Arizona lawmaker under fire after report of 1983 sex charges
Source: Associated Press
Updated 6:54 pm CST, Friday, January 25, 2019
PHOENIX (AP) An Arizona lawmaker who received national attention last year for his remarks on race and immigration was under fire once again Friday after a newspaper reported that he was charged with sex offenses in 1983.
The Republican House speaker suggested Rep. David Stringer should consider quitting, while Gov. Doug Ducey told reporters he stands by his earlier call for the Prescott Republican to quit. Republican Rep. Kelly Townsend said Stringer should quit, adding that she plans to file an ethics complaint against him on Monday.
The Phoenix New Times reported the charges Friday based on a copy of the case history the newspaper obtained from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland. Stringer's record was expunged, and a court official told the New Times the records should not have been released. The official, Maryland Judiciary spokeswoman Nadine Maeser, did not respond to an email from The Associated Press.
. . .
House Speaker Rusty Bowers said he was "surprised and extremely disturbed" to read the New Times report, adding that "charges of this nature cast a shadow on the entire Legislature and his ability to be an effective legislator." He stopped short of demanding that Stringer step aside.
Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Arizona-lawmaker-under-fire-after-report-of-1983-13562851.php
Rep. David Stringer
RockRaven
(14,974 posts)Of course I didn't.
And, not that it matters much, this guy's dye-job is as obvious, and bad, as Manafort's was.
greyl
(22,990 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)marble falls
(57,106 posts)bald they get a bad wig.
AZ8theist
(5,476 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)Polybius
(15,433 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)Apollyonus
(812 posts)Izzy Blue
(282 posts)"The state cannot tolerate a man like that serving in elected office. He does not represent Arizona or its values," Braswell said.
Details of the charges against Stringer are unclear. The case summary published by New Times, which blacked out information about victims and witnesses, lists unspecified sex charges but does not detail the allegations. One entry says "charge is child pornography."