More Andrew Cuomo Allegations Bring New Questions

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

111 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    I have to hand it to victims of harassment, they are smart about timing. Had these accusations surfaced when Cuomo was riding high on his COVID popularity, the women would have been shredded by all. Waiting until he’s being battered politically is smart, because there are more minds willing to believe.

    And for the record, I believe them, because I rarely find politicians who aren’t skeevy power-tripping fools.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Well, you have to understand.

      When Cuomo was the alternative to Trump, we *HAD* to support Cuomo. Because the alternative was Trump! So he was doing a good job and Florida was doing a bad job because to praise Florida was to give sideways praise to Trump and it was a choice between Trump and not Trump.

      Now we are not faced with a choice between Trump and not Trump.

      So we have a choice between Cuomo and #MeToo.

      Whenever you hand out an “L”, you are also handing out a “W”.

      Who are you giving the “W” to?

      And this is why it is so very important to be careful with your “L”s, lest you give them to someone who is opposed to someone even worse.Report

      • North in reply to Jaybird says:

        Cuomo was never an alternative to Trump except among the Resistance twits on twitter and similar sets of fools. So we don’t have to understand anything. He’s about to become a failed has been politician and Dems and Liberals will be well rid of him.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    If you’ve got clicks left (or are willing to switch to incognito):

    Be sure to check out the NYT Picks in the comments!

    Some extremely cherry-picked sentences taken from three different cherry-picked comments:

    The Me Too movement was too unreflective, too oversensitive, too unable to distinguish between degrees of guilt.

    I think many of us have soured on a culture that demands maximum punishment – resignation and disgrace – for any mistake that construed as racist or misogynist.

    There but for the grace of god go I. Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

      At a certain point, making sacrifices to demonstrate virtue, in the face of an opposition that has none, makes a lot of Democrats feel like suckers.

      It’s really a question of what, exactly, is being sacrificed. A powerful, but flawed politician, or the low power person(s) the politician has harmed.

      I found it interesting that a wide swath of the GOP and Christian Right chose to sacrifice the subordinate over the power. I find it even more interesting that the Democrats are finding that same path so appealing.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        making sacrifices to demonstrate virtue

        Remember the whole “virtue signaling” debate?

        Well, this is that. Again.

        One of the things about virtue is that it signals virtue as a by-product. The accusation of “virtue signaling” is that the person is doing the by-product without having the *VIRTUE*.

        So when it comes to firing Cuomo, one of the questions might be “why are you getting rid of him?”

        If the answer is “to pretend to care about something that won’t matter because we’re giving our opponents a win!” then I suggest that maybe firing Cuomo won’t fix the problem and, indeed, maybe we need a better reason to fire him before we go through all of the pre-motions to firing him to get him to resign before the motions actually begin.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          “The accusation of “virtue signaling” is that the person is doing the by-product without having the *VIRTUE*.”

          That is an interesting take. As someone whose internet-debate-experience is pretty much limited to OT, that was not my understanding of virtue signaling. I understood/stand VS to be a conscious effort to make others aware that you possess a certain virtue. And maybe you have that virtue and maybe you don’t, with the real problem arising when you want to signal without actually having the virtue.

          So, as I see it, there are a few buckets:
          1.) Being quietly virtuous: You have the virtue and don’t really care if other people are aware; you engage in no VS but your virtuousness may still be evident to others.
          2.) Being loudly virtuous: You have the virtue and want to make sure people know it. You VS, which can be annoying, but ultimately you are doing the right things.
          3.) Being faux virtuous: You don’t actually possess the virtue but you VS anyway because you want people to think you have it. This is problematic.

          Regardless of what VS means or who understands what about it, I’m naturally left wondering if anyone can ever do the right thing for the right reason in any sort of public facing way without immediately being accused of VS.Report

          • greginak in reply to Kazzy says:

            VS has become a useless attack line. Well that is what it almost always was. It’s a way of criticizing someone you don’t like. During the texas blackouts AOC gathered up a bunch of money for aid and delivered. This is a good thing. Yup she was just “VS”. There is a real meaning to VS ( all signal, no action) but that has little to do with how the term is used in political poo fights.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

            My favorite framing:

            There are plenty of “right things to do” and “plenty of right reasons to do things”.

            If your opponents do the right thing, just accuse them of doing it for the wrong reason! They don’t have *VIRTUE*. They’re just signaling!

