01/24/2007
South Dakota State Senator Accused of Groping Male Page
Hearings are currently being held in Pierre, South Dakota over allegations by former legislative page Austin Wiese that Democratic state senator Dan Sutton groped him inappropriately last February when the two shared a Holiday Express motel room at the beginning of the page's weeklong assignment in the legislature:
"Wiese, who was staying with Sutton because Sutton was a close personal and family friend, told the committee that the two shared a king-sized bed. Sutton touched him repeatedly on the back and hips on the first night, Wiese testified. He said Sutton moved his hand over Wiese's shorts on the second night, resting it over his genitals for 30 seconds to a minute."
Nineteen-year-old Wiese, whose main evidence in the case is a secretly taped conversation by Agent Brian Zeeb of the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation in which there is no clear admission of wrongdoing by Sutton, says that he did not know in advance of his motel room stay with Sutton that there would only be one king-sized bed.
In the inconclusive tape, Sutton tells Wiese he does not recall the incident. Said Sutton: "Well I, I walk in my sleep. I, I move around. I mean Austin, I will do whatever I can. I am, I am sorry and if I. ... Heck, obviously I, obviously I, if you remember, obviously I did it."
Wiese told lawyers on the witness stand that he agreed Sutton never admitted to wrongdoing: "I'll agree with you he never makes a 100 percent (admission). Just these references."
Hearing are scheduled to continue today.
Posted 9:59 AM EST by Andy Towle in Democratic Party, News, South Dakota | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This isnt about what is "gross" or who is an adult or a kid. This is an abuse of power. A subordinate was fondled by his boss. This behavior cannot be tolerated, no matter how much the subordinate may question his own sexuality. The responsibility of the Statesman trumps any motivation of the 19 year old.
And lastly, to address the Republicans who (predictably) went after the hypocrisy on this thread, your Party is the one that espouses family values and endorses legislation on lifestyles, so yes we're going to call out Foley, who illustrated how hypocritical your Party truly is. You're all old enough to know exactly how this political "game" is played, so don't cry foul when politics plays a role in how some people view a scandal.
Most of you pointing fingers have the same political agenda and you know it.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 25, 2007 10:46:38 AM
Ok, MarkM, I will bite. It seems as though your comments were loosly aimed at me anyway.
The only thing "predictable" about this is that the dems will NOT hold this man as accountable as Foley and that is WRONG!!! Yes, the repubs do espouse family values but hang their own out to dry when they have done wrong and yet the dems seem to look the other way. I can assure you that Gerry Studds, democratic congressman from Massachusetts 1973-1997, would NOT have been treated the same by the repubs after his little trist with a 17 year old page. He would have been OUT on his ear!!! And yet the party of the people and for the "people" seem to conveniently look the other way and ONLY censure him! Right is right and he went FAR FURTHER THAN FOLEY and yet he remained in congress and we threw Foley to the dogs. So when you speak of equality and hypocrisy look no further than your own party my friend as it exists EVERYWHERE! The difference is how it is handled.
Let's just call a spade a spade shall we. And while we are being so candid, ANYONE, and I mean anyone that places themselves in this position deserves the fullest extent of punishment regardless of party and this man is guilty; period! Asleep and rolled over...BS! NO GROWN MAN SLEEPS IN THE SAME BED WITH A KID, YOUNG ADULT OR MAN WITHOUT AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE! That in and of itself makes him guilty of inappropriate behavior.
My concern is where are the vultures? Who is stepping up to denounce this man? Where is the justice in this clearly wrong case? He deserves the same treatment and vile words as Foley and yet they are absent. Why? What is the difference?
Lastly, I want to address your "hypocrisy" comment. You do not have to venture far inside the dem party to find it. Afterall, I would go hunting with Dick Cheney anyday before I would go for a car ride with Ted Kennedy. So the next time you want to take on the "hypocrisy" test be cautious to remember history my friend. Scandal afterall is no stranger to EITHER PARTY!
Posted by: RB | Jan 25, 2007 7:50:28 PM
I wish people could just talk tho...say what it's their minds, cause lust is not shameful. It's touching without consent that is..
And the senator should have listened to this song by Shania Twain, cause she always says it best:)
"If You Wanna Touch Him, Ask!"
Let me let you in on a secret
How to treat a man right
If you're lookin' for a place in his heart
It ain't gonna happen overnight
First you gotta learn to listen
To understand his deepest thoughts
He needs to know you can be friends
Before he'll give you all he's got
If you start from the heart
You'll see love is gonna play its part
If you wanna get to know him
Really get inside his mind
If you wanna move in closer
Take it slow, yeah take your time
You must start from the heart and then...
If you wanna touch him
Really wanna touch him
If you wanna touch him, ask!
Posted by: Da | Jan 25, 2007 8:10:58 PM
DA, I love Shania as much as anyone, but she is NOT singing about inappropriate behavior between an adult man and a young male! Apples and oranges...
Posted by: RB | Jan 25, 2007 8:23:29 PM
RB, well I'm sure there are a lot of ethical reasons why some would consider it wrong either way, but legally it wouldn't be since they're both adults.
What it'd be is just another illicit romance on a business trip..
Posted by: Da | Jan 26, 2007 8:35:23 AM
No, DA, it would NOT be just another illicit romance. Had this happened in the private sector it would have been way BEYOND SEXUAL HARASSMENT and Sutton would have instantly been found guilty. The 19 year old, regardless of age, would have been made very wealthy!
The issue is right, wrong and the hypocricy of the situation. Simply stated, this case is MUCH WORSE THAN THE FOLEY CASE AND YET IT HAS BEEN SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!
I have posted here at length about teenagers and their maturity level. I am a staunch supporter of a "minor" being a minor and NOT an adult. However, in this case it is an abuse of power that is the real issue. Yes the 19 year old is of age, but his employer bears responsibility beyond his age! He is the "employer" in this situation. There are strict sexual harassment laws in place to protect the public from this type of behavior whether you are a politician or not. Again, this is about what is right.
And to my most important point, Sutton is not being crucified because he is a dem. Had he been a repub he would have already been nailed to the cross and left for dead!!!!! Double standards my friend and that is NOT appropriate.
Posted by: RB | Jan 26, 2007 8:10:14 PM
You can't persecute him too badly, he's a democrat, they are allowed by the constitution of the politically correct to do just about anything they want - it's cool they stand up for the little guy.
Posted by: TDG | Jan 27, 2007 9:15:00 AM
Why do we have to hold gay people to a higher standard? A little touchy feeley is the end of the world? Where are the scars? Can this boy not go on and become a good Christian father of twelve or a good leather boy?
A hundred years ago in this same country we had 14 year olds get married and fight bears in the wilderness, and now this poor "boy" can't stand up and sleep in the chair?
Good gawd, we are all a bunch of pansies.
Posted by: TheRector | Jan 28, 2007 1:40:36 AM
Just one note on Gerry Studds - since I hate to see this case misapplied. The Republican Congressman Dan Crane was caught fucking a 17-yr old girl who was his own page. That scandal broke in the early eighties. Since the Repervlicans are always arguing for moral equivalence, they had to then drag out what Studds had done a decade earlier (ever notice that?). So, the by-then 27-yr old male ex-page, who was a lot more out than some of the self-oppressed posters here - stood by Studds and affirmed the non-harassing nature of their tryst. How unlike Republicans - have any of Foley's AIM correspondents acknowledged their gayness? I thought so!
Posted by: Antaeus | Jan 28, 2007 4:14:47 AM