A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.
Embattled and accused State Senator Dan Sutton has resigned. Except it's just for this current legislative term, according to KELO news:
Well, if I were him, I'd rather be judged by a 20-15 split Senate than a 25-10 split. But will his new caucus mates? No way. This puts his fellow Democrats in a tough position.
Right now, the flame on the oven isn't turned up. But come this next session, it will be.
If the evidence and testimony are damning enough along with explicit and descriptive testimony on the alleged groping, his pals in the Democratic Caucus may be very, very quick to abandon him. As opposed to this happening at the end of Schoenbeck's and Moore's watch, it's now going to take place at the forefront of Heidepreim's.
And somehow, I don't think Scott wants the tone of the first legislative session marking his re-entry into the South Dakota political scene to be all about the manner of how a member of his caucus allegedly touched a young male employee of the Senate, and whether or not he's going to personally vote for censure, expulsion or letting him off of the hook.
Further complicating all this - time.
In a special session, legislators would be fully devoted to the subject, and it would be over and done. Now it's going to co-exist with all of the other legislative duties, taking far, far longer. In stead of one day, maybe two - now it might drag on for a week or more.
Will the session start out with the Democrat's Common Ground platform? Who cares. In January, the lurid allegations will suck the oxygen out of that story like it did in October.
As long as it remains unresolved, during session it will remain above the fold as far as the media's concerned. Each and every single day it will be at the top of the news on all news programs. A lot more media will be around as well as many, many uninvolved legislators and politicos who will be more than happy to comment.
Was this a move by Sutton to better his jockeying position? Absolutely. Except it has taken place at the expense of his caucus.
In a letter dated today, Democratic state Senator Dan Sutton of FlandreauRead it all here.
says he is resigning from his current term, but not from the new term that
starts in January.
Sutton was re-elected with 57 percent of the vote last week, and his
lawyers say the issue should be handled by the next Senate and not by the
current lame-duck Senate.
Well, if I were him, I'd rather be judged by a 20-15 split Senate than a 25-10 split. But will his new caucus mates? No way. This puts his fellow Democrats in a tough position.
Right now, the flame on the oven isn't turned up. But come this next session, it will be.
If the evidence and testimony are damning enough along with explicit and descriptive testimony on the alleged groping, his pals in the Democratic Caucus may be very, very quick to abandon him. As opposed to this happening at the end of Schoenbeck's and Moore's watch, it's now going to take place at the forefront of Heidepreim's.
And somehow, I don't think Scott wants the tone of the first legislative session marking his re-entry into the South Dakota political scene to be all about the manner of how a member of his caucus allegedly touched a young male employee of the Senate, and whether or not he's going to personally vote for censure, expulsion or letting him off of the hook.
Further complicating all this - time.
In a special session, legislators would be fully devoted to the subject, and it would be over and done. Now it's going to co-exist with all of the other legislative duties, taking far, far longer. In stead of one day, maybe two - now it might drag on for a week or more.
Will the session start out with the Democrat's Common Ground platform? Who cares. In January, the lurid allegations will suck the oxygen out of that story like it did in October.
As long as it remains unresolved, during session it will remain above the fold as far as the media's concerned. Each and every single day it will be at the top of the news on all news programs. A lot more media will be around as well as many, many uninvolved legislators and politicos who will be more than happy to comment.
Was this a move by Sutton to better his jockeying position? Absolutely. Except it has taken place at the expense of his caucus.
Comments
health care
education
wages
roads
That what you guys think about - what's going on in peoples' bedrooms and doctor's office. The rest...eh, let the market play it out.
Instead of the elephant, the GOP's mascot should be a Peeping Tom.
I don't buy his saving the taxpayers money bit. I think he had this planned all along. He kept mute on the issue, kept running knowing that he would probably win, then he could resign this year (which in itself is ridiculous since he does nothing until the next session anyhoo), and then the next session can deal with it if it chooses to (a new crop of legislators and elapsed time being on his side).
I think it is arrogant, in your face, and a slimy move at best. I was willing to give Sutton the benefit of the doubt before until all the facts come out, but not anymore. It's the same as admitting that "I did it, he he, but catch me if you can."
I just hope the 2007 legislature DOES deal with it.
Actually, Sutton will probably keep his seat and, just like Clinton, any scandal will just slip away and he will continue on his merry way to bigger and better things.
This is the more disgusting than all the state politics of this last election cycle.
And I have the same question as anon 12:40 does.
Or it can at least start the investigation, and then finish it in January, and then censure/expel/exonerate the guy?
Where do Senate rules say that once you get re-elected, you have a free pass to get back in w/o consequences?? That doesn't make any sense. Once a member, always a member, regardless of how crafty Butler can be.
