Earlier this morning, we busted Jeff Rosenberg at the DFL-congruent MNPublius carrying the Alliance for a “Better” Minnesota’s water in a piece riddled with factual errors.
And when you catch someone carrying foul, deceptive water, it’s best to go back to the well.
Here’s what A4aBM had to say about the legislation in question:
In fact, records show that the Minnesota County Attorneys Association opposed the bill Emmer introduced, as well as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Office of Public Safety.
At least A4aBM got that part right – as far as I can tell, anyway. But that should not be a shock; the County Attorney’s Association will always oppose any law that takes away discretion and power from county prosecutors, or inconveniences them in anyway. Emmer’s laws would have…:
- allowed drunk drives to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and…
- …allowed those convicted of DUI to get some of their rights and privacy back after ten years of good behavior.
That is all! Of course, it would mean that county prosecutors would have to prove people guilty to the standard of reasonable doubt rather than have the accused considered guilty until proven innocent. And Mothers against Drunk Driving would, it is safe to say, repeal the Bill of Rights if it meant they could lower the blood alcohol content to .06%.
But that lone bit of factiness is lonely in this press release:
The attorneys testifying in favor of the law were private attorneys who, according to their web sites, defend those arrested for drunk driving.
Yes, attorneys Weidner and Stokes defended drunk drivers. And, as I showed in this morning’s piece, they also did family, child custody, criminal defense, prosecution, personal injury and product liability and – in the interest of completeness – litigation against drunk drivers.
A4aBM either is too sloppy and stupid to check this out, or they are actively trying to deceive the public. I’m voting for “b”.
“Emmer is trying to run from the fact that he introduced a bill that lessened penalties against drunk driving,” said Denise Cardinal, Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota Action Fund.
I see no evidence that Emmer’s “running from” anything.
Because do you know who else supported Emmer’s “implied consent” bill? The one that would have treated accused drunk drivers as innocent until proven guilty – exactly the same as Democrats want terrorists in US custody treated?
Former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Judge Eric Magnuson. And DFL attorney general Lori Swanson. [EDITOR’s NOTE: While I’m told the Attorney General’s office did in fact support the bills because the Implied Consent hearings are an immense cash and time suck, I am still looking for the actual cite. When I find it, I”ll un-strike it – Ed]
A source close to the story emailed me:
Weidner told me last night that the AG actually supported this bill. He is going to find the letter they sent…He also told me Chief Judge Magnuson supported it and threatened to end implied consent hearings b/c they cost so much.
Perhaps A4aBM has evidence that Magnuson (and, so my source says, the Attorney General’s office) are also “soft on drunk driving?”
I’ll be interested in seeing if A4aBM or Jeff Rosenberg at MNPublius, who’ve led the way in trafficking the “alternate realities” about this story, plan on accounting for those facts.
As re A4aBM, I’m going to suggest they’re just going to keep lying – down to the simplest of facts:
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Emmer’s campaign made false claims on Wednesday when it stated that prosecutors asked Emmer to sponsor a bill that lessened penalties for drunk
In other words, “Emmer lied about talking with prosecutors”. It’s quite an accusation.
But even the Dayton-friendly Star/Tribune debunks that claim:
Emmer referred most questions on the bill to Stillwater attorney Tom Weidner, who works for a law firm that handles prosecution for 10 municipalities in Washington County and also does criminal defense, including DWI cases.
So why does the A4aBM, and sites like MNPublius who serve mainly as DFL press release vehicles, so brazenly repeat such bald-faced lies?
Because they assume the voter is stupid, and they still think in the pre-blog paradigm that assumes that absent any dissenting opinion they’ll stay that way.
Let’s see what we can do about that, shall we?
Actually, Mitch, that DUI bill was all about cheaper Canadian prescription drugs.
After all, a DUI on your record from 20 years ago would prevent you from going to Canada and buying cheaper drugs.
Um . . . Er . . . Shouldn’t you be writing about Dayton’s mental illness?
There’s something more than a little unseemly about
Doesn’t Jeff “no relation” Rosenberg understand that a: what criminal defense lawyers do is defend people arrested for crimes, and that that’s kinda, well, okay? and b: that lawyers testifying in favor of making penalties less severe for the kinds of cases that they defend are working against their own financial interest? If I was a lawyer (and I’m not) who did DUI defense, the last thing that would be in my financial interest would be lowering the penalties; it would encourage people to plead out without hiring me.
Jeff “no relation” Rosenberg
I do have to focus on that every time I write re either of y’all.
the last thing that would be in my financial interest would be lowering the penalties
That’s the bit of logic that it just befuddles me that they don’t get; the bills were against interest for both DWI lawyers (who, let’s not forget, don’t practice their trade out of love for drunk drivers) AND prosecutors.
Won’t they have to shut up about this meme if Dayton gets the DFL nod? Doesn’t he have a few past DUI’s too?
I don’t know if C.I. Dayton has any DUIs, but he does have a six-foot tall rabbit friend named Harvey.
wow, a Donnie Darko nod. Don’t see that every day. Ok I think I was wrong about the DUI’s but he suffers from alcoholism and depression. And he relapsed in his alcoholism in 2009. Imagine what would be done to him by the media if he was republican. “Depressed, relapsing alcoholic running to be governor!”
OK, Kerm, you win!
A GOP operative dressed in a bunny costume at Dayton campaign appearances would be amusing.
“» allowed drunk drives to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and…
» …allowed those convicted of DUI to get some of their rights and privacy back after ten years of good behavior.”
