Brian Melendez has this defending the indefensible thing down cold. The only problem is that he’s defending the indefensible. Take his Strib op-ed as a perfect example of that. Here’s how he opens the op-ed:
I’ll give the Republicans one thing: They’ve done a good job of making a mountain out of a molehill, with partisan and increasingly strident attacks against Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Republican operatives have even called for his resignation, resorting to such overheated rhetoric as accusing him of a “betrayal of trust.” The press has taken the bait. But let’s examine the facts.
What Ritchie did was extremely common: His campaign accessed public data from the secretary of state’s office, which is both legal and appropriate. Not even the Republicans have suggested that any law or rule was broken. The Republican Party and its candidates, from the governor on down, obtain voter data from the secretary of state’s office. It would be against the law for the secretary of state to withhold public data from a campaign that requests it, even his own.
Let’s review the facts, facts which Michael has posted about & that I’ve posted about. Here’s something that Michael posted:
Below is the list I have complied with the supporting documentation. This is a very long post, but I encourage the dedicated readers of Minnesota Democrats Exposed to comment and send this post to their contacts.
#1. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie lied when he told the Star Tribune that he didn’t authorize the use of a list of attendees at the civic-education meeting by his campaign:
“But [Ritchie] said he did not authorize the use of the list for his campaign.” Source: Star Tribune, October 29, 2007 I believe this is a lie. Ritchie has now admitted that he “personally provided” this list to his campaign:
“Ritchie said Tuesday that he personally provided a copy of the directory to his campaign and requested that those on the list get a copy of his campaign’s civic engagement newsletter, which is distributed to about 12,000 individuals and groups whom he described as active in civic life in the state. Source: Star Tribune, November 20, 2007
#2. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie lied when he told the Star Tribune that he didn’t know how Giga and Tomczak’s names were included in the e-mail sent on October 22, 2007 by Ritchie’s campaign:
“Asked how Giga and Tomczak’s names were included in the campaign newsletter if they did not sign up for it, other than through the civic engagement list, Ritchie said: ‘Well, I don’t know about that.’” Source: Star Tribune, October 29, 2007 I believe this is a lie. Ritchie has now admitted that he “personally provided” this list to his campaign:
“Ritchie said Tuesday that he personally provided a copy of the directory to his campaign and requested that those on the list get a copy of his campaign’s civic engagement newsletter, which is distributed to about 12,000 individuals and groups whom he described as active in civic life in the state. Source: Star Tribune, November 20, 2007
On October 31, 2007, Representative Laura Brod and Representative Tom Emmer sent a letter to Secretary of State Ritchie’s office requesting information regarding allegations that Ritchie may have used his official office to fund his political machine.
Brod and Emmer asked Ritchie eleven questions. On November 9, 2007, a representative of Ritchie’s official office responded to Representative Brod and Emmer’s letter.
The next two lies I believe were told come directly from Secretary of State Ritchie’s official response to Representative Brod and Emmer’s letter. Ritchie’s letter was signed by Bert Black, legal advisor to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.
#3. Ritchie’s official office claimed the answer to the question asked by Representative Brod and Emmer of “[w]ho entered the data into the Mark Ritchie campaign database?” was “not known to the Office of the Secretary of State.”
I believe this is a lie. Ritchie has now admitted that he “personally provided” this list to his campaign:
“Ritchie said Tuesday that he personally provided a copy of the directory to his campaign and requested that those on the list get a copy of his campaign’s civic engagement newsletter, which is distributed to about 12,000 individuals and groups whom he described as active in civic life in the state. Source: Star Tribune, November 20, 2007
Since Ritchie’s provided this list to his campaign, Ritchie in fact knew who “entered the data into the Mark Ritchie campaign database.”
#4. Ritchie’s official office claimed the answer to the question of “who developed the campaign email distributed to Jack Tomczak and Mark Giga on October 22, 2007″ was “not known to the Office of the Secretary of State.”
I believe this is a lie. Ritchie has now admitted that he “personally provided” this list to his campaign:
“Ritchie said Tuesday that he personally provided a copy of the directory to his campaign and requested that those on the list get a copy of his campaign’s civic engagement newsletter, which is distributed to about 12,000 individuals and groups whom he described as active in civic life in the state. Source: Star Tribune, November 20, 2007
Since Ritchie provided the list to his campaign, Ritchie in fact knew the answer to who “developed the campaign email distributed to Jack Tomczak and Mark Giga…”
Ritchie also told John Croman from KARE-11 in an interview that “[o]ne of our volunteers typed in the names of the groups who said they were interested in civic education and civic engagement…” Once again, Ritchie statement to Croman proves that he knew who “developed the campaign email distributed to Jack Tomczak and Mark Giga…” contrary to information provided by his official office.
