« PURE INCOMPETENCE: 36 HOURS AFTER POLLS CLOSE, ELECTIONS RESULTS DON’T APPEAR ON SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE’S WEBSITE | Home | MORE BIG HYPOCRISY: FRANKEN CLAIMS “HE’LL STAND UP TO SPECIAL INTERESTS”, YET HAS TEXAS FUNDRAISER HOSTED BY LOBBYIST FOR “BIG PHARMA” »
RITCHIE’S OFFICE MISSES DEADLINE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE KOHLS; KOHLS WILL REQUEST HEARING TO INVESTIGATE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 8, 2007
Earlier this week, Representative Paul Kohls sent a letter to Secretary of State Ritchie requesting information regarding allegations that representatives of various constituency groups communicating with Ritchie's official office regarding passage of legislation the "Safe at Home" program have been receiving campaign updates from Ritchie's campaign.
Kohl's letter requested that Ritchie respond by 5:00 p.m. yesterday to his questions:
"Given the seriousness of the allegations, I request that you provide me with written responses to these questions by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2007. If I do not hear from you by that time, I will be asking Representative Mullery, the Chair of the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee to schedule a hearing to further investigate this matter." Source: Representative Kohls letter to Secretary of State Ritchie, November 5, 2007
I can confirm that Secretary of State Ritchie did not respond by the 5:00 p.m. deadline and that Representative Kohls will be sending a letter to Representative Mullery requesting a hearing "to further investigate this matter."
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed throughout the day for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 26 Comments »
26 Responses to “RITCHIE’S OFFICE MISSES DEADLINE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE KOHLS; KOHLS WILL REQUEST HEARING TO INVESTIGATE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Why should he follow imaginary deadlines?
I am sure people are rioting in the streets at the news!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:13 PM
It was actually a real deadline.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:28 PM
heights you’re overlooking:
One, if Mary K had acted the same way the media will be hollowing mad. Shows the double standard we’re talking about.
Two, if I had done this I will be screaming as fast as I can to show I did nothing wrong. Ritchie has been screaming silence.
Three, Ritchie has now put at least one Democrat on the spot (Mullery) to show they are trying to hold Ritchie accountable. Maybe because he comes from a safe district Mullery might think it’s safe not to hold a hearing, but there are a lot of Democrats who won by a narrow margin. Do they want their opponents to be handed a free campaign issue? That’s what is coming and just ask Republicans last year some of their loses in House races nationally came because they were linked to covering up for Foley.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 2:07 PM
His deadline is carries no legal weight, therefore it is an imaginary deadline. I could submit various questions to Rep. Kohls and demand an answer by 3:00, who cares? Until the auditor’s comments come out you are just trying keep the story alive.
Walter, the story was reported in the Strib and other msm outlets wasn’t it? You got your hit, it’s time to realize it doesn’t have the legs you thought it did.
Take a look outside the bubble once and awhile.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Great points Walter.
Look at Ritchie’s campaign site and you will still find a list of the legislators that took a chance and endorsed this guy despite his “communist” baggage. The list includes the Speaker of the House, and Assistant Majority Leader Melissa Hortman (who must defend a suburban swing district).
November 8th, 2007 at 2:12 PM
So, the SoS is accountable to no one? Funny, I thought constitutional officeholders were accountable to the people… as represented by the House. …
It’s time for investigations in to the SoS’s theft of state property, and the illegal use of state data to fund a political campaign.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Other imaginary deadlines for Mark Ritchie include:
Election Day.
Given the financial crisis at the DFL, one has to wonder who else gets Ritchie’s stolen email lists?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:13 PM
The current Minnesota Secretary of State cannot be trusted to oversee elections. His theft of state property and his extreme partisan use of his office have made him untrustworthy.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Heights:
Get a little real.
One, this deadline has now changed the situation. Before missing the deadline you could argue that just a couple of Republicans were having fun with no Democrats having to worry. Mullery now has to give a “Yes” or “No” to a hearing. He’s on the hook no if’s, ands, ors, buts. Mullery might just even call for the hearing. He’s from a safe district in Minneapolis if it’s the rep I’m think about, but if he doesn’t every single person campaigning for the Minnesota House can point out the Democrat party doesn’t want to keep the public protected because there were no hearings or investigations on Mark Ritchie. That they were protecting him while they went after a bunch of Republicans. That isn’t good to have on your resume for running for reelection.
