[Speed Gibson,
Monday March 27, 2006 at 12:00am]
On Lies and Apologies
The latest Dean Johnson "truth issue" (certainly not his first), was just starting as we left for a week of warmer temperatures. I followed it via Craig Westover and other blogs. I've caught up with only some of the TV and radio I recorded while away, and Senator Johnson will be issuing yet another "apology" today (Monday) as directed by the Senate Ethics Committee. I will wait until I'm caught up and hear this final "let's move on" apology before commenting on the latter.
But let's consider the infraction itself, the statement(s) by Johnson that some number of Minnesota Supreme Court Justices (several by name) had given him private assurance and insight on how they would handle a likely court challenge to an existing Statute. I have seen no one claim that such discussions by the Court, however informal, are appropriate. The Chief Justice, after polling the rest of the Justices, has flatly denied that any such conversations were ever held with Johnson, who is still insisting at least one did, the basis of his embellishments.
No matter how this shakes out, there is no legal issue here. There is nothing indictable here, nothing to sue for, nothing requiring resignation, or even a press conference. Dean Johnson's statements, including his Parthian shots at the minister who taped him, are being judged the moral plane - ethics if you will.
Much of the defense on Johnson's side uses some flavor of the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. This is intuitive, part of our American way, but more is required on the moral plane.
Johnson did more than simply overstate or misstate his position. He sullied the reputation of others (judges) and by extension, their instituion (the court). If there was no factual basis for this as seems likely, Johnson lied, no question about it.
But suppose such a conversation did occur as Johnson continues to allege? Is Johnson justified in using that "insight" in his political struggles? If he cannot back it up independently, he is not. That's the way life often is. You see something, hear something, are tempted to discuss it, but choose to avoid the "he said, she said" dialog that serves no adult purpose. It might make you follow up. It might make you cautious in dealing with that person. But barring corroboration, which is a good idea for everyone involved, you keep it to yourself.
But let's consider the infraction itself, the statement(s) by Johnson that some number of Minnesota Supreme Court Justices (several by name) had given him private assurance and insight on how they would handle a likely court challenge to an existing Statute. I have seen no one claim that such discussions by the Court, however informal, are appropriate. The Chief Justice, after polling the rest of the Justices, has flatly denied that any such conversations were ever held with Johnson, who is still insisting at least one did, the basis of his embellishments.
No matter how this shakes out, there is no legal issue here. There is nothing indictable here, nothing to sue for, nothing requiring resignation, or even a press conference. Dean Johnson's statements, including his Parthian shots at the minister who taped him, are being judged the moral plane - ethics if you will.
Much of the defense on Johnson's side uses some flavor of the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. This is intuitive, part of our American way, but more is required on the moral plane.
Johnson did more than simply overstate or misstate his position. He sullied the reputation of others (judges) and by extension, their instituion (the court). If there was no factual basis for this as seems likely, Johnson lied, no question about it.
But suppose such a conversation did occur as Johnson continues to allege? Is Johnson justified in using that "insight" in his political struggles? If he cannot back it up independently, he is not. That's the way life often is. You see something, hear something, are tempted to discuss it, but choose to avoid the "he said, she said" dialog that serves no adult purpose. It might make you follow up. It might make you cautious in dealing with that person. But barring corroboration, which is a good idea for everyone involved, you keep it to yourself.