Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Brady calls his remarks “insensitive”
Next Post: Dillard placing new ads on social media
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** Sun-Times…
The employee behind allegations leveled against Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford said his attorney is preparing to file a lawsuit early next week.
The attorney, Christine Svenson, previously said she intended to file something on Friday. […]
Meanwhile, the Sun-Times has learned that the employee, who is an attorney, has just accepted a position with Cook County Recorder of Deeds as a labor counsel.
* Dan Rutherford speaks about the allegations against him and his inability to respond…
“It makes it very difficult because I cannot mention the name of the accuser or the allegations,” Rutherford said. “I’m following the appropriate legal proceedings, and I am precluded from discussing anything about the accuser or the allegations. It makes for a very complicated moment for me right before the election.”
* Sen. Kirk Dillard and Sen. Bill Brady also talked about the allegations…
Two of Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford’s Republican primary opponents for governor both used the word “bizarre” to describe a drama first brought to light by Rutherford himself that features an anonymous person making unspecified accusations against him. […]
Another of the candidates, state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, said Wednesday that while anonymity can be important while an accuser’s allegations are investigated, it makes this case “more bizarre.” The treasurer’s office employee’s attorney has talked on the radio about some of the allegations while the accuser has gone unnamed.
“Normally we respect anonymity, but in this case the accuser is talking to media and apparently wants to be anonymous with a small ‘a,’” Dillard said. […]
“Obviously, the whole thing is bizarre,” said candidate for governor and state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, adding that both Rutherford and the accuser have a right to a fair shake.
“The sooner this gets out, the fairer it is to everyone,” Brady said.
* NBC 5 ran a story about the accuser’s explosive resignation letter last night and included this piece of info…
The employee’s name has not been revealed, however NBC 5 Investigates has discovered the employee’s wife filed for divorce in recent years and together they filed for bankruptcy.
* I’ve already said that I’m not at all comfortable with the way this story is playing out. Rutherford started the weirdness with his aggressive allegations at a press conference last Friday claiming that his accuser was essentially running an illegal, politically-motivated shakedown scheme.
Rutherford is claiming to be a political victim here, but we may very well have a real victim (or victims) on our hands and I do not feel at ease with outing anybody at this specific moment in time.
Some commenters have pointed to how the media was used by partisans to drag Anita Hill out of the shadows after she privately accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. For one, this ain’t DC. I absolutely hate that town. And, anyway, that’s hardly a reasonable precedent, to say the least.
Some commenters clearly want the accuser’s name out there so they can pick him apart. I’m not willing to immediately succumb to that bloodlust.
* But is keeping the accuser’s name out of the media fair to Rutherford? Nope. But, hey, sometimes life just ain’t fair.
I’m not the least bit willing to put my decision to a vote, but I am curious about your opinion, so…
* The Question: Should the Illinois media publish the name of Dan Rutherford’s accuser now? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:56 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Brady calls his remarks “insensitive”
Next Post: Dillard placing new ads on social media
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think we have to be consistent here. If anyone who would blow the whistle on official malfeasance knows they’ll be thrown to the wolves immediately, it will have a terrible impact on transparency.
Maybe this is a big political scheme, but maybe not. I err on the side of the accuser until given a reason not to. And that would come from Rutherford’s internal investigation.
Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:03 pm
If there are no rules covering this, then the individual reporter has to do what “feels” right. Go with your gut, Rich.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:04 pm
If the accuser was simply pursuing a legal case, I would be more supportive of the identity being withheld.
But his lawyer went on the radio in a way that was clearly designed to inflict political damage.
You can argue that inflicting political damage creates pressure to settle the lawsuit in a way that’s favorable to the plaintiff.
But when the accuser seeks media coverage for his side of the story, it does seem like it’s fair to have his identity out there.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:07 pm
The name will come out in due time. Should you be the one to name him? I don’t think it is necessary, since there is no dispute as to a complaint being filed. I vote no!
Comment by MrGrassroots Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:09 pm
It is all going to come out in the end. I don’t think it is fair to Rutherford to dangle misconduct this close to a primary. This has already cost him the primary and before it is over may ruin his reputation.
Comment by Nieva Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:11 pm
No. It sounds as if the claim or complaint will be filed soon and I would imagine the undisputed facts, including the plaintiff(s) will be revealed at that time.