Two, Heights I’m a “Public Employee” I’ll put this in capital letters since you don’t understand this point, I CAN BE FIRED FOR MISUSING PUBLIC DATA EVEN IF IT CAN BE SOLD AND THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLANATION BY RITCHIE TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS ISN’T MISUSED PUBLIC DATA!!!!!
Three, the Strip reported the first part the people who had meetings. They have been strangely silent on reporting this part which are more serious charges. Maybe if Ritchie had sent a horrible email about sex that would be front page news for days even though this is far more serious.
Four, for your comparison with Kohl to work there has to be a charge of wrong doing he did that needs to be responded to. What has he done wrong? Ritchie at a minimum has created the impression a program whose people deserve privacy protections has been violated, email addresses which shouldn’t leave the Secretary of State’s Office has gotten into the hands of his campaign committee, ritchie has created the impression that to do business with my office I’ll like a campaign donation. Isn’t that enough to scare you a little bit?
Five, while I won’t be running for Secretary of State anybody who is running against Ritchie can ask what on Earth is a nonpartisian Secretary of State that can ask for campaign donations or how is this man protecting us when our personal information shows up at his campaign headquarters. The hit on Ritchie is permanent and maybe deadly! Especially given the fact that he ran for office saying the Secretary of State’s office needed to be cleaned up.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Rep. Kohls was merely trying to avoid the time and money it takes to hold hearings if there was a credible reason for these folks being hit up for campaign donations.
I wish the Democrats had the same appreciation.
Without all of the facts, the public is left with the impression that the SOS office is Pay 2 Play. The stalling indicates that the facts will prove this out.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:47 PM
The SOS is elected by the entire state and is accountable to the entire state, not one representative with a political agenda. If the voters feel that this is a big deal, they will let him know at the next election. That is what happened to Mary Kiffmeyer. There is accountability but not to one lone representative. Next?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Were that true Scott, that would be terrific. However, less than half the state voted for Mark Ritchie. The majority of the state did not vote for Mark Ritchie. Since that disaster, he has demonstrated to be nothing but a partisan, working for his own interests and for his partisan pals.
Further, he is proving to be an arrogant asshole — like most liberals — refusing to account for his theft and mis-use of public data.
Mark Ritchie cannot be trusted. It’s time for him to go.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:15 PM
The local DFL is going to be in hot water for 2008!
They think they can just keep putting up total boobs like Ritchie and expect no one to notice.
I look forward to seeing Ritchie’s one term come to an end.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Scott:
I live on a planet called Earth. Do you live on Mars or some other planet? Under your theory Mark Ritchie even though he has to the best of my knowledge has been caught breaking the law you’re saying not only can Mark keep his job until 2010 he can keep breaking the law.
Furthermore, what if a person can’t legally run for reelection. How are they accountable for? The Democrat controlled Senate for example in order to try to change President Bush’s position on torture tried to bury in committee the nominee for Attorney General until two Democrats deserted ship.
The legislature has a job called check and balances. That is what Mr. ritchie needs right now SOME CHECKING!!!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Prove me wrong here because I have a theory that “conservatives” have a really hard time communicating without resorting to name calling. I consider myself “liberal” because I subscribe to the idea that we should be open to considering all sides of an issue before coming to a rational decision. Does that make me an “arrogant asshole”? The problem with labeling and name calling is that it proves to be counterproductive. It negates the point you are trying to make to the other 66% of the population that you don’t represent. If you want to be taken seriously by the majority, you need to bring the level of discourse up a notch, or two. Can conservatives communicate with out using name calling? Please prove to me it can be done. Is this how you talk to your parents, neighbors, coworkers etc?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Scott you say you’re fair minded so if you think I named called by asking did you live on a planet other than Earth. I was just surprised by your comment since I got the impression so if I’m wrong show it:
Your position is Mark Ritchie got elected Secretary of State in 2006. Until 2010 he can run his office anyway he sees fit. So what if it appears he is breaking the law.
Explain where I have the position wrong? Because if that is your position it is a very silly position.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 6:32 PM
“I consider myself “liberal†because I subscribe to the idea that we should be open to considering all sides of an issue before coming to a rational decision.”
Name one “rational decision” any liberal has ever made.
P.S. What gives you the idea that you are 66 percent of the population? Only about 30-35 percent call themselves Democrats. Further, fewer than 50 percent voted for Mark Ritchie…. even fewer voted for your gubernatorial candidate.
How about the 70 percent of the population that liberals DO NOT REPRESENT?
So, other than changing the subject, what else do you have to say…
As for calling liberals “arrogant assholes”… well, if the shoe fits.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Hell Walter, Scott seems to think Ritchie was elected by the whole state. He doesn’t seem to mind that the majority of Minnesotans voted against Mark Ritchie.
