For a moment this summer, it looked as though the Me Too reckoning might embroil the high-stakes race for Ohio governor.
Mike DeWine, the attorney general and Republican nominee to replace Gov. John Kasich, had placed a law firm with deep ties to Republicans in charge of investigating sexual harassment claims against a longtime GOP power broker. It was exactly the kind of cronyism that has lately attracted greater scrutiny. The lawmaker had even spent decades working for the firm.
So far, DeWine, who is in a close race to preserve Republicans’ total grip on Ohio politics, has weathered the scandal. But a few have argued it’s part of a pattern: DeWine and his office have been accused twice before of intervening in sexual harassment investigations that implicated people close to him.
In 2013, DeWine inserted himself into the sexual harassment investigation of a friend and senior official in his office, by forcing the state’s investigator to disclose the identity of a confidential source in the probe. He then personally recommended that a local prosecutor bring a dubious criminal charge against the investigator, who had been reluctant to reveal the source’s name. The prosecutor, a fellow Republican, refused.
Then, in 2014, in a separate investigation, DeWine’s office made the unusual move of overturning a report that faulted a supervisor in DeWine’s office for ignoring complaints about sexual harassment.
In other words, the latest scandal is far from the first time DeWine has appeared to taint an investigation. It’s not even the first case of DeWine appearing to assist a political ally or friend.
Here’s the history.
A Friend Of Mike’s
Five years ago, DeWine thrust himself into the middle of a sexual harassment investigation involving a senior member of his agency, described in the investigative documents as DeWine’s friend and a member of his “kitchen cabinet.” The inquiry began after a law student interning with the attorney general’s office rejected a job offer there, saying DeWine’s friend, who was also friendly with her family, had been sexually inappropriate with her outside of work.
The experience shook her badly enough that she got counseling and didn’t feel comfortable working in the attorney general’s office anymore, she said, according to state records.
An employee in the attorney general’s office passed the complaint along to a prosecutor and the state’s equal employment watchdog. DeWine, who had never interacted with the intern, nonetheless made the unusual move of asking to be interviewed by the equal employment investigator.
DeWine used the interview to pressure the investigator, Kristine Cadek, into revealing the confidential identity of a person who had promised Cadek corroborating evidence for the intern’s story. (This is according to Cadek’s interview notes, which DeWine signed to certify they were accurate.) Cadek refused, citing the potential for retaliation, before ultimately giving in.
DeWine then spoke directly to the confidential informant. A few days later, the investigator ended the probe, leading to questions about whether DeWine’s interference was the cause.
“It was totally inappropriate, the way that he behaved,” said Carolyn Casper, the president of the Ohio chapter of the National Organization for Women, a progressive women’s rights group. “That is the kind of move that can taint an investigation and intimidate future victims. … It suggests there’s a culture in that office to carry out DeWine’s personal agenda.”
DeWine then recommended that a local prosecutor charge Cadek with a felony. Cadek’s crime, DeWine said, was using a photo of the intern from a state database for criminal investigators, even though her investigation was an administrative one.
Cadek was allowed to name the intern in her interviews, and she showed the photo to jog peoples’ memories. The prosecutor ultimately declined to prosecute because Cadek had inflicted “no actual harm.”
DeWine’s office defended the prosecution referral by saying it had a duty to be protective of the database.
Mike DeWine, the attorney general and Republican nominee to replace Gov. John Kasich, had placed a law firm with deep ties to Republicans in charge of investigating sexual harassment claims against a longtime GOP power broker. It was exactly the kind of cronyism that has lately attracted greater scrutiny. The lawmaker had even spent decades working for the firm.
So far, DeWine, who is in a close race to preserve Republicans’ total grip on Ohio politics, has weathered the scandal. But a few have argued it’s part of a pattern: DeWine and his office have been accused twice before of intervening in sexual harassment investigations that implicated people close to him.
In 2013, DeWine inserted himself into the sexual harassment investigation of a friend and senior official in his office, by forcing the state’s investigator to disclose the identity of a confidential source in the probe. He then personally recommended that a local prosecutor bring a dubious criminal charge against the investigator, who had been reluctant to reveal the source’s name. The prosecutor, a fellow Republican, refused.
Then, in 2014, in a separate investigation, DeWine’s office made the unusual move of overturning a report that faulted a supervisor in DeWine’s office for ignoring complaints about sexual harassment.
In other words, the latest scandal is far from the first time DeWine has appeared to taint an investigation. It’s not even the first case of DeWine appearing to assist a political ally or friend.
Here’s the history.
A Friend Of Mike’s
Five years ago, DeWine thrust himself into the middle of a sexual harassment investigation involving a senior member of his agency, described in the investigative documents as DeWine’s friend and a member of his “kitchen cabinet.” The inquiry began after a law student interning with the attorney general’s office rejected a job offer there, saying DeWine’s friend, who was also friendly with her family, had been sexually inappropriate with her outside of work.
The experience shook her badly enough that she got counseling and didn’t feel comfortable working in the attorney general’s office anymore, she said, according to state records.
An employee in the attorney general’s office passed the complaint along to a prosecutor and the state’s equal employment watchdog. DeWine, who had never interacted with the intern, nonetheless made the unusual move of asking to be interviewed by the equal employment investigator.
DeWine used the interview to pressure the investigator, Kristine Cadek, into revealing the confidential identity of a person who had promised Cadek corroborating evidence for the intern’s story. (This is according to Cadek’s interview notes, which DeWine signed to certify they were accurate.) Cadek refused, citing the potential for retaliation, before ultimately giving in.
DeWine then spoke directly to the confidential informant. A few days later, the investigator ended the probe, leading to questions about whether DeWine’s interference was the cause.
“It was totally inappropriate, the way that he behaved,” said Carolyn Casper, the president of the Ohio chapter of the National Organization for Women, a progressive women’s rights group. “That is the kind of move that can taint an investigation and intimidate future victims. … It suggests there’s a culture in that office to carry out DeWine’s personal agenda.”
DeWine then recommended that a local prosecutor charge Cadek with a felony. Cadek’s crime, DeWine said, was using a photo of the intern from a state database for criminal investigators, even though her investigation was an administrative one.
Cadek was allowed to name the intern in her interviews, and she showed the photo to jog peoples’ memories. The prosecutor ultimately declined to prosecute because Cadek had inflicted “no actual harm.”
DeWine’s office defended the prosecution referral by saying it had a duty to be protective of the database.