            Now they won’t get any clout.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              I can’t tell if you like that framing because you actually agree with it or because it seems nonsensical. But… I like it because I agree with it. Especially in the context of sports (which isn’t always analogous to real life).

              What that framing is referring to is process vs outcome. In sports, you want good process. If your process is good enough, it’ll eventually yield good outcomes. But good outcomes alone are not enough to assess the quality of a process.

              Does that apply to real life? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

              More importantly… if it doesn’t matter what someone does because those who disagree with them or simply don’t like them will label them either an evil monster who is doing the wrong thing or a vacuous Virtue Signaler who has merely stumbled ass backwards into the right thing but for the wrong reasons, then any attempt at reasoned discourse is dead.

              I didn’t read the article due to the paywall. But if the quote Oscar offered is representative of the writer’s take on Democrats who want Cuomo out, then there is simply no way for Democrats to actually be virtuous here. Which, well, dandy!Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy says:

            I find SJW similarly complicated. It’s always used as an insult, as if fighting for justice were an obviously bad thing.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              It’s the way “Bleeding Heart”, as in the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Jesus, became an epithet.

              Among Christians.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              “Why are they using ‘nice guy’ as an insult?”Report

            • Ozzzy! in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              Honestly do you find it “complicated”? I would be interested in what you really think about SJW.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Ozzzy! says:

                If they mean “self-righteous busybodies”, say so. No one likes them. Especially the “Christian” … Oh! I get it!Report

              • Ozzzy! in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Um, now I want to know how many layers of cynicism I have to overlay, along with somehow figuring out who ‘they’ refers to for you, and then iterate through two exclamation points and Im exhausted and there’s a long fly ball to deep center field by castillannos and its out of here 4-1 Royals and I probably wont put on this headset again. So maybe just say something that is direct and speak your truth MS?Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Ozzzy! says:

                There are people on the left who annoy me with their constant criticism of everything that doesn’t live up to their generally inconsistent anf often clueless definition of virtue. I get why there’s a disparaging name for them but SJW is a bad one.

                There are even more people on the right who annoy me the same way, For some reason there’s no general term for them, but I mean Dreher, Erickson, the Bozell clown family, etc.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                “Nazis” or “Literal Nazis” are ones that I’ve seen thrown around.Report

              • InMD in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                I believe the proper nomenclature is ‘blowhard.’Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to InMD says:

                It’s a but different. BillO was the world champion blowhard, but he wasn’t sanctimonious.

                Oh, and I left out libertarian scolds and their “[miscellaneous common-sense regulation] is one step away from the Gulag.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                “Nobody is talking about banning Dr. Seuss books.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Which is of course, still completely true.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “It’s only a couple that aren’t going to be available anymore! Okay, six. But he was really racist after Pearl Harbor!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                They haven’t been banned.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Stolen from a locked account on Twitter:

                Common thing in discourse: someone does something that’s not very important for a dumb reason with obviously massive consequences for future decisionmaking, then makes fun of anyone for criticizing the unimportant thing when the criticism is actually about the decisionmaking.

                “Why are you so mad about Dr Seuss lol” they ask as if
                1. this began here or
                2. could ever plausibly end here or
                3. is even remotely defensible as a standalone incident

                “it’s just basic liberal values lol why are you so upset about it haha”

                Anyway, I’ll let you get back to talking about the thin-skinned libertarians who keep yelling about slippery slopes being much shorter than they actually are.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                OK, so we are at least in agreement that the books haven’t been banned.

                You’re just now claiming that someday they might be.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Eh, I’m cool with “banned”.

                If you’re hoping to argue that it’s still technically legal to own them, they’re just not publishing new ones following a decision on the part of the estate, I suppose that that’s one definition of “banned”.

                If they’re ceasing to publish them because of a handful of teenagers are engaging in vengeful public shaming masquerading as social criticism, I’m okay with using “banned”.

                “Censored” is another word I’m good with using.

                I think that I’m comfortable with calling the people who support the books not being published any more as “censorious”.

                I mean, say what you will about Thomas Bowdler, but at least the kids still got 99% of the Scottish Play!Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                The only people with a right to exploit Dr. Seuss’s books have decided, for reasons of their own and that are none of our business, not to print some of them. Nobody made them decide to do that. And nobody has the right to make them publish them if they don’t want to. That doesn’t fit anyone’s definition of “banned.” Making them publish what they don’t want to publish would have another name.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                Eh, I wouldn’t dream of forcing them to publish it.