Ten years does seem to dovetail rather well with Emmer’s own interim in arrests for DUI, enough of a coincidence to raise a question about his own benefits from such a change.
As to drunk drivers being considered innocent until proven guilty, I am not convinced that our current laws fail to recognize that. If someone is presumed guilty until proven innocent, then why haven’t those laws been successfully challenged in court? And if we do not as you claim treat drunk drivers as guilty until proven innocent, then why is this law so important – or necessary. I oppose unnecessary laws, and the conservative right seem to be very fond of them despite claims about less and smaller government.
Sorry Mitch, but your arguments on this one are not all that compelling, and more than a bit repetitious.
Jeff “no relation” Rosenberg
I do have to focus on that every time I write re either of y’all.
And I thank you for doing that so consistently. Now, if we can only get you to remember the difference between David Gross and Gary Gross…
🙂
As to the rest, well, yup. It’s really pretty simple: everybody gets a lawyer — says so right in the Constitution — and the sins of the client are not to be visited on the lawyer, not even a little. I’ve got some lawyer friends — including David Gross — who have defended people on all sorts of charges; that doesn’t make him a fan of, say, any of the crimes with which his clients have been accused.
As incredibly unsympathetic to drunk drivers as I am, when folks who make at least some of their living from defending drunk drivers think that the penalties are ineffective and maybe even counterproductive, they’re worth more than a listen. (Not that it’s a surprise to me; back when I studied criminology, many years ago, the general consensus is that what deters a given crime is the likelihood of apprehension, not conviction or sentence. A pound’s worth of more drunk driving stops is worth more than a ton of additional jail time.)
She’s got a point, Mitch. Rather than introduce legislation and fight entrenched special interests to change the law, Emmer should have . . .
. . . found a friendly judge to legislate from the bench. Cuz that’s how Progressives do it.
.
“Ten years… …enough of a coincidence to raise a question about his own benefits from such a change.”
Oh please, what specific benefits are you alluding to, DG? Going to Canada to buy prescription drugs?
…
“…your arguments on this one are not all that compelling,”
Say what? Are you saying Emmer/Mitch is guilty until proven innocent, DG?
*facepalm*
Ten years does seem to dovetail rather well with Emmer’s own interim in arrests for DUI, enough of a coincidence to raise a question about his own benefits from such a change.
You’re finding causation in a specious correlation.
As to drunk drivers being considered innocent until proven guilty, I am not convinced that our current laws fail to recognize that. If someone is presumed guilty until proven innocent, then why haven’t those laws been successfully challenged in court?
Your faith in the rock-solid integrity of our judicial system is touching, but misplaced.
As to “why?” Because they’re not technically “guilty”. But Implied Consent laws basically skip the whole “ascertaining guilt” phase and skip stright to “onerous punishment”, while compelling the accused to provide physical evidence of their guilt before having access to any form of counsel at all.
And if we do not as you claim treat drunk drivers as guilty until proven innocent, then why is this law so important – or necessary. I oppose unnecessary laws, and the conservative right seem to be very fond of them despite claims about less and smaller government.
(Facepalm)
Because the bills would have revised existing laws.
Sorry Mitch, but your arguments on this one are not all that compelling, and more than a bit repetitious.
Reasoning, if sufficiently advanced to the audience, is indistinguishable from magic 🙂
Your understanding of the issue and the way the law functions, now and under Emmer’s proposal, is a little too sketchy to take that all that seriously.
. . . enough of a coincidence to raise a question about his own benefits from such a change.
There is that passive voice again, the tool of insinuation and smears.
Not everyone is a lucky as Brave Sir Mark. Not everyone inherits millions. Not everyone can afford a liveryman to whisk one to and from treatment centers.
Brave Sir Mark is supposedly a “recovering” alcoholic, but word on the street is that he’s gone from a raging dry drunk back into the tank…
“Sipping from a bottle of kombucha, a fermented tea that has become a campaign trail staple, this former U.S. senator is trying to revive an up-and-down political career at age 63.”
http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/97234679.html
“Kombucha is a type of tea that’s been around for centuries, but has recently become quite popular. But now it’s been pulled from stores in Seattle and across the country because of its fluctuating alcohol content. KUOW’s Meghan Walker has the story.”
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=20924
Mix this crap up with the pharmacopoeia that keeps Brave Sir Mark upright and out of a straight jacket, you’ve got one shitfaced moonbat…
Right Deegee?
Now, what was that about DWI’s?
wow, a Donnie Darko nod
The rabbit in Donnie Darko was named Frank. The Harvey reference is to, well, “Harvey,” a Jimmy Stewart film.
A GOP operative dressed in a bunny costume at Dayton campaign appearances would be amusing.
I’d gladly volunteer to do that. I have no shame.
Righton, Disco. What do you think about my idea of a GOP guy in rabbit outfit haunting Dayton? If the the D’s are bringing up 20 year old DUI’s I think that the gloves are off.
Swiftee-
My Mom used to work at Hazelden. She was the one who would drive patients to & from the airport to the treatment center. This was in the 1990’s. I wonder if she knows Dayton?
Terry, I think the explanation would take too long. People under 35 are going to think Dayton is some kind of time traveler.
You mean he isn’t?
Not time. Dimensional travel. C.I. Dayton is really from the planet Tralfamadore.
Terry, I’m guessing brave Sir Mark was usually ferried to and from rehab via limo….a limo with a bar….maybe a bar with Kombucha.
Kermit – hello…good-bye…hello…good-bye…
Pingback: Why Did Emmer Lose? | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Just So We’re Clear On This | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Oh No! | Shot in the Dark