« COMING SOON: NEW INFORMATION IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT WALZ’S 96 MPH DRUNK DRIVING ARREST | Home | NEW INFORMATION IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT WALZ’S 96 MPH DRUNK DRIVING ARREST #2 »
BREAKING NEWS: NEW INFORMATION IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT WALZ’S 96 MPH DRUNK DRIVING ARREST
By Michael Brodkorb | October 16, 2006
When I first exposed Tim Walz's 96 mph drunk driving arrest, Walz's campaign downplayed the incident:
"'The DUI charges were dropped for a reason,' Salsbery said. 'The judge would not have dismissed them if there were anything to them. Tim drove to the police station that night (after being stopped), and he drove home afterwards. I don’t think the trooper would have allowed that if he thought there was a problem.'" Source: New Ulm Journal, September 8, 2006
But based on new information sent to Minnesota Democrats Exposed, the credibility of statements made by Walz's campaign are now in doubt.
1. According to court transcripts, Walz was driving with a .128 blood alcohol content.
2. The judge lectured Walz [pgs. 10-11] about the hazards of drinking and driving.
Contrary to statements made by Walz's campaign, this is further evidence that Walz was drunk when he was arrested for driving 96 in a 55 MPH zone:
"Walz's campaign manager Kerry Greeley didn't dispute that Walz was speeding when he was pulled over that night, but she said Walz was not drunk. She attributed the misunderstanding to Walz's deafness, a condition resulting from his years of serving as an artillerist in the Army National Guard. Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, September 7, 2006
There is no evidence in the court transcript provided to Minnesota Democrats Exposed of the court/judge chastising the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf, as Walz's campaign has claimed:
"She [Kerry Greeley] said deaf people also can have balance issues. The judge eventually threw out the DUI charges against Walz and chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf, Greeley said." Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, September 7, 2006
I will remind the dedicated readers of Minnesota Democrats Exposed of that this is now potentialy the second time I have exposed inaccurrate statements from Walz's campaign about his 96 mph drunk driving arrest.
Walz's campaign originally claimed Walz drove to the police station after his arrest, but according to this police report from Walz's arrest, Walz was transported to a local hopital where a blood test was taken.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 23 Comments »
23 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: NEW INFORMATION IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT WALZ’S 96 MPH DRUNK DRIVING ARREST”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:15 PM
Who cares?
October 16th, 2006 at 2:15 PM
Nice work Michael. These documents are indisputable proof that it wasn’t just a misunderstanding due to hearing loss, it was a DUI arrest and he was pleaded down to the Reckless Driving charge. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:16 PM
… yawn.
Sorry Michael, but this isn’t that compelling. Of course they lied. That’s what Democrats do.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:16 PM
There’s no possible way that Tim Walz could have been drunk.
Roving Reporter, Brian Hanna, AlexL and the other assorted DFL ass-wipes will say he wasn’t and that this is nothing but mean-spirited and divisive tactics by the GOP hate machine.
And gosh, who are we to question their knowledge…right?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Check his other facts on his bio. Not accurate at all.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:16 PM
I will not say anything about if he was drunk or not. I will say only this. After the case was heard, Tim Walz ended up with a reckless driving charge. He was never charged with DUI.
If Alan Fine never being charged with domestic assault is proof that he didn’t do it, then I would assume you would all believe that Tim Walz not being charged with DUI is similarly accurate proof that he didn’t do it.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Having a charge completely dropped is quite a bit different from plea barganing down to a lesser charge. The judge even talked to him about driving under the influence and how a second charge would carry much more severe consequences. Walz got off easy on the DUI charge, but he’s not going to get off easy on the coverup.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:17 PM
Who cares?
Let’s see….the DFL is running a DRUNK for Congress while mocking someone who has admitted to having past problems in that area (Ramstad).
Seems to me the DFL cares only when it’s a Republican. When it’s their guy (drunks using the Capitol building for booze parties), it’s “who cares?”.
The double standard continues…
October 16th, 2006 at 4:22 PM
Do you truly think there are a lot of democrats in the 1st who read this site?
The media has been lied to enough by Michael to keep his stuff out of the MSM, so really the only chance you have to influence the race with this old crap is to convince southern Minnesota democrats not only to come here, but to believe what they read.
That’s a mighty tall order.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:02 PM
MDE – you can really tell when you’ve hit a nerve when the liberal spin machine gets going like this. Roving Brown Shirt is in an obvious tizzy and can’t defend his guy. He’s got to go on the personal attack.
A badge of honor, Michael, a badge of honor.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:12 PM
What is to defend? The next congressman from the first district was charged with reckless driving over a decade ago. He has admitted as much on the campaign trail, and he did so BEFORE this MDEvestigation was ever started.
I certainly HOPE Michael keeps up on this tact. The more time he spends attacking candidates who have already sealed their victories, it is less time for him to spend attacking democrats who still stand a chance of losing.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Wonder why it was such a big deal over George Bush? Could there be a obvious double standard.
oh, of course not.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:04 PM
George Bush was charged with DUI. That means that his actions were so eggregious that he was unable to plea bargain down to reckless driving.
THAT is what the main difference was.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:02 PM
I hate it when, on the news value of this, I agree with Rover… what’s the world coming to?
LOL
October 16th, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Appocolypse has arrived.
If I ever agree with Diane, you will know that Satan has not only laced up the skates, but he is taking some warm-up laps around the recently frozen over hell.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:23 PM
I have seen a few people trying to defend Tim by saying he was deaf. Tim continued to serve in the Army National Guard for 10 years after this, and I know from personal experience he can hear just fine. The fact that he remained in the military indicates that he did not have a significant hearing loss. With that said, it was a long time ago, and really Tim’s more recent biographical lies and distortions are much more relavant issues.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:06 AM
I am so uninformed….Tell me about the distortions.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:42 AM
Rover,
Now that was funny.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:19 AM
I guess I’m out of the loop here. Can you give me examples of the biographical distortions, and how you know they are distortions? Looking for an education.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Ask him how long he taught on the South Dakota reservation he speaks about? Does a couple of weeks of internship qualify for how his bio is listed?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Ask him if he knows how to start a tractor since he said he grew up farming. You might be suprised at the answer. Grew up farming, I don’t think so.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Are you talking about:
“Walz worked a number of odd jobs before accepting a temporary teaching position at the Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.”
Is there more?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Is that this line:
“Raised in a rural community, Walz spent his summers farming with his extended family.”
Is there more?