Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** Comments opened *** Attack on Rauner begins with wordy, 12-page mailer
Next Post: Urlacher was paid big bucks to appear for Schock
Posted in:
* The treasurer’s office says they haven’t seen anything yet, and pointed out that the attorney didn’t even know in what court she was filing the charges, but say they’re ready to rebut and refute. They’d better be…
Attorney Christine Svenson, who represents a former employee of the treasurer’s office, and was on with Bruce and Dan Monday morning, says the allegations lay out the employee being forced to do political work on state time as well as sexual harassment.
Svenson detailed points in which she says her client was allegedly harassed by Rutherford, including an incident at an overnight retreat at Rutherford’s home in 2011.
Svenson told Bruce and Dan, “Mr. Rutherford entered my client’s bedroom and grabbed at his genital area. My client immediately forced him off of him, gathered his belongings and left. He went to go talk to the chief of staff about it, and the chief of staff said quote…’at least we have job security’…unquote, and that it had happened to him as well.”
Svenson says complaints are also being filed against Rutherford’s chief of staff.
Oy.
This story has been going around for a bit, and at least some people have said that it appeared to change over time. So, let’s all reserve judgement on this for a while.
Also, in my opinion, Svenson ought to be doing her talking in court from now on.
*** UPDATE *** Sun-Times…
“Obviously the allegations are false. If there is a lawsuit filed today then the Treasurer will respond,” his spokeswoman Mary Frances Bragiel said. “He’ll possibly have a media avail if something is filed today.”
That’ll probably be the wildest presser since the Jack Ryan death march.
*** UPDATE 2 *** The full audio has now been posted…
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** Comments opened *** Attack on Rauner begins with wordy, 12-page mailer
Next Post: Urlacher was paid big bucks to appear for Schock
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
>
Agreed. Unfortunately she’s already put a more salacious charge out there, and of course a civil suit doesn’t require beyond reasonable doubt…just preponderance of the evidence.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:13 am
This Republican primary is going to get very interesting real quick. It isn’t going to be your typical boring rich white guy fight anymore..
Comment by Not Rich Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:13 am
Rich: If his attorney says the complaint will be filed today, then under what rule of journalistic ethics are you still avoiding releasing the person’s name? The accuser has not asked to remain anonymous. Rutherford hasn’t asked it either. He has said that he is prevented from doing so.
Comment by Nonplussed Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:14 am
Rich, I like you have kept it under wraps. We knew it would be soon for a name… Today, we will know. Today, lives change forever. Nothing good is coming for many.
Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:16 am
This is either one of the most slanderous episodes in Illinois politics or the end of Dan Rutherford’s political career.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:17 am
The miscalculation by the Rutherford Crew or even Rutherford himself on that Friday, and what was going to “hit” probably puts this all out there more than if it rolled out and responded to.
Rutherford can talk at the end of business today.
Will he? “Can” he? And, can he?
Agree with Rich, enough with the “trial in the public eye”, how about, as warrented, like the filing, and maybe a statement, and then let the courts sort it out.
You get the “rollout” Ms. Svenson, then anything after, well, then it looks like Bad Form.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:18 am
Never a fan of harassment claims where allegations are held back (from 2011???? really)….to be used like a trump card. If it was bad in 2011, it should have been brought out in 2011 - not 2014.
Comment by anonymoose Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:20 am
The fact that she’s making extra-judicial statements before even filing suit indicates to me that she is more motivated by politics than properly representing her client. That said, this is devestating to Rutherford. Particularly if there is more than one complaintant.
Comment by Frank Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:20 am
So is the accuser going to remain anonymous even after the suit is filed? Is that allowed legally?
Comment by Snucka Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:21 am
All the media engagement she is doing really hurts her credibility here. The delayed lawsuit also. I find it totally odd that this person has another government job already too.
Comment by Siriusly Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:22 am
The non Mitt Rauner lawyer has been on every Blagoof-AM show for the past week….probably why the complaint has taken so long. Hard to write stuff down when you are talkin’ to Dan, Kassamoron, Roe and any other else who will answer the phone.
Comment by CicrcularFiringSquad Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:23 am
At first I wasn’t buying it, but this is really starting to look more like a political hit than a serious complaint.
Comment by O RLY Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:25 am
Ouch.
That’s a bit more than crude comments or pin-ups on the cubicle walk.
Quite a bit more.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:25 am
==All the media engagement she is doing really hurts her credibility here. The delayed lawsuit also==
It was Rutherford who initiated the media involvement one Friday morning. Svenson than responded. Also, a week or two to prepare a well stated Complaint for a lawsuit is not uncommon at all, particularly with the multiple allegations we can expect later today.
Comment by Samurai Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:30 am
Say it in Court - Attorney protected ?
