Oh, goodie. VTDigger has gotten hold of new information about disgraced State Sen. Norm McAllister (R-Limbo). It comes from a civil suit filed against McAllister by one of his alleged victims. Digger’s account is not for the faint of heart (or gut); it’s quite explicit, as in my view it should be. Our Distinguished Elected Officials have been ducking the hard facts all along. Their faces should be rubbed in the muck.
Which brings me to a VPO Special Offer. The first reporter who asks one of McAllister’s Senate defenders a question including the words “vaginal fisting” will get a $10 reward. Because that’s one of the many things he (allegedly, cough) subjected this woman to. Sample: “Senator, the allegations against Norm McAllister including forcible oral and anal sex and vaginal fisting. Why do you support letting this man stay in the Senate?”
Audio recording of the question constitutes proof.
The suit was filed by a woman called “Anna” who was a tenant on McAllister’s farm. She alleges frequent abusive sexual encounters over a two-and-a-half-year period. The squicky details in a moment, but here’s something VTDigger overlooked.
“Anna” moved to the farm in late 2012. The coercion began during her initial meeting with McAllister, and continued as long as she lived there. Which means we’ve caught McAllister in a big fat hairy lie.
He has said he didn’t start having sex with the other women until “After my wife died. Months after.”
Well, McAllister’s wife Lena Mae died on September 27, 2013.
I’ve gotta say I am shocked — shocked! — that a conservative family-values pol like Good Ol’ Norm was cheating on his wife.
Perhaps it’s understandable, because if Anna’s account is true, he was getting a lot of stuff from her that Lena Mae probably wouldn’t have put up with. Like, for instance, “vaginal fisting”, anal and oral sex, and arranging for her to have sex with another man for money.
And offering to take her to a farm to prostitute herself with Mexican laborers. No, I don’t think Lena Mae would have stood for that. Heck, even Anna said “no” to that generous offer.
Another disturbing aspect revealed by VTDigger is that McAllister used his official position to force Anna’s compliance. At the time she met McAllister, her children were in state custody. He offered to intervene on her behalf — in exchange for sex, of course. That adds a new and troubling dimension to the case. And it makes Anna’s claims more plausible: if she was getting not only financial help but also the promise of legal intervention in getting her kids back, well, that’s powerful incentive to put up with the debased, sweaty demands of a State Senator.
According to Digger, McAllister arranged for Anna to speak with a lawyer about her custody issues; the lawyer is described by Anna as “an attorney to the Senate.”
Ooooooh, I wonder who that could be. Welp, there’s another high-ranking official who’s bound to be getting a subpoena.
Speaking of lawyers, McAllister’s defense attorney has apparently put his soul in escrow for the duration of the case. Here’s the setup:
“I made it pretty clear to Norm that I didn’t want to do it,” Anna told detectives, referring to their sexual relationship generally and not a specific incident, according to the criminal affidavit.
… In one of the conversation recorded by investigators, McAllister told Anna “I knew I was forcing you to do something you didn’t want to do.”
That’s a big fat mess for attorney Brooks McArthur to deal with. And here’s how he’s doing it:
McArthur, McAllister’s defense attorney, has said the senator used the word “forcing” not to imply the sex was nonconsensual, but to acknowledge the “vibe” he was getting from her while the sex acts took place.
There’s a “wide divide” in the law between a nonconsensual sex act and not enjoying a sex act, he said. McArthur thinks that’s a distinction he will be able to get a jury to understand.
Please note: McArthur is stipulating that the sexual relationship in all its fetid glory did, in fact happen — presumably including all the grotty details already mentioned here.
He is acknowledging a two-plus-year pattern of sexual contact with a woman who was financially dependent on McAllister and seeking his official intervention with the Department of Children and Families. And he’s pinning his hopes on getting a jury to draw a firm line between disgust and consent. Good luck with that.
Ah, yes! The party of personal responsibility, as long as it’s imposed on others. A couple of months ago, Vermont papers reviewed the sordid details of the late Charlie Kelton’s life– another lifelong Republican who believed in everyone’s obligation for rectitude, personal responsibility and ethical conduct– unless his business required otherwise. As he fell from grace, he took a bank with him.