And unlike Carl, I’m not convinced based on everything that I’ve heard that a settlement is first and foremost on anyone’s mind, so it might be a stretch to claim that that is why media attention is being sought. From what I’ve read, it sounds as if the original 300K that was being discussed was part of a severance agreement–not a settlement agreemment.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:12 pm
I voted Yes. Primarily because this guy has to be the least anonymous anonymous person ever. It pains me to agree with D’Lard. To me the reason we avoid publicizing accusers is to protect their personal lives. To me this individual has freely aired his personal life hiding behind the ethics of the media. Had this individual chosen to speak through the courts and his attorney instead of monopolizing media attention i would feel the opposite. At this point it is almost immaterial his identity or veracity. He has managed to drive to some extent the narrative while making DR look guilty by continuing to “no Comment”.
Rich a question will Rutherford be able to respond once his resignation becomes final? I believe that is tomorrow.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:16 pm
It’s a political truism that if a candidate just draws attention to a potential scandal without explaining it, people will assume the worst.
This was a bad move on Rutherfords part. He should have waited until someone else brought this out.
The damage is done. This is too long to drag this out in the shadows. Those who were soft Rutherford supporters are probably looking elsewhere now.
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:17 pm
114 votes and 8 comments. Is that standard for this type of poll, Rich?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:20 pm
===114 votes and 8 comments. Is that standard===
First, it’s early.
Second, yesterday’s question had 1087 votes and 58 comments.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:23 pm
Thanks for the reply. I’d never looked at the totals before; just the percentages.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:26 pm
I share the concern that naming the accuser now would be akin to throwing him to the wolves, and that his life, conduct and everything else about him will be subject to intense scrutiny as a result. I think that would happen, i think people would pick him apart and it’s troubling.
I’m equally troubled by the fact that the accuser is able to air his complaints in the media through a media-provided cloak of anonymity, all because Rutherford pro-actively addressed an allegation that has yet to be made public.
Sometimes the interests of the public outweigh the interests of an individual. I believe this to be one of those times, as elections are crucial to our Republic. I voted yes.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:27 pm
Yes… but with a caveat.
If the media is going to report the allegations of the accuser where the accuser or accuser’s attorney has sought out a chance to comment, print or report on the resignation letter, or quote/feature statements by the accuser’s attorney then the person should be named IMO.
If all that is being said about this is vague generalities then I have less problem with anonymity.
I also would be less annoyed by the blanket anonymity if the employee still went unnamed but the media at least told us what position the person held to add some clarity to the working relationship where we could understand if this was a person who worked closely with Dan, or didn’t have much contact with him.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:30 pm
I voted yes because I want to be told what everyone pretty much knows about Dan and why it should prevent him from being governor.
It is like a “House of Cards” episode - and I hate it.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:31 pm
Yes. (Perhaps…)
1) When the accuser asked for $300K in exchange for a confidentiality agreement, he was also indicating an intent to go public should the agreement fall through. Since the accuser apparently intended to go public, I do not see why he should get to pick the day and time, especially since the allegations are out. Did he think Rutherford would just wait quietly for Svenson to have a presser? Which leads to my 2nd point…
2) The accuser’s atty has been in the media and has been using the protection of the accuser’s identity as a shield from behind which she has been tossing tidbits of information and innuendo and inviting speculation of broader misconduct.
In light of the second point, media services should refuse to repeat anything she says without including the name of her client. She could have confirmed her representation, stated she had no relationship with the Rauner campaign and left it at that, but she did not. She chose to feed the speculation…
For me, it goes back to the negotiation for $300K and the implication that the charges would be made public if there were no confidentiality agreement. If the accuser was most concerned about correcting bad behavior, there would be a report to the IG and, if that did not work, the Atty Gen or the EEOC or the US Atty. Lots of places to report, seek corrective action, and keep your privacy.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:33 pm
I don’t care who the accuser is but I do care how he accused. There must be a procedure for State employees to follow when making sexual harassment claims. He and his attorney didn’t take that route. Instead they tried to exploit the election and (I believe) Rutherford’s alleged sexuality to get hush money.
I voted no but with extreme prejudice.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:34 pm
I voted “yes” because it would forestall some of the speculation masquerading as journalism that we’ve seen from Gawker.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:36 pm
I voted yes, in particular because the accuser in the resignation letter accused Rutherford’s Chief of Staff of being complicit in denying the accuser due process. The accuser has expanded this case beyond an individual sexual harassment case against Rutherford effectively making the Office of the Treasurer complicit in the harassment.
