Last updated on 2014.09.13
Four legislators calling for an investigation of alleged ethical violations by the GOP House leadership are rejecting the Legislative Executive Board director's rejection of their request for information. Reps. Lance Russell, Stace Nelson, and Lora Hubbel and Senator Tim Begalka send the following Christmas card to Rep. Chuck Turbiville:
In calling for Rep. Joni Cutler's recusal from any investigative panel, Rep. Russell et al. are referring to her comments in this KELO interview.
More importantly, the complainants are asserting a pretty clear trail of evidence that would back up their claim that House leaders David Lust, Val Rausch, and Justin Cronin pressured the Legislative Research Council to violate its promised confidentiality to preview legislators' bills before publication and even block legislator requests for research. They say LRC chief Jim Fry has confirmed in writing that "Representative Turbiville ordered Representative Nelson's bill research, on placing cumulative voting records online, withheld." They say that an LRC attorney can confirm their confidentiality breach allegations. They say that the leadership was informed of these concerns months ago, by e-mail, with no action resulting.
O.K., folks, in for a penny, in for a pound. Your dirty laundry is on the line (oh, heck, there I go using metaphor; DWC will beat me like a dirty rug for that!). You say you have the proof. Post it. Let's see those e-mails. Let's see Fry's written confirmation. Let's hear that LRC attorney. If the alleged violations threaten the integrity of legislative process, if the GOP leadership really is committing "the worst abuse of authority in the Legislature" in decades, then it's time for the folks in the know, including the LRC staffers involved, to come forward and say so.
The DWC crowd will whip you like a rented mule, Cory... be on you like ugly on an anteater until you fold like a cheese omelette.
Meanwhile, wasn't it MC himself who said it was time to bring this boil to a head and pop it? (So gross...) I suppose he could have just suggested Lancing it, but then, perhaps that would have been redundant, considering Mr. Russell's involvement here.
"You say you have the proof. Post it. Let’s see those e-mails. Let’s see Fry’s written confirmation."
Cory, you doubt that they have them? Do you doubt that the same could be happening to Democrats? Are we going to continue to have Marxist Democrats defending the SDGOP Establishment, or Democrats in Drag?
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/01/07/democrats-in-drag-steve-farrell/
There just might be a groundswell of disaffected GOP in South Dakota that are ready to join up with Donald Trump now that he has decided to leave.
Heck, with what's going on around the Republicans involved in this little dispute, Trump might even find a reality show in there somewhere.
Steve, we Democrats can withstand whatever torture your party devises to bully us. Go peddle your papers to Steve Hickey's congregation of backwater christians: it always throws money at your brand of primordial political enhanced interrogatory.
I think Sibby's guy here makes an interesting point. The GOP is already the minority party in the US. If approximately 2/3 of them are really just "Dems in Drag" that doesn't really bode well for the remainder of the party, does it?. It could end up relegating the "Real Republicans" to being a bunch of alienated lunatic fringers, a tiny, disaffected minority on the outside looking in. All they will be able to muster is a thin pathetic voice, crying in the wilderness. Oh wait. That's what's already happening.
Others are saying that, Bill, as hipneck just left at ip:
Single issue voters like I am have no place to go but to the Democratic Party.
Unless and until other parties field candidates in local elections like school boards and county commissions, the existing structure will stand indefinitely. The First Nations in Canada have begun studies to determine whether alternate political parties could have a future.
A recently passed Montanan was a perennial candidate who supported a parliamentary system of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelleher
"All they will be able to muster is a thin pathetic voice, crying in the wilderness."
Bill, you can say the same thing about populist Democrats.
Hoka hey, Sibby...
Couple of things:
1. People need to remember that the purpose of a political party is to win elections. If you want a religion, join a church.
2. We don't need a parliament, but we do need to either get rid of the filibuster or quit abusing the privilege.
3. Attempts to intimidate and disenfranchise voters should be made an act of treason punishable by 10 years of political exile.
How's that for starters Kurtz?
p.s. The OWS folks and their sympathizers need to get it that if 99% of us actually voted, we wouldn't have all these problems. The people can't be the government if they don't participate in it.
Good eye.
4. Bring on the torts.
Cory,
I am not going to whip or beat you. however you might want to read this:
http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/21132/comment-page-1#comment-123783
While not overwhelming proof, enough to for a second look.
"Lance the boil!" Bill, I think District 30 just got itself a campaign slogan!
Steve, I don't doubt. But faith won't win an ethics committee hearing or a court case. If there is a case to be made here, it must be proven with documents and testimony. Reps. Russell et al. are willing to sign their names to these claims, and that's strong stuff. But the words from the horses' mouths (Fry, LRC staff, etc.) will be even the strongest medicine. If the parties involved are after truth and not some other game, there's no reason not to lay the cards on the table.
Cory, I'm glad you and I are on the same page. This whole thing crys out for an investagation.
[CAH: right on, MC! Keep making noise!]
"But faith won’t win an ethics committee hearing or a court case."
Cory, and neither will truth thanks to secret societies and their oaths to protect members in hearings.
That's empty talk, Steve. You're like a 19th century physicist asserting the existence of the ether. Your hypothesis does not help us take action. We have to pursue the facts, even if you imagine that nameless, faceless enemies are conspiring to conceal them.
Cory, go ahead and keep your head in the sand. No wonder you refuse to understand that Big Government is a friend to the monopoly capitalists, who control the Federal Reserve.
Steve, if you want to write your own blog post about your preferred thesis, go right ahead. You know full well that I mostly agree with you that crony capitalists have too strong a grip on both parties and our political process. But this post is not about crony capitalism or the Federal Reserve. It is about specific charges by specific legislators against other specific legislators about specific violations of confidentiality. Now let's see some evidence on the specific charges under discussion. Every time folks go off topic and start talking about the Federal Reserve, they reduce the chances that the folks making the allegations will be taken seriously.
"Now let’s see some evidence on the specific charges under discussion."
And my response to that point is that when things are done in secret, then it becomes he said vs he said. That does not make the charges false. It only makes them unallowable in a court of law. And according to Fleming, this issue is not about a point of law.
Well, that was a quick circle.