In many of our political discussions here on Dakota Free Press and in other venues, we often hear hypothetical partisan counterexamples: If Obama grabbed a woman’s genitals, you Republicans would call for impeachment! If Russia had hacked the RNC, you Democrats would be cheering!
I generally reject such table-turning hypotheticals as useless: we can’t know what our political opponents would say about some imaginary mirror-image political kerfuffle. Besides, basing arguments on fantasy rather than reality is a Trump game I don’t play. ;-)
But the erupting sex scandal in Pierre gives us a remarkably real turntable on which to dissect the hypocrisy of morally vacuous Republican spin blogger Pat Powers. Let’s compare Powers’s response to Republican Representative Mathew Wollmann’s sex with interns to Powers’s coverage of allegations of sexual misconduct by Democratic then-Senator-Elect, now Senator Reynold Nesiba.
Mathew Wollmann has admitted to having sex with Legislative interns during both years of his first term in Pierre. He met interns on the job, asked them out, and had sex with them. One former intern says his sexual conduct was “common knowledge,” but legislators took no action until their decision yesterday to convene an investigatory committee (see 8:20 in SDPB’s video of yesterday’s House Session—and note that the voice vote includes a couple of nays). Wollmann has admitted his actions were embarrassing and “unacceptable.”
Reynold Nesiba was accused of and arrested in November for non-consensual sexual contact. The alleged activity took place before Nesiba took office, outside of work. Nesiba denied wrongdoing.
For the purpose of this comparison, ignore the fact that, two months later, the state’s attorney dropped the charges against Nesiba, citing “inconsistencies” in the evidence. Let’s look strictly at the knowledge available within 24 hours of the revelations and how Republican blogger Powers responded to them.
The day the Nesiba story broke, Powers churned out these headlines:
- “Senator Elect/Augie Prof arrested for Sexual Contact without consent“
- “Argus Leader has Nesiba victim affadavit: ‘You don’t need those pants.’“
- “So how does that work when a Democrat allegedly does it, versus a Republican talking about it?“
While publishing three posts on Nesiba, Powers have two posts to Kristi Noem’s announcement that she’s running for Governor, two posts to Dusty Johnson’s announcement that he’s running for Congress, and one post to the dismissal of state budget chief Jason Dilges. Citing big web traffic, Powers further flogged the Nesiba story the next day, under the headline, “Was yesterday crazy enough for you?” In that post, he listed the Nesiba story first and referred to the salacious “pants” line more often than any of the other political stories.
Since the Wollmann story broke yesterday, Powers has issued one post on the topic:
Note the difference in word choice between the Nesiba and Wollmann stories. Powers does not lead with the accusation; he leads with a dismissive line about not having a productive legislative session, as if investigating sexual misconduct and protecting young legislative employees from improper pressure from elected officials is not a worthwhile effort. Unlike his Nesiba headlines, Powers’s Wollmann headline does not identify the political party or other affiliations of the alleged bad boy, only the generic “legislator.” Where Powers’s first headline on Nesiba specifies the charge, Powers’s only headline on Wollmann gives no detail, saying only “conduct.”
The evidence available at this point in each story differs greatly. The Nesiba story revolved around one person’s accusation, which Nesiba at the time denied. The Wollmann story has hit the press because Wollmann himself, after an initial lie, admitted to improper conduct.
In his first-day coverage of Nesiba, Powers inserted “allegedly” in his headline but played the story hard to make Nesiba look bad. For Wollmann, Powers exerts himself to cast doubt and make excuses:
That’s all the detail that’s been provided at this point. It’s too bad, as Wollmann has always been a pretty straight shooter, and honorable person, who was recently on Facebook celebrating his engagement to a nice gal.
We all probably need to wait and hear what the facts are before we pass judgement. But it is what it is, and there it is.
…One very important point in this, and one that has legal ramifications was brought up to me this afternoon. If the House is going to take issue with what happened between consenting adults, they should also be wary of how the standards of conduct are applied across terms of office, especially since the time frame is for 2015 & 2016, as noted in the news.
…At the very least, everyone should keep calm, and not be so ready to pick up a pitchfork [Pat Powers, “Well, There Went a Productive Session. Legislator to Be Investigated for Conduct,” Dakota War College, 2017.01.18].
Pat Powers immediately picked up his pitchfork and gleefully perforated Nesiba and the South Dakota Democrats. When the charges were dismissed, Powers turned the pitchfork on “the Democrat Minnehaha County State’s Attorney” and emphasized his conclusion that “Democrat State Senator Reynold Nesiba” was still a jerk.
But that pitchfork has yet to make an appearance in Powers’s coverage of the Wollmann affair, on which Powers is saying we should “reserve judgment.”
Powers, the press, and maybe some politically motivated authorities pilloried Nesiba for an affair that resulted in no charges, no trial, and no evidence of any wrongdoing that is the Legislature’s business. Wollmann has admitted to wrongdoing as a legislator with legislative interns, and legislators have said such unethical conduct is very much the Legislature’s business. Yet Powers downplays the Wollmann affair, because, I will contend, it threatens his political allies, sponsors, and agenda.
The Wollmann affair has turned the table, and Powers has played it poorly.
Strip him and march him and the other offenders out a la Cersei from Game of Thrones.
While others led by Nelson are chanting “Shame”.
CH,
I can’t help but notice the irony that your very next thread opens with mention of “sex scandal” on an issue about ballot initiatives while you argued for “let the facts come out” on Nesiba before judging.
For different reasons, I am not pleased with either situation but there is only one where there was ever a question of consent which is a difference worth noting.
And don’t get me wrong. As this has progressed, I support the rule proposed. But, the fact two young twenty-year olds with common interests (politics at least) did this is not a scandal unless one is a puritan. Whether a governmental entity or business, such private behavior would not be monitored or regulated. in fact because it would be so prevalent, enforcement is effectively arbitrary and capricious.
Troy, the sex scandal is real. The facts are out, straight from the person who pursued the sex. No irony there. We have more more substantial facts on the record in the Wollmann case than in the Nesiba case, far more public interest in the violations, and Powers chooses to downplay the Wollmann case. Unacceptable, indefensible, and significantly refutatory to any claim that Powers is a reliable journalist.
Age does not matter. If you’re mature enough to legislate, you’re mature enough not to boink legislative staff. Oh, the sacrifices of public service….
Arguing that governmental offices and business are rife with individuals in the highest positions of power seeking sex from individuals in their organizations in the lowest positions of power does not excuse Powers’s effort to downplay this serious scandal, nor does it say there is no scandal. It says this scandal is only an ugly public manifestation of scandalous practices that riddle our society and should be stopped.
Cory – your blog appears to be the free press of the Dakotas – perhaps you’ll permit me to post this reply here as Pat deleted it over there.
This was my first comment. http://dakotawarcollege.com/well-there-went-a-productive-session-legislator-to-be-investigated-for-conduct/#comment-686933
Here is the deleted follow up:
To be clear… my comment is not about the need to be perfect people. Those people don’t exist. Nothing wrong with a drink in the evening, a-drink. But there are some real basics; philandering, flirting, promiscuity, drunkenness, vulgarity, etc.. It’s the Deelstra dilemma I presented to the FHA a few years ago. Both Bob and I were FHA endorsed. He was shacking up and got someone pregnant out of wedlock and yet we were both “pro-family” candidates. My endorsement didn’t mean much knowing he too was endorsed. ((But at least we all can agree those transgenders merit the full ire of the family candidates.)) Don’t misinterpret me. FHA is the best thing Pierre has, I’m just making a case for making that endorsement far far harder to get. We should care more who you are than how you vote. The FHA would be well-served to ask their endorsees to sign a personal code of conduct and standards very similar to the codes of conduct every minister on my staff signs. The FHA endorsement should be more cherished in Pierre than the NRA rating.
Individuals having consenting sex is not make a sex scandal specifically as they are admitting it happened. Don’t tell me this is the biggest thing you are reporting on today Cory. Give me a break.
Ya Mike Boswell, its not like Republicans thought it was a huge deal when Bill Clinton’s conduct with regard to White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, was at issue. That wasn’t a very big story.
Boswell,
Pay attention.
Cory is not the only one reporting and commenting on this scandal.
Check out Pat Powers, the Argus Leader, and KELOland just to name a few.
Darin, Bill Clinton lied to congress about his actions. Big Difference.
Ok Roger
I will get my ho hum out for Pat and Kelo as well.
Mike, you are missing the point. Congress thought what happened between Bill and Monica was a huge deal way before Bill Clinton as you say “lied to congress.” They made a whole investigation out of it that lasted for months and months. It was made a huge deal by the Republicans way before Bill Clinton was questioned by Congress. If you don’t see the parallels between the two situations, you are not being honest.
It was reported that Wollman lied about his situation when first confronted with the facts. Are you saying its no big deal for a public official to lie about a sex scandal unless you are under oath?
And Troy and Mike brush it off as boys being boys. Like aw gosh, come on Cory. He was just bein’ a guy and havin’ a little fun. Besides those hotties wanted it. The way they prance around the Capital all day.
People are overlooking the aspect of risk in this case. There was a risk that one of these women might have used their relationship to coerce Wollman in his decision-making. There is also perhaps a bigger risk that these women could have claimed sexual harassment. Then, if the legislature did nothing they put the entire state at financial risk of a legal settlement. Consent is not an argument against taking this seriously.
Darin I am not sure Mr Wollmann is a married man or not, but he has now admitted it. Bill Clinton denied it from day one and he was a married man. So no I am not missing anything. Jenny I find that insulting. He was wrong he admitted it. There will be consequences to his actions, but is it the biggest news of the day, NO.
Thank you, Steve, for bringing up the family values issue. That should be part of the conversation.
Whoa—enough about Clinton. He did his business before there even was a South Dakota blogosphere, so that example doesn’t help us understand what’s happening here.
My point on this post is less about Wollmann or Nesiba and very squarely about Pat Powers and his hypocritical treatment of the two affairs. So far, I haven’t seen anyone disagree with my assessment of how Pat’s coverage of these two affairs demonstrates a gross bias and unreliability.
I have two other threads where we can address the details of Wollmann’s violation (and suka sapa offers an excellent point that should be discussed further under my first post on the topic from last night). But the main point here is media critique, and Powers’s blatant double standard here deserves hard critique.
And Mike B, if your media critique consists of telling us Wollmann’s misconduct isn’t news, if you’re going to ho-hum all sources on it, that’s your business, but you still have to acknowledge that if Powers will ho-hum this story about his political friends, then he should have ho-hummed a political story about one political enemy that (a) hinged on accusation, with no confession of wrongdoing by the legislator involved and (b) involved no other legislators trying to cover up the violation, which is the so-far underemphasized bigger point of public interest in the Wollmann scandal.
That reminds me: we may not want to call it the Wollmann scandal. Depending on the facts we learn about who knew what when, we may more end up applying a broader term, like “South Dakota Republican sex scandal”… which I think is another big reason Pat is soft-pedaling this story so far.
Powers has said nothing further about Wollmann. Instead, he is trying to hide his partisanship behind a backhanded compliment to President Obama for not commuting Leonard Peltier’s sentence.
I blame “trickle-down” media bias. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, all spew the same sort of twisted, biased, fact-free crap and pass it on as real news. And it has worked, 40% of Trump voters cite Fox news as their main source of news.
http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/
It’s no wonder we still have people who hate Obamacare, but don’t want to lose their ACA insurance. For some reason people continue to believe that Hillary is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop. Trump has a serious, unabashed media bias that may infringe on long held customs and 1st amendment rights. Some of the websites the conservative contributors on this very site direct us to as a source are seriously questionable. Are facts and science just to hard these days?
DakotaFreePress
The day Nesiba story broke:
woman accuses senator elect nesiba of non consensual sexual contact
Since the Wollmann story broke yesterday:
wollmann arguing both sides of legislative sex scandal
powers plays wollmann misconduct far differently from nesiba allegations
what-other-scandals-ask-rep-mathew-wollmann-and-legislative-interns-with-whom-he-had-sex
Today kids, we learn that partisan blogs tend to exploit issues with opposing parties.
Hey Daniel Buresh,
Do you think if you criticized Pat Powers on his blog the way you tend to criticize Cory on his blog that your critiques would be allowed to stand or would they be deleted off DWC?
Today kids, we also learn that some blogs tend to stand up to critical examination and freedom of expression and some blogs are just a mouthpiece for the blogger’s agenda and where dissension is not tolerated.
Daniel, your math is a little off: I include much more detail, and analysis, and source material in each post than Pat does, so really the ratio would be 9-to-1. ;-)
But seriously, quantity is much less relevant here than quality and the nature of the story itself. The Wollmann story involves elements the Nesiba story did not:
The Wollmann story involves more public interest and more possible ill-doers. It deserves more coverage than the Nesiba affair.
Mr. Heidelberger’s advice to the whacko, gun-huggers from CO (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners) who’ve now come to SoDak as South Dakota Gun Owners was a quite complete synopsis of the validity of Pat Powers and his political button diary entries.
“If you buy an ad on his blog, he’ll quit criticizing you.”
Just as an aside, I’ve often wondered what his pops did wrong in the FBI to get stationed in Pierre. It’s not an E-Ticket assignment in the Bureau. But that’s where young Pat grew up and that’s a strong tell.
~ FREE LEONARD PELTIER ~
Hold on this whoa about Clinton. This is the perfect example of why this is not a “huge” scandal. Clinton never came out and said he did wrong. He held onto his lie. That’s not happening here. Rep Wollmann realizing he can’t keep this from the public openly admitted he committed his acts. Now the perception is that he used his position to take advantage, but in reality did he? You really need to ask the “victim”. If that “victim” says no, you have no case for a scandal.
Darin,
I highly criticize both, and my post was in no way to stick up for anyone, simply to point out the nature of it all. And no, my comments never last over there and he will block any post, even if it is in complete agreement of him. I find it flattering.
Cory, I understand the difference in an ethics inquiry and a criminal arrest with formal charges. One involves the law as it applies to everyone, the other involves an ethical expectation as it applies to those who serve.
I’d say when both of these stories broke, it looked a lot worse for Nesiba than it did for Wollmann. One involves a party who felt they were a victim and reported it to the police which led to an arrest, the other involves a confession that was probably pushed behind the scenes by a certain representative who has a tendency to promote his moral superiority. In Nesiba’s instance, you can actually point to a person who felt violated. To call someone a “sexual predator preying on pages and interns” because they had relations with a similar aged coworker with legal consent where no direct power dynamic existed….that to me is an insult to those who were victims of real sexual predators. When you call everyone a sexual predator who doesn’t meet your moral bar, no one is a sexual predator. All I know is there is way too much infatuation into people’s sex lives these days. Who would have thought common-interested 20-year old college students would hook up? I’m failing to see the outrage at such a simple mistake(if you want to even call it that) and so are a lot of his voters.
CH,
Your “justification” is hilarious.
#1: Lying on camera and changing story in same interview. How does that compare with a President who lied and didn’t change his story until there was a DNA test?
#2: Well, why would he admit consensual private behavior which wasn’t against the rules? And, bring his partner into this?
#3: If it is a violation, it is a violation of a subjective violation of a general code of conduct. It takes someone to assert it is such a subjective violation until it is a violation.
#4: Kinda like with a White House intern in the office? Maybe not since it didn’t happen at the office.
#5: So, he didn’t lawyer up?
#6: So it a badge of honor to take action before the process has worked itself out?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending this and think this should clearly be a violation going forward. But all this “sound and fury” from those who said all Clinton did was lie about sex is hilarious.
he is ready to be the president
Monica Lewinski is irrelevant to sexual scandal in South Dakota. If crooked, law breaking Independent Persecutor Kenny Boy Starr paid attention to the case at hand, and did not receive special dispensation to expand his witch hunt of the Clintons, no one would ever have known who she was. The White water investigation went nowhere because there was nothing illegal the Clinton’s had done. But right wing haters wouldn’t let the rules interfere in their smear campaign-it has gone on for 35 years and still no tangible crimes were found.
The DNA evidence in the case only proves Clinton had sex with a blue dress. That is all it means. But let’s not talk about real criminals like dumbass dubya and dickless cheney. Or Drumpf who has committed more crimes since the election than right wing terrorist have been able to prove about Clintons in 35 freaking years!
Troy, your party set the tone for cases like this by trying to impeach a president over lying about sex, dragging out an investigation for what, almost a year?, all while the business of the people was neglected. Now, your party is downplaying similar conduct by one of their own. You are the one trying to have it both ways. This isn’t the first time. You will recall some of your party’s leaders who were throwing stones at Clinton were themselves carrying on affairs or even had molested children. When you live in a glass house, I wouldn’t be the first to throw stones like your party did with the Bill Clinton episode.
Even after the republicans impeached President Clinton and are still throwing poop balls at him 35 years later, he left office with an approval rating of over 60% and still remains one of the most popular contemporary presidents in history.
Bill Clinton paid a price for his sex scandal by being impeached, republicans are trying to justify Wollman’s behavior.
I missed the news. Female or male interns?
Troy, speaking of morally bankrupt Republicans that went after Clinton, it was reported today that Dennis Hastert wants his money back from the kid he molested. Apparently, Hastert doesn’t think he got his money’s worth.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-dennis-hastert-lawsuit-met-20170119-story.html
Roger you are completely wrong. Wollmann’s conduct was inappropriate there is no question on that. The point is does this make it a scandal? I think if the interns are not claiming they were victimized, you have a very weak “scandal” and it is not the biggest news of the day. If they do say they were victimized, then that changes things. There is no attempt to justify his behavior.
Boswell,
Read some of the comments on Wollman’s justification over on the Dump Site blog.
You keep saying this ‘isn’t the biggest news of day’, yet you keep fanning the flames.
And no, I am not wrong, you don’t know if Wollman’s romp was inappropriate since we have only heard from him. We’ll know whether or not it is a scandal when the committee completes its investigation.
Darin,
I am surprised you are are so easily willing to accept the tone and standards set by Republicans, especially about sex. Hope the conversion is sincere and long-lasting.
Troy,
I’m not a convert. I’m just not a fan of hypocrisy. Your party tried to impeach a president over his sexual misconduct, now your party has elected a serial womanizer who brags about sexually assaulting women. I don’t think my standards have changed. But I do think your party’s standards have changed.
This Wollmann episode is just emblematic of your party’s hypocrisy on so-called family values.
Francis, female interns.
Thanks, not that it matters as it is still unacceptable behavior.