                I’d just like other people to be able to publish it if the owners decide to not publish it.

                MattY had a good enough take to quote:

                I don’t like the idea of there being a dog in the manger. But if the books remain available for everybody to access? Great.

                But then we’re talking about Copyright again and we already got into this on The Muppets.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                You have a very cavalier attitude toward other peoples’ property. You or I or Matt can pull what we think are better rules of property out of our nether regions, and we may even be right, but until the rules change, non-owners have to abide by the rules that exist, and not appropriate what doesn’t belong to them, or whine because they can’t.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                Eh, see it as someone criticizing the rules that exist as being bad.

                Unless that’s off limits now too.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                If you want people to see it that way, write it that way.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                Here’s a fun discussion from a year ago where we talked about it.

                We discussed having a 50 year copyright versus a 70 year copyright (among other things).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hilarious that in a discussion revolving around slippery slope arguments, someone starts in with the whole “Government should confiscate private property and distribute it free to the peasants” stuff.

                Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

                But I have been assured that this sort of thing will inevitably lead to banning books.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s one thing to redistribute a scarce resource.

                Quite another one to allow the distribution of a previously restricted resource (that leaves the restrictor no less poor than they were the moment before).

                We can get into distinctions about “intellectual property” and the like, if you’d like. But that’s probably best in another thread.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I can see why you would want to discuss it in another thread, because by your logic, Disney is banning its old films that it periodically “puts in the vault”, and the solution is for government to confiscate old Disney films and make them public property.

                Again…Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

                But I am comfortable with someone calling it Literal Marxism, if not Actual Genocide.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, it’s because this one is about Andrew Cuomo.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hey, no one is banning you from using whatever words you want to use in whatever definition you want.

                But understand that for the rest of us, words have meaning, and this isn’t it.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                They’re not banned. The copyright holder is withdrawing therm (though the first one will become public domain in 2032). Not a single regulation involved. They’ll still be available used, though the price will probably go up.

                Meanwhile, Texas is ending its mask mandate because the 2nd amendment includes germ warfare.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Or if you don’t mind the legality angle, all of them are available to download from various sources. Stallman says that information wants to be free. The Russians are actually doing something about it.Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy says:

            “I understood/stand VS to be a conscious effort to make others aware that you possess a certain virtue.”

            then why would people use it as an insult</IReport

      • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        I found it interesting that a wide swath of the GOP and Christian Right chose to sacrifice the subordinate over the power. I find it even more interesting that the Democrats are finding that same path so appealing.

        Really? They abandoned labor (and yes, mostly white labor) decades ago in the quest for campaign donations and thus political power. They have certainly abandoned their pacificist tendencies because becoming more hawklike then Republicans is apparently a thing. The more surprising thing is it took them this long, what with Clinton and his predilections.Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    So he’s got blood on his hands AND dirt on his dick. Time to GTFO.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    For those who think that the media is part of the problem:


    • Damon in reply to Jaybird says:

      So, it’s within journalist standards to invite your brother onto the show and talk about how great he’s doing on COVID, but you can’t talk about the allegations against him for harassment?

      Ah yeah…..or do you “just don’t want to do it”?Report

      • Ozzzy! in reply to Damon says:

        No stars for this response Damon. No one should want him to cover it (or at least noone should weight his coverage as anything more than zilch). C’mon man, there is a lot of stuff to talk about and this is a darker timeline branching.Report

        • Damon in reply to Ozzzy! says:

          That wasn’t my point. My point was it was totally OK for him to help his brother talk about how great was the NY response to Covid…but this is a line to far. Really? The hypocracy!
          I’m saying that having his brother on his show is a conflict of interest and, arguably, helped enable the deaths of thousands of people…Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      For what it’s worth, I understand the guy saying “I can’t do it because he’s my brother”.

      Can you help your brother out? Heck yeah, you can! Have him on your show! Talk up his strengths! Play down his weaknesses! What is a brother for?

      Can you cover him poorly? You know what? I can’t. He’s my brother. You want to see other people trash him, wait for Stelter or Cillizza. You ain’t gonna hear it from me.

      I can respect that.

      It’s also why management ought to have said “No, you don’t get to have him on to help him out and talk him up” way back when. But that ain’t his problem. That’s management’s problem.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      And a quick return to those who think that media is part of the problem:


  5. CJColucci says:

    Some of the details are in dispute, which could change things, but focusing on what has been admitted or otherwise not denied, the behavior in question is certainly inappropriate, and, in a sane private company, the perpetrator would get a stern talking-to from HR, a letter to the file, mandated training, and, maybe, a suspension. He would probably not be fired from most places unless the company wanted to be rid of him anyway. There may be political reasons to hold Cuomo to a higher standard, rather than let him serve out his term and not run again, but that’s my take on the actual, working standards in the non-political world.Report

    • Philip H in reply to CJColucci says:

      Al Franken was run out of the Senate for about this . . . .Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

        Yes, he was.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        I think that part of the Al Franken thing was that the main defense against Franken at the beginning was “It was just this one woman! Come on! Let’s give him a pass! He apologized! I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, but if you make a mistake, you shouldn’t be run out on a rail!”

        It was when the other accusers surfaced and said #MeToo that tunes changed (here’s an article about the ninth accuser). Many of the defenses could be something like “he only did X! He didn’t do Y!”

        But, for some reason, an established pattern of “only” doing X is seen as bad too.

        This paragraph from the New Yorker article about it seems apt:

        Franken’s fall was stunningly swift: he resigned only three weeks after Leeann Tweeden, a conservative talk-radio host, accused him of having forced an unwanted kiss on her during a 2006 U.S.O. tour. Seven more women followed with accusations against Franken; all of them centered on inappropriate touches or kisses. Half the accusers’ names have still not become public. Although both Franken and Tweeden called for an independent investigation into her charges, none took place. This reticence reflects the cultural moment: in an era when women’s accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment are finally being taken seriously, after years of belittlement and dismissal, some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny. “Believe Women” has become a credo of the #MeToo movement.

        Perhaps Al Franken will become the Democrats’ Bork.

        Someone unfairly denied his place. Forever. All because of stuff that, well, I’m not defending it. But he only did X. He didn’t do Y.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

          Perhaps Al Franken will become the Democrats’ Bork.

          Someone unfairly denied his place. Forever. All because of stuff that, well, I’m not defending it. But he only did X. He didn’t do Y.

          Hardly. Bork got committee hearings, committee votes and a floor vote. He couldn’t have gotten any more due process for the role, and he was voted against on the Senate Floor by Senators of his own party. He wasn’t unfairly denied anything.

          Neither was Franken. Where liberals and conservatives differ however is that liberals keep expecting the standards applied to Senator Franken to be applied to people like Trump, or Rep. Cawthorne or the former WH Doctor. They aren’t and conservatives are generally unapologetic about it.Report

        • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

          The D’s will never have a Bork; they don’t have the R’s gift for weapons-grade resentment.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci says:

      Maybe if he only had a year left…Report

    • Kazzy in reply to CJColucci says:

      An unwanted kiss on the lips wouldn’t get someone fired? Yikes.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to CJColucci says:

      Let’s get real about this. Cuomo’s crime was killing old folks in nursing homes and covering up the data. But like Capone, he’s getting busted down for something which will stick and hopefully force him from office (and into jail :). Like Marchmaine mentions below, the sexually inappropriate incidents occurred over two years ago. Interesting timing, no?Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Stillwater says:

        Well, if you want to talk about something else entirely, that’s your prerogative. Though why you think anything about these incidents might put Cuomo in prison is hard to understand.Report

      • Damon in reply to Stillwater says:

        This stuff is coming out now because he’s VULNERABLE and or he’s no longer useful or his liabilities have exceeded his usefulness.. It was buried 2 years ago because of this.. Now, he’s weaker. Odds are, more of this will come to the surface.Report

  6. Philip H says:

    Now, for fun, let’s compare and contrast how this plays out compared to how Congressman Madison Cawthorne is being treated for similar accusations.

    @Jaybird – that’s your cue . . . .Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

      I don’t know who Madison Cawthorne is but I will do my best.

      Well, you have to understand. The world is pretty complicated!Report

      • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        Also Jim Jordan, he’s been discussed here even. Cuomo is bad though. Prob deserves to go on two separate issues. I’m certainly seeing a lot of people slagging on Cuomo and not just on Fox.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

          I’m not defending Cuomo.

