Cap Journal: Ed Olson says Kloucek could face censure for comments
It's not on-line yet (look about 10:00 AM or so at http://www.capjournal.com), but Senator Frank Kloucek's e-mail may be getting him into dutch, big time. You have got to go pick up the dead tree edition of the newspaper today for this top of the newspaper article, or wait to check out the website.
The article talks about how Frank inadvertently sent private correspondence to newsrooms all over the state in an article entitled "Senator's e-mail airs dirty laundry."
The first sentence? "A recent press release from a State Senator accidentally made his views known on everything from the Senate page scandal to who he refuses to sit by during the upcoming legislative session."
Much of the rest has been recounted all weekend on this website, but Ed Olson adds a new wrinkle to it with his statement:
"I just went 'my gosh' when I read the e-mail, and when we adopt rules (Kloucek) could possibly get a censure as well," Olson said.It's not all bad for Frank. Apparently one of the targets of his ire, BJ Nesselhuf has forgiven him.
"Frank's a good guy, he just needs to learn how to use his e-mail a little better."And BJ also noted that Frank "called him to apologize."
Stay tuned for more.
Comments
You've used this term twice when referring to this story, once a couple days ago and now today.
While the Senate is at it maybe the House should censure Roger Hunt for money laundering nearly a million dollars of donations to the "Vote Yes On 6" campaign.
A few years ago while working in a major corporation, I had an email conversation with someone about an idea to dramatically streamline some of our processes. The significance of this shot over their head at mach 3, so I intended to forward their email to someone else with the statement that some people wouldn't recognize a good idea if it came up to them, slapped them in the face and bit their nose off.
The only thing is, instead of hitting Forward, I hit Reply.
Had a crow sandwich over that one.
• The letter was intended to knife fellow Democrat legislators in the back and to slander the reputations of Governor Janklow and three prominent Republicans who once served in the legislature.
• The letter was sent to the Senate Minority Leader as Kloucek’s official request to curry favor and seek committee assignments.
• The libel in the letter discussed people’s sex lives and sought to maliciously ruin their reputations in the eyes of the Senate Minority Leader.
• The letter repeated the string of lies Kloucek has spewed about Dennis Wiese and the Ridgefield Beef project. Kloucek intentionally sought to damage Wiese personally and professionally.
• The letter attacked Wiese’s wife and his son.
• The letter included Kloucek’s assertion, based on hearsay, that Dan Sutton encouraged young adults under his management to get drunk in the liquor room at the King’s Inn.
If Kloucek is telling people he’s sorry, you have to wonder:
• Is he sorry for saying so many stupid and malicious things?
• Is he sorry only because he got caught?
I hope someone reproduces the entire letter so that the general public can see how intentionally damaging this letter was.
It was entirely inexcusable and Senator Olson is on the right track to address it. If what I saw earlier on War College is correct, Kloucek should be kicked out of Farmer’s Union for spreading lies in writing about Ridgefield and that organization’s former president.
If Kloucek had an ounce of nobility, he’d resign from the legislature and Farmer’s Union and never, never return to public life. Apparently a guy like Frank has no value to anyone other than himself, and you can see in the letter that taking care of Frank is his #1 obsession 24/7.
what if the stuff is true?
What should Frankie K do then?
That could be the best quote of the article. I seldom agree with Nesselhuff’s politics, but he has more class then I thought.
4:28 wrote that Frank got 70% of the vote in his district. Actually, he got 5144 votes to his opponent's 4095. That calculates to about 55.7% for Kloucek and 44.3% for Hauck.
It's quite evident 4:28 doesn't care about facts, or . . . just isn't good at math.
If they can sanction members who didn't violate the law, shouldn't they sanction those who did violate election-related laws?
Oh, I forgot. It's not about actual legal violations. It's about Republicans sanctioning Democrats.