Say it on the Radio - Attorney vulnerable ?
Strange tactics ?
Comment by x ace Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:30 am
IS that the fat lady I hear in the background?
Comment by Rahm'sMiddleFinger Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:31 am
To quote Bill on the day Rod Blagojevich was arrested, “Uh Oh.”
Comment by John A Logan Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:33 am
I have no opinion on the allegations yet, but I am wondering why on earth an ambitious politician would be having retreats at his own house. Why not have a retreat at a state park or something. It’s just clunky, as, I fear, is Rutherford. Not ready for prime time. Keeping a wall between personal and official life is critical when you are seeking higher office, and if he doesn’t get that after all this time in politics, he needs to go back to politics school.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:33 am
If I were Ms. Svenson’s client, I would be outraged by her media tour. It reminds me a bit of Drew Peterson’s attorney. Is she more interested in the case or becoming a media talking head? Right now, she is not doing her client any favors.
Comment by Red Ranger Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:35 am
If the identity of the accuser must be protected after this is filed in court, then the judge should bar Ms Svenson from speaking about the details to the press, though it’s pretty much too late.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:35 am
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Multiple press conferences surely to come from both sides, with repeated questions at every campaign stop, all while a train wreck slowly and painfully stretches out for weeks.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:35 am
So this happened in 2011, but was never an issue until now ? At first I didn’t quite know how to react to this story. Now it is beginning to look a little fishy.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:37 am
IF this stuff about grabbing genitals and other sexual harassment is true then when the victim chooses to address it is their choice. So what if it is timed poorly for the perpetrator. I think engaging the media is smart. Makes sure the complaint/lawsuit doesn’t fade from the public’s eye.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:38 am
Still with the accuser anonymity when his attorney is putting words in the mouth of Rutherford’s chief of staff?
I understand sort of deeming Rutherford fair game for anonymous accusations after his presser and that he is a public official and candidate, but this report anonymously accuses Kyle Ham by his title of something when he is not an elected official or candidate.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:38 am
Any way you look at it it’s bad news for Rutherford. This is a case where he’s guilty until he proves he’s innocent.
The public will only read the headlines and
this should sink his campaign.
He’s lost the Tea Party vote.
Comment by Mokenavince Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:39 am
Rich:
Most of the news organizations routinely do not publish the names of those who say they have been raped, either when the rape is reported or when the victim testifies at a public trial. This person is reporting a sexual assault. He did not choose to go public; Rutherford made these charges public. I hope you continue to withhold the name.
Comment by Survivor Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:41 am
Rich, why do you keep deleting my comments? I’ve played by your rules. What gives?
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:42 am
==
So this happened in 2011, but was never an issue until now ? At first I didn’t quite know how to react to this story. Now it is beginning to look a little fishy==
It was never a publicized issue heading to court until now.
Comment by Samurai Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:42 am
2011? And you don’t say anything until the month before the primary? Aw geez.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:47 am
Anyone dreaming that the Rutherford campaign can withstand this is living in the land of denial and I ain’t talkin’ Egypt.
Comment by Living in Machiaville Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:49 am
==2011? And you don’t say anything until the month before the primary? Aw geez.==
While trying to arrange a $300,000 payoff to keep silent.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:51 am
The Plaintiff did say something before last week He said it to the person whose job is to handle employee issues. That is the job of the Chief of Staff. But, it appears, he did nothing. That is why he is going to be sued too.
Comment by Tom Joad Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:54 am
It will be interesting to see if Ms. Svenson files today…she’s already got the news hit/value. No reason to hurry now. The “victim” can remain anonymous while Mr. Rutherford fights off accusations in the court of public opinion.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:55 am
This is going to get real UGLY! “An overnight retreat at his house.”
I have never seen “attend overnight retreats at someone’s house” to be part of a job description for a public employee.
What people do on their own time is their own business, but staying overnight at the bosses house could easily cause misunderstandings.
If his boss had been a female, would he go stay overnight at her house? What if it had been a female boss that entered the room? This is going to turn into “he said, he said.” It will probably inspire an episode of “the good wife”, seen nationwide and around the world. More fame for Illinois politics.
Timing is everything and right before an election makes it look very suspicious. Even if this is totally phony claim, there is no time for Rutherford to refute before the election.
What is Bruce thinking right now? One down, two to go?
Comment by DuPage Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:02 am
Most insiders around Springfield know the person’s name so its not much of a secret. But I’ll give credit to Rich and the media for treating it seriously.
However, the fact that (1) it allegedly occurred in 2011 and (2) the person sought a $300,000 payoff make it look opportunistic at best and a shakedown at the worst.
Comment by 4 percent Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:02 am
Tom Joad glad to see somebody gets it.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:03 am
I don’t know Rutherford as well as many of you might. These allegations are troubling, but I have many questions at least about the timing. They’re out now, but still shouldn’t they have come out long ago before an election?
Comment by Levois Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:07 am
Tom Joad… Spot on…This is bad… Just having a retreat in your own home is really enough with a claim like this… If true, as Mr. Burns say’s “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” That is why it came out when it did…Because this person felt violated…. And worse, nobody helped. This person is going to be very public soon…
Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:07 am
Time to move on from “He said, he said” to “He did, he proved”. We’ve seen the movie clips now, time to let the movie roll for either of their sakes. Someone has done someone wrong here. Let the court and the judge figure it out from here under oath.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:12 am
What about a retreat at Rauner’s ranch(s)?
To the fact that [the sexual harassment] allegedly occurred in 2011. Was that the first time? Were there other alleged acts? True, if one isolated act in 2011, it seems suspicious. But, these claims sometimes have a series of acts over time that eventually cause the victim to say enough.
Comment by Samurai Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:25 am
Svenson said her client expected other employees would be at this retreat, but he ended up the only employee there. Implied is that this was a rouse by Rutherford to get the employee alone. This doesn’t pass the smell test. Who goes on a company retreat without discussing it with their coworkers before the event? No one, that’s who.
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:27 am
All of the comments that are defending Rutherford sound a lot like the Catholic bishops defending priests. At least a few commenters understand that an allegation of sexual harassment is treated differently than other allegations, especially when it involves a person of authority. It is in everybody’s best interest to wait until all the facts are in before crucifying either party.
Rutherford is innocent until proven guilty, but his campaign for governor is surely finished.
Comment by Angry Republican Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:43 am
I would be beyond careful after the “Friday Fiasco”.
Please “think” what you are going to say, how you are going to say it, and have very critical people peppering Rutherford and/or others who will be facing the media.
Rutherford Crew; you are not going to make it “better”, all you can do is try to not make it worse. I say this becuase after the Dopey presser y’all had last time, trying to “get ahead of this” has left the station.
I have a sinking feeling a presser is not going to go well. BTW, Rutherford Crew, expect a question or 9 about where your OWN investigation stands.
…
Maybe just a “release” and not a presser might best.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:44 am
Nothing says credibility and pursuit of justice like an appearance on the “Bruce and Dan” show.
Somebody grabs at my Testicular Virility, they’re picking their chiclets off the floor.
No lawsuits. No complaints. No going back to work. No motormouth sleazy lawyer. No victim here.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:46 am
What? It’s a “staff retreat,” but when you get there you’re the only person there? And you stay anyway? I don’t mean to blame the victim here, but that just seems like a very odd choice.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:48 am
What will Proft ask at this evening’s gubernatorial debate? Will the complaints be filed before the debate begins?
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:48 am
Hey, wait a minute. Did Christine just publicly name another “victim” by saying that the Treasurer’s chief of staff said the same thing happened to him?
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:51 am
=== but still shouldn’t they have come out long ago before an election ===
=== these claims sometimes have a series of acts over time that eventually cause the victim to say enough ===
Also remember that they were reportedly good friends beforehand. Mr. Rutherford even attended the accuser’s wedding.
You may forgive things you wouldn’t normally forgive when you have long history with someone.
But things can get really ugly when you feel a friend has turned on you or is taking advantage of you. The closer you are, the angrier and uglier it can get.
Meanwhile, the cycle of anger and mistrust feeds on itself within both parties. Soon enough, you have fireworks.
Sometimes those fireworks blow off a hand or a leg in the process
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 11:52 am
What Survivor said at 10:41 a.m.
I’m not thrilled by the way the ex-employee’s lawyer is behaving here, and there are too many inconsistencies to sort out. But until (unless?) a complaint is filed in a court of law, no matter whether it’s civil or criminal, the journalistic ethics are clear. I think three points in the SPJ Code of Ethics apply here:
– Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
– Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
The SPJ Code isn’t binding on everyone, but it’s widely considered the best statement of ethical standards. When (if?) a legal complaint is filed, the complainant’s name will be a matter of public record and a process for sorting out what may (or may not) have happened will get under way.
Until (unless?) that happens, no matter how fishy the circumstances are and what the obvious political repercussions will be, the ex-employee’s name is nobody’s business.
Comment by olddog Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:02 pm
Yes, Soccermom, that’s exactly what Chris did. It’s a terrible violation of ethical behavior to name victims as collateral damage of your own gain.
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:02 pm
Lawyer’s website intersting:
www.svensonlawoffices.com
Indicates Employer focused representation
Lot of blank areas - coming soons
Has Article from Republican Attorneys Assoc. says political activist
Has Article that says promotes business with a Fashion show and sometimes ” sets clients up on dates”
Gotta call this a Full Service Law Office
Comment by x ace Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:06 pm
So Dan Rutherford spends eight years on the chicken dinner circuit, trying to get elected staewide, and in the first year in office he jeopardizes his political life with a destructive act that has him labeled as a sexual predator when he wants to run for governor. I can’t believe that. It does not add up.