Why bother with facts. Liberals don’t have much use for those.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:36 PM
chestnut he seems to think we can have a debate. I’m just trying to have a debate. If Scott runs away this will be about the fourth person who has tried to defend Mark and stopped. Where is Mark Ritchie’s champion?
More importantly where is Mark Ritchie?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 9:16 PM
So for all of you who are talking about how Ritchie was elected by the whole state (which is amusing since 49% is more than Kiffmeyer my got in her elections), I’ll look forward to you reading about your support of Instant Runoff Voting.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Instant Runoff Voting is another retarded liberal idea intended only to give ignorant liberal voters an alternative to making a choice in their election.
Still, the issue is irrelevant to this discussion. The point of Ritchie failing to be elected by more than 50 percent of the public, only refutes the silly, stupid notion that he was “elected by the whole state.”
Arguably, even had that worthless, lying, thieving bastard won with 70 percent of the vote, he still would not have been “elected by the whole state.”
You clearly don’t know, “WhoKnows?”… dumb.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Who I think you should read the sequence that took place:
Scott in #11 made the foolish claim that the Mark Ritchie had been elected and accountable by the whole state.
Chestnut in #12 put in the line before a couple of other people could that Ritchie didn’t even get 50% of the vote.
Chestnut and Scott than had an argument about percentage of people who are conservatives and liberals.
To the best of my knowledge no one endorsed the concept of Democrat win runoff with maybe the exception of Scott. I certainly don’t. I think the person with the most votes should win, because run offs will allow Democrats to win and extreme liberals to vote their conscious to avoid situations like 2000 where a vote for Nader might cost Gore the election.
Your comment about people like me and Chestnut are out of line. What has us so mad with Scott is he thinks since Mark Ritchie won in 2006 Ritchie can break the law in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and not be held accountable until election day assuming he runs for reelection.
That is wrong! Or do you suppose Scott’s crazy position?
By the way Scott where are you? Did you get lost on your home on Mars?
Walter Hanson
Mineapolis, MN
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 PM
It’s pretty typical liberal tactics in a debate. They shift it. Scott uttered his nonsense, got called on it, and then he complained about something that had nothing to do with the question at hand. He might be a smarter or better worded “less dumb liberal” because he didn’t try to come back and defend his prior stupid statements. In fact, he is probably a 17 year old kid who doesn’t know how stupid he is. He’ll probably be a registered Republican in about 5 years. It will take that long for him to part the fog of indoctrination he has encountered.
And then, WhoKnows comes in and tries to shift the debate to Kiffmeyer. Anything to not have to talk about the issue at hand…
I would like to know where Scott came up with the 66% of people who aren’t Conservative… Talking about polls, I think every single one I’ve seen says that about 10% of the population identify as liberals… Scott, where do you get your numbers?
And Conservatives call names? I would call Al Franken a liberal(part of your insane 66%), does he call names???????????
Scott, find your brain, dust it off, shake it a little to get things right, and then come back with some kind of rational real world statement. Otherwise, play guitar hero and save us the time.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Maybe I was mean spirited. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives like me explain their point and then call you stupid and liberals ignore the issue at hand and insult you personally or for something entirely unrelated.
So I’m sorry Scott. My bad for calling you “names”. I’ll just have to try to live with myself in that non-66%…lol.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Yeah, but Scott seems to be the first person who has ever had the nerve to right since you win an election you don’t have to worry about your conduct! I wish Scott will come back. I suppose his not being here shows just he learned how stupid it was.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 9th, 2007 at 10:47 AM
BIG NEWS FOLKS. If I understand the House committee structure right the person who will chair this meeting is rep Joe Mullery of House District 58A. Not realizing that he was the person I sent an email on Wednesday night asking for him to call for an investigation of Mark Ritchie. Due to the nature of Mullery’s website I couldn’t copy the email I sent. MULLERY DIDN’T RESPOND SO IT LOOKS LIKE HE WANTS TO COVER UP FOR MARK RITCHIE!!!!!!!
I sent an email to Linda Higgins my state sentator. She didn’t respond. It looks like she wants to coverup for Mark Ritchie.
I sent an email to Mark Ritchie’s campaign pointing out he should resign because he appears to broke two of his four promises. No response from the campaign website.
I even sent an email to Mark Ritchie’s Secretary of State office asking that he resign. No response!!!
I guess the Democrats are in full coverup mode now!!!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN