Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is under a lot of fire. His all-Democrats-on-deck response thus far has been pretty telling. There have been two major lines of response from Schweitzer and the Montana Democrats:
1) Brian Schweitzer was just joking.
This was the original tack taken by the Governor’s office. What a kidder. Let me be clear: I have absolutely no doubt that Schweitzer was joking. And I’m sure everyone that was in the room knows he was joking too. You can hear them laughing in the recording. But that doesn’t get Schweitzer out of the storm.
Just because he was trying to be funny doesn’t mean that he wasn’t also telling the truth. People joke about things that really happened all the time. So the debate isn’t about whether or not Governor Schweitzer was joking when he bragged about tampering with a Federal election that impacted the balance of power in the United States Senate. The debate is about whether or not his jokes were completely fabricated or if they were based on actual events.
2) There’s not enough information to warrant an investigation.
This is the line taken by Attorney General Mike McGrath - a Democrat - when he promptly and rudely wrote off the need for an investigation into whether or not Schweitzer’s jokes were based in fact or completely fabricated. I have a few thoughts on this.
First, the purpose of an investigation is to discover the facts. It’s ludicrous to say that there shouldn’t be an investigation because there’s no support for charges - the whole point of an investigation is to gather the information to make that determination at the end of the investigation, not before. This is like saying there’s no reason to search for a cure for cancer because we don’t know how to cure cancer yet. The cart is way in front of the horse on this one, and McGrath knows it.
Second, if the Governor has nothing to hide, why isn’t he asking for an investigation to clear his good name? When the press reported that Senator Burns was being investigated in 2005, the first thing he did was send a letter asking that the investigation happen immediately and offer his full cooperation. That’s how an innocent man responds to allegations of impropriety. Which, of course, begs the question: Why is Schweitzer spending political capital to prevent an investigation that would clear his name if he was in fact innocent? Could it be that his jokes were true?
And that, loyal readers, is the beating of Schweitzer’s tell-tale heart.
Posted in Brian Schweitzer, MT Democrats, Mike McGrath | | Write a Letter to the Editor
the purpose of an investigation is to discover the facts
That is incorrect in a fundamental way. You are welcome to check with Gregg on this (since I know his knowledge vastly outstrips yours), but the purpose of an investigation is to ascertain whether or not there is cause for legal prosecution.
Now, Wiley, going off your previous record, I’m sure that you’re dim enough to say that I’ve just restated what you wrote. No, I’m not. Everyone who wishes harm to a politician screams loudly about “facts”, and if the “facts” don’t lead to a desired result, they scream for more “facts” with no definition of what the “facts” being sought are. I will actually concede (minimally) that that is precisely what happened with Conrad Burns. (The difference is that there was significant and apparent reason to begin an investigation of the actions of Conrad Burns. With the latest news concerning Ring, there may still be reason to continue that investigation, despite all you wingnuts claiming that he was “exonerated”)
I, too, would like an investigation into the claims of Brian Schweitzer, though it would likely only prove that he can be a blowhard, and you folks are accusing him of criminality unfairly. But see, here’s the dealie, we don’t have all the “facts”, nor are we owed them. McGrath’s only obligation is to discern whether or not there is sufficient evidence that suggests that Brian broke the law. He has ruled that there is not sufficient evidence for an investigation, and your desire for the “facts” can go piss up a rope. You only want the “facts” that will help you in an election that you look to be losing. You want an “investigation” so that you can use it in campaign commercials. What it is clear that you don’t value is actual justice or rule of law.
Whatever happened to sunshine and accountability in elected officials? Wulfie, here’s what you don’t seem to get. As much as Brian Schweitzer represents me, more importantly, he actually works for me.
Yes, I am owed honest “facts.”
But even without facts, I think McGrath is wrong in his assertion that there isn’t enough evidence to warrant a criminal investigation. As Gregg pointed out, admission of action is evidence in Montana.
And the fact that Schweitzer shares political party and has maxed out to McGrath’s campaign strongly suggests an ulterior motive. Wulfgar, if the roles were reverse, are you telling me you wouldn’t be crying foul?
[…] latest Republican flop has been the gnashing of teeth and wailing by the Montana Republican Party about some remarks made in jest by […]
Excuse me, dumbass, but I already clarified that I want an investigation. What part of that did you miss, except all of it?
[…] before and decide to write about something, among other activities. Check this out. And, this, this, and this. And never out of step, this […]
Schweitezr was joking?? Its this kind of crap that,s also making a joke of ower political process.