From what I can see of the timing of the resignation letter, the $300,000 settlement request, and the Rutherford press conference it seems clear that the future plaintiff was not only requesting the settlement from Dan personally but from the Office of the Treasurer. This is why the General Counsel for the Treasurer’s office was present when the request was made for a $300,000 settlement according to testimony that Rich recorded and posted.
If this was a private deal, Rutherford would have been represented by his personal attorney. We are now, to put it simply getting into the public pocket, so we have a right to know the name.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:38 pm
Yes. He started this with a shake down, pay up and I’ll go away.
SO Rutherford goes public to try and get infront of it, becuase something, maybe unconnected, was being shopped around to the press.
Hes had a week. His lawyer contiues to go on the air andtalk about things. If it was just the complaint filed and a suit, and they stayed out fo the press, then hes entitled to stay in the shadows.
But since his attorney keeps pushing this in the media, and we now have some time under our belts, I think it is fair to put them out their to be looked at.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:40 pm
I usually vote to protect privacy of people, but the name is going to come out e next week so might as well get it out there.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:41 pm
Ok, let me be honest… As a Democrat, I voted “no”. I don’t want to hurt anyone personally, but Rutherford is not a viable candidate anymore. With various allegations about Rauner coming our all the time, I felt that Rutherford would be the next “best” candidate against Quinn. So no, as a partisan, the damage is done, and now I don’t want any “victim” to to be hurt by stepping out and speaking up.
Now, maybe the accuser is full of it. Maybe it is a political ploy. I have no way of knowing that. So, in the absence of any evidence, I will say it’s better to error on the side of protecting the innocent.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:42 pm
I’m on the fence on this one and a yes/no vote was too black and white for me. Clearly there are more questions than answers at this point.
The timing of the accusation has me leaning toward this being politically motivated.
The accusers bankruptcy status is also concerning.
IF this is politically motivated and IF Rauner is behind this as DR claims, I sure as heck hope that can be proven.
IF this is the case of an employee who really was being harassed and IF there are more employees that come forward I would hope holding off on releasing the accusers name/s will spare him/them additional pain.
Comment by Because I said so..... Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:46 pm
I like Pot C.K.’s analysis. This matter doesn’t pass the smell test. It may be nothing more than a shakedown predicated on flimsy he said - he said evidence. Why not ignore the accuser until he plays his cards. The innuendo is akin to McCarthysism.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:47 pm
I voted yes. The attorney titillating Proft’s audience was significant. If it is true that he sought judicial office, then I vote yes wholeheartedly.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:53 pm
This isn’t a whistleblower situation. He resigned. It’s not like Rutherford can retaliate at this point.
Comment by Chi Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:04 pm
I agree that the media should reveal his identity. The accuser and his lawyer seem to want to have their cake and eat it too on this issue. In the meantime, DR (of whom I am not a big fan, BTW) twists in the wind seemingly complying with the rules imposed on him not to ID the accuser. I guarantee the accuser knew that he would be publicly outed soon after this got out. His lawyer would have been incompetent not to tell him that early on.
Comment by Hey There Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:07 pm
If the employee wanted privacy, his attorney ought have waited a few days before making media appearances. Primary voters deserve to have this issue settled before early voting begins. This is too weird.
Comment by Upon Further Review Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:22 pm
If this was purely a legal issue then my answer would have been no. I voted yes because the combination of his lawyer doing the right wing radio talk show circuit and the obvious timing of this story indicate the appearance of political intent.
Comment by Bluefish Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:29 pm
No. The name will be public soon enough. It’s not even close to the ethical line, which is why no ‘ink-stained’ scribe or tele-talker has done so. In many circles the name is no longer a closely held secret. One guy’s whole life is public- he signed up for it, promoted it and it comes with the territory. The other guy is an employee with a right to privacy at the moment. No checking anyone’s gut on it. For the moment, everyone’s acting ethically. After the first revelation of the name, watch for bombardment from all corners.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:30 pm
No. No way.
Who wants that on their conscience?
Nothing about this seems fair. Nor is the fact that both the accuser and the accused are, or will be, ripped to shreds during this.
There is also a very clear precedent in cases like this concerning victims rights. Prematurely “exposing” a victim, especially when the accused is a powerful public figure, raises all sorts of ethical and practical problems.
