Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Blames Arends; Campaigner Davis Refutes; Stranahan Makes Bank

Rule #1: Everyone is expendable.

A Hughes County grand jury met in Pierre Tuesday to hear evidence on fake U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth's fraudulent petition circulation oaths. The testimony presented convinced the grand jury to affirm the charges on which Bosworth was arrested June 4 with a formal indictment.

Bosworth's husband Chad Haber has temporarily abandoned his wife, leaving her to fight this indictment alone while he is on what Bosworth spokesman Lee Stranahan calls a "planned vacation" to Alaska. Haber will have to phone in his advice to Bosworth as she heads to court alone on June 23.

Bosworth currently lacks professional legal help for her court case. She has apparently jettisoned her lawyer and friend Joel Arends. At a press conference yesterday (because when you're facing felony indictments, any good lawyer will tell you the best defense if lots of press conferences #sarcasm), Bosworth and Stranahan blamed Arends for advising her to falsify her circulator's oath. This accusation is a retraction of a retraction Bosworth issued in April, pre-indictment, pre-arrest, and pre-primary, when she backed away from her first inartful attempt to throw Arends under the bus.

Joel Arends has not responded to the wheel tracks on his back. A source tells me Arends appeared at the Hughes County courthouse Tuesday and was perhaps the only witness summoned who brought an attorney with him. As a lawyer with a lawyer, Arends probably double-knows that he should not and need not wage war with Bosworth on her terms in the media spotlight.

But Arends has friends who will pick him—and simple truth—over Bosworth any day. Bosworth's longest-lasting campaign consultant, Patrick Davis, has taken to the blogosphere and the press to refute Bosworth's predictable and absurd allegations. Bosworth and Stranahan are suggesting that Arends's connection to the Rushmore PAC, which supports Attorney General Marty Jackley and Bosworth's successful primary opponent Mike Rounds, demonstrate that he was serving those other parties' interests by somehow sabotaging her campaign. Bosworth also claims she didn't know about Arends's Rushmore PAC connection until fellow GOP candidate Rep. Stace Nelson told her about it.

False and false, says Davis:

"Because of Joel Arends' advice, Dr. Bosworth was indicted," said Lee Stranahan, Bosworth's current spokesman.

Arends did not immediately return a call seeking comment. But Patrick Davis, Bosworth's former campaign manager, said she was wrong about Arends' role.

"Anybody who knows Dr. Bosworth for even five minutes would know she takes advice from no one," said Davis. "She did not get advice from anyone about signing those petitions."

...At the very first meeting of the campaign, Davis said, Arends disclosed to him and Bosworth his connection to the Rushmore PAC.

"He said, 'Because of that, I can't be involved in a day to day basis with the campaign,'" Davis said. "She knew, before day one of the campaign, that he was involved" [David Montgomery, "Bosworth Blames Attorney Arends for Illegal Signatures," Political Smokeout, 2014.06.18].

Bosworth staged a little emotional drama at yesterday's press conference, saying the whole thing is "painful" and walking out. But it's not painful, not after years of practice. As her former Democratic consultant Steve Hildebrand notes, turning on friend and attorney Joel Arends is standard procedure for Bosworth and Haber. Bosworth and Haber use people. They exploit talent, vulnerability, and loyalty. They break their promises, don't write paychecks, and when it's useful to them, they accuse and malign those who trusted them.

In his Monday podcast, Stranahan ignores Bosworth and Haber's sociopathic exploitation and declares Annette and Chad to be his brother and sister in Christ, "real thinking Christians... really interesting, good people." Either Stranahan has been completely hoodwinked, or he is a hoodwinker on a par with Bosworth and Haber. Stranahan says in the Monday podcast that before his foray into South Dakota politics, his family was broke and three months behind on rent. He says his work for Bosworth (paid $5,000 in May) and Jason Ravnsborg ($4,000 paid late April and early May) has almost restored his family's finances. Stoking the Bosworth story further seems quite profitable, because Lee, like Annette, knows his audience. Why not stick around in South Dakota and angle for a few thousand more from a woman who has so exploited and alienated those closest to her that she has almost no one left to turn to in her hour of direst need?

