Aberdeen American News has the Schoenbeck letter to Sutton
Run, don't walk to read a hard copy of today's Aberdeen American News to see the full letter.
But, just to whet your appetite, here's a a couple of snippets as printed in the paper from the letter that Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck sent to Senator Dan Sutton notifying him of the accusations where he allegedly "sexually groped the young man.":
And later in the letter, it sets forth pretty clearly what the actions are that the senate does and does not have the ability to take - which I think it of the utmost importance to note in this case.
The thing to keep in mind which I think has been lost on much (all) of the media coverage, is that this is solely a determination as to whether or not Senator Dan Sutton violated Senate rules.
This is not a hearing to determine if he violated criminal statutes. That's an entirely different process with (what I would argue is) a much stronger burden of proof.
I'm not sure what the legal standards are for hearing of this nature, but they could find him guilty of a violation of senate rules simply based on a preponderance of evidence. Or, it might just be based on a vote of his peers.
But, this letter also notes to "impeach" Sutton, a meeting of the full legislature is required. So, we might see a rather relaxed House of Representatives awaiting whether or not they're even needed.
After all of this process, there's the question of what will happen next January if Sutton wins re-election. If he's found guilty of the accusations, there might be more to do about it if the Senate refuses to seat him.
But, let's get through the first things first.
But, just to whet your appetite, here's a a couple of snippets as printed in the paper from the letter that Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck sent to Senator Dan Sutton notifying him of the accusations where he allegedly "sexually groped the young man.":
And later in the letter, it sets forth pretty clearly what the actions are that the senate does and does not have the ability to take - which I think it of the utmost importance to note in this case.
The thing to keep in mind which I think has been lost on much (all) of the media coverage, is that this is solely a determination as to whether or not Senator Dan Sutton violated Senate rules.
This is not a hearing to determine if he violated criminal statutes. That's an entirely different process with (what I would argue is) a much stronger burden of proof.
I'm not sure what the legal standards are for hearing of this nature, but they could find him guilty of a violation of senate rules simply based on a preponderance of evidence. Or, it might just be based on a vote of his peers.
But, this letter also notes to "impeach" Sutton, a meeting of the full legislature is required. So, we might see a rather relaxed House of Representatives awaiting whether or not they're even needed.
After all of this process, there's the question of what will happen next January if Sutton wins re-election. If he's found guilty of the accusations, there might be more to do about it if the Senate refuses to seat him.
But, let's get through the first things first.
Comments
Of course, if Dan is reelected, it is an entirely different story. I don't know if the Senate would have to expel him AGAIN (assuming he was expelled the first time), if it would refuse to seat him and declare the seat vacant, or if it would reason that "the voters knew what they were getting" and welcome him back. It's just hard to say.
david Newquist wrote this on his blog site thought it was interesting!!!!