Something's Seriously Wrong Here

That's the first thing that comes to mind in reading this Strib article.

"I think it is possible he had a meeting and the topic came up," said Sen. Thomas Neuville, R-Northfield. "If push had come to shove, I think [Johnson] would have had witnesses. I didn't sense he was gaming or bluffing."

If Sen. Neuville thinks that Johnson wasn't bluffing, then it means that, at minimum, he thinks a Minnesota Supreme court justice might be lying or breaking ethics laws. That said, what did Sen. Neuville see to make him think that Johnson isn't lying through his teeth? Or is he simply basing this off his impression of Johnson?

Let's suppose that Johnson's attorney has proof that a conversation took place for the sake of discussion. Shouldn't Johnson's attorney be compelled to bring that evidence forward? After all, shouldn't we know what a Supreme Court justice said in compromising the reputation of the Court? Shouldn't we hear what proof Johnson's attorney had?

"If the committee tells us to name them, we will name them and we will call the witnesses who were in those meetings and heard those conversations," Ellen Sampson told the panel.

Bring them on, Ms. Sampson. We've got a right to know if a justice gave assurances of this. That is, if you've got proof, which I'm not conceding at this point. Frankly, I wouldn't doubt the fact that you aren't willing to suborn perjury.

In the unlikely chance that proof is brought forth, shouldn't that lead to the justice or justices getting thrown from the bench and disbarred?

At this point, all I'm certain of is that the Senate Ethics Committee failed us by not doing a thorough investigation. Let's hope that this isn't the last we hear of this issue. Johnson's hearing brought forth questions that demand answers.

---

Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:40 AM

No comments.