But remember, Lee: in the family you've entered, everyone is expendable. Get your money up front, and hit Eject before Chad and Annette do. Because no matter how nicely you play with them, no matter how loyally you work for them, when the heat is high enough, when a prosecutor and a judge finally look Annette and Chad in the eye and say, "No, really, we're talking fines and jail time," they will throw you out, just like they are doing to Joel Arends.


  1. WestRiver 2014.06.19

    Beyond a doubt, when Lee's usefulness ends Chanette will find a way to use how he has 'forced her to continue to be in the spotlight' to screw him over or maybe just not pay him like they've done to all the others. Good thing about Pornahan is he knows how to make money any way he can and has no scruples about how it's done (that's why he thinks Chanette is so great!) Now, I am just speculating but, my guess is that they will tell the world that they lost their case because of him and his pushiness. Didn't she set the stage for that yesterday when she said, 'this is painful' and the way she basically said nothing herself these last few pressers, leaving them a wide-open door to blame it all on the guy with the big mouth, AKA Lee Pornahan?
    But, you know, there have been a lot of GOOD people who have been hurt by Chanette and their schemes; this guy, well, to me anyway, he isn't one of them. If he's a victim, he's a rightful victim, as it seems he likes to victimize as well. If not on equal ground with the Chanette regime, he's right up there as a close 2nd; I mean, Chad pimped Annette for a lot of things but at least he didn't make her take her clothes off for money. Maybe he and his 5? 6? kids will move to Haiti with Chanette and kids and leave this big ol' nasty world to the horrible, Christian-hating, Conservative-hating entrenched powers.

  2. WestRiver 2014.06.19

    On another note, to address what Patrick had to say, I have to say he is spot on. Not only is he right that anyone who knows Annette knows she won't listen to what anyone tells her to do (minus Chad of course, as that voice has been whispering in her ear for 20 years and she's programmed to listen to him) she obviously ONLY listened to Chad. How many times did everyone here say, and did you hear people in person tell you, that whoever her campaign manager was, he/she had to be an idiot? What professional would truly tell Annette to do the stories she has done? The pressers she has put on? The out-there, histrionic, dramatic, craziness that we have seen come from the whole Bosworth campaign has been a lot of things; one thing it has NEVER been is professional. Knowing Patrick Davis & Joel Arends as the professionals they are, I can't imagine either one of them telling Annette to do or say the things she has done that left all of us with mouths agape and eyes wide. So, if she was on her own in all of that, may she have been listening to co-perjurer Chad alone and no one else?
    Here's another thought: when Annette is on Belfrage's show, she never once says she sought LEGAL counsel, only that she sought counsel. Everyone assumed she meant legal counsel, which is why Joel covered his rear with that statement he asked her to sign; being first her patient and then her friend and knowing her husband as he does, Joel knew that if given a chance, Chanette will screw anyone. Back to the point. She never says legal counsel on Belfrage's show, she uses only the word counsel.
    First of all, Annette doesn't ask for counsel, she's a do the deed then ask for forgiveness kind of gal; secondly, she has never worried about violating the law before, so why would she all of a sudden grow a conscious about the dates on a petition? thirdly, if she sought counsel, it was after she was busted and that counsel was 'Chad, where are we going to run to now?'

  3. Jerry 2014.06.19

    Seems strange that there has been no Grand Jury indictment of Clayton Walker, unless we just haven't heard about it. Seems Jackley is really crossing the "T's" and dotting the "I's" on Bosworth.

  4. Steve Hickey 2014.06.19

    Alaska? These people can't pay their rent and owe many thousands. They are a flight risk. But then, I've made that case to those who can do something about it. I'm assured they are watching it closely.