# # # BUT # # #
There are still options.
If the accuser begins continually calling a reporter #not “calls back”, but calls the reporter#, and the calls are strictly for the purpose of leaking damaging information against the accused, then a reporter can rightfully say:
“I do not think it is fair for me to run one-sided stories all the way through the primary. I’m interested in reporting the news, not being used to tank someone’s campaign. And right now, I feel like you’re using me.
So, I do not feel comfortable running any more stories about damaging “leaks” until you feel more comfortable making your name public.”
^ This does NOT seem to be what is happening here and is just a hypothetical. All that’s been “leaked” so far is what Rutherford said at that odd press conference and a resignation letter apparently smuggled out by a 3rd party.
But IF this starts to happen in the next few weeks, then reporters should start to push back when speaking with the person. They should not just “out” the victim during a surely challenging time in life.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:39 pm
I voted no. Facts about the accuser that the media digs up to help the public weigh credibility are fine with me though. But the name seems unnecessary at this stage.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:43 pm
Plus, the accused was the first one to make this story public and blow it up by going to the media.
Not the accuser.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:46 pm
Voted “No.” Should be kept anonymous.
My grandmother had an expression, “It will all come out in the wash.” I always interpreted this as I should take a deep breath and allow things to happen in due time.
And I would feel really comfortable with the “no” if the victim’s lawyer had not appeared on talk radio.
Comment by anonymoose Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:47 pm
I voted no because the process has to play out according to propriety and past practices. I personally know all of the candidates except Rauner, and beleive them to be people of principle. (Whether I agree with all their principles or not!) Everyone deserves a fair shake here and because of the nature of allegations, let system sort it out. crummy timing on release and very questionable, but we can’t throw everything out because the public is curious. That is what TMZ is for.
Comment by LisleMike Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:47 pm
Our whole system of law, and basic fairness say that one should be able to confront one’s accuser. The media should man up and report the facts,
Comment by Publius Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:59 pm
If no is correct, how long do we have to wait? Days, weeks, months for this to play out? In that case, this should be dropped by the media until the accuser can be named. If representatives of/or the accuser attempt any further media contact (or bring up more accusations), he should be named immediately.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:59 pm
I voted yes. Once the person released their resignation letter to the media, the case was no longer a private legal/personnel issue.
Comment by Chicago guy Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:10 pm
Yes. There is a process for state employees to follow to report harrassment, a process by which a state agency is required to follow to investigate any allegations, and a process for handling the person who committed the harrassment if it is determined to be confirmed. The person accusing him of the harrassment took it to the media and made the accusation public. That was the person’s choice to do so.
Comment by Observation Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:12 pm
No… If this is real, and we must believe it is at this point, think of the repercussions? Put yourself in this persons shoes. When the details come out, they will, who wants to have this on their concious? Flanked by an FBI agent? What was he supposed to do? What if there are others? If it is one big lie, the accuser will be toast and he knows it. Let’s all keep politics aside for the human aspect for one minute. I get we are now an instant gratification society. But lives will be changed forever. Soon enough.
Comment by Walter Mitty Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:17 pm
No, it will come out soon. The accuser seems to be setting up this TMZ style expose with all these tidbits so it better be spectacular when it hits. If not, the accuser’s side just comes off as petty amateurs. Since Rutherford knows who it is, Dan simply gets time to get his version as tight as possible, that includes any dots leading to the accuser’s supporters.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:18 pm
I voted yes. It is the purported victim’s talking to the media through an agent that makes the difference.
Comment by chad Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:21 pm
If Rutherford’s name was made public, so should the accuser’s name be made public. If the accuser was telling the truth, then Illinois voters will be able to thank him or her later. The timing of this makes many of us think that it is likely to be politically motivated.
Comment by Henry Clay Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:40 pm
Yes. He attempted to extort $300,000 from the Illinois Treasurer. We’re entitled to know who he is.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:47 pm
=== He attempted to extort $300,000 from the Illinois Treasurer===
That’s not a fact in evidence. It’s a claim by Rutherford.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:48 pm
The one thing that was clear from that “bizarre” press conference was that Rutherford believed someone was about to beat him to the punch.
Who was it? Rauner? The accuser himself? Someone else?
When the accuser’s name will become public very shortly anyway, yet politically the clock is ticking (and it’s clear that whatever else this matter is, it’s in some way political), and when clearly Rutherford didn’t start the outing but was responding to some sort of threat (real or perceived), I see no reason to protect the accuser’s identity for a few more days.
