Chanting Points Memo: Emmer On Drunk Driving

When it comes to politics this year, you need to remember the following rule of thumb; when the DFL or one of their affiliated blogs writes about Tom Emmer, you need to distrust, and then verify.  Because the ratio of BS to truth is the worst I’ve ever seen.  Ever.

When I was a kid, growing up in small-town North Dakota, one of my dad’s best friends was a lawyer.  The guy took all sorts of cases; wills, divorces, probate and wills, criminal defense, criminal prosecution, civil litigation, commercial litigation, contracts, and pretty much anything else that came through his office door.  He was also in the rotation for public defender duty, and for helping out the prosecution, and he did a stretch as municipal judge (carefully watching for conflicts of interest).

So if I were to write this lawyer “was a defense attorney”, someone could read the above and bellow “HAH, Berg,  you are teh lier!  He is a civil litigator!”  And you’d be right.  And you’d also be proving you need a reality check.

The law, especially small-market law, is full of such things; small-town prosecutors contract with general practice lawyers to help with caseloads without adding headcount; small-town public defenders offices may not even have a lawyer, but get lawyers from the local bar (legal, not liquid)  to help out; it’s not unknown for an indigent accused murderer to be represented by someone whose “specialty”, if you can call it that, is probate.

And let’s not forget those lawyers have to keep their fields straight, as a matter of professional ethics, while avoiding conflicts of interest.

We’ll come back to that.

———-

Last week, Jeff Rosenberg at MNPublius figured he’d “caught the Emmer campaign lying”.

Emmer’s opponents have been carping for months about the fact that Emmer:

  1. Got drunk driving-related convictions in 1981 and 1991 – twenty and thirty years ago.  When he was 19 and 29.
  2. He paid his debt to society, decades ago, exactly as he was supposed to.
  3. During the 2008 session, he pushed two bills:  one that would have given convicted drunk drivers some of their rights back after ten years of good behavior, and one that would have upheld the radical notion of considering drunk drivers innocent until proven guilty.We’ve talked about this before.

The left has spent the past week or so spending a half a million dollars of Alita Messinger’s money talking about the DWI “issue”; the offenses, and Emmer’s supposed “soft on DUI” policies.

That’s all bad enough.   But as we’ve learned this past few weeks, “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” is a reliable liar.  More on that at noon today.

I’m less used to calling Twin Cities’ DFLbot-blog MNPublius on basic integrity.

But this piece at by Rosenberg, entitled “Emmer’s DWI bill written at the request of DWI attorneys,” walks up to the line between ambiguity and deception, piddles on it, walks back, jumps into a monster truck, spins cookies on the line, and drives across past the “FLAMING FIB-VILLE, 2 MILES” sign at 80 miles an hour.

Here’s “the scoop”:

I already wrote about this a bit below, but I buried the lede. The more I think about this, the more I think it’s a major story that Tom Emmer’s DWI bill was written at the request of DWI defense attorneys, especially because he’s obviously trying to mislead the public about that:

On his campaign website, Emmer said: “At the request of local prosecutors, Rep. Emmer agreed to author their bill to reform the court system and how DWIs are handled. The legislation prepared by the prosecutors and other interested parties with the assistance of nonpartisan House research staff would have provided incentives for early and immediate prosecution of first-time offenders.”

The Emmer campaign identified the “local prosecutors” as Tom Weidner and Sean Stokes, and said they are based in Stillwater, Washington County. Stokes and Weidner are attorneys specializing in DWI defense, according to the website of their law firm Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. [Emphasis mine]

Local prosecutors? Excuse me? Once again, Emmer may not technically be lying, but he’s also definitely not being straight with us. He’s trying to make it sound like this bill was written to help local law enforcement officials, when in fact it was written at the request of DWI defense attorneys.

