« MDE EXCLUSIVE: DID DENISE DITTRICH FAIL TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? #8 | Home | 5TH CD DEBATE ON MPR AT NOON »
MDE EXCLUSIVE: DID DENISE DITTRICH FAIL TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? #9
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 24, 2006
A dedicated reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed created a web ad about Representative Denise Dittrich’s conflict of interest. This video highlights how Dittrich’s property has increased in value by 34.3% in the last year.
I’ve been informed this property is in the process of being sold. I’ll try and provide documentation of the potential impending sale. If this property is being sold, then Dittrich has made a nice profit thanks to legislation she authored.
Topics: Uncategorized | 34 Comments »
34 Responses to “MDE EXCLUSIVE: DID DENISE DITTRICH FAIL TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? #9”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Congratulations! You have oficially surpassed your previous record of number of different posts with the exact same story lacking in actual news value.
Brian Hanna thought Julianne Ortmann was in the wrong, and rather than sit on a website and pass judgement, he sacked up and filed the complaint. His complaint failed, but I have a ton more respect for him than I do for the lot of you who cower under the porch yapping at everyone who comes by, never posessing the strength of your convictions to acually confront the people and situations you claim to detest.
If you really think there is something wrong here, the choice is yours. You can stand up to the percieved injustice and take action by filing a formal complaint, or, you can climb back under the porch like the cowards that you are and wait for Ron Carey to create another faux scandal for you to aimlessly yap about.
The choice is yours.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:14 am
OK….I will inquire one more time. When will MDE be exposing Lt. Governor Molnau’s conflict of interest regarding the sale of her Chaska “Farm’ property while she was Chair of the House Transportation Finance Committee? It is fairly well documented that the Hoghway #212 project greatly inflated her final value and landed a windfall of money into her lap due to the finance bill she authored.
Or, do you only point fingers at Dems?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Yes, I only point fingers at Democrats. The name of this blog is Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Honesty is overrated, anyway.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:32 am
What’s not honest? The name of the blog is Minnesota DEMOCRATS Exposed. If you think it’s somehow dishonest not too present the hypocrisy of both sides go tell it to Kos/DD/MediaMatters. Otherwise, as has been suggested many, many times, start your own blog.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Honesty Is Over-Rated.
I think Roving Retard just came up with the DFL’s unified campaign slogan for the 2006 election cycle!
August 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Two words for you Steve. I RAQ. Until you show me evidence of a democratic lie (or neverending stream of lies) that cost us thousands of servicemen, I encourage you to exercize your right to remain silent.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Roving Retread, this Iraq thing has been beaten to death time and time again.
You and your fellow traveller/useful idiot types have never proved your point (that the war was based on lies) – and frankly, you never will.
Now why don’t you go back to working on those DFL campaign slogans/themes?
You seem to be much better at that then making a coherent point.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I think the fact that there were no WMD’s proved my point.
I think the fact that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda proved my point.
I think the fact that he announced the war to be mission accomplished 2 years and 1,500 soldiers ago proves my point.
I think that all of the lines from the administration about how shock and awe would have the surrendering in days proves my point.
I could literally go on for weeks, but I think you get my point.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
“Brian Hanna thought Julianne Ortmann was in the wrong, and rather than sit on a website and pass judgement, he sacked up and filed the complaint. His complaint failed, but I have a ton more respect for him than I do for the lot of you . . ”
- – -
Just means he’s a CONFIDENT ignorant blowhard. Doesn’t give his “why should I have to read the law when I just FEEL like it’s bad” stupidity any more merit than it had independently.
Actually, though, on second thought, that’s giving BH more moral credit than he perhaps deserves. It’s much more likely that, knowing that there was no basis for his complaint, he made it anyway simply because he knew he would have a bigger audience for his lies.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
And yet most of your party voted to go to war in Iraq.
Remember? Your party voted for the war before they voted against it.
Spare us the lecture. Your party has zero credibility on this issue.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
I could literally go on for weeks, but I think you get my point.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Ooh, I forgot this good one.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
August 24th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Schoolsout and Roving asks a very good question, and you and your girls say: “get your own blog?”
Come on!
It’s like saying, “LISTEN TO ME!”…but nothing else.
That’s what makes blogs like this soooo weak. You all toss noodles against the wall to see what sticks, but if others toss the noodles, you take your ball home.
Weak, weak and triple weak.
Cast your votes!!!!!!
I nominate Roving and Schoolsout as the bloggers of the week on this site.
I nominate MDE and PJ as weak of the week.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Raving, your party doesn’t even know who we are at war with. Michael Brown recently said in an interview that President Bush is paying too much attention to Islamic terrorists and not enough attention to Timothy McVeigh home grown (ie. caucasian) terrorists. Pretty hilarious.