Comment by Commander Norton Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:53 pm
No
We shouldn’t claim a “right to know” that overrides the right to personal privacy.
What we have a right to know are the results of a fair and thorough investigation, with all due speed.
Comment by walker Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:01 pm
From Natasha Korecki in the Sun-Times this afternoon:
“Meanwhile, the Sun-Times has learned that the employee, who is an attorney, has just accepted a position with Cook County Recorder of Deeds as a labor counsel. “
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:22 pm
The individual’s name should be made public now- it would “level the playing field”.
Comment by Esteban Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:24 pm
He’s not filing charges against Rutherford, but plans to file a lawsuit? At that point, why should he receive the protection of anonymity?
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:27 pm
Cook County Recorder of Deeds… What?
Guess that office didn’t feel like it had enough news reports on its hiring practices lately?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:37 pm
Wait, Karen Yarborough is in on it too?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:37 pm
===Wait, Karen Yarborough is in on it too?===
LOL
Yep, Karen and Bruce, hand in hand.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:42 pm
It must be the combine!
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:42 pm
===Wait, Karen Yarborough is in on it too?===
“It’s the smart move. Yarborough was always smarter.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:46 pm
At this point, I’d say yes to revealing the name. Between all of the leaks thrown out, I have to think it wouldn’t be impossible for somebody to deduce the identity of the individual. Especially with that latest Sun-Times report.
Comment by CollegeStudent Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:57 pm
If you send your attorney on the media circuit a month before election day to imply a lot of crap without providing any solid detail, I think you’ve waived having any protective veil of privacy. If you’re going to make yourself a player, you need to be listed on the scorecard (and your stats will be published like everyone else’s)
Comment by titan Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 5:07 pm
Let it rest…there is always more news for tomorrow!
Comment by Cheez Louise Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 6:10 pm
Remember that song from a few years back entitled “Hold On for One More Day”? Well, that applies here. If the lawsuit is being filed tomorrow, names will likely be specified, and, if not, one of the Major Media Outlets are bound to “out” the guy’s identity so you won’t have to feel guilty about having done it first. In the meantime, those who can’t wait will be sharpening their machetes overnight for attacking the poor fella tomorrow, rightly or wrongly…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 6:24 pm
P.S. I stand corrected. Re-read the Report above and see the suit won’t be filed ’till early next week. Oh well–I’d still say (although you can obviously scrap the Song Analogy!), “Hold on ’till then (next week),” instead…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 6:29 pm
If, as his attorney claims, he’s filing a complaint based on 1st amendment violations, there’s no reason to keep him anonymous. The fact that he simply says that he was harassed, but won’t press charges and may not even mention it in his lawsuit, seems like a very flimsy reason for protecting his identity.
Comment by Snucka Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 6:37 pm
I agree with Titan. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. His attorney is out there on a media cicuit. He’s invited the scrutiny on himself and made it overtly political.
Comment by Boone's is Back Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 7:13 pm
Wouldn’t an attorney have known his rights and not tolerated alleged ongoing sexual harassment?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 7:26 pm
Natasha may have given away the person by saying the person is an attorney if you cross-reference Treasurer’s office employees and an ARDC lawyer search, and add up all the other clues/tidbits around.
Will not post my suspicion out of respect for Rich’s wishes and the possibility my guess is wrong but I still don’t get what the big secret is about at this point with a lawsuit filing imminent.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 7:47 pm
Is Anonymous 7:26 asking whether certain professions are exempt from sex harassment or protection against sex harassment?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 8:12 pm
Not to be cold about this and other real complaints by real people but this one is so political. The timing of this, the people involved, the attempts to manipulate news coverage, hiding behind and quoting the law and of course the money involved. This is what these people are good at doing.
Comment by Makandadawg Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 9:40 pm
This is rapidly becoming a farce.
Comment by Percival Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 10:20 pm
he can’t have it both ways, which is to tell his story to the media and remain anonymous. He may feel that Rutherford got to tell his side of the story, but he really didn’t. He just said there is a story there and he’ll tell it later.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 11:37 pm
What Pot Calling Kettle said.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Feb 7, 14 @ 12:49 am
People making these kinds of charges publicly (even through a lawyer) don’t get to remain anonymous. You would think we were talking about a rape victim.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Friday, Feb 7, 14 @ 7:44 am