“Emmer may not technically be lying”?  No.  He is in fact telling the truth.  Knowing that Stokes and Weidner worked both as contract prosecutors and “DWI Defense Attorneys”, I asked a source familiar with the case in which capacity the two lawyers operated while discussing this bill:

The only thing I know about that is that Weidner said no cities asked them to ask for bill & Stokes id’ed self as [prosecutor] during testimony.  Probably fair to say Weidner and Stokes argued for bill based on their prosecutor experience, but not b/c of any city’s request.

Now, if Jeff Rosenberg would like to suggest that Tom Weidner and Sean Stokes – who are, let’s remember, officers of the court – blurred the ethical boundaries of their field while giving testimony to the Legislature on these bills, I’m sure the Bar Association would be interested in hearing about it.  Bring actual evidence, of course.

However, if you believe WCCO, in a story they ran when this “issue” first came up before the MNGOP convention, that’s just not true; Weidner and Stokes do prosecution work.

But OK – so maybe Rosenberg doesn’t know how the practice of downmarket law works.  That’s hardly a grave offense, is it?

Well, no.  But a misleading presentation of facts is.

Using the facts above, Rosenberg writes that Emmer wrote the bill  “…at the request of DWI defense attorneys”, and that Weidner “…must have been acting in his capacity as a defense attorney” and declares “Stokes and Weidner are attorneys specializing in DWI defense, according to the website of their law firm Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling….You can see that these are clearly not the people who should be responsible for crafting our DWI laws”.

He accompanies this claim with a screenshot from the law firm’s website that shows Weidner and Stokes “specialize” in DUI law.  This has, in fact, been the chanting point among local leftybloggers and twitterbuildup; “Emmer operated on behalf of DWI defense specialists”

So I checked the website.

Turns out Kevin Weidner also “specializes” in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death, Auto Accidents (including, ironically, sueing people who kill or injure people in DUIs!), and  general Criminal Defense (of everything from juvenile crimes to murder).  And there’s more; check out his page at the firm.  And that doesn’t include the contract prosecution work.

And in addition to DUI, Sean Stokes “specializes” in Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody, and general Criminal Law.   Here’s his bio page.

So the left’s defamatory meme notwithstanding, Weidner and Stokes are not “DWI  Defense specialists”; indeed, as we’ve seen above, they litigate for both the plaintiff and defendant in DWI cases for their practice, in addition to prosecution work for whom the client, the plaintiff, is Washington County.

(Is it even possible to “specialize” in a firms’ entire criminal and family area?)

So, to use Rosenberg’s term, MNPublius and the rest of the Minnesota Sorosphere that is spreading the “Emmer works for DWI defense lawyers” meme aren’t “Technically” lying; they are just presenting a set of facts that is so cherrypicked and misleading that nobody reading their account stands a snowball’s chance in hell of learning the truth.

So – why does the local left feel the need to spread such a defamatory lie?  Because  lies are  the only weapon they have against Tom Emmer?

And Jeff Rosenberg – why is MNPublius, once a leftyblog with integrity (Aaron Landry notwithstanding) participating in such a transparent wad of buncombe?

At the very least, shouldn’t your piece have been titled “Emmer’s DWI bill written at the request of after consulting attorneys who defend and sue DWIs, among pretty much every other area of criminal and family law, as well as DWI prosecution”?

It doesn’ troll off the tongue, but it’s more accurate.

———-

Do the state a favor, Minnesota Left; put a fork in this stupid meme.  Move on to your next lie.

We’ll be waiting.

45 thoughts on “Chanting Points Memo: Emmer On Drunk Driving

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Chanting Points Memo: Emmer On Drunk Driving -- Topsy.com

  2. Typical lefties, they want to be soft on every crime except the ones law-abiding citizens might run afoul of if they’re having a good time.

  3. Not to be hyper-technical, but to Minnesota lawyers the word “specialist” means something particular. Minnesota recognizes exactly two specialty practices: civil trial law and real property law. It’s not easy to earn the Board Certified Specialist designation – fewer than 5% make it.

    Neither of the named lawyers are specialists. Both are careful on their website NOT to claim to be specialists. The lawyers have not mis-represented their credentials.

