Senator Ron Johnson knew since 2011 about Assemblyman Kramer's Sexual Assault

[pbrower2a]

A cover-up of a serious crime is itself a crime.

At the least, Senator Johnson could have called for the resignation of the Assemblyman in question. One protects one's subordinates from any form of sexual misconduct or one is not much of a boss.

If I were a boss, sexual harassment, let alone assault, would be grounds for quick firing -- if only to protect the organization from lawsuits that can devour organizational assets.

[pbrower2a]

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

We don't need top know all the facts. Politicians have resigned in disgrace for much less than sexual assault -- even adultery. Winning the next election or keeping a certain position of partisan power must never be more important than the non-commission of crimes.

One time may be a triviality with adultery, but one time is one too many with sexual assault or harassment. We may not know what counsel Senator Johnson gave to a female staffer. If he advised that she not press charges, then he is culpable of some serious misdeed.

The right choice for Senator Johnson would have been to prevail upon the State Assemblyman to resign promptly. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Elected officials should be beyond suspicion of criminal misdeeds. He said/she said is not enough. But if there is enough suspicion that a reasonable person sees smoke...

Yes, I am well aware of the adage that in a rape trial, a defense attorney typically puts the victim on trial. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who commit sexual assault or even harassment are no longer trustworthy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I were in Ron Johnson's shoes I would have made very clear that vile deeds against one of "my " staffers are intolerable, and that in the event of a criminal trial I might have to testify on behalf of the victim. I would have suggested that the staffer go to law enforcement.

[pbrower2a]

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

The legal standard of  the presumption of innocence is relevant only to whether people be incarcerated for long terms or not be so treated. When it comes to certain responsibilities -- any business will separate a money-handler suspected of embezzlement from the responsibility to distribute company cash or record transactions. Someone accused of child abuse will be suspended as a teacher.

Sexual assault may not be relevant to voting, but it is an absolute crime. It is an unambiguous warning of a sociopathic personality that nobody should trust in a position of responsibility. This is not commonplace adultery or fornication, either of which is consensual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will be weak charges -- some based on paranoid delusions or false identification as well as outright libel and slander. But those are cleared, often with the debunking of the accuser.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could the staffer be wrong? Could it be that the staffer is convinced that the assault was a one-time discretion of an otherwise-unobjectionable character? One sexual assault is one too many. Our legal system doesn't usually assume that a one-time drunk driver poses no menace to the safety of others who share the highway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Ask for a clarification of the situation.

2. Be prepared to ask for the resignation of that pol.

3. Warn fellow Republicans. Warn your staffers.

[pbrower2a]

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?

Yes. Arrest is not conviction. It has no consequences other than offering a signal that someone needs change his behavior. Some people need the signal. If there is a contributing factor such as drug abuse or alcoholism, then such is a good time to deal with that aspect of life. Only rarely is there an excuse for domestic violence -- like self-defense.

It prevents an abuser from having the influence upon a victim that allows the victim to get lighter abuse in return for dropping charges.

Domestic abuse needs to be stopped as early as possible.