Your party also continues to lie about the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. You have twisted the truth, which is that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 into Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. You act like Saddam was the Prime Minister of Australia. Funny that Saddam had an intelligence agent meet with Mohammad Atta in Prague. Nerd Lamont went so far as to say that we should have left Saddam in power because it upset the balance of power in the Middle East now that there isn’t anyone to fight with Iran anymore.
Funny too that Bill Clinton told the world that Saddam was a threat with WMDs. John Kerry even said that if you didn’t think Iraq was a threat to the U.S., you shouldn’t vote for him. Was that before or after he said that he voted for the funding for our troops before he voted against it? Never mind.
All I can say is don’t let the truth hit you in the ass on your way out the door.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:14 am
The DFL party does what makes them feel good and nothing more. It’s time they start thinking and acting like adults and stop playing games with real issues like Iraq and Terrorism. What scares me and most American’s is what would happen if the liberal cowards and apologists (Gore or Kerry) actually were in charge when something like 911 happened. Would they have just given up and paid the ransom that is our freedom and the US Constitution? My guess and most of America’s is YES. Shame on Democrats for giving America a reason to think this way about how liberals hate the US and what we are. Don’t democrats really care about our kids who serve the will of the US or do they only care about the political points they can make and how they can trick the undecided into voting for more of their lies and distortions.
What really pisses democrats off more than anything else is sites like MDE that expose them and the baseless lies they perpetrate on people everyday. Let’s face it, they even hate freedom of speech since they want to control what is being said here on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Sure they control the content and comments on all of the liberal Blog’s since it’s a rarity for any of them to allow unedited or being pre approved before being posted.
I’ll always support the right to speak truth when it is actually the truth. When the post is simply lies and unsupported and self-serving crap, then they need to be exposed and shown the door.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:26 am
// this Iraq thing has been beaten to death time and time again. //
Ah, no. That would be the abused prisoners that were beaten to death you are thinking of.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:32 am
wtm: // Your party voted for the war before they voted against it. //
The Dems voted for a show of solidarity because they were promised we needed it before going to the UN.
The Dems voted for the AUMF because we (and the American people) were told “Mushroom cloud” and “we know exactly where the WMFs are”.
Both were lies told to us by the President. He had been planning the war for months, fixing the intelligence around the policy. No WMDs were ever found, despite an intense search.
Invading and bombing Iraq, torture and abuses of prisoners, and plans to stay permanently have turned Iraqis and the world’s opinion against us. A coordinated, targetting, well-planned and limited engagement would have served our purposes much better.
The facts: sanctions and inspections worked. War didn’t. You lose.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:33 am
MON: // It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. //
Yep, based on the lies she was told.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:37 am
bobby_b: // It’s much more likely that, knowing that there was no basis for his complaint, he made it anyway simply because he knew he would have a bigger audience for his lies. //
I don’t think you would recognize a principled action if you fell over one.
Let me give a clue… again. If you want to call people names, at least have the courage to sign your own name when you do it.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:40 am
MON: // (saved up, carefully prepared quotes of misled Democrats, lied to about WMDs) //
Well, you certainly had that prepared, didn’t you?
It all stemmed from the lies they were told, by your boys in the WH.
What were they supposed to do? Not believe what they were told by the President?
They know better now. If his lips are moving…
August 25th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Chris: // You have twisted the truth, which is that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 into Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. … Nerd Lamont went so far as to say that we should have left Saddam in power because it upset the balance of power in the Middle East now that there isn’t anyone to fight with Iran anymore. //
But Chris… there WAS no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda!
And we DID upset the balance of power in that part of the world!
Sanctions and inspections worked to disarm Hussein. And sanctions and law enforcement worked to disarm Qadaffi and turn him away from terrorism.
We need to get back to dealing with terrorism like the rest of the civilized world: with cooperative law enforcement action.
This Iraq colony has got to be freed.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:50 am
KenT: //Would they have just given up and paid the ransom that is our freedom and the US Constitution? //
That would be the sound of George “this law doesn’t apply to me” Bush shredding the Constitution that you hear.
// Sure they control the content and comments on all of the liberal Blog’s since it’s a rarity for any of them to allow unedited or being pre approved before being posted. //
I have no problem with you spouting your lies. Just don’t expect them to go unchallenged. That’s what freedom of speech is all about.
And it seems to me that MB moderates some of the posts on this board. But I don’t on my blog.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:35 am
“It all stemmed from the lies they were told, by your boys in the WH.”
