« FILING PERIOD OPENS FOR CANDIDATES | Home | MUST READ FROM MPR: “QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT HATCH-NEGOTIATED DEAL” »
MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “HATCH, SWANSON QUERIED IN 2006 DEAL†#2
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 1, 2008
This comment from my post about today’s Star Tribune story about Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles asking question about a court settlement involving a group that endorsed Mike Hatch’s campaign for governor warranted promotion:
“At what point does the Justice Department’s public corruption unit get involved in investigating this? Forget the legislative auditor. We’re now talking about defrauding Medicaid, folks. Anyway, as usual, the Strib’s coverage is tame (Hatch has been a favorite Pat Doyle source for years). The better coverage is online. See the Minnesota Independent story. It mentions DFL rep Simon (who deserves a permanent pass from the GOP for having the guts to pursue these corrupt jerks when nobody else would do it), and how he questions Nobles at yesterday’s hearing:
‘Specifically, Simon spoke of an employee who said he had been approached by Hatch (who, after Hatch’s gubernatorial defeat and Swanson’s AG victory in the 2006 elections, was serving as Swanson’s deputy) to create a blog post favorable to Swanson, a post Hatch had already composed for him. The employee said he refused to do this, but that Hatch posted it under the employee’s name anyway—and then wanted the employee to falsify his vacation time to cover the period when the blog post was made. Simon surmised that Nobles believed this matter lay outside his purview because the vacation time in question belonged to the employee, not the State of Minnesota, and thus could not be seen as misusing public funds. Nobles then replied that Simon’s account ‘was an accurate reflection of the testimony under oath,’ and one corroborated by other sources.’”
That’s your MN AG office, ladies and gentlemen. Whaddaya gonna do?” Source: Comment on Minnesota Democrats Exposed, July 1, 2008
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 8 Comments »
8 Responses to “MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “HATCH, SWANSON QUERIED IN 2006 DEAL†#2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Hatch and Swanson’s corruption is beyond a partisan issue now, as far as I’m concerned. Speaking as “far-left liberal,” it’s to the state’s benefit to get Swanson out of the AG’s office.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I think Michael is correct; that post warranted a promotion.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Didn’t Swanson at one point demote Simon within the AG’s office?
Seems to me this his is a case of courage backed by motive.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Leroy -
Did Mike tell you to post that? Old habits are hard to break, I guess.
Anyway, maybe you could explain to me why Simon made campaign contributions to Hatch and Swanson in 2006. Go ahead, look them up: every other reporter in town has. The Campaign Finance Board has a great site for that kind of thing.
And then, when you’re done, tell Mike that I’m really impressed that he’s still smearing opponents after all these years. I like a politician who shows some consistency.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Every time someone is brave enough to speak the truth about Hatch and Swanson, Hatch and Swanson find some way to smear them. Simon was simply asking the legislative auditor questions, and that makes him a disgruntled ex-employee? No wonder only a few people have been brave enough to go on the record with their allegations against Hatch/Swanson – if you speak the truth, you’ll be rewarded with baseless accusations and smear tactics. FYI, Simon was never demoted, and he left the office on good terms. Are all seven of the people who Nobles interviewed under oath disgruntled employees too?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Hey Leroy – did you make sure to mark your time sheet for vacation time while you posted that?
When you’ve got a chance, I’d really love to know how you square the fact that Simon is supposedly disgruntled with the fact that he gave campaign contributions to Hatch AND Swanson in 2006. Go ahead and take a look at the Campaign Finance Board site (pretty much every political reporter in Minnesota has), just to refresh your memory – and Mike’s.
It’s hard to believe that Mike Hatch could damage his credibility much more than he already has. But, then again, who would have ever thought that the Minnesota AG’s office would be facing allegations of Medicaid fraud, rigged settlements, and union breaking – under TWO AG’s. No amount of slander can cover up those facts.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Well that didn’t take long. Over at MinnPost, Eric Black demolishes the Hatch smear campaign against Steve Simon. See it here:
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/07/02/2445/hatch_attack_his_allegations_dont_fit_the_facts
Sounds like Mike Hatch, Minnesota’s biggest scumbag is coming unglued. Y’know, if you’re going to smear somebody, at least make sure that the allegations can’t be independently verified. Anybody out there know if Simon now has grounds for a slander suit?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Oh, good. Now I’m much more likely to believe Hatch’s defense of his settlement with Capital One.