    Of course, you wouldn’t expect ordinary citizens to know that distinction. But I would expect a journalist to learn the jargon of the trade he’s reporting on.
    .

  4. Nate,

    In an earlier flap, another lawyer told me that Admiralty and IP were specialties…

    …or was it that they had a separate bar of some kind?

    How DOES that work, anyway?

  5. And just to be clear, I was using “specializes”, in scare quotes, for full ironic effect; both the lawyers specialize practice pretty much across the board in the criminal and family law areas; there is no such thing as a general specialist!

  6. What is pertinent here is was there a conflict of interest from these two lawyers.

    So my question is not do these two lawyers in Stillwater do prosecution overflow cases. My question is which is more lucrative – at which do they spend the greater part of their time and what generates the greater part of their revenue, and what part for that matter is the defense (or prosecution) of DUIs for their firm.

    That there is a potential conflict of interest is not the same as an actual conflict of interest. Nor does a web site do anything more than show that an appearance of a conflict of interest exists. It cannot prove it, or disprove it for either side. I don’t buy the notion that these two lawyers can testify for only one part of their experience – what I would like to know is were they paid for their testimony – another fact that is not offered by either side of the argument to support their position. THAT would indicate what aspect of the law they were representing.

    As to your repeated assertions Mitch “one that would have upheld the radical notion of considering drunk drivers innocent until proven guilty.We’ve talked about this before” – if our current laws failed to consider drunk drivers innocent until proven guilty, the existing laws would have been challenged in court and disallowed. They seem to have stood up in court for a long time now, so I don’t find the assertion that the law is faulty in this regard plausible.

    Sorry, but I think you are as guilty here of misrepresentation as you claim Mn Publius. The right hasn’t been terribly truthful this campaign, and haven’t offered new or better ideas either. It’s all pretty much a rehash of the same old same old ideas that were proffered up in 2006 and 2008 and before.

    I’ll believe you are interested in fact check and not spin when I see the right address those claims by Bachmann, Emmer’s buddies at Minnesota Majority, and TPaw about those studies you were asserting proved something about illegal voting, which in fact proved the opposite. And we can find plenty of other equally dubious statements.

    As in war, it seems the first casualties in politics are always the truth.

  7. Didn’t I just read that the Democrats passed a law reducing the penalties for cocaine, and this was pushed by concaine addicts and their families? And this softening of the laws occurs to the penalties up front, not giving some rights back after 10 years.

  8. scooby509 Says:

    August 2nd, 2010 at 9:47 am
    “Typical lefties, they want to be soft on every crime except the ones law-abiding citizens might run afoul of if they’re having a good time.”

    Hypocritical righties, tough on crime except when one of their own does it.

  9. Dog Gone said:

    “I’ll believe you are interested in fact check and not spin”

    Get over yourself. Nobody will care what you believe when what you believe consistently seems to be DFL spin. *shrug*

  10. DG

    Funny, it’s the demonrats that are having most of the ethics issues these days.

    But hey, keep ignoring them and defending them, then, don’t pay your taxes one time and let’s see what happens to you. The goons that run this state’s DoR make the IRS look like kindergarten class. God forbid that some entitled group doesn’t get their “funding.”

  11. Hypocritical righties

    Er, where has Emmer or anyone else on the right called for not punishing drunk conservative drivers? Because that’s what hypocrisy is – holding others to a moral stance to which one is not willing to be held.

    As to your repeated assertions Mitch “one that would have upheld the radical notion of considering drunk drivers innocent until proven guilty.We’ve talked about this before” – if our current laws failed to consider drunk drivers innocent until proven guilty, the existing laws would have been challenged in court and disallowed. They seem to have stood up in court for a long time now, so I don’t find the assertion that the law is faulty in this regard plausible.

    And there, you’re wrong. “Implied consent” laws mean that an accused drunk driver who refuses to incriminate himself loses his license, and needs to go through a civil procedure to get it back.

    More on this at noon.