  5. larry kurtz 2014.06.19

    Apostle Hickey: what do you make of Mr. Arends' influence in at least two SDGOP US Senate candidates' races? Do you believe the GOP nominee's camp knew nothing of the depth of involvement?

  6. WestRiver 2014.06.19

    Pastor Hickey,

    Do you feel that Chad will be held accountable for any of his part in this saga?

  7. Dave Baumeister 2014.06.19

    Wow, I said it on a previous post, but I still don't believe it. Chad is
    Abandoning his wife to protect himself. What story did he feed her to make her think the absence of her husband and children would ever be a good thing? That man gives scum a bad name

  8. Steve Hickey 2014.06.19

    "Anybody who knows Dr. Bosworth for even five minutes would know she takes advice from no one..."

    ...said her paid campaign ADVISOR.

    ?!?! Is Patrick saying she paid him tens of thousands and she never listened to his counsel?

    As far as I'm concerned, her campaign was a calculated crime against good people all over our nation who were sold something that wasn't real. As far as I'm concerned, the people on her team who had the power to stop it earlier failed miserably to do so. My theory there is a million dollars were coming in and it was easier to hope it wasn't as bad as it was and look the other way. As far as I'm concerned those who were on that team have violated public trust and share culpability in what just might be our state's most unethical political campaign ever.

    For the record, my reasons for inserting myself into this mess were twofold: first and foremost... it drove me nutso to see an overtly "Christian" candidate put her daily devotions online all the while having ENORMOUS ethical issues arising around her every single day. Even if you aren't a Christians and have no regard for the Christian worldview, it should be the case that you would say about a "Christian" candidate... "at least we know they will be honest and have integrity and character." Second, the integrity of the process was at stake and I thought it important for the GOP to clean it's own house for once.

  9. owen reitzel 2014.06.19

    "it drove me nutso to see an overtly "Christian" candidate put her daily devotions online all the while having ENORMOUS ethical issues arising around her every single day"

    Rev Hickey there are a lot of people in your party that are just like her, just not as dumb

  10. Roger Cornelius 2014.06.19


    It certainly appears that Bosworth is attempting to try her case in the court of public opinion. If that is the case, hopefully she'll come to the conclusion that 6% isn't a significant number.

    There doesn't see to be much online support for her with the exception of her Facebook likes. Most people, I presume Republicans, would just like her to go away.

    Joel Arends is right to hire competent legal council, Bosworth would be wise to do the same.

    Shouldn't she have enough leftover from her campaign to clean up this mess?

  11. mike from iowa 2014.06.19

    I know some decent,honest christians around here that dabble in politics,but none of them would ever trade on their religiosity. The ones that loudly proclaim to be christian,ain't. They give the rest of you religious pols a black eye or two. Take a gander at Texas wingnuts party platform.

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    Roger, 6% isn't popular support. It's margin of error. And you're right: the only "support" she has is the peanut gallery on Facebook, where hordes of truly nutty people face are tempered by the handful of reasonable, truth-telling South Dakotans whom Bosworth hasn't yet blocked.

    Steve, as WestRiver says, it's clear that yes, Bosworth paid Patrick Davis tens of thousand of dollars (about $36,500 according to FEC) to do something, but what ever advice was included in that something, she did not follow it. Davis appears to have happily fulfilled a contract to deliver nothing. Should Davis have to answer to the party, or to the donors?

  13. Joan Brown 2014.06.19

    Some time today I heard that she probably won't have to serve time, and I think that is a crying shame. If she had to serve even three to six months, that might wake her up. From what I have heard, from a woman that served time in the SD Women's Pen, even if it isn't a serious crime, they get strip searched, etc., just like the really serious criminals.

  14. 96 Tears 2014.06.19

    Annette better watch it. The GOP campaign big shots wrapped up in this web have well connected friends. As with Benda/EB-5, all roads lead to Rounds' network, which receives its protection from the Attorney General. I'd keep a close eye on Stranahan, Annette. He can be bought.