As I wrote on Wednesday evening, Ritchie’s interview with KARE-11 has created numerous problems for himself. In this interview, Ritchie provides specific details missing from his official office’s response to questions from Representative Brod and Emmer.
I also want to echo what former Secretary of State employee Kent Kaiser said about Bert Black, legal advisor to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Kaiser told me in an interview for Minnesota Democrats Exposed that Black is man of integrity and that he wouldn’t knowingly provide misleading or false statements to anyone, including legislators.
I completely agree, as I have spoken with Black on more than one occasion and he has been a total professional. Others that I have spoke with today agree with Kaiser that Black’s answer to the questions asked by Representative Brod and Emmer mentioned above are not consistent with Ritchie’s public statements to reporters.
My discussions with people about Black’s answers continually end with the agreement that his answer to Representative Brod and Emmer’s question must have been based on faulty information provided by Ritchie or a designated representative. The fault for the lie lies with Ritchie and not with Black.
#5. Secretary of State Ritchie lied when he told the Star Tribune his e-mail of October 22, 2007 was “not a vehicle for solicitation”:
“‘It [the newsletter] is distributed as an information source on civic engagement in Minnesota, not a vehicle for solicitation,’ Ritchie said. The Oct. 22 newsletter, however, invites recipients to an upcoming fundraiser and links to Ritchie’s campaign website for anyone wishing to donate to ‘help me cover my campaign related expenses for this year.’” Source: Star Tribune, November 20, 2007
As noted in the Star Tribune story of November 20, Ritchie’s campaign e-mail of October 22, 2007 ended with a solicitation for contributions:“Also, please join me for a NOVEMBER 2 Anniversary Party and Fundraiser, featuring author and radio commentator Jim Hightower, Friday, November 2, 5-7 p.m. at the home of Jeff and Emily Blodgett, 1437 Chelmsford in St. Paul. Check here for more details. If you can’t make it to this event but would like to help me cover my campaign related expenses for this year, you can donate online here. You can still qualify for the State of Minnesota refund of up to $100 per couple if you make your contribution in this year.” Source: Ritchie for Secretary of State email, October 22, 2007
It defies logic that Ritchie didn’t know that his own campaign’s e-mail of October 22, 2007 contain a solicitation for contribution. I believe Ritchie has lied.
Here’s another lie that I caught:
Previously, Ritchie had denied knowing how the campaign got the list. He now insists that it solicited contributions only to pay for the newsletter itself.
Here’s the key portion of the e-letter:
Here are two upcoming events, I invite you to join me:
On Oct. 25th I will be speaking at a remembrance service to mark the fifth anniversary of the deaths of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, Marcia Markuson Wellstone, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic and Will McLaughlin. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the service begins at 7:30 at the Coeur de St. Catherine Student Center, 2004 Randolph Ave. in St. Paul.
Also, please join me for a NOVEMBER 2 Anniversary Party and Fundraiser, featuring author and radio commentator Jim Hightower, Friday, November 2, 5-7 p.m. at the home of Jeff and Emily Blodgett, 1437 Chelmsford in St. Paul. Check here for more details. If you can’t make it to this event but would like to help me cover my campaign related expenses for this year, you can donate online here . You can still qualify for the State of Minnesota refund of up to $100 per couple if you make your contribution in this year.
NOVEMBER 2 is a voter registration organization that Mark Ritchie ran in 2004. Here are a few other organizations that NOVEMBER 2 worked with:
The November 2 Campaign, operating for the most part below the media radar, grew out of a decision by the NAACP National Voter Fund, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the People for the American Way Foundation, the USAction Education Fund, ACORN and 1,000 other nonpartisan groups to create a new kind of voter registration and mobilization effort. The point, explains Mark Ritchie, national coordinator for National Voice, the temporary coalition set up by the nonpartisan groups, is to reach people who aren’t touched by traditional campaigns. “There’s a huge group of Americans, many of them young people, women, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and other communities of color, who have become disengaged from the voting process, some by choice, some by neglect and some by forces beyond their control,†says Ritchie.
Mr. Ritchie can’t deny the fact that he lied again by saying that this solicitation was it soliciting “contributions only to pay for the newsletter itself.†The other point that Ritchie can’t defend is why it’d cost $100 per couple to defray the costs of an e-letter.
Let’s examine this Melendez statement:
What Ritchie did was extremely common: His campaign accessed public data from the secretary of state’s office, which is both legal and appropriate.
