Question Answered

Last week, the local Leftosphere was all abuzz over the lawsuit placed by a variety of trade unions against “lies” the Coleman campaign was allegedly spreading about the “Employee Free Choice Act”. 

“What were the lies involved in Coleman’s ad?”, we wondered.

So did the Office of Administrative Hearings, which handles such campaign-related flibbertigibbets:

“For purposes of a prima facie determination, the Complainant [the DFL’s Brian Melendez, in this case] must detail the factual basis to support a claim that the violation of law has occurred (Minn. Stat. 211B.32, subd.3.)  Here, the Complainant has not alleged with any specificity why the statements at issue are factually false. The Complaint merely asserts that the statements are false and “contrary to the facts,” without providing any further information.

The Complaint also does not identify the named individual Respondents, nor does it allege any facts to support an allegation that they participated in the preparation or broadcast of the material knowing it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity.”

Note to DFL politicians, “citizen journalists” and bloggers; merely wishing something to be true, and/or repeating “it’s true!” endlessly and loudly, does not make it so. 

No matter how hard you may wish, how many times or how loudly you repeat it, eventually you’ll need to bring some facts.

Or, y’know, have some.

1 thought on “Question Answered

  1. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Dog Licks Dog.

Leave a Reply

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