  15. Rocky Racoon 2014.06.19

    Remember when she announced her new website after her arrest? ? I encourage you to visit it. It currently contains all of the truth she could muster.

  16. Donald Pay 2014.06.19

    She definitely has trouble being honest about anything. Still, there might be some kernels of truth in her alibis.

    I don't know Arends, but I do know the mentality of too many of the Republican elite in South Dakota. They do not think the laws that apply to you and me are meant to apply to them. Further, they are used to collecting signature on candidate petitions in a sloppy and illegal manner. I can believe that Arends would have considered it to be nothing out of the ordinary in having Bosworth sign the circulator oath when she did not circulate the petition. After all, no one ever calls them on what is standard operating procedure in Republican circles.

    Still, it's Bosworth's oath, and it doesn't matter what she's told by anyone else.

  17. Rorschach 2014.06.19

    My thoughts:

    Patrick Davis is not credible. It was him that publicized false and far off fundraising numbers for Bosworth early on. He will do or say anything he's paid to do or say. He did it for Bosworth and now he's apparently doing it for Rushmore PAC.

    Bosworth is not credible. You can't believe anything she says - for reasons stated over and over here.

    Arends is not credible. He was putting out ridiculous spin for Bosworth on the petition issue, and against her victims. He wasn't just some notary attesting that she signed the petitions as circulator. He was her personal lawyer and her campaign lawyer. He was on the Philippines trip with her when somebody else circulated the petitions. What kind of lawyer doesn't review documents his client is signing when he has first-hand knowlege of the facts contained in the documents. His client committed a felony right in front of him, with his help, and he wants everyone to believe he didn't know it! If he didn't he should have. It would be very interesting to see Arends' billing statements for the day the petition was notarized. Did he charge her $5 as a notary, or notarize the pages for free? Or did he charge her for legal work that day? What legal work did he put on his bill that day? If he was charging her lawyer fees while holding the notary seal then he could be in some trouble. Does anyone really believe that they didn't have some sort of discussion about the petitions she was signing? I don't believe it for a second. That said, I still find it implausible that any lawyer would advise a client to sign something under oath knowing it was false. The question for me is whether Arends ADVISED Bosworth to sign, or whether he just ALLOWED her to sign. Either way it looks bad for him. Smells like malpractice - especially if he charged her legal fees.

    Regardless of what Arends did, Bosworth is a highly educated medical doctor. She knew better. She can read English, and the petition attestation is in plain English.

  18. SDBlue 2014.06.19

    Lee Stranahan was friends with and worked for Andrew Breitbart. Stranahan also has a history of fleecing people out of money and not paying his bills. If his only qualification for being Bosworth's spokesman is that he is a con man who previously worked for a crazy person, I would say his job with Bosworth is a perfect fit. Too bad for Annette none of her Facebook supporters will be part of the South Dakota jury pool.

  19. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.06.19

    Rocky, that"Annette truth" website is appropriately bizarre.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    Deb, Rocky, that looks just another of Chad and Annette's shiny little baubles, a minor distraction that they toy with, then forget.

  21. Jessie 2014.06.19

    I'm responding to the part of this discussion on Bosworth's religion. Why is it that someone who has apparently done evil is called a Christian only in quotes? Why is it that politicians who loudly proclaim their Christianity are then assumed not to be?

    If being a Christian means accepting Christ as your personal saviour (correct me if I'm wrong on that) what does doing evil or loudly proclaiming your religion as part of a political contest have to do with being Christian?

    Or is it rather that if such people don't fit a standard conception of a Christian as a good person, you get to deny they are members of the religion you share with them?

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    Donald's last line is important: not one word uttered by Bosworth, Stranahan, sister Peggy Craig, or anyone else batting for Bosworth has refuted any of the basic facts or points of law that should lead to conviction.

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    R makes the same point about Bosworth's unavoidable responsibility. That is the dropping hammer that Bosworth has never accepted in any prior situation. R also astutely observes that when it comes to Team Bosworth, we can't trust anyone.

  24. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    Jessie, you test our sense of Christian decency (and my atheist sympathy for Christians with decency). You are right: Christians do not get the comfort of belonging to a club consisting exclusively of good people. Christianity says we're all sinners, whether we're showing up for church or not.

    Annette may well be a Christian of some sort. But throughout her campaign, Bosworth adopted a certain piety purely for show, to impress Facebook likers, donors, and voters. She appears to have a hard time seeing beyond her selfish desires and adopting a Christian ethic of other-orientedness. Are those statements accurate, Jessie?

  25. Steve Hickey 2014.06.19

    Christianity is far more than someone simply asking Jesus to forgive them and be their Lord and Savior. Christians follow Christ, they emulate him in how they live. I put "christian" in quotes because there are those who profess his name but they remind me nothing of him. We are to judge them by their fruits. A good tree doesn't bare bad fruit. These people are in both political parties.

  26. Jessie 2014.06.19

    Yes, Cory, I think those statements are accurate. But the operative word there is "think." I never ventured near her Facebook page and the idea of listening to anyone's devotionals, as you well know, gives me the heebie-jeebies.

    She is certainly not the first person of any sort of religion to adopt piety for show. Even atheists adopt stances which could rightly be characterized as "less holy than thou" and which come from the same hubris.

    I guess that tonight I just got tired of letting the exclusive club comments slip by without challenge.

    BTW, thanks for posting the bit about Robinson's need for volunteers.

  27. Steve Hickey 2014.06.19

    I meant to say: "bear bad fruit"

  28. Jessie 2014.06.19

    Steve, thanks for your response. How miserable a sinner does a person need to be in order to profess only in name? If Dr. B says she is a Christian but her acts don't reflect Christ's teachings, what can we conclude? I say we can conclude nothing. She may be lying to us, or to herself or to all. She may be telling the truth as she knows. I can't say. Can any other member of the Christian religion say?

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.19

    Jessie, I welcome all efforts to challenge any perceived exclusivity, clubbiness, or groupthink in this comment section.

    Steve, thank you for helping us bare the bad fruit that we should not bear.

  30. Roger Cornelius 2014.06.19

    If you were to read Bosworth's Facebook page, you'd see that she is being martyred by her out of state Likes as being a true Christian. Apparently her self-righteousness entitles her to be the chosen one and everybody else is against her.

    Using her "Christianity", she has duped hundreds of people out of their hard earned money and only get a glimpse of her true identity when on occasion a true South Dakotan slips by her censors and is allowed to post a comment, negative comments are usually taken down quite quickly.
    As Steve Hickey states, being a Christian is to emulate Christ, if that is true, is Bosworth a good Christian or a bad Christian, given her criminal behavior?

  31. Jessie 2014.06.19

    Roger, despite the idea that we should judge a tree by the fruit it bears (person by their acts), whatever happened to judge not lest ye be judged?

    In South Dakota, Dr. B. is about to be judged in a court of law which cannot take into account her religious beliefs in deciding her guilt or innocence, nor the severity of her punishment should she be found guilty. At least that's the theory.

    Judging by other Christians is more complex. They have to take into account the "judge not" dictum.

    I feel fortunate not to be constrained by such dicta. I have only myself to rely on to get it right when I judge but at least I don't have a big sky-god rule that says I shouldn't be judging at all.

  32. Steve Hickey 2014.06.19

    Read the rest of the chapter in the Sermon on the Mount after the part about judge not. People think judge not means we can't call wrong right or right wrong. It doesn't say that or mean that. It goes on to say we are to be fruit inspectors - hard to do if judge not means we are forbidden to be discerning. Judge not is one of the main texts people misinterpret today in popular culture.