Comment by overcooked Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:28 pm
Svenson used his first name? She used his real first name!
Let’s see, his first name is Ed, and he made $97,000 at the Treasurer’s Office. I don’t think he’s anonymous anymore, Christine.
Comment by Palm Tree Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:31 pm
Not to mention — it’s kind of a serious allegation to say that the chief of staff in a State office blew off a report of sexual harassment.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:38 pm
And there’s a 300-day statute of limitations on sexual harassment claims.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:40 pm
The facts reported so far don’t support an allegation of sexual harassment. If the boss makes a pass at you, and you rebuff him, and you are not later subject to negative decisions regarding employment (e.g., lack of promoting, discharge, no raise, etc.) as a result of rebuffing him, there will be no liability for sexual harassment. There could be another kind of civil rights violation called “hostile environment” — but that would require continuing advances on the part of the boss for a date, sexual favors, etc. In any event, the facts that are alleged by the complainant’s lawyer don’t support the claim of “sexual harassment.”
Comment by Chicago Publius Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:41 pm
On the one hand, why would someone fabricate something like this when his name will inevitably be all over the headlines in approximately now?
On the other hand, why would Rutherford do something like this then run for governor?
A dilemma only Illinois Republicans can answer.
Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:46 pm
===And there’s a 300-day statute of limitations on sexual harassment claims.===
Is this why the attorney is filing as a 1st Amendment case?
Not an attorney, but as - Soccermom - raises the question, is that the lean the attorney is going?
The more this goes today, I might want to think twice before rolling out Rutherford, the “Special Invesigator”(?), any legal counsel, flacks …
I might lean towards a crafted relesase and leavie it there until the dust settles after the filing…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:48 pm
@Chicago Publius…….
Maybe by the “legal definition”, but if you have ever been in a situation where your boss wants sexual favors from you then its harassment especially if it happens after you said NO and made it clear.
Being on a list of 13 with termination the result of the refusal is very serious. More people will be coming out with this, they all wait for the first to do it and others follow.
DR is toast, put a fork in him.
Comment by BYE DR....... Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:53 pm
===and you are not later subject to negative decisions regarding employment===
Except he is apparently claiming just that.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:55 pm
A “300 day statute of limitations on sexual harassment claims” filed with whom? There is no crime of “sexual harassment” in Illinois and I’ve never heard of a 300 day S of L on anything filed in court - civil or criminal. Is this with some state agency?
Comment by girllawyer Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:59 pm
Willing to wait until all the “facts” are in and will reserve judgement until then.
However, a couple of things I would like to know that aren’t going to be part of the court process.
What was the initial contact between Mr. Rauner or a representative and Ms. Svenson?
How soon after, or during, the $3500.00 “job” did Ms. Svenson become interested in the employee’s case?
What was the reason the employee dropped his request for monetary relief? (His request to be paid off instead of bringing the charge himself makes me wonder how violated he felt.)
Has any money or favor moved between Mr. Rauner or a schill, and the accuser?
If the employee has a legitimate complaint then by all means follow it to the end. But I wonder about a three year old complaint that went from a complaint, to a shakedown, to being a player in a very rich, unethical, person’s campaign against the accused, promulgated by a pretentious attorney who used to be an employee of the unethical, very rich, candidate.
Like Gibbs says “I don’t believe in coincidences.”
Comment by Irish Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 1:06 pm
The employee goes on a re-treat to find out that he was the treat. How awful. Its like the story of Hansel and Gretel.
Comment by anonymous Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 1:10 pm
Sun Times has suit–
http://www.suntimes.com/25506138-761/former-state-employee-alleges-illinois-treasurer-dan-rutherford-sexually-harasssed-him.html
Comment by Nearly Normal Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:00 pm
I hope, at the very least, the chief of staff sues for defamation. This guy plotted for years till he thought the moment just right, lines up another job and tries to shakeout as much taxpayer money as he can on exit. The recorder gets the employee they deserve
Comment by Bobo Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:05 pm
Nearly Normal, thanks for that. Quite the catch..I see
Comment by Bobo Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:10 pm
Nearly Normal, thanks for that. Quite the catch…eh
Comment by Bobo Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:11 pm
I’m a Dem and still think this doesn’t pass the smell test. Also as a Union rep for many years I’ve always been suspect of anyone that claims harassment long after it started. In Illinois we have too many avenues to go to if our supervisor won’t respond to our complaint. I’m not buying this.
Comment by State worker Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:24 pm
so how many of the “List of 13″ were terminated?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 5:28 pm