True North

That’s what last night’s Almanac should be subtitled. The spin started with this spin from DFL Chairman Brian Melendez:

Brian Melendez: Mark Ritchie did not try & cover up any mistakes. He misspoke. He took responsibility for it right away. He corrected himself publicly & he’s cooperating fully with the investigation that’s now underway with the legislative auditor’s office.

Let’s really look at what went on here: A couple of guys got emails that they didn’t want. They obviously didn’t know how to find the delete key on their computer but they could find a way to write to the Legislative Auditor’s office.

The Republicans have done a very good job of making a mountain out of a molehill but there is really nothing going on here. No law has been broken. No rule has been broken. Ron, Is there a rule that’s been broken? If there is, let’s hear about it.

As I said here, Mr. Ritchie didn’t misspeak. He lied…six times, he lied. And not just to one person, which would be bad enough. Ritchie lied to Representatives Emmer & Brod in their portion of the investigation. Ritchie then lied to Strib reporter Mark Brunswick & Legislative Auditor Nobles.

Let’s also dismiss the notion that “he took responsibility for it right away” or that “he corrected himself publicly.” That’s nothing but spin. Mr. Melendez should be ashamed of himself for defending the indefensible. It’s one thing to defend a policy decision. It’s quite another to defend someone who lied to investigators.

When Mr. Melendez asked Chairman Carey “Is there a rule that’s been broken? If there is, let’s hear about it.” I wish I could’ve been speaking because I probably would’ve cited the Data Practices Act, Section 13.04, subd. 2, which reads:

Tennessen warning. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, to a law enforcement officer.

Translated into simple English, it says that information collected can only be used for the purpose that it was collected for & that it can only be used by a “government entity.”

Here’s how Legislative Auditor responded to Cathy Wurzer’s question:

Cathy Wurzer: “Chairman Melendez asked Chairman Carey what laws had been broken and it’s a question maybe you can answer at this point:

Jim Nobles:“Well, I’d like to do the investigation first. But in the first instance of simply asking Mr. Ritchie to submit information to me, I pointed out to him that he did have a legal obligation to submit a full disclosure. Uh, it turns out that didn’t occur. But we’ll see on the substance of the allegations whether any laws were broken.”

Jim Nobles himself said that Mark Ritchie had a legal obligation to tell the truth & that “it turns out that didn’t occur.” Remember that that’s after Ritchie didn’t give honest answers to Representatives Brod & Emmer.

At what point should we believe Chairman Melendez that Ritchie simply misspoke? Or should we ignore his spin & assume that deception is consciousness of Ritchie’s guilt?

During the political roundtable,here’s what Ember Reichgott Junge said:

Ember Reichgott Junge: Well, we don’t really know what happened. Umm…there’s a title of a book that I’d recommend to any politician. It’s called Truth to Tell. Tell It All. Tell It Early. And Tell It Yourself. Now we don’t know the facts & we’ll let the investigation share what that is. However, I will just say this: look at the deed did & what was the impact on the public interest & really, when you look at it, was there really any threats to life & liberty like, for example underfunding bridges? Were there taxpayers dollars that went out the door? No, these were emails so the public impact of this is…The Republicans are clearly overreacting to this…

I’ll simply say that Mr. Ritchie would’ve been well served if he’d told the truth, the whole truth. Similarly, Mr. Ritchie would’ve been better off telling the truth early. If he had, this wouldn’t have been the big deal it is now. That being said, Phil Krinkie stopped the spin. Here’s how he stopped it:

We know exactly what happened. He lied. He had names that he took that were part of the public domain. They were people that attended a public meeting & he took them & he gave them to his campaign to solicit funds & further his campaign. I mean, he admitted that he lied.

Exactly right. That’s exactly what happened. See how simple it is to cut through the spin? All it takes are the facts, stated clearly & concisely. Spin cycle complete.

Cross-posted at Let Freedom Ring. Comments welcome.