  33. Roger Cornelius 2014.06.19

    I just scanned my comments to see if I used the word judge, I did not. What I have done is what everyone else here has done, offered my opinion on the antics of Bosworth. In order to judge anyone, it would require me having the Constitutional authority to do so.
    Boswoth, on her own, has opened the flood gates and has earned every bit of criticism she has received.
    I'm aware that the court will soon judge Bosworth, I'm also aware that the court of public opinion doesn't necessarily have to ascribe to the saying "innocent until proven guilty".

  34. Douglas Wiken 2014.06.20

    "I'm also aware that the court of public opinion doesn't necessarily have to ascribe to the saying "innocent until proven guilty"."

    But perhaps more of us should go along with that construct or whatever it might be called. Hanging juries and witch trials may spring from the guilty until proven innocent attitudes. Even so, thinking Bosworth is innocent of much of anything gets progressively harder to think in even a hypothetical way.

  35. Dave Baumeister 2014.06.20

    How many people run for office in South Dakota every year or two? Hundreds. How many have attorneys involved with the process? Next to none. I have been involved with many elections and candidates, and the case of Annette Bosworth is the very first time I have ever heard of ANYONE having an attorney involved in the petition stage.

  36. 96 Tears 2014.06.20

    1. If my spouse comes out of a horrendous Senate campaign experience, surrounded by people whose trustworthiness is very questionable and possibly hostile, and if my spouse was hauled up in front of a grand jury for 12 felony indictments, why would I be "on vacation" to Alaska while all that damage was going on? It's curious that she sat silently during the latest press ordeal and let the dubious Lee Stranahan run the show. Annette has a strange practice of trusting the wrong people.

    2. Personal lawyer, campaign advisor, mentor, ally in causes, very close friend. Hmmm. Arends' relationship with Annette is a curious thing, especially now that he's teaming up with Patrick Davis to step away from Annette's current criminal issues. His role with Rushmore PAC is a big conflict with his other roles in Annette's campaign. If he somehow avoids being indicted with the same felonies as Bosworth or sued for malpractice by Chad and Annette, it will be interesting to see where the Rounds machine will place him around Labor Day for the last blast of the 2014 campaigns. If he was Annette's puppeteer in the campaign, who was pulling his strings?

    3. If it weren't for Jackley's late but not too late service of justice to Annette (but why only Annette, Marty?), we might never have had this intimate look into the Pierre political machine. Annette needs a real attorney with absolutely no strings to Rounds, Jackley and the state GOP. She is now all alone. Abandoned and betrayed. Is Jackley et al going to seek a quick plea bargain to wrap all this mess up and bury it out of view as quickly as possible? Or will this spill out bit by bit in court, shining the light on the cockroaches who were apparently sent to commandeer her campaign to do no harm to Rounds?

    Interesting that the Bible and gun video is the most indelible memory of Annette's sad campaign. It's time she stopped being a public distraction and think about hiring a really tough and trustworthy attorney.

  37. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.20

    Doug, on "innocent until proven guilty"—I understand the vital importance of that principle in guiding the actions of judges, juries, the media, and perhaps the general public. But how does that principle apply to the immediate victims of a crime, or to witnesses of a crime, or to people like me who have put together the evidence of a crime and can make the case that a person is guilty? The system as a whole cannot presume guilt until a judge or jury convicts under proper procedure, but don't some parts of the system (victims, witnesses, reporters, investigators) have to take the position that the defendant is guilty to prove it to the system as a whole?

  38. Donna Palmlund 2014.06.20

    I'm surprised my comments have stayed up. A friend of mine was blocked immediately after posting something negative. She even "liked" one of the things I said, but I don't think she realized it was a criticism.

  39. 96 Tears 2014.06.20

    Wonder what the big talk around the State Bar Association water cooler is this week? Annette should stop in at the Sioux Falls Ramkota and shop around. Today's the last day!