          I’m just saying that if Republican politicians never get fired for this behavior, we should not hold Democratic politicians accountable to the point where they quit over it. Why would you want to hand a scalp over to the other team when they never give you any?Report

          • Greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

            Who are you arguing with? Cuomo seems bad based on being a sex pest /creep and his covid fail. Screw scalps. Jordan and Cawthorn seem like they should go but nothing is happening so far. Talking about scalps is part of the problem.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

            Here’s the better call – hold Republicans to the same standard as Democrats.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        Wait, I just googled him. He’s a Republican. I’ll try again.

        For decades now, people have known that sexual harassment is wrong. Full stop. Do none of these men have sisters, mothers, daughters? Why in the hell do they think that it’s okay to treat women like objects?

        It is time for us to draw a line in the sand and say “No. You don’t get to act this way. You don’t get to hold power over others when you don’t see them as equals.”

        We need to hold each other accountable and a position of power, even if it’s an elected office, should have standards that include treating human beings like human beings. If you can’t even rise to that bare minimum of a standard, you should get a job at Fox News or OANN or something.


  7. Marchmaine says:

    Turns out Emmy was an actual gal. And I’m firmly against awarding people as prizes.

    I’m mildly curious in the “there’s no such thing as a leak” kind of way why DEC-13-2020 marks the public claim against him for events that happened 2015-18 passim.

    I suppose everyone knew.Report

  8. Ozzzy! says:

    If “what is Chris Cuomo’s role in this” is a real storyline, I’m curating myself right into the sun. Oscar’s Rocket update only from here on out.

    If you want to talk about why Chris effin Cuomo has a talking head show in general, well, that I would stick around for.Report

  9. Chip Daniels says:

    What I always find striking in these stories is the sense of complete entitlement.
    Its not like these guys do this in the shadows where no one can see, they do it openly in the blithe self assurance that they are entitled to take whatever they want, when they want it.Report

  10. CJColucci says:

    I used to work under Cuomo, and, based on my limited interactions with him, he liked to joke around but wasn’t very good at it. Example: he handed me an award and said “Colucci? What kind of name is that?” “Irish,” I replied. He laughed, and since he was the Boss, this got laughs from the audience. Much of what he has concededly done — I leave the disputed stuff aside — fits with this aspect of his personality.
    I have no insight into how he would have reacted if any of his accusers had, at an early stage, said “Cut it out; this bothers me.” And, given that he was the Governor, I’m not blaming any of them for not having said as much. Still, for a complete moral accounting, it would be good to know.Report

  11. Jaybird says:

    Questions are being raised over whether Trump is behind this and is hoping to get rid of Cuomo and install a governor who is more inclined to pardon people who give big donations.


    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

      I doubt Trump could get 3 women to spin up false allegations. He most certainly could assist in putting those allegations on blast, but frankly, because of the nursing home deaths, Cuomo is already on the ropes, and the media, even the left leaning media, can be sharks smelling blood in the water. After all, party loyalty doesn’t pay off student loans and make the rent.Report

  12. Jaybird says:

    Someone who is friends with Anna Ruch reached out to her and asked how she was doing. There’s a thread here:

    He does not talk about Trump in the thread.Report

  13. Jaybird says:

    Cuomo just finished a Press Conference.

    Here’s the start of the thread:

    Here’s the end of the thread:


  14. Jaybird says:

    An interesting perspective:


    • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

      Especially when it comes to sex scandals.
      I’ve never seen sex scandals adhere to anything other than the specific person. That is, I’ve never seen a sex scandal tarnish an ideology or political party.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

      The only reason this is interesting is because voters have largely fallen for the various personality cults the parties encourage around politicians.

      Every once in a while you get a politician that is also a particularly talented leader. But 99.99% of the time they are barely competent to dress themselves.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        I think it’s half that, but the other half is a desire to not hand the other team a W (and, presumably, take an L at the same time).

        Sexual Harassment, at least, gives a bunch of people an out. The retirement community thing has too many essays written at the time talking about how Cuomo’s leadership is What We Need Right Now (AS OPPOSED TO TRUMP) as the bodies were piling up.

        Sexual Harassment? Do none of these men have sisters, mothers, daughters? Why in the hell do they think that it’s okay to treat women like objects?Report

  15. Jaybird says:

    You know why Al Franken had to resign? Stuff like this is why Al Franken had to resign.


  16. Jaybird says:

    If you like conspiracy theories, you’ll love this!


  17. Jaybird says:

    From the horse’s mouth:


  18. Jaybird says:

    You know how many Dr. Seuss books have been discontinued?

    That’s how many women have accused Cuomo.


  19. Jaybird says: