Last night’s Republican gubernatorial primary debate between Marty Jackley and Kristi Noem on South Dakota Public Television produced one bit of useful news, at least for the GEAR UP scandal defendants and for the Billie Sutton campaign. Responding to Noem’s charge that Jackley has done nothing about corruption in this state (again, Noem endorses a theme thoroughly reported by this blog!), our Attorney General said he plans to try the GEAR UP cases personally.
Stephanie Hubers goes on trial June 25 in Sioux Falls. Bigger GEAR UP fish Dan Guericke and Stacy Phelps from July 9 to October 1, over the state’s strong objection.
We all agree that seeing truth brought out, justice done, and wrongdoers held more accountable than anyone in the EB-5 scandal are the primary goals of the GEAR UP trials. But let’s look at the political import of these trials. If Marty Jackley wins the primary (my 58–42 Jackley win prediction seems confounded by the new poll showing Noem and Jackley in a statistical dead heat, but I’m sticking with an edge for Jackley on Tuesday, because Noem is using a lot of Democratic-flavored arguments to win Republican primary voters), he’ll be booked for at least two solid weeks in the courtroom. The first week, starting June 25, will be after the conventions, and everyone will be at the lake with Dennis Daugaard, so being trapped in a Sioux Falls courtroom won’t affect campaigning much. But the second, starting October 1, comes in the heart of campaign crunch time. With early voting going on by that time, you can bet that Billie Sutton will be wheeling all over the state, attending every available daytime event that Marty won’t be able to make.
But Sutton won’t have the field entirely to himself. The fact that the defendants won a change of venue to the largest media market in the state helps their prosecutor out politically. Jackley can prosecute merrily away all day, then spend his evenings working the Sioux Falls media and events in the greater metro area, with easy access to a quarter of the state’s voters.
Worse, Sutton may have to shout twice as loudly to get press for his events. The GEAR UP trials may keep Jackley from speaking at Chamber lunches and knocking on doors during the day and up in Aberdeen and out in West River, but the trials will guarantee that Jackley leads every nightly newscast and morning paper in every media corner of the state. The free press from the GEAR UP trials may just outweigh the campaign facetime he loses being tied to Sioux Falls that week.
Of course, the benefits of that free press depend entirely on Jackley’s not fumbling the GEAR UP trials the way he did the Flandreau pot cases. If Jackley’s prosecutions fail, or if he comes away from Bollenesque wrist-slaps for smirking GEAR UP defendants, Jackley will wish the change of venue had been from Charles Mix to Harding County, not Minnehaha. Failure to put Guericke and Phelps in prison in October puts eight points in Sutton’s column.
This is all cynical political reading. The straight, generous, non-bloggy, non-partisan read is that Jackley plans to try the GEAR UP cases in person because he recognizes grave crimes were committed that demand the attention of South Dakota’s top prosecutor. But we cannot ignore the political implications of such major corruption trials happening in the midst of the chief prosecutor’s gubernatorial campaign, with the potential for a stunning jury verdict less than a month before the general election.
The Republic Governor race has gotten dirty, and I am curious as to why Noem would NOT use the Richard Mette case in her ads against Jackley. Is this because it would be bad for many other Republicans?
Citing EB-5 and GEAR UP is bad for other Republicans, so that concern isn’t stopping Noem.
Is Noem ignoring what happened to Tiffany Campbell because of Campbell’s association with the ACLU?
https://dakotafreepress.com/2017/12/18/legislature-to-offer-sexual-harassment-training-january-17-good-reason-to-delay-abdallah-hearing-to-january-18/#comment-93605
Do you really think your use of the phrase “wheeling around South Dakota” is appropriate for Billie Sutton? He has demonstrated a strength of purpose and ability despite an injury that has been life-changing.
Your other premise, that Jackley can campaign at night during a difficult trial, demonstratesa lack of knowledge. Believe me, he will be working nights.
Sutton does arouse at least some deliberation in choosing verbs. We use all sorts of verbs—”running around, pounding the pavement, standing for what’s right”—that could be misinterpreted as insensitive toward Sutton. “Wheeling around South Dakota” literally describes driving his truck all around the state. It also describes his means of transportation from door to door, as surely as I would use it to describe my own biking from door to door. Anyone who wants to nitpick verbs can find opportunity in any choice.
As for working evenings, well, Jackley is finding plenty of time to campaign day and night while working full-time as Attorney general (as are Noem as Congresswoman and Krebs as SOS). I welcome Jackley’s choice to spend 16 hours a day working the Hubers and Guericke/Phelps trials when court is in session… but let’s all track just how many campaign appearance Jackley makes around Sioux Falls during those trials. Does anyone agree with Jana that Jackley will suspend campaigning during the trial?
Jackley could site the Mette case as one where he did prosecute evil innocent people.But, at least, he prosecuted/persecuted someones.
Why does my computer screen slime up whenever I type anything about jackley?
Say, Kurt, I am willing to entertain the suggestion that Noem is ignoring Tiffany Campbell’s complaints because she’s not running against anyone directly involved in Campbell’s complaint. The LZK complaint has political legs because Noem can tie it to her primary opponent and because it comes from a Republican.
As I, myself, contemplate the verbs which I might use to describe Mr. Sutton’s wheeling about, it makes me wonder about Mr. Evans, who said:
grudznick replies: Mr. Evans, I think anyone associated with the ACLU is automatically viewed with suspicion, but have you picked a Lt. Governor road dog yet? I could wheel around with you and offset some of the wheelchair-vote; a demographic in which Mr. Sutton will soundly defeat you.
Cory writes:
My understanding is that Tiffany tried to complain to Jackley about Gene Abdallah in much the same way as Laura tried to complain to him about the good ol’ boys in the DCI, and Jackley ignored her too.
I’ll grant that the offense and retaliation weren’t as severe in Tiffany’s case, but the situation seems qualitatively similar enough to suggest that Jackley was at best a slow learner:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2017/12/18/legislature-to-offer-sexual-harassment-training-january-17-good-reason-to-delay-abdallah-hearing-to-january-18/#comment-93605
“grudznick” writes:
If I’m able to secure the Libertarian nomination for governor next weekend, I’m planning to recommend Richard Shelatz for lieutenant governor, and he’s agreed to accept:
https://lpedia.org/Richard_Shelatz
https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/04/01/sd-libertarian-leaders-disavow-gubernatorial-candidates-planned-flag-burning/
Rock on with the LG pick, Kurt! Has your opponent chosen one yet?
Kurt makes a reasonable point about Jackley’s backing of Abdallah as a potential campaign point. If Jackley wins the primary, Sutton should put the Campbell accusation in tandem with the Zylstra Kaiser accusation. Noem may well omit mention of Campbell right now, not so much because of current connection with the ACLU but with past connection with the campaigns against the GOP’s unconstitutional abortion restrictions. Noem can put good Republican Zylstra Kaiser on the screen and alienate nobody but Mark Milbrandt’s supporters here in Aberdeen. Put Campbell on screen railing against Jackley, and the entire GOP primary anti-choice electorate (that’s, what, 80% of them?) gets reminded of losing the 2006 abortion ban referendum and the 2008 abortion ban initiative.
Cory writes:
I’m not sure, but the state party’s Facebook page still says he needs one:
https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianPartyofSouthDakota/posts/808305062700547
Sadly, your point seems valid. Few people were more disappointed than I was by the results of the 2006 referendum, but I believe Tiffany’s unalienable right to liberty implies the right to be secure against Abdallah’s defamation.
I’m skeptical of anyone who claims to care about a the rights of a child in the womb, whom we can’t see, but won’t be bothered to protect the rights of Tiffany Campbell, whom we can.
I’d written:
Is the phrase won’t be bothered ambiguous there? It’s intended to mean refuses to be inconvenienced.