Just move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
I know this is everywhere already (I was flying today) but I cannot believe Attorney General Mike McGrath would decline to investigate Gov. Schweitzer. His refusal is, apparently, based solely on Gov. Schweitzer’s denial of wrongdoing, because they were “admittedly intemperate remarks of a speaker trying to be funny.”
I don’t know. Just as a matter of appareances, shouldn’t the chief law enforcement officer of a state wait until after the investigation to pronounce innocence? It just seems to make more sense that way. You know, chronologically and all. Dismissing the charges before the investigation, uh, that seems out of order, right? Doing so, and doing so..so quickly, seems a little…intemperate.
As far as the lack of “allegations supported by fact,” I suggest that the Attorney General, being an attorney and all, review Rule 801 of the Montana Rules of Evidence. An admission by a party is admissible. This is like…I don’t know…evidence. Normally, if law enforcement works with an admission, they investigate it before deciding that the accused is not guilty.
Finally, to point up the true political nature of his response, Mike McGrath takes a shot at Governor Schweitzer’s political opponents. It would be one thing, Mr. McGrath, if these were merely “accusations.” From what I can tell, though, no one has accused the Governor of anything. He admitted it.
I’ll bet Ron Waterman would at least investigate it.
“Is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.”
Evidently they’ve deteriorated since Jefferson’s day.
What’s the stature of limitations? Can the next AG take a look at this because McGrath is going to be working for wages next year?
Schweitzer did nothing more than give a stewardship report to his investors… and to Tester’s investors.
http://www.votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=40832
Schwitzer : Lawyers & Lobbyists $155,060
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/indus.php?cycle=2006&id=MTS1
Tester: Lawyers/Law Firms $427,231
The governor’s speech was approximately thirty minutes long. So far the stories in the MSM have focused on approximately 4 minutes of the speech. There is much more including his admission of strong-arm fundraising tactics, if not extortion, in Tester’s campaign. If Mike McGrath lacks the courage (read: “balls”) to investigate this in a judicious manner, more’s the pity.
I, personally, am outraged at not only what he said, but how he said it. Over the next 50+ days, most Montanans will have the opportunity to see Schweitzer’s campaign commercials dozens and dozens of times. Certainly, we will all hear more than thirty minutes of an orchestrated, scripted version of Brian Schweitzer.
How often do we get the opportunity to hear any candidate for public office speak to a group when they think none of their constituents is in the audience? Might that not offer a truer, more candid picture of the candidate?
Leaving the whole question of legality of Schweitzer’s admissions aside, I think it is important that every Montana voter listen to the entire speech before the election and decide for yourself if this is the person you want representing you and your state as your highest elected official.
1. Has someone transcribed the entire speech?
2. I didn’t think there was a chance in hell that Waterman could beat McGrath, but now I’m not so sure.
3. Has McGrath given Tim Fox the issue he needs to beat Steve Bullock in the AG’s race? Bullock works in the AG’s office, right? and no doubt Bullock will be asked if his boss has made the right decision not to investigate. Fox must be preparing press releases that point out the things that Gregg has said. Maybe he’ll base some of his advertising on the AG’s office’s decision, and tie Bullock to it.
[...] he called down the thunder, now he’s got it. If you listen, you can hear the rumblings beginning [...]
Tim who? Oh, and I see that auntie is “ourtraged”. Oh my. Outraged I tell you! This is getting funnier all the time. You folks remind me of those wacky Cannuck comedy brothers, the McKenzies, who were always looking for a topic for their TV show while they drank beer. You finally have a topic, and it’s funny as hell! BTW, tamara hall?? SHE’S the one that filed the complaint?! Wow. Now THERE’S a topnotch individual! Funny as hell. Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s try running on issues! Poor Oily Roy’s got oil on the brain. That’s his only issue, and it’s not enough.
Schweitzer’s speech wasn’t the first complaint about white poll watchers being harassed on the reservation. The Missoulian wrote about it, why didn’t the tribune. Mcgrath didn’t investigate that complaint either. Now it smells like a partisan cover up. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/09/12/news/local/news02.txt
They WEREN’T pollwatchers, wolfy. If someone asks ME for ID, he just might get an “unpleasant” response! These bozos have NO right to be bothering people trying to vote. No actual pollwatchers were asked to leave. And by what authority do ordinary bozos hare a “right” to harrass people entering a polling place? They don’t. Hence, they were asked to leave. Seems right to me. Again, just WHAT is it that makes Repubbies want to discourage voting? I don’t get it.
I don’t know why Larry says they weren’t poll watchers. “Poll observer” is just another term for “poll watcher.” The law allows them to be there. Of course no poll watcher can harass voters. and Larry has absolutely no proof such a thing happened, or he would provide it.
Anyone whos ever voted knows it isn’t poll watchers who ask for ID. Its the folks who work at the polling place. The poll watchers … from both parties…just watch on. If I remember right, some of them keep track of names, I guess so they can call folks who haven’t voted and they think are likely to be on their side, and try to persuade them to come in at the last minute.
Smells like a partisan cover up?? Oh you mean like when President Bush approved torturing people and nothing happened to him? Or was it like the time when Bush approved spying on American’s and by doing so broke the law and he wasn’t impeached?
David- So Schweitzer/McGrath get a free pass on any abuses of office because you hate Bush? Grow up.
Voting is a right and it includes a responsibility to be eligible. You can’t vote if you are not correctly registered, if you are a felon, if you are underage, etc.
Everyone is injured when a vote is cast by an ineligible person.
An investigation or review of voting fraud charges is necessary to protect the value of every vote cast. It is poor judgement to ignore the issue.
Why is it wrong to verify the identity of a voter?
Why are fraudulent votes considered acceptable?
My dog “Slim” lives in Montana but he doesn’t have a right to vote.
Every fraudulent vote diminishes the value of votes cast by legal voters.