Long and his cronnies have come to Moody County and interviewed onver 100 people and nobody could say that they could prove or even hypothesis that Sutton was guilty.
Now what many of you still don't realize is that all this was when it started was Wiese getting jockying position on Sutton in the 2010 govenor primaries and Wiese knew that there was no way he could beat Sutton. This was a political ploy that has involved into a 3 ring circus.
Because now we have Schonebeck leaving before this starts, Janklow watching out for Wiese, more Dems entering the Senate, and now we all know that this new session will be next year, rather than this year. So let's by some popping corn, sell some tickets, make some money and most importantly see Senator Sutton get cleared of the irreputal damage that has been done to him.
There is simply ONE question that needs to be asked and answered.. that is... Senator Sutton, did you or did you not share your bed with an 18 year old male page?
Any allegations of groping are ultimately a he said/he said situation. Thus, there are no criminal charges as that would be very tough to prove.
But back to the ONE simple question... did Sutton share his bed? If this is true, he should be out of the Senate permanently. We would not tolerate this from a coach, teacher, or professor at any of our high schools or colleges. We should certainly not tolerate it from a Senator of our state.
You left out what DCI found out from some very important and credible sources regarding Dan's Sutton's character which is circumstantial but goes towards character. At a criminal trial character evidence is generally inadmissible with three exceptions. Not applicable here. However, this is not a criminal trial, it is a legislative tribunal.
These officials are credible and come from important intitutions in the community who cannot be marginalized in the media without huge consequences for Sutton or the Dems.
If those facts would come, which are well known in Flandreau, it is going to hurt Sutton.
Now, if Scotty H is going to look like stand up guy and avoid the trial lawyer tricky-Dick imprimatur he will have to be looking out for kids and employees. After all this is a guy who has made a living "protecting the little guy" and standing up to big insurance bilking them for millions.
So in short if Scotty H wants to run for governor he will have to be serious about Sutton and go along with an investigation or he will have to derail this thing before it starts. That's not going to happen...because fair or not this thing has legs and its going places because Big Republican is serious about protecting young kids from falling victim to this type of sexual harrassment. The question here: "is Scotty H serious about sexual harrassment or not?"
What I ask you all to try to consider and do is put your self in Sutton's shoes, and have to try and prove your self innocent, because the court of public oppinion says he is already guilty. All I can say is there are 35 people who need to look deep within themselves and figure out what they would do.
Because if you were in Sutton's shoes, what would you do. Also for those of you who don't know Sutton on a personal level, cannot say that he did't care about the taxpayers, because he does. It may not of been his main goal, but it did help ease the desicion he made.
There are plenty of skeletons in the closets of Pierre.
Can O Worms.
Even though a student in high school is 18 it does not mean that a teacher, a coach, a librarian or even the janitor can have an innapropriate relationship with that person. Concensual or not.
So, if we expect that of our educational establishment we should expect that of our elected leaders in Pierre.
The whole he was 18 argument is a loser, the concensual sex argument is a loser, so what next Scotty?
you didn't asnwer the question.
BTW I say investigate every violation of senate rules. too easy.
This says nothing about his innocence or guilt or much of anything. As far as I can tell nothing is going to change in the way of evidence between now and when the next session starts.
Sutton has saved the state a pot of money, but has denied the media a circus prior to the start of the session.
Wiese gave permission for his son to stay with Sutton. Did Sutton violate rules by agreeing to do that?
I don't know. I don't know anything about Sutton and not much about Wiese, but I don't see any harm whatsoever to the State of South Dakota, voters, or citizens to the star chamber inquisition being delayed until the regular session or whenever the new legislature is sworn in.
Lots of smoke and mirrors and raw speculation until then unless somebody wants to swear and affirm that they know something they want to disclose prior to the session and make public to the world.
Mostly waste of time and pixels now.
To much of a mess for me. I'm moving to Minnesota. They're sooo much better over there! ;)
Most people only see what the media see and I KNOW for a matter of fact that this happened and is true....so all you non-believers out there just picture yourself in the 18 year old's shoes....what if this did happen to you...wouldn't you want some justice and a guy like Dan out of the senate and any other political office. The people need to know about this and what type of guy Dan really is!!!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It just delayed the media circus. Wouldn't it have been better to get it over before the legislature is supposed to get down to other business?
You are too eager to believe the Mike Butler spin that Sutton can make this all go away by resigning.
The Senate can do what it damn well pleases. Whether it should is another question, but you ain't gonna beat this one on a technicality. Go ask Mike what his take is on that.
If you "KNOW for a fact this happened", why don't you swear an affidavit to the offices investigating the allegations so we can move on from this whole ridiculous ordeal.
