So much for the dogs of war. Sutton leaves the Capitol, possibly never to return?
In newspapers across the state this AM, Bob Mercer is reporting that Senator Dan Sutton has left the building (the Capitol building, that is). Possibly never to return.
This is major, and alludes to what I've been predicting all along. Excepting the bluster and bravado of his attorneys, it seems the handwriting is on the wall, and just remains to be signed or not.
If that's the case, it would be extremely unfortunate that he's put the legislature through this circus, protesting his innocence, but maneuvering left and right in every attempt to delay the matter. He resigned once, labeling is a political matter by opponents and sullying the names of the legislators who were doing no more than their duty.
But once that was off of the table, the charges didn't evaporate. They didn't go away, and the Senate has been pressing ahead to get to the bottom of this matter.
In fact, if you read the article, it sounds as if resignation may not absolve the Senate of getting to the heart of the matter. Senator Ed Olson talks as if the proceedings may happen with or without him in an attempt to bring finality to the investigation.
Maybe - just maybe - those who were doing their jobs in the first place may have been right to do so all along?
Senator Dan Sutton left the State Capitol with his wife, Mary Beth, and headed home to Flandreau Thursday evening.Read this breaking story it in the dead tree editions of the Pierre, Spearfish, Watertown, Mitchell or Aberdeen Newspaper.
He didn't plan to return today. The mystery is whether he ever will.
"We're just going to go back and look at all of our options," Mary Beth Sutton said.
Asked whether resignation was a possibility, she replied, "He hasn't ruled anything out right now."
This is major, and alludes to what I've been predicting all along. Excepting the bluster and bravado of his attorneys, it seems the handwriting is on the wall, and just remains to be signed or not.
If that's the case, it would be extremely unfortunate that he's put the legislature through this circus, protesting his innocence, but maneuvering left and right in every attempt to delay the matter. He resigned once, labeling is a political matter by opponents and sullying the names of the legislators who were doing no more than their duty.
But once that was off of the table, the charges didn't evaporate. They didn't go away, and the Senate has been pressing ahead to get to the bottom of this matter.
In fact, if you read the article, it sounds as if resignation may not absolve the Senate of getting to the heart of the matter. Senator Ed Olson talks as if the proceedings may happen with or without him in an attempt to bring finality to the investigation.
Maybe - just maybe - those who were doing their jobs in the first place may have been right to do so all along?
Comments
Why the wait, Danny boy?
While this would not be a suprise, it does look like another desperate attempt to avoid the real issue, and begs the question of just exactly when this guy is going to prove his innocence and tell the REAL story, as his lawyers and supporters have been stating is all he wants to do.
I say the hearings need to go forward, resignation or not. At this point we all have an awful lot invested in the issue. Why stop now?
I assume he's been subpoenaed - or he can be - so get him back to Pierre and let the games begin...or rather, let them continue.
So here's the real question:
1 - Is Russ Olson a shoo-in to be appointed to Sutton's seat?
2 - Who will replace Russ Olson in the House?
Obviously, only Rounds knows these answers for sure, but who is available? Who would make sense?
Keep in mind - With Olson as a GOP senator, the Dems will likely run Rep. Dave Gassman against him, which will be one of the bing races of 2008. That means that Rounds' appointed house member will be the only incumbent running for the House from that district.
That is all. Just like the msm does, or well tries to do.
However, all his legal maneuvering in this situation has done nothing to make him look innocent.
Also, I cannot imagine that the page would be able to continue this long with a lie, knowing he will be facing testimony under oath. And I can't believe that his parents would be fooled this long by a lie.
At this point I doubt anyone will ever know what happened. But if Sutton resigns, at least it will be sort of over. If he is innocent, this is sad. If he's not, he should have dropped out at the beginning of all this and saved most of his reputation.
Now what about Roger Hunt? He actually violated laws.
Just to set the record straight. The Courts have not decided yet if Rep. Hunt broke the law.
The courts have not determined if Sutton has broken the law. In fact, Long's failure to prosecute the case may be an indicator that he did not.
Hopefully now they are seeing that Dan has delayed and played his cards, and has realized the unfortunate truth for him.
He's going to step down and walk away, and without any charges for now and possibly forever.
And I'd love to link to it directly, but Mercer's stories are not on-line.
Olson or Shoenbeck, what the heck is the difference. They only live for untrue, name calling, media grapping attention getting, name bashing, untrue big ego buddy story telling lies. Just for starts put a breath analizer at the chamber doors of the Senant and see if everyone could pass it and be seated. This would have helped like when one of our great past Senators who showed up more than a little full last year on the Senate floor and his buddies (Olsen and Schoenbeck) egnored it and just told him to sit down and shut up. They both know who it was and so do most of the others! I would not want them to perger themselves by keeping this behind closed doors. So I thought I would remind EO of this for next week. Any more Vodka anyone, ED ? Remember your oath. PP I will give you proof and have much more coming next week. Should be fun,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Treeware&defid=906096
Ummm...what does being intoxicated on the senate floor have to do with groping a page who is sharing your bed in a hotel room?
Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't be happy about the former. But aren't you kind of comparing apples and oranges?
If what you're saying is that Sutton's new tactic is going down the road of "Oh yea? Well, you know what HE did?", then he's going to look even weaker than he already does.
However, the more pressing issue is about Dan Sutton not yet to be named drunks.
If Dan is innocent and a fighter as some claim, and his attorney seem to think so, why o why is Danny boy running home?
More importantly why didn't he cast a vote of opposition to the inquiry? Or better yet vote for it so he can put these "unsubstantiated charges to rest?"
By next week Dan Sutton will be gone, Russ Olson will be a Senator, thereby increasing the R majority by one vote in the upper chamber and another Republican will be seated in the house. And while that house member may only be for one term, he will be there nonetheless for one term. There may be some milquetoast R's that district would support.
I dont think Dan will resign, nor do I think he should. This is his chance (if it is fair) for him to fight this allegation. He will walk away okay from this deal.
My thoughts and prayers are with Dan and his family through this difficult time. For those of us who know Dan, we know that "groping" someone is outside of his character and just plain false. So, put on your boxing gloves and look forward to many punches to come becuase this fight is going to be more like UFC fighting than boxing and its going to get nasty.
What gives ?
Kindly link to the story or I shall unleash the fires of hell to rain down on you !
The tragedy is the aledged victim might not see justice according to rule of law and Sutton might now become a victim.
Mob rule never remembers that an indivudual is innocent until he is proven guilty.
All right Duffy, we know that's you! You can't fool us!
I think he's guilty. You obviously don't, and I can respect that. But the bottom line is none of us knows for sure.
So, stay tuned and be ready for UFC before there were any rules, when it was too graphic to show on television aka Cage Wrestling.
This is going to be great! Probably better than any other comedy or drama on television right now and best of all it's reality television at its finest.
Good grief, we elect these guys to go to work for us, not party and whatever else knowing that it will never be known back home. Sounds to me more like a middle-age "spring break" to me. Somebody get out to Pierre this time and report what is actually going on. Anyone up to the job?
Touching another person in an aggressively sexual way.
Seriously, can anyone actually see Dan being "aggressive" in a sexual way. I can't!
Does anyone know what the ACTUAL allegation of groping is? I mean, what exactly is Austin accusing Dan of? Does anyone know? Because if it is what I heard through the rumor mill, it is absurdly ridiculous.
Also, if Dan and Austin were the only two people in the room, how is anyone going to "prove" anything? We can all pick our sides, but seriously, how can the senate actually resolve an accusation of groping when there weren't any third party witnesses? To me, this is all ludicrous. If there isn’t a video recording of the alleged incident, witnesses to the alleged incident (besides Dan & Austin), or any real tangible “proof” of the alleged incident, then how in the heck can the Senate really “do” anything? How can they justify overturning the people’s vote without any “real” proof?
At least all of Eddie's ridiculous comments re: this Sutton thing is finally clear to me...HE WAS DRUNK!
Just remember saying once again by lots of people this is different than the AG's case.
Now let me say right up front that I'm not positive about what I've just written, which is why I wrote it. So don't nail me to the wall if I'm wrong, just correct me.
And anon 3:18: WERE YOU THERE?
No, I wasn't there and I didnt say I was. What I said is "Seriously, can anyone actually see Dan being "aggressive" in a sexual way. I can't!"
If the Senate is "investigating" whether or not this alleged groping occurred, then how in the heck can this be proven or refuted? If there isn’t a “smoking gun” such as a third party witness or video recording to collaborate one side or the other, then how can the Senate make a determination of whether or not this alleged groping occurred? This “investigation” makes no sense to me. It would come down to a “he-said/he-said” argument, which is precisely why there aren’t any criminal charges.
If the Senate is “investigating” whether or not a page stayed in the Senator’s motel room, with the page’s parent’s permission, then this is null and void because Mr. Sutton is admitting to that indeed occurred. Is there a written policy against this? And, if so, then how many other legislators have been in violation of this policy?
I guess I would just like to know EXACTLY what this committee is investigating and how they plan on investigating an “alleged groping” because I just don’t see how it is possible. It just appears to me, that they want to attempt to ruin a man’s reputation.
Haven't you read the news or any reports????????
They are looking into actions not becoming of a State Senator with a page (high school student) "ethics". Breaking Senate rules.
The legal matter is in the hands of the Attorney General.
I bet you're right.
Everyone else -
This situation has turned into a horrible situation for both parties involved, for the city of flandreau and for friends of both parties. It has done zero good for this to drag on.
Guilty or Innocent? Only two people know. But it's just unfortunate that it had to come to this.
I will be very happy when next week is done with. VERY happy!
Reading some of these comments makes me upset that many of you are getting way to excited for this hearing. Many people will be hurt because of this, not just the two involved.
First off, DCI doesn't bring charges. Secondly, this should be an exciting time for you as now Sutton gets to tell his side of the story and save his reputation as much as he can. He should have nothing to be scared of, especially if the page has been living a lie this whole time right?
