Tonight's recap.... Are we hitting every branch on the way down the looney tree?

I only caught tonight's stuff in bits and pieces. But, admittedly, there were parts that left me shaking my head:

I’m not comfortable talking.” (Well, no kidding. I'm not comfortable listening to all of this).

"I did not do what Austin is claiming" was Sutton's mantra. But it took a screeching wild turn off the road as he speculated on what he thought could be Austin Wiese's motivations. I thought he would have done himself a better service if he hadn't speculated, because I thought McMahon killed him on some of it.

So Wiese supposedly 'fabricated' a story and made frantic phone calls at what time in the night? I don't think that helped the case any.

And then... Oh wait. I took some notes on the next part, but I have to go find them. I left them under a chair in the other room.

Seriously - could this hearing involve anymore weirdness? I thought the cross examination of Austin yesterday about his facebook page (not MySpace as I've been corrected multiple times) made this hearing goofy. But, then I had a dream about the hearing.....

When a legislative hearing involves testimony about a note that says "Hand on wiener"; somehow, I don't think it raises the image of the legislature in the citizen's eyes..

“I would remember if I held someone’s penis and moved my hand up and down four times,” Sutton said.

Weiner was bad enough, but can we say penis another several hundred times in this legislative hearing, please? Yo know, we could use a less clinical term. Possibly wee-wee. Or Bob. That's a novel one - they could ask "What happened to "Bob?" At least that would be a diversion.

Gay porn on a computer. But it might not belong to the person who owned the computer. Or was it child porn? Is there any freaking evidence of any of this? Or was it merely witnessed? Maybe. I'll have to check the notes under the vanity in the bathroom...

And don't forget the suppressed memories. (But then again, if you suppressed them, would you remember if you had them or not?)
It's time for bed. As noted yesterday - tomorrow catch things at:, will be streaming the proceedings live.
The Argus Leader's Voices weblog at
or the Hog House blog at


Anonymous said…
I vote for calling "it" Bob, but I doubt that Mr. Ellis will approve of that one.
How about Johnson, as in "He touched my Johnson"? That would offend only a small fraction of the state's Swedish descendants.
Does anyone else have any suggestions?
Bob Ellis said…
Um, yes, I'd like to keep as much distance as possible from this case.

(I haven't made up my mind on innocence or guilt--both sides have credibility problems--but the whole thing is very sordid.)
Anonymous said…
there were two ways to avoid the cesspool of this hearing.

Either Sutton had to resign or Dennis Weise had to with draw his letter of complaint. Either could have saved us from this soap opera. Weise apparently is a bitter guy who is out to destroy his former friend at any cost, including the public embarassment of his son and family friends. One would think he could control himself and use the normal channels of law enforcement. But NOOOO. He had to use his political muscle too. Such arrogance.
cowboy bob said…
Dennis Weise is a sore loser and the best friend the Republican party has had in this state in some time.

We sould be thankful he is so vengeful. We might pick up a senate seat.
Anonymous said…
When is Duffy going to unleash the Dogs of War? I am still anxiously awaiting my share of apocalyptic pain.

Give me a break.
Anonymous said…
Anyone else see the contradiction ?

Isnt this Duffy the same Duffy that suxsexfully(ha) prosecuted a guy in Rapid City for sexual harrassment ?

All that guy (doug hamilton) did was buy a book with questionable pictures, leave it where his female employees saw it, or, showed it to them, and wham, Duffy made a jury believe that guy was scum and cost him like 6 million dollars ?

Now this same Duffy (I think)is defending a guy that is accused of actually fondling an employee,,, is this is the same Duffy ?

anybody know ?
d said…
WOW. I can't believe that people think there is a big conspiracy out there. I would hate to witness that conversation.

Dennis sits down Austin: Well son, I hate to say it, but I lost and I am pissed, so what you're gonna do, is publicly humiliate yourself by accusing Dan of touching and shaking your penis. And you will do it because I am your parent and I said so.

Are you serious? NO parent, NOBODY, would put their kid through that. And honestly, is Austin such a pushover that he would say, OK dad, sure. Give me a break.
Anonymous said…
9:47 Yes, it's the same guy. And the answer to your supposed contradiction is this: he's a good lawyer, doing his job. Funny you didn't mention the other side's lawyer. No contradidctions there, I'm sure...
Anonymous said…
9:58, how about this...well son, I know he touched your PENIS but I need his support right now some I'm going to publicly endorse him and why don't we have dinner with him while we are at it.

All the parties here are nuts at some level, there would be no conviction in a criminal court but this is obviously a Kangaroo Ct. Missing, hiden notes, dreams, porn on a computer seen by a third party. Wow.
Anonymous said…
10:01 am

call me crazy, I just assume your principals are reflected in your work, maybe not.
Anonymous said…
The lawyer's principle is to represent his client.
Boiled Owl said…
11:23 Clearly, you are not an attorney. : )
Anonymous said…
11:23 - Truth is, it all depends upon which side you are on.

That's why attorneys are so universally loved and appreciated.

It's also why there are so many lawyer jokes out there. ;~)
Boiled Owl said…
11:23 I hear ya. I wanted to be a lawyer when I was a kid. But my favorite uncle (who was a lawyer himself) talked me out of it.
Anonymous said…
2:15 pm - You have to have a bogus lawsuit filed against you to really learn to not appreciate attorneys. Mike Butler was the attorney for the opposing side when that happened to me. The suit was eventually thrown out, but not before I figured out why people detest lawyers. On the other hand, maybe Butler learned to delve a little deeper and not believe everything people tell him.
Anonymous said…
Duffy's closing statement is ridiculous.
Anonymous said…
What the hell is Duffy talking about?
Anonymous said…
3:46 - If you have no case, pound the table, wax poetic, and foretell the downfall of humanity.
Anonymous said…
I have a hard time believing Dennis Wiese's letter was motivated by revenge. The timing of it right after the Foley page-scandal broke is simply too much of a coincidence.

A more believable 'conspiracy' for me is that people involved watched how the congressional leadership in the Foley scandal was getting chastized for sweeping that stuff under the rug, and the leaders in S.D. got nervous that they may have done the same thing with Sutton.

So then, after the fact, they are trying to cover the Senate's tail - even though in the end the Senate ends up getting a bit of a black eye.
Anonymous said…
So, PP, Senator "Bob" Gray now knows what you think of him.

Instead of calling refering to the male member as "Bob" maybe we can call it "PP". We have a long tradition of that. No pun intended.
PP said…
(Oooo. Sorry about that one Senator. )

Actually, It wasn't intended to be about him at all.

Henceforth, we can instead refer to a tallywhacker as "Frank."

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long