  40. mike from iowa 2014.06.20

    If Bos is as delusional as she seems to be,what does that say about South Dakota Medical Board that allowed her to practice medicine? What about Child Services that didn't intervene because of her strange behavior? Haber might very well could be a Svengali-like John Derek and others-but he alone isn't wholly responsible for her oddness.

  41. mike from iowa 2014.06.20

    Yo,Cory. Did Arends ever send you flowers and a "heartfelt" apology for besmirching your investigative activities and questioning your veracity? I'd get right on him for that. In case he goes to jail or gets disbarred or whatever may happen

  42. LeAnn Batiz 2014.06.20

    I'm wondering when Arends is going to apologize to all of us who weren't paid as promised by Annette? He jumped right on the bandwagon and told the world that we weren't paid due to the fact that we didn't do our job, which was another Bosworth lie.

  43. WestRiver 2014.06.20

    96 Tears--addition to #2 in your list--Arends was also her patient first before signing on to be her attorney in any regard.

  44. 96 Tears 2014.06.20

    Dual relationships is an ethics problem in the legal and health care realms.

  45. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.20

    Arends was a patient? Good grief! 96 is right: there are huge ethical questions here.

    Mike, I think LeAnn, I, and others will be waiting a long time for any apology from Arends for what I'm sure he will characterize as doing the work Annette was paying him to do... although I'm curious as to whether when he challenged my credibility in the press whether he was acting as her lawyer or her campaign spokesman.

    That said, now that Arends has joined the ranks of those exploited and attacked by Bosworth, I'd be happy to interview him. Joel, call me! Tell your story!

  46. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.20

    96, on Chad's departure: yes, it does seem skeezy. But the dynamics of the recent press conferences, with Lee taking the lead, indicate that he has left another controlling male in his place to keep Annette in line.

    The AG would have two reasons to accept a plea bargain: (1) to save taxpayers' money and (2) to net a bigger fish. #1 didn't seem to bother him last year while prosecuting the Dan Willard robocall case, and that case was of less import than the Bosworth case. #2... well, who would be the bigger fish here? On whom would Bosworth have any evidence of criminal wrongdoing that would interest the AG?

  47. Jessie 2014.06.20

    Roger, I'm sorry if my words were unclear. Let me try again please.

    I was not saying you judged; I was pointing out what I believed to be a common Christian dictum against such judging. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and thanks to the First Amendment for your right to express it. I share your opinion of Dr. B, although I am generally leery of posting it online, having no first-hand knowledge of the evidence against her.

    Steve has posted an interesting and informative viewpoint of the "judge not" dictum, which would indicate that I may not be correct about it. If so, then my subsidiary point (beyond the exclusive club for good people idea) was not only in error but caused you to think I attacked you. That was never my intent.

  48. 96 Tears 2014.06.20

    Cory, I agree that a plea bargain agreement can lead to bigger fish. It can also be used to shut down a news story before it starts working against a local power structure. Jackley’s most consistent behavior in office has been to keep the scandals in Pierre under control (still waiting for him to honor his pledge to allow the press to review his questionable suicide ruling on Dick Benda’s mysterious gunshot death) and to inflict damage on Democrats.

    The interaction of the Pierre political machine with the inner workings of the Bosworth campaign is interesting. Their worst nightmare is Annette in court telling a jury how she got her national money, how closely the Rounds-Daugaard-Jackley syndicate stayed in touch to get her on the ballot, promises of money and help from the syndicate, and the true nature of the relationships between all concerned. Annette may also illuminate similar interactions between the syndicate and the Ravnsborg and Rhoden campaigns. Of course, an attorney might tell her to take the deal and keep her mouth shut.

    Which path do you think that woman holding a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other is going to choose? Right now, she has a choice and real power over these guys.

  49. Rocky Racoon 2014.06.20

    Just to be clear on my previous comment, there IS NO - in other words, what you see there is a placeholder page which a host will put up after a domain is registered. It stays that way until the owner adds their own content.

    In this case, they registered the name, announced it at a press conference, and immediately abandoned the idea.