Look at the dates for the first SEVEN quotes, and then tell me who was in the WH at that time.
Here, I’ll help you cause I know reading is difficult for you.
-President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
August 25th, 2006 at 9:35 am
So what does the war on Iraq and weapons of mass distruction have anything to do with Denise Dittrich and her excusing herself from the stadium vote and her profiting from Northstar. Can we get this discussion back on track.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Brian, how do you find the time to post anything on your much anticipated blog when your so busy posting 24/7 here on MDE? Since you are ranting and raving, what could you have to say of conciquence that isn’t already discussed here? We all know you are already just making up 98% of each and every post and have a problem with ADD sice you never stay on point.
By the way, challege me all you like, facts are facts and I stand by my earlier comments.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
MON: // Look at the dates for the first SEVEN quotes, and then tell me who was in the WH at that time. //
I thought you weren’t talking to me.
I missed that some of your quotes were from 1998. Seems that Clinton was facing down Hussein over inspections. Here’s a speech he made at the time, urging inspections and threatening action.
// The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
…
Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
…
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.
And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq’s activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.
The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions. //
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
Check that out. Strike him again. Enforce inspections and sanctions, and if he rebuilds his arsenal, strike him again.
Not invade his country, depose him, and create conditions for civil war.
Clinton understood that diplomacy is a long-term process, and it is better to engage with long-term, sustainable solutions: inspections, sanctions, strong alliances, and shared information.
Clinton’s approach worked with Libya, and was working with Iraq.
Bush’s go-it-alone, invade-it-and-keep-it policy is very much different approach.
You can pretend that Democrats supported Bush’s invasion because of statement they made about Iraq in earlier years, but it won’t wash.
Bush took the wrong approach in Iraq, and America is paying the price.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
KenT, your post was pretty much full of non-facts, i.e. opinions and beliefs. Like you, I support people speaking up with the truth.
Unlike you, I see problems with Bush’s flaunting the law.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
“You can pretend that Democrats supported Bush’s invasion because of statement they made about Iraq in earlier years, but it won’t wash.”
No, their votes are all the proof I need. But you can’t say Bush lied, when the Clinton’s were saying the exact same thing from the exact same intelligence, but some how, I think you will continue with the “Bush Lied” screed.
“Clinton’s approach worked with Libya, and was working with Iraq. ”
That’s a joke, Libya flipped soon after the bombs fell on Iraq. Sadam kicked out the inspectors under Clinton, and only let them back in when Bush placed tanks on his border. Your version of history needs a little (ahem) work.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:25 am
BH
Fact: People with opinions and beliefs vote.
Fact: Your Blog is crap.
Fact: You think you are smarter than everyone in the room and feel the need to tell everyone you are.
Fact: Your posts are usually too long, not to the point, off subject and completly “Wag the Dog” so that people might possibly look elsewhere other than at the facts.
Fact: You need to see the world for what it is, not what you and KOS think it is.
Fact: You are a paranoid little nobody!
Fact, Fact Fact.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Fact: The DFL in Minnesota has a problem with the illegal activities of a number their candidates and has decided to deflect and lie about it in order to keep supporting liars, law breakers, hate filled maniacs and an ex-terrorist.
Fact: MDE is exposing you and you kind so that average Minnesota won’t make the same mistake as your Kool-Aid drinking zealots who chose Ellison, Dittrich, Erlandson, Hatch and their ilk to represent the values of deception and lies.
Fact: The Democrats still support and hope for Kathleen Soliah (SJO) to come home and rejoin them because they miss their favorite terrorist.
Fact: Even though Minneapolis is 100% controlled by Democrats and ultra left wing liberals (many of which have been indicted and are now, or will be serving time) you still blame others for the mess you made for yourselves… a crime infested cesspool with an escalating murder rate. All the while you blame it on others when in reality it’s the leadership from within Mpls that has caused crime to flourish and go unchecked. Even if the hard working cops could do something, Keith Ellison would be there to bail out the worst of the worst and Amy would let him for the sake of party unity.
More facts, more reason not to trust any Democrat for any reason.
August 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Brian, you are a terrorist defender and a fu–ing moron. You don’t deserve to live in a country as great as ours. Maybe you should move to France.
August 26th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
You know what Brian, people like you are pathetic. You are actually rooting for your country to lose. I’m going to Dixie-Chix you and say that I am ashamed that Brian Hanna is an American.
August 26th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Brian,
You are a liar yourself. You said, “Clinton’s approach worked with Libya…” Bullshit. Libya declared its WMDs and disarmed after Bush went to war with Saddam not under Clinton. You better not call Bush a liar anymore when you can’t even tell the truth yourself.