Recently, I called for Dan Sutton to resign from the South Dakota Senate. Instead, he has chosen a legalistic defense strategy (i.e., "you have no right to investigate me," rather than "I didn't do it). PP has a list of rather bombastic statements from Mr. Sutton's attorney. Then today we get this:
Lawmakers could vote to censure or expel Sutton, who has maintained his innocence. His lawyers this week said they are prepared to aggressively defend him, even if it means a drawn-out succession of embarrassing testimony for those involved.
Does engaging in a strategy of "drawn-out" and "embarrassing" hearings sound like the act of a statesman? Let me revise my statement: Dan Sutton should either resign or fire his lawyers, who seem more intent on intimidating all involved than actually producing evidence of their client's innocence. .
Recent Comments