    It makes perfect sense. a website called annettetruth would logically have no content. Those two words are mutually exclusive.

  50. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.06.20

    96, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Bosworth is unlikely to offer any credible stories of interaction with the Rounds machine. What jury would believe anything Bosworth said without corroborating evidence from an independent source? Dang, now that I think about it, what testimony could Bosworth possibly offer that would realiably indict any bigger fish and thus motivate any plea deal?

  51. larry kurtz 2014.06.20

    somewhere a shotgun tied to a tree in a shelter belt is seeing receding floodwater.

  52. Roger Cornelius 2014.06.20

    Jessie, thanks for clearing that up. As humans it is difficult if not impossible for us not to judge people and events, but we do.
    In the case of Bosworth, Citizen Cory has provided substantial evidence of Bosworth wrongdoings and election fraud. In fact, his quest for the truth is what forced Jackley to indict the doctor. Since I'm not on a jury I can't judge her, but I can have an opinion as to her guilt or innocence.
    On Bosworth's Facebook page the other day, she stated that Jackley informed her that additional charges and indictments are forthcoming. I don't think these charges are in relation to the Rounds campaign, but most likely have something to do with the fraudulent raffles and stiffing employees.
    West River and LeAnn Batiz offer the best critiques of Bosworth and I rely on them for factual information/

  53. Jessie 2014.06.20

    Citizen Cory? I like that. Cory, do you like that? Or it is too 18th century for you?

    Roger, as a former scientist, I call it first-hand evidence when it is actually in my hands. I've no reason to doubt Cory's findings and I've learned he has integrity and ethics that I can admire. This allows me to form an opinion on subjects he reports on. I just don't feel comfortable with asserting Dr. B's guilt without doing the research myself. Happily, the justice system and the courts are there to do that for me, though they do need prodding sometimes.

  54. Douglas Wiken 2014.06.20

    "Happily, the justice system and the courts are there to do that for me, though they do need prodding sometimes."

    Sometimes they also need a brake and a halter. Bosworth may be a case for full speed ahead. I am not a fan of imprisonment, but repayment for expenses related to her humbug petitions and some heavy fine for every invalid name would seem appropriate.

  55. 96 Tears 2014.06.20

    Cory, maybe I'm not making my point clear enough. Getting that pigeon on the stand to start talking about what she knows about networking national money (recent Scott Walker scandal on trafficking slush funds, for example, is revealing how national money is being illegally steered around), any interactions between Joel and the Attorney General to keep her out of trouble, promises of money and consultants from the Rounds machine, etc., will compel sworn testimony from Arends, Patrick Davis, Dan Lederman and other Pierre insiders to refute or corroborate her revelations. In the hands of the right defense attorney, this could turn into an interesting sideshow as the general election heats up. Should be an interesting parallel to the narrative on Benda/EB-5's revelations of bid'ness gets done in Pierre and the Attorney General's lunchroom monitor role to keep a lid on the expanding mess.

    Sing, Annette, sing. The creeps who did you wrong are in your grasp if you would only sing.

  56. larry kurtz 2014.06.20

    Lederman has been sandbagging for his entire career, crucify his banksters.

  57. larry kurtz 2014.06.20

    If yer not following Monty's hilarious twitter coverage of the earth hater convention yer missing how incredibly out of touch SDGOP really is.

  58. owen reitzel 2014.06.20

    It's been sad to see Larry. GOP is out of touch

  59. WestRiver 2014.06.20

    I do appreciate your trust of the evidence I put forth; but, I would like to say that since you trust me, believe me when I say Cory is also spot on with anything Bosworth. Cory respects the world of journalism (and yes, blogging is journalism at its finest) and he wouldn't sacrifice his integrity and post anything false or not well researched.

  60. Been There 2014.06.22

    So, where did they get the money to go to Alaska? Him leaving does not surprise anyone that knows them. That is what he always does when trouble comes, he disappears.

Comments are closed.