    Sorry, but I think you are as guilty here of misrepresentation as you claim Mn Publius. The right hasn’t been terribly truthful this campaign, and haven’t offered new or better ideas either. It’s all pretty much a rehash of the same old same old ideas that were proffered up in 2006 and 2008 and before.

    Well, that was one of the most utterly vague and yet rampantly general sentences I’ve ever read!

    I’ll believe you are interested in fact check and not spin when I see the right address those claims by Bachmann, Emmer’s buddies at Minnesota Majority, and TPaw about those studies you were asserting proved something about illegal voting, which in fact proved the opposite. And we can find plenty of other equally dubious statements.

    Big logical fallacy, here; “you didn’t cover topic A to my satisfaction, so your coverage of topic B is void” is supremely illogical.

    Also thread-jacking.

  12. Or, to argue in DG’s terms:

    “I’ll believe you’re interested in fact checking when I see you address the claims from Alliance for a Better Minnesota” that have been shown to be categorical buncombe. Until your presentation of these facts comports with mine, I’ll just go “nya nya nya” and ignore anything substantial that you might say”.

    Not as satisfying as I thought.

  13. Oh, yeah – I’m no lawyer (cue Foot, Jay Reding, Nate and a few others), but you throw the ‘conflict of interest’ charge around pretty idly, without really having any idea if there’s anything to the charge.

    Not good.

  14. Dog wants “fact checking”. Heh. I’m still waiting for her to list the “multiple gaffes” that Emmer has made. I won’t hold my breath.

  15. “In an earlier flap, another lawyer told me that Admiralty and IP were specialties.”

    Admiralty is a recognized specialty field, IIRC. Of federal law. Of the various IP fields (Copyright, trademark, trade secrets, patent) only patent law has its own bar exam. Again, only federal law.

  16. I don’t know what “conflict of interest” DG is supposedly talking about here – and either does she, I suspect.

    But I’d suspect that attorneys who handle prosecutions, and defenses, and DUI-related personal-injury and wrongful-death litigation, for a decade and a half simultaneously would be pretty well-versed in keeping interests unconflicted.

  17. Heh. I’m still waiting for her to list the “multiple gaffes” that Emmer has made. I won’t hold my breath.

    And I am still waiting for DogPrescottPile to point out Pinal county on the map. I think little doggie wants us all to turn blue from holding our collective breath until she is correct on something… anything. Like what time of day it is for instance. Oh, wait, even broken clock is correct twice a day. I guess I can exhale.

  18. From the information revealed above, there is no “conflict of interest” in the sense used by lawyers to describe an ethical problem.

    If they were exclusively DUI prosecutors arguing for the amendment, there would be no conflict between their jobs and their request, so no “conflict of interest.” A prosecutor’s duty is not merely to convict, but to do justice. Even as prosecutors, they may sincerely have believed the statutory amendment should have been made in furtherance of justice; thus they should have pursued it.

    And if they are general practice lawyers who take cases on both sides of the aisle, that doesn’t make them less qualified to have an opinion about the impact of the law on the lives of ordinary citizens and how it can be improved, that makes them MORE qualified than your average citizen, certainly more objective than your average MADD activist.

    Finally, Mitch, yes, there are separate bars for Admiralty and Intellectual Property (patent, trademark and copyright) law. I was talking about the use of the word “specialist” in general practice of law in Minnesota – the type practiced by the lawyers in question. Your analysis was not flawed, my answer was imprecise

    .

  19. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Chanting Points Memo: Emmer And Drunk Driving, Part II

  20. Dog Gone:

    Claiming a lawyer acted in conflict of interest is like saying a banker stole money or a daycare provider is a pedophile. It’s the kind of accusation that ruins lives because it’s so awful when applied to those people in their professions.

    Nobody is surprised if a crack addict steals money; that’s what they do. We are shocked if a banker steals it precisely because they’re supposed to be above that sort of behavior. But are you shocked when a lawyer advocates a client’s position? No, that’s what they do. That’s not bad behavior for a lawyer.

