadership.” Sadly, Paterson’s tenure has been plagued by just such a crisis of leadership.
Similarly, in April 2007, then-Governor Spitzer announced his support for a same-sex marriage bill, but was rebuffed by a no vote under New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.
Paterson’s position as Governor Spitzer’s Lieutenant remained vacant until he appointment of Richard Ravitch, as New York has no formal process to replace the lost of a lieutenant governor.
Despite his low popularity, Paterson announced he would seek to retain his position in the fall, 2010 election, and began unofficially campaigning several months ago. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the man many thought Paterson should have appointed Senator, instead of Kirsten Gillibrand, has always polled to be far ahead of Paterson.
Senator Gillibrand, a state senator from the north, and thought to lean conservative, was skeptically received in the southern, more progressive half of the the state. But she quickly amended her position on gun control and gay rights, and has been an ardent supporter of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and same-sex marriage.
(On a personal note, I attended a meeting Senator Gillibrand held last fall in New York City with the LGBTQ community, including gay leaders like Dan Choi, and I fully believe she has our interests at heart. She has worked tirelessly for our interests and has earned the right to be elected to the seat this fall.)
Of course, we all know what happened this week when Harold Ford tried to squeeze into New York politics…
At this point, Paterson will be even more of a lame duck through the end of his embattled governorship, leaving the New York State Legislature with no powerful peer, which will no doubt lead the state into insolvency, both financially and morally, for years to come.
More than ever, it’s time for the people to throw the bums out.
(UPDATE) Although it is assumed Cuomo supports same-sex marriage, his stance is not exactly known, and he has been cautious to lend an opinion only on the legality of specific state issues. Recently, however, it was reported (via Lez Get Real) that Cuomo would “be headlining a fundraiser for State Senator Carl Kruger.” Kruger is one of the “Hate 38,” and one of eight New York State Democratic senators who voted down the marriage equality bill in December.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”
Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”
This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”
Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”
Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”
Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.
“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”
Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.
Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.
“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”
Image via Shutterstock
CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.
“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.
“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”
Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”
Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.
Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”
And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”
Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”
“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.
Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”
But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”
“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.
The bottom has completely fallen out for Trump with Latino voters.
After winning a record share for a GOP nominee in 2024, just 28% of Latinos approve of Trump now.
The drop with Latino men is even more dramatic. He won em by 10 in 2024. His net approval now is -41 pts! pic.twitter.com/LKB3BBgE7a
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 15, 2026
Image via Reuters
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.
Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.
“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”
ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.
Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.
In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”
The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”
They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”
NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”
But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.
Image via Reuters
‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist
CNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump
Alito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry
Trump’s ‘Treason’ Accusation Exposes His ‘Anxiety, Insecurity and Desperation’: Columnist
Carville Says There’s Only ‘One Thing’ Trump Is Thinking About on His China Trip
News2 days ago‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist
News2 days agoCNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump
News3 days agoAlito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry
News3 days agoTrump’s ‘Treason’ Accusation Exposes His ‘Anxiety, Insecurity and Desperation’: Columnist