At the end of the day South Dakotan's will either see Dan Sutton investigated by the Seante or they won't.
That will tell us whether the members both R's and D's want to get down to protecting pages and the relationships they have with legislators or not.
But what you will all find out when the AG's investigation is finished, may make you believe the page a little more. I'm not going to say 'shocking' - but more of 'I figured that a long time ago.'
Just a thought. Great conversation in this thread.
"little girl"? wow. A new low. Congrats to you!
How bout the large number of people being questioned by the AG? There are over a dozen throughout the state. I don't have to be in the family or a senator to know what's going on. I've just opened my eyes.
If you can't play nice - then don't play at all.
You calling me a liar? Another new low. But that's ok - it makes for good conversation.
I never mentioned once that i've seen a 'report' regarding the investigation. Please re-read what I wrote - since you haven't.
"No one knows except the page and Dan what happened in that room."
That means I don't know what happened. BUT - there are many things that have lead up to this event that I do know about. Once again - re-read and you'll see that.
You can continue to speculate - which I know WE ALL are doing. Everyone is picking sides, waiting for the fight that will take place.
It's part of nature - we like to see confrontation. It's just unfortunate that it has to happen this way - and under these conditions.
Keep in mind that these are still allegations.
I don't care if you post as "anonymous", certain people can find out who you are.
I'm not smart enough to explain how, but I was told by several "computer geeks" that it's possible.
So be careful what you post, you may end up having a lot of explaining to do!
Thanks.
Some of the comments have been questionable. I don't care if they make them. I just hope they understand that they can’t hide behind anonymous if trouble starts.
come on...I think it is more like Days of Our Lives.
I think everyone knows that, and if they don’t, then they should and I thank you for making sure it’s noted. Notice how things have slowed down since your post?
5:13-
Now I'm intrigued…if you’ve got an “in” and are “in the know”, why not share? Your statement “there are many things that have lead up to this event that I do know about” implies that you have “inside” information that tips the scale of justice towards Dan being guilty. So, since public opinion is the real judge in this whole ordeal, why not share and just put it all out there. You can’t keep throwing bits of information out there that make us salivate and then take the plate of food away. That’s not nice :( If you can go as far as insinuating Dan’s guilt than why not put it out there for the whole world to see. Otherwise, I don’t get what the point was.
From what I hear it doesn’t appear that anyone can dig up any “bad” information on Dan, so if you have some….please share. From what I’ve heard they’ve dug and dug and dug and can’t find squat. From a lot of the things I’ve read, Dan sound like a stellar guy. I just wonder how many other people in the world could have their lives looked into so deeply and have nothing bad come out? If it’s true that their have been hundreds of interviews, why can’t anyone find someone who will say something bad about this guy. You would think that the AG’s office could find one at least one person, disgruntled or not, to say something bad about Dan, but there hasn’t been anyone besides the accuser. What that says I don’t know, but what I do know is if you can hurt Dan’s character, then throw it out there….because it doesn’t seem like anyone else can.
My problem is that some of the rules are unclear. Clearly, there is a rule that says you shouldn't grope a page. Also, there is allegedly a rule that says a page can't stay with a legislator. I assume there is an exception to this if the page and the legislator are related. However, until yesterday, there wasw no rule or rules regarding how this matter was going to be handled and enforced. Doesn't this sound like a due process violation?
It is very difficult for Sen. Sutton to respond to this matter if he doesn't know what the charges are and what the consequences are. Further, while there is a criminal investigation on-going, is it even wise for him to saying anything? While this is a very serious issue, Schoenbeck and others put the cart ahead of the horse.
One other thought, if the voters of the district sent Sen. Sutton back to the Senate AFTER gropegate was brought to light, is it really the Senate's place to undo the election?
What they really wanted to accomplish was to get Sutton there and throw him a major curveball so they could make him look like the idiot and not our leadership who was willing to waste the taxpayers money to hold this session. For those of us that personally know Sutton, we know that all this would have been is a blood bath, their only goal would be to make Sutton look bad.
Also why does Sutton have to prove himslef innocent, isn't he is innocent until proven guilty? Their are a lot of questions that may go unanswered, but if you feel that these answeres are that important, go find your Senator and tell them that in January we need to have these hearings, which would probably, end up being the main focus of that session. And if you are like me, this is not what we want to be the focus of our next legislature. The only other thing I have to say is that Sutton will be proven innocent andin the end you guys will either like it, accept it, our sit around like a fart blow in the wind and complain about it. It is your choice.
P.S. If this is held in January, all I know is that it is going to be the most splendiferous (good, great, and fantastic) circus ever.