    I suspect you didn’t mean to accuse the lawyers of a conflict of interest, you simply didn’t know the right word to use for your concern, which is that these people are advocating a political position without revealing facts about their background or employment that might suggest their motives are not impartial and pure, but are base and self-interested.

    You know, like rich people laundering their money through political action committees to hide the fact they’re buying the election; or journalists secretly urging each other to slant their news coverage of disfavored politicians to influence the voters and alter the outcome of the election.

    I don’t know the word, either. Bias? Self-Interest?

    .

  21. I don’t know the word, either. Bias? Self-Interest?

    It’s self-interest. The problem isn’t that people act in their own self interest — the problem is that some people seem to get a pass when they do (like Dayton) and others don’t (like Emmer).

  22. Mitch;

    Since you brought up Target, I will present my observation from another shopping trip to the Bloomington store on Saturday, about 10:30 a.m.

    As is usual on a Saturday morning, I had to park quite a way out toward 494, but then, the exercise did me good. I observed about nine check out lanes open, each a long line of customers pushing full carts.

    I hope that their profits for Saturday were outstanding!

  23. The whole point of my post was that Emmer is not giving us the whole truth, and I stand by that. Was I giving the whole truth? No, I was giving the other side of the argument. We already heard Emmer’s side.

    So Weidner and Stokes were both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The title of my post notwithstanding (yes, the headline was maybe a bit much), I don’t think I ever claimed otherwise. I said Emmer was “not technically lying” because I recognize that they did do prosecutorial work. I don’t think that minimizes the shadiness of Emmer’s half-truths.

    (By the way, due to a spam-bot attack, our archives are down right now, so I don’t believe the piece on MNpublius is accessible right now. Believe me, I’m more upset about that than anyone.)

    The fact remains that Weidner and Stokes were acting in their own capacity — not under any contract from the cities they worked for. As neither of their bios makes any mention of the contract work, it seems “Probably fair” to assume that their own self-interest is in their own defense work, not their prosecutorial work. I don’t see how this is any more of an unreasonable assumption that that made by your source.

    What makes me maddest is this section from the firm’s DUI Defense page:

    “Our primary DUI defense attorney is an experienced criminal defense lawyer who also spent time as a criminal prosecutor. With this experience, he understands how prosecutors think and can use this knowledge to your benefit.”

  24. What makes me maddest is this section from the firm’s DUI Defense page:

    “Our primary DUI defense attorney is an experienced criminal defense lawyer who also spent time as a criminal prosecutor. With this experience, he understands how prosecutors think and can use this knowledge to your benefit.”

    Jeff, here’s a question. Miles Lord, before he established his personal injury practice, was a federal judge, so he understands how judges think and presumably uses that knowledge for his client’s benefit. Does that make you mad?

  25. Jeff,

    The whole point of my post was that Emmer is not giving us the whole truth, and I stand by that. Was I giving the whole truth? No, I was giving the other side of the argument. We already heard Emmer’s side.

    The problem is, your piece (and ABMs) presented Emmer’s side as if there were something unethical about it – “Supported by DWI defense lawyers!” – when it was not. ABM’s piece was worse – saying Emmer lied about the lawyers being prosecutors.

    Your point is that Emmer wasn’t telling the whole truth; fair enough, but except for the “DWI Defense Attorney” bit, you (pl) provided no evidence of it.

    So Weidner and Stokes were both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The title of my post notwithstanding (yes, the headline was maybe a bit much), [Yes, perhaps – Ed>] I don’t think I ever claimed otherwise. I said Emmer was “not technically lying” because I recognize that they did do prosecutorial work. I don’t think that minimizes the shadiness of Emmer’s half-truths.

    What is the half-truth? It was a fact; the guys are prosecutors.

    I’m a blogger. I host a talk show. I’m a User Experience Architect. If Tom Emmer calls me a blogger, is he telling a ‘one-third-truth?”

    (By the way, due to a spam-bot attack, our archives are down right now, so I don’t believe the piece on MNpublius is accessible right now. Believe me, I’m more upset about that than anyone.)

