Chasing Murderers? Nah. Going after Drug Dealers? Nope. The Pennington County State's Attorney is chasing... Unintentional Oath violations
The Pennington County State's Attorney's Office says they are looking further into allegations that the Republican candidate for the District 33 Senate seat lied under oath. Dennis Schmidt swore under oath when he declared his candidacy that he was a member of the Republican Party. It wasn't until five days later that he officially registered with the GOP.You have got to be kidding me. If you're not too incredulous after reading that part, go check out the rest here.
Schmidt says the registration problem was a mere oversight that he quickly corrected.
Pennington County State's Attorney Glen Brenner says he has contacted Sheriff Don Holloway to assign an investigator to look into the perjury allegations, but before they can do that Holloway says they needed more information regarding the state's statute.
Uh, HELLO! I think the Secretary of State already addressed this one in the Rapid City Journal Article that first spoke to the question:
Schmidt’s sworn statement on the nominating petition appears to violate provisions in South Dakota statute that state, under 12-6-3.2, that “No person may sign a declaration of candidacy or be nominated as a political candidate for a party unless that person is a registered voter with that party affiliation.”Read that again here. The Secretary of State's office - you know, the ones who over see elections - are saying, there's no penalty. But State's Attorney Brenner is in effect saying NO, I must pursue it to the end of the earth... in some sort of brain-damaged "Dudley Do-right" fashion.
But there is no penalty in law for violating that statute, said Kea Warne, elections supervisor for the South Dakota secretary of state. And because the issue wasn’t raised before Schmidt’s primary victory, he will remain on the ballot for the general election.
Even Sheriff Holloway seems to be trying to get away from being stuck with this turkey of a case by noting that they "needed more information regarding the state's statute."
Why do I think this is all taking place? Here's my cynical conspiracy theory: It's my understanding that it is documented that Mainstream Coalition founder Stan Adelstein is and has been a supporter of Glen Brenner. And that's in both his initial run for State's Attorney in the primary when he first took office, and in his ill fated attempt to run for AG in 2002.
And who did Schmidt beat in the election? Fellow Mainstream coalition founding member J. P. Duniphan.
I mean, sure. It's easy to point the finger and call it revenge of the sour grapes, and it might seem a bit silly. But, who was the first one to scream about this to the media? J.P. was right in the thick of complaining about it, and she was the one who lost the election. The Mainstream Coalition is seriously smarting with several founders being tossed out because of their continual blasting of the GOP and it's members.
So, what better way for them to exact revenge on one of the people who had beaten them.
Seem crazy? Maybe. But then again, I would have told you the Republican primary loser coming out and supporting the Democrat as Stan did would seem equally as crazy.
So is this payback on behalf of a political ally? Possibly. The jury is out at the moment, but I think some more information needs to be gathered. Who filed the complaint with the S.A. office , if one was filed. And how much has Stan given to Glen over the years?
With the Secretary of State saying there's no penalty, and the Sheriff trying to back away from a garbage case like this, if someone was to ask me if this prosecution were political - at this writing, I think my answer would be "yes."