Let’s start by asking Mr. Melendez these questions:
1. If it’s such a common thing, why did Mr. Ritchie lie 6 times about what happened?
2. How would Mr. Melendez respond to the fact that Minnesota’s Data Practices Act says that (a) the names on a signup list can only be used for the purpose that the people were told they would be used & (b) the names could only be used by “a government entity”?
3. Is Mr. Melendez saying that other constitutional offices & politicians have done this before? If he is, can he cite anyone specifically?
I’m not holding my breath waiting for those answers. Let’s continue with this Menendez spin:
And when Ritchie misspoke about how his campaign accessed the data, he promptly and voluntarily corrected the record, and accepted responsibility for his mistake. The matter should have ended there.
Again, I’ll simply ask this question: How does someone misspeak 6 times? Not only did Mr. Ritchie lie 6 times, Mr. Ritchie lied to the (1) Legislative Auditor, (2) Reps. Emmer & Brod in their questionnaire and (3) to Strib reporter Mark Brunswick. That’s too much misspeaking for me to think that it’s just coincidence.
As evidenced by his repeated lies, it’s apparent that Mr. Ritchie didn’t “promptly and voluntarily” correct the record. He lied to a reporter, the Legislative Auditor and two elected representatives. That’s hardly the definition of promptly and voluntarily correcting the record.
Here’s another Melendez unsubstantiated allegation that needs refuting:
First, if a vacancy occurred, the Republican governor would appoint a new secretary of state, and would certainly appoint a loyal partisan, perhaps even Mary Kiffmeyer herself. But Minnesota voters ran Mary Kiffmeyer out of office because they rejected her agenda of voter suppression. Minnesotans want a secretary of state who will help people vote, not keep them from doing so. And on Ritchie’s watch, the Republican agenda of keeping voters they don’t like away from the polls just won’t fly. Republicans didn’t like the election results, so they’re creating a phony crisis as their way of undermining those results.
Accusing someone of voter suppression is a serious matter. If voter suppression happened, where’s Mr. Melendez’s proof supporting that allegation? Or is this just the DFL trotting out their line from last fall’s campaign? As I recall, those allegations weren’t substantiated either.
What’s amazing is that Mr. Melendez would attempt to say that lying to the Legislative Auditor & elected officials is “a phony crisis.” If it’s such a phony crisis, why did Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles order Mark Ritchie & his office staff to testify under oath to clarify his answers?
Let’s not forget what Jim Nobles said about Ritchie’s answers:
Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said today his office will continue working on several other investigations but will proceed quickly into the Ritchie probe.
“If (Ritchie) was not forthcoming, that is a serious matter in and of itself,†Nobles said. “If we cannot confirm the veracity of the statements from him and others in his office we’ll have to take other measures to determine what went on.â€
Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles himself said that if Ritchie hadn’t told the truth in answering Mr. Nobles’ questions, then that would be a “serious matter in and of itself.” How, then, does Mr. Melendez claim that this is a phony crisis?
Then there’s this Melendez statement:
Second, and much more troubling, the Republicans are seizing upon a gaffe by Ritchie to divert attention from gross incompetence and mismanagement in the Pawlenty administration.
Here’s the definition of gaffe:
a social blunder; faux pas.
Is Mr. Melendez saying that repeatedly lying to various investigators is a “social blunder”? I don’t think many Minnesotans think that way. I’d bet big money that most would quickly reject Mr. Melendez’s characterization as indefensible spin.
Here’s another part of Melendez’s op-ed:
Ritchie is cooperating fully with the legislative auditor. His office has already pledged to implement the auditor’s recommendations, no matter what. Meanwhile, the Pawlenty administration is stalling and stonewalling legislative inquiries about the Department of Transportation’s operations.
This is hardly inspiring news. Ritchie shouldn’t have did what he did. If he hadn’t used his constitutional office for private political gain, there wouildn’t have been a need for “implementing the auditor’s recommendations” because the auditor’s office wouldn’t have gotten involved.
What Mr. Melendez wants us to forget about is Mark Ritchie betraying our trust. Why should we believe that Ritchie’s capable of setting his activist past & his current ethical lapses aside to impartially oversee an election? Mr. Ritchie destroyed his credibility by lying to various investigators. Once it’s lost, it isn’t quickly regained.
As always, Mr. Melendez & Mr. Ritchie are welcome to contact me through the comments to this post to defend their positions. They will be accepted as is. They won’t be edited.
Technorati: Mark Ritchie, Brian Melendez, Scandals, Investigations, Jim Nobles, Laura Brod, Tom Emmer, Corruption, DFL, Strib