And the reason they can do this even though there are not yet criminal charges is because it happened on the Senate's watch and while they were in session. The Senate has what they call 'rules' and when they are broken, they like to find out what happened and how bad it was. And, in this case, they think it is bad enough for possible expulsion. Whether criminal charges get brought or not doesn't matter, if a business has a sexual harassment case within the office, do they wait for charges to be filed to discipline their coworkers? No, it's in their business, they control the disciplining.
And finally, what would I do if I had a pending investigation over my head and had to deal with this as well? I am pretty sure I'd come out and proclaim my innocence (which he hasn't done yet personally?) and have no worries about a Senate investigation and hearing. All he has to do at this point is go and tell what happened, is that hard? How bad could it be to come and listen to an 18 year-old page tell a fictional story in front of your friends and coworkers? Or wait........maybe this is all true and he can't come and tell the truth? Hmmm....this is exciting
"When Will Hunt Face A Judge?
Is ass patting a high crime in South Dakota while money laundering and election fraud are just fine?
Dan Sutton has been run out of Pierre on a rail by his fellow legislators over a "groping"incident last year. Epp at SD Watch confirmed that Sutton has left Pierre and might resign. He also mentions that the misconduct toward pages and interns in Pierre continues today. Epp mentions something about this:
"My source, who is very familiar with Pierre’s inner workings and what goes on during the session, says the fraternity-like atmosphere of some legislators toward pages and interns of the opposite sex is as rampant as ever.
So much for Dan being a wake-up call for more professional behavior from some of our playboy/horn-dog legislators in Pierre."
Our guess is that this is some of the male legislators, who think it is a state perk to be able to misbehave with female staff who are there in a service or subordinate role. If they were to try that kind of behavior in most corporate cultures they would not only be unemployed but facing a LAWSUIT.
Maybe lawmakers need to be bound by the state employees conduct policy while the legislature is in session, including while they are in Pierre during those weeks but not in the capitol building.
On the other hand if we did that last year we would have to fire a large portion of the legislature.
posted by Coat Hangers At Dawn @ 11:12 AM "
It was Sutton's duty to alert the leaders of possible legal action against him. Did he?
I really don't think that the Dems nor the Reps are enjoying this at all! I am sure both parties wish this matter was not happening.
So are we to get angry at them for doing their jobs as elected officials? Or should we know they doing their duty as prescribed by rules?
This matter is ugly no matter what side of the isle you sit on.
At least we will have new rules and guidlines set in place for the pages and interns.
Harm has already been done all the way around to many people.
Yes, they get angry with each other during debates and etc but many of them put that aside at the end of the day and make tomorrow count as new.
Maybe a requirement of all elected officials is that they be required to become eunichs.
Is there a double standard going on here?
If Sutton had made a pass (or worse) at an 18 year old female page (and if he were Republican, of course), he could probably get a free pass from the good old boyz by going into a handwringing, gut wrenching crying jag on the Senate floor a la Jimmy Swaggart.
Let's put it this way. If Dan throws in the towell, we'll all know why.
Now, what's the name of that old 60's tune again? Oh, yeah. "Harper Valley PTA."
And no, I'm not gay. Sorry fellas.
Every day he spends there is one less day he's here in Flandreau.
Not all legislators are male. Two women have been known to show anti social behavior as well. Look at what has been happening with female teachers accross America lately.
I do not think it is fair to lump sum all legislators this way.
How can you say there is a double standard when the person who brought forward the charges was the pages family. Thus if this or something like it has happened in the past it should have came to the light of day.
Remember it was Clinton who lied out right about his behavior and how he wanted to imterp what sexual contact was to him. This was not correct and at the same time Miss L. was not in High School and I believe she was over 21 years of age. Clinton was wrong from the get go and she should have known better.
Your also talking about more than two different programs all together.
Any an d all sexual contact with pages and interns is WRONG and I feel safe to assume that all would agree with this comment.
Not sure I remember that. It seems to me that a court defined sexual contact in a way that allowed Clinton to respond honestly in a way which did however mislead.
I am not however defending what Clinton did. It was inappropriate no matter where it happened, but despite that may not have violated any laws.
What the Republicans in Congress did to paralyze government was also inappropriate. It was not a matter that rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
I have no idea what was or was not done in a motel room in Pierre. It does seem that it was not a matter that required any Senate or House attention whatsoever however. It may have suggested that the rules for behavior needed to be changed after the "fact" however.
Republicans gotta keep their priorities straight however.
Never mind that putting South First in Witch Hunts doesn't do much to improve the other ratings that put SD near the bottom of good scales and near the top of bad scales.
Like I said I believe that both sides wish this matter never happened and i am not talking about being able to seep it under the rug.
Also, when you think about the seating arrangement, Sutton is the last Dem and Greenfield the first GOP. So if Sutton goes, a GOP takes his spot and the seating arrangement,with a party on each side, isn't messed up. Not a coincidence!!
You do it all the time?? That must be how that drive-by rag stays in business.
It's fitting you can find mercer's musings at the pubic oppinion. It's where truth is debatable. All drive-by oppinion. No fact. Hardly worth any money.