    Ugh.

    The fact remains that Weidner and Stokes were acting in their own capacity — not under any contract from the cities they worked for.

    I’ll leave it to the lawyers who read this site as to whether that would have been permissible for someone in their position. I suspect it’d not be acceptible for a contract prosecutor – basically a temp – to testify as a representative of WashCo.

    As neither of their bios makes any mention of the contract work,

    Leaving aside whether it’s permissible to advertise that one works as a contract prosecutor (I don’t know), there’d be no real point to advertising on a site that is basically ads for private clients.

    it seems “Probably fair” to assume that their own self-interest is in their own defense work, not their prosecutorial work.

    Why? I mean, sure – if you cherrypick their bio to focus purely on DWI defense. But they also handle personal-injury plaintiffs cases against drunk drivers.

    And you DID catch that bit in my second piece, about Chief Judge Magnuson supporting the bill, right? Is HE shady?

    What makes me maddest is this section from the firm’s DUI Defense page:

    “Our primary DUI defense attorney is an experienced criminal defense lawyer who also spent time as a criminal prosecutor. With this experience, he understands how prosecutors think and can use this knowledge to your benefit.”

    Why would that make you mad? The right to counsel is enshrined in our Constitution. Even if everyone just knooooows you’re guilty! And the website is an advertisement, aiming to convince people to retain the firm’s services.

    What would you expect them to say?

  26. What makes me maddest is this section from the firm’s DUI Defense page:

    “Our primary DUI defense attorney is an experienced criminal defense lawyer who also spent time as a criminal prosecutor. With this experience, he understands how prosecutors think and can use this knowledge to your benefit.”

    The American left spends nine years barbering about the rights of accused terrorists captured overseas in countries not their own while carrying out terror attacks against the US to counsel – but American citizens who blow a .082 are exempt from the Fifth Amendment?

  27. I obviously need to clarify. It doesn’t make me mad that they are advertising their prosecutorial experience to their clients, or that they use that experience to their advantage. Of course they do!

    What makes me mad is that they are bragging, in their capacity as defense attorneys, that they know how the system works, and then they worked with Emmer on a bill to alter that very system. How are we supposed to know whose interests they are working in?

    The fact that they worked as both DUI prosecutors and DUI defense attorneys is unsettling to me, because there’s no way to know why they were pushing this bill. Mitch, you say that I’m peddling falsehoods, but isn’t the fact that they worked on the defense side relevant? Emmer claiming that they were prosecutors makes it look like he’s hiding something.

    The funny thing is, you seem fine with what Emmer is saying, but not with what I’m saying.

    “What is the half-truth? It was a fact; the guys are prosecutors.”

    Well, then, what is my half-truth? It was a fact, the guys are DUI defense attorneys.

  28. but American citizens who blow a .082 are exempt from the Fifth Amendment?
    Only when running for office on a Republican ticket. If it wasn’t for double standards…

  29. The fact that they worked as both DUI prosecutors and DUI defense attorneys is unsettling to me, because there’s no way to know why they were pushing this bill
    Gosh Jeff, where do you stand on the mentally imbalanced Mark Dayton? Will we be reading an expose on Mark’s chemical abuse and bipolar disorder sometime before November?

  30. What makes me mad is that they are bragging, in their capacity as defense attorneys, that they know how the system works, and then they worked with Emmer on a bill to alter that very system. How are we supposed to know whose interests they are working in?

    Jeff, you do know the meaning of the word “advertising”, right?

    As for the interests – YOU are the one who made the giant leap off the cliff based on printed info. Did you interview either of them to get their actual side of things? Will you? Nah… you are already backpedaling with I obviously need to clarify. Your mistruths in “reporting” were very clear at the onset.

  31. What makes me mad is that they are bragging, in their capacity as defense attorneys, that they know how the system works, and then they worked with Emmer on a bill to alter that very system. How are we supposed to know whose interests they are working in?

