But he is entitled to be heard and to face his accusers. If this were any other kind of incident, we wouldn't be clamoring for a resignation.
For too long the politics of embarrassment has been the guiding principle, rather than the rule of law. Perhaps Cuomo is indeed guilty of the charges and is just denying them to buy time. By the same token, if he were innocent, he'd be denying the charges anyway.
In either possibility, it would behoove us to have a hearing and let all parties be under oath,evidence presented and facts be submitted to a candid world.
I detest that we are being subjected to trial by media. This anonymous accuser, now chooses to come forward. Why? Wasn't the purpose of the law to protect women from retaliation by allowing them to submit complaints without having to identify themselves? A law, mind you, Andrew Cuomo himself signed less than 2 years ago: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-legislation-enacting-sweeping-new-workplace-harassment-protections Someone please, help me to understand what purpose does this serve? Don't lawyers advise clients against making public statements while litigation is pending? You nor I will be sitting in judgement of Governor Cuomo if the State Assembly does indeed issue Articles of Impeachment and the Senate commences A Court for The Trial of Impeachments; the State Senate will. Then isn't this just a backdoor way to influence a potential jury? Is it proper? Is it fair?
I for one, am no Andrew Cuomo fan. But I did vote for him as did the majority of New Yorkers, not once but twice. And I, for one am not comfortable with the prospect of having the will of the people to be overturned without due process. This happened before with Eliot Spitzer; I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/01/spitzer200801
We also elected a legislature to carry out the will of the people of the State of New York. Sometimes, that duty will entail that they do some unpleasant and uncomfortable things, like impeaching the Governor, for example. To which my response would be: "Ordinary citizens serve on juries every day and sit in judgement of their fellow citizens. If they can do their civic duty, so can an elected legislature." A resignation would allow them to shirk their sworn duty and would injure the credibility of the institution by which we base democratic self governance on.
I for one, wish fervently, that all parties would exercise their right (and discretion) to remain silent until such time that they are called on to testify under oath at trial. Until then, I remain skeptical to the point of disbelief of any statements made by all parties other than their initial statements of complaint and subsequent denial.
= new reply since forum marked as read
