Now, on to Arnold. The clear theme running through the "gossip" that I have heard indicates that Arnold is a man with very poor judgment--so poor as to question allowing him to hold any public office.
1. While running for his first public office, his own domestic-violence issues were down played into vapor in a manner that enabled him to give the false appearance that he could and would investigate or prosecute domestic violence cases in an appropriate and unbiased manner. It also enabled him, in a more recent election where his former assistant was running for a public office, to appear so "clean" on the issue that he could support his friend's campaign by smearing his opponent with domestic violence accusations that his office helped the media (and the opposing candidate's ex) to spread among the voting public. To secretly help him on this issue--you know, to make it look like he could properly handle domestic violence cases, as soon as taking office, he employed friends and business partners in the victim witness co-coordinators office.
2. Then there are the constant rumors about his sexual activities with his female staff, and about some of these activities occurring in a county office. If these are true, the un-ethicality of the pattern of conduct speaks for itself as being reflective of a person not fit for public office:
a. First, the rumors suggest that he uses the public work space as his breeding grounds. The rumors consistently describe that he has had repeated sexual affairs with a line of women colleagues and even his own staff. His second wife worked as a LebCo juvenile probation officer at the time that Arnold worked in the public defenders office (and when he was married to his first wife, I assume). That second marriage took place pretty darn quickly after the first one tanked. These are facts. Also, he is rumored to have bedded a female attorney on his staff who subsequently quit, and to have bedded another-- who was relatively recently confronted by his second wife.
b. Second, the rumors suggest that he rather openly creates and fosters an office culture where sexual activity is allowed, enabled, and even rewarded in county offices. One example is demonstrated by the rumor that his second wife even caught him being unfaithful in either his office or in his assistant district attorney's office. Then there is the well-known fact that he shielded a male colleague from investigation and prosecution for having sex with...ah, was it a confidential informant?, in the property/evidence locker? or some government space like that. He rewarded his second wife by helping to "convert" her public job as a juvenile probation officer to a private job with a lucrative county contract and a constant--and increasing, stream of juveniles that HE prosecutes.
c. Third, his rumored activities appear to be highly discriminatory--against men and against women in his office, albeit for differing reasons. At a minimum, even the rumors of his sexual escapades must create a highly charged and inefficient workplace environment. One rumor is that one of his affairs led to a "pregnancy scare"--and with a married staff member at that. I suggest that could be why one of his business partner-staff member quit on him, especially if the two women were friends. More recent rumors describe how a sexual relationship with another of his female attorneys has led to his second wife confronting the mistress, and led to the failure of his second marriage. And how would this make any of the males in his staff feel, especially if a relationship with the "boss" is used like a reward system in the office?
3. And then there are the non-rumors--the facts.
a. One fact is Arnold's exceptionally conflict-laden act of keeping a judge's wife on his payroll where he continues to prosecute cases in front of that judge--even though the president judge told the public that the judge would be removed from hearing criminal cases. Arnold also lets his assistant district attorneys "moonlight" in family law cases that that judge hears. The conflict is so blatant that all a family law case participant has to do his file a one page objection simply saying "the conflict inherent in having a assistant district attorney serve in this family law case is obvious and egregious, and so the lawyer must be removed immediately." I have never seen it fought--or fail, yet. (BTW, if you know of a family law case that was assigned an assistant district attorney, please let me know the case number and party names.)
b. Another fact evidencing his un-fitness for office is that he lied about his finances in his ethics disclosures and the only thing that shields him from being held accountable for his lying is that the ethics entity wants to impose a fictional "statute of limitations" on a process which has no such limitation.
c. Oh, and another fact--he wrongfully convicts people that he knows are innocent, and abuses the powers of his office to silence people he considers political threats.
As I wrap this up, I want to remind the audience that his alleged mistresses are also public persona who could have been named herein. And to those public officials: You're welcome for the discretion. But you should really come to grips with the idea that the county's citizens already have your names, so your legacy is cast and your children are already at risk of learning any "secrets" from a person and at a time completely out of your control. I suggest that we would all be better off if parents taught their children the principle of "owning your own shit". "Mommy had her sexual needs met by her boss, but that doesn't mean that she loves you or daddy any less." or "Daddy had his sexual needs met by his female staff, and sometimes, while at work in the office, but that doesn't mean that he loves you any less."
But it also doesn't mean that it makes him fit for office.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment