Senate president to step down during investigation of husband's activities

The State House News Service reports Stanley Rosenberg will step down as senate president as an independent investigator looks into sexual-assault allegations against his husband, Bryon Hefner.

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Even though

Even though Rosenberg has not been accused of wrong-doing, stepping down during the fact-finding and scandal resolution makes sense. It takes him out of a position of authority and let's it procede without that potential conflict of interest.

up
42

Me too

By on

And as the Billy Bush character on SNL pointed out, he lost his job for just listening to Trump.

up
22

Good God, why?

The man robbed you and everyone else in the state along with that other scumbag DeLeo so they could pad their bullshit salaries then gave raises to the judges that could have blocked it.

Now this moron is standing there with his dick literally out and seemingly no shortage of obsequious colleagues eager to zip his pants for him.

Fuck him. Resign

up
50

That's a different issue altogether

By on

Politics are one thing, and if the non-Hefner hijinks are what make you say what you say, fine. For me, here's a guy whose only crime in this case is marrying the wrong guy.

Now, if his dick was literally out in the literal sense of the word literally (as opposed to the figurative sense you used, but that's another story), sure, don't let the door hit you on the way back, but since his dick was neither literally nor figuratively out in this case, I feel for him.

up
28

Sorry...

but Rosenberg is not a stupid politician. He knew who and why he was marrying.Now he has to answer for his willingness to look the other way because, as I said, it beats being a lonely old thief.

That's T-H-I-E-F.

Oh and as far as his dick being figuratively out, if Stan had kept it in his pants the taxpayers would not be paying for a formal investigation right now, would they?

up
28

Well

By on

Since there are no accusations of sexual misconduct being leveled against the Senate President, I would assume that he has kept his dick in his pants at the appropriate times.

up
23

Well

I guess you have no problem with the being a thief part?

Or am I wrong?

up
28

Different issue

By on

And if you were celebrating his departure and the issue at hand was, em, his lack of fiscal ethics, I’d have no problem with that. But he is not being crucified for those crimes. He is being crucified for the crimes of his husband.

up
19

Crucified?

Histrionic, much?

He's under suspicion, as his husband was aggressively lobbying and promising favors.

That doesn't mean that he is under criminal investigation - but that the entire mess is under investigation. That's the way the ethics regulations in the state work.

Since his husband's antics are being investigated (as well as his potential role in those antics), it is only appropriate that he step down from a position of influence over that investigation.

Not even close to crucifixion.

up
22

Especially when you consider

the pass Hefner and Rosenberg are getting in the media by pulling the old send the spouse to rehab routine. As if no one noticed his alcoholism was so blatant that rehab was required before he embarrassed Daddy.

up
23

Perhaps I was a bit too dramatic

By on

But I was goaded on. Consider it my Gronk moment, so to speak.

I have no problem with him stepping down- in fact, if I were a member of the Senate, I'd be hard pressed to support his reelection after lying to the caucus about the spouse being kept away from policy work. I just feel for the guy as a person, since again the crimes everyone is talking about were not committed by him. As far as that stuff goes, his "crime" is having a horrible spouse. It's the Weiner-Abedin thing all over again.

up
15

No comparison

Abedin was a victim of a sociopath who fathered her child. Rosenberg is a just another sad old man who got taken in by a younger man who he would have had no chance of even speaking to unless he either had money or power.

Add to that, Rosenberg being a corrupt thief, and there is no reason to feel any pity for him, considering how he's probably orchestrating the Senate reaction to all this and has already issued the standard crisis management talking points about his twink idiot spouse going to rehab.

You know, to work out his "issues"?

up
14

No, Rosenberg's crime only crime is not "marrying the wrong guy"

By on

The problem is that Rosenberg allowed his husband to meddle in State House business. That will be the focus of the investigation, and not the sexual assault.

Per the Globe article:

But, according to seven of the people interviewed for this story, including several of the alleged victims, any firewall that Rosenberg might have tried to build has not been successful. Those people have had conversations with Hefner in which he demonstrates a deep knowledge of the day-to-day workings of the Senate, one that goes well beyond what one might know about a spouse’s work. They say Hefner has followed up on their conversations with Rosenberg, and claimed to speak for the Senate president. They have seen him deal directly with legislative staffers on Senate matters. Their impressions are bolstered by Hefner’s own frequent claims that he is intimately involved in Rosenberg’s work.

Additionally, the Globe has reviewed messages written by Hefner that show his active involvement in the business of the Senate. They include direct communication with legislators and aides about Senate business, and exchanges in which Hefner orders around Rosenberg staffers.

How much he knew about it, we will find out. One would think he must've known, given that Byron was ordering his staff around and corresponding with legislators (never mind attending dinners where Senate business was being discussed). But if he allowed the outside factors to influence decisions in the State House, and did nothing to stop it, then he's guilty of much more than marrying the wrong dude.

up
24

i was under the impression

By on

i was under the impression that Hefner worked in the office with his husband or was always around so that in effect he was almost a gatekeeper to people / info getting to and from Rosenberg. So it is not just that his spouse had issues but those issues were directly affecting the workings in Rosenberg office. As the boss Rosenberg is responsible for that and based on history Rosenberg did nothing to eliminate Hefners interference which he had promised publicly in the past. Hefner seems like a creep

up
21

We are the clowns....

We accept the State House exempting themselves from the Open Meeting Law which they make even dog catching committees from Hopkington follow.

I've spoken directly to both my allegedly super progressive State Reps: Chang-Diaz and Byron Rushing. They tell me its really important that they can meet in secret 'to get things done'.

As long as we continue to tolerate this attitude and this abuse of the citizens right to know and see what is going on we are going to continue to have these sorts of shenanigans.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

up
59

Interesting

By on

How all of a sudden there's an interest now in investigating sexual harassment on Beacon Hill. I have to wonder if it's because it's men reporting the harassment?

up
27

Hmmm, GREAT observation!!!

By on

It HAS to be that...it's not like anything else is going on nationwide that might cause one to be a bit more sensitive to sexual harassment claims.

up
38

Both/And

By on

Both women getting so fed up that they scrubbed away the denial, and men being harassed.

up
17

Exactly

The women I read about were also all afraid to release their own names AND to out the individuals who harassed them. Then the bonehead speaker spits out some line about being upset that women are afraid to come forward. Their careers will suffer as a result. I'm highly interested in knowing who the offenders are. I also want the woman who were wronged to be protected.

up
23

C'mon

By on

The Deleo thing isn't just a sexual harassment / assault issue. While thats certainly a legit issue by itself, it's just the beginning here.

The more serious potential problem, and likely the reason D had to step down, is that it appears hubby was trying to influence state government. Again.

Not to mention the history of corrupt Speakers at the State House.

up
18

Erm, why?

By on

His husband is a buffoon at best and a goon at worst. Rosenberg stepping down from leadership during the investigation, sure.

But why resign his seat outright?

up
20

Why?

Because he let his husband get into a position where he was doing these things. There is reason to think he knew or should have known what his husband was doing, particularly after 2014 when the influence charges where first brought up.

Stan promised to keep a "firewall" between his husband and the state house and official business. He did not do that.

up
25

Now would be a great time to

By on

Now would be a great time to reform state government so that the Senate President isn't some unGodly powerful figure to which all other state senators must kiss the ring. Do the same for the Speaker of the House.

up
31

Senate President

By on

The job is one of the most powerful positions in the state. Unfortunately for Stan when young interns, rangers and court officers are snickering behind your back you have lost all your clout.
Stan if your supporters believe you can survive I suggest you read the "Emperor's new clothes"

up
24

During the investigation?

By on

Did he state that he's only stepping donw for the duration of the investigation....or for good?

up
17