    So do they lose their right to petition the government because they are defense attorneys? Or because they worked with Emmer? I think we know the answer to those questions.

    By the way, Jeff, I’d commend your attention to the point that Joel Rosenberg makes on the second thread — by working with Emmer to simplify the law, they are actually working against their own economic interests, which are enhanced when the laws are convoluted and put potential defendants in greater jeopardy. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, they are actually working in the public interest? Judge Magnuson would think they were.

  32. Jeff, I’m shocked that a Burbot would brag about their capacity as an attorney! Shocked I tell you!

    .

    Ha ha ha
    Kerm, good one!

    Ha ha ha ha

    As if Jeff would answer.

    Ha ha ha

  33. JeffR: {blinders on} But the conflict of interest! It’s Emmer we are talking about! He is a conservative, therefore he lies!

  34. What makes me mad is that they are bragging, in their capacity as defense attorneys, that they know how the system works, and then they worked with Emmer on a bill to alter that very system. How are we supposed to know whose interests they are working in?

    What Mr. D said; check out Joel Rosenberg’s comment in the other thread. More-restrictive laws make wealthier lawyers.

    The fact that they worked as both DUI prosecutors and DUI defense attorneys is unsettling to me, because there’s no way to know why they were pushing this bill.

    Leaving aside that it’d be against their interest in both guises, what difference does it make? Does a lawyer need any more “why” for supporting a bill than anyone else?

    Mitch, you say that I’m peddling falsehoods, but isn’t the fact that they worked on the defense side relevant?

    Why would it be? Again – forget for a moment that the bills were against the economic interests of the DUI defense business, not that that’s irrelevant at all; why would it matter? What Mr. D said; lawyers have rights too.

    Or should we examine every part of the law where supporting a bill benefits a part of the bar? For example, Family Law and Divorce attorneys have spent millions nationwide fighting against “presumption of joint physical custody” laws. Is it in the best insterests of children, or is it to make a lot more money fighting more brutal, contested divorces?

    Well, wait – family lawyers are mostly Democrats.

    How about the American Trial Lawyers, who support the Democrats by about 9-1 (in terms of campaign donations)? 0

    Emmer claiming that they were prosecutors makes it look like he’s hiding something.

    The funny thing is, you seem fine with what Emmer is saying, but not with what I’m saying.

    I am! Because Emmer’s case doesn’t hinge on a complete statement (it doesn’t matter that the lawyers also did defense cases); your case (the idea that there’s something off-color about the “DUI Defense Industry” was behind the bills) falls apart completely with the realization that these guys not only defended, but prosecuted AND litigated DUIs and Wrongful Deaths/Personal Injuries, meaning they have both civil and criminal interests on BOTH sides of the issue!

    Well, then, what is my half-truth? It was a fact, the guys are DUI defense attorneys.

    Among many, many other things – a fact that undercuts your (and ABM’s) argument.

    Which is why I wrote the post in the first place.

  35. Man mitch you are turning from everyday blogger to hotair.com like debunking material. Has Malkin been in contact with you yet? And I don’t mean for a date 😉

  36. What makes me mad is that they are bragging, in their capacity as defense attorneys, that they know how the system works, and then they worked with Emmer on a bill to alter that very system. How are we supposed to know whose interests they are working in?

    That does take a bit of work — read the bill, understand (get help, if need be) what it would do and not do, then decide for yourself whether or not it’s in the public interest, even though, clearly, it’s against their financial interest.

    You might think that the very mild relief of ten-years-past-conviction-on-good-behavior-only lightening of penalties is a good idea, or a bad idea, say.

    Figure it out. You can do it.

  37. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Underdogs

  38. Pingback: Why Did Emmer Lose? | Shot in the Dark

  39. Pingback: Chanting Points Memo: I Accuse | Shot in the Dark

  40. Pingback: The Plutocrat | Shot in the Dark

  41. Pingback: The DFL’s Ministry Of Truth | Shot in the Dark

  42. Pingback: Just The Facts | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.