Brendan Johnson retained by tribal president ousted for drug testing

The president of the Sisseton Whapeton Tribe who was ousted for drug testing of tribal employees has gone to a familiar face to represent him in fighting the matter:

Sources close to the situation state that the Council moved to nullify the drug tests results and actually re-instated people who tested positive for drugs, including users of THC. This reportedly worries Chairman Renville as a possible violation of several federal regulations as well as an abuse of power in that the motion could result in proof of aiding and abetting criminal behavior as well as obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence. Former US Attorney for the State of South Dakota Brendan Johnson has now been retained by Chairman Renville to protect the interests of this process.

…opponents of Renville claim it’s based on violations of civil rights, that it was not in accord with policy and that employees with prescriptions had been targeted in the test. A decision to drug-test employees has been lacking for several years according to sources and it is unclear if the entire SWO Council took the drug test.

Read it all here.

23 thoughts on “Brendan Johnson retained by tribal president ousted for drug testing”

  1. I remember working with Bruce Renville when he was with the IHS, helping him recruit doctors and other health professionals to come to SD and work on the reservations. He was a good guy then, and sounds like he still is. I wish him all the best.

    1. Yeah he’d probably get stiffed and Annette and the crazies would be a nightmare to work and damaging his record. Annette Bosworth & crazies? Stay away! Far away!

  2. “a possible violation of several federal regulations”

    As a sovereign nation, I’m sure the S-W Tribe does not recognize “federal power.”

    “. Former US Attorney for the State of South Dakota Brendan Johnson has now been retained by Chairman Renville to protect the interests of this process.”

    Does Mr. Johnson have a visa to enter the tribal lands? Again, as a sovereign nation, I doubt the Tribe recognizes Mr. Johnson as an attorney.

  3. Brendan Johnson is a man of integrity and honor and wit and has been and will continue to be a friend of mine. We can differ on political ideas without going postal on each other as they do in DC. This is South Dakota, we’re better than that and we mean what we say and say what we mean.

    1. “Brendan Johnson is a man of integrity and honor and wit and has been and will continue to be a friend of mine.”

      The family’s attempts to hide the severity of Sen. Timmy Johnson’s illness was unbecoming of the office and what S. Dakotans deserved. In the election that followed, Sen. Johnson used the “illness” to avoid campaigning and debating as he had promised. As a consequence, the views of S. Dakotans were not properly and sufficiently represented in the US Senate. Lastly, the nepotism involved in Sen. Johnson securing the US Atty job for his son was unseemly, and the attempts to hide his involvement was again,. unbecoming of the office and of what S. Dakotans expect and demand from their representatives.

      I don’t see much “integrity ” in those actions. S. Dakotans deserve and deserved better.

      It appears that your friendship has painted over deep and serious ethical flaws that plague the Johnson family. You may be suffering from “celebrity fever”.

    2. Are you referring to the Brendan Johnson who told the Argus Leader that his dad would have absolutely nothing to do with his application/nomination to be the USAG for SD?

      …and then his father made a few calls to find out about the delay in the vote on the nomination?

      And then Tim Johnson denied to Politico that he exerted any influence!!!

      Yeah, we mean what we say in SD, unless you’re Brendan & Tim Johnson. Is that the honor & integrity you’re talking about?

  4. 1) Brendan Johnson is now a private citizen and is an attorney offering his services to the public. Everyone has a right to legal counsel.

    2) Anything Brendan Johnson did to promote or defend his father was first done as a son. Loyalty to one’s father is a virtue.

    3) It should be presumed the Johnson family was hopefully optimistic with regard to Senator Johnson’s recover because everyone of us would hope the best for their loved one AND if they believed otherwise out of love they would have not encouraged Senator Johnson to serve another term.

    We would all be well-served if we didn’t allow our political differences transcend the humanity of the people with who we disagree.

    1. 1. No, everyone does not have a “right” to legal counsel. In most cases including the one involving Mr. Renville, there is NO RIGHT to counsel.
      2. Loyalty to one acting improperly or in his own self interest is not a virtue–it’s immoral and unethical.
      3. The SD public was misled (lied to?) about the condition and prognosis of Sen. Johnson. We were told AT THE TIME that Sen. Johnson was able to perform his duties, NOT that the family was hopeful that he could. The public was told that he could perform his duties as a US senator AT THAT TIME.

      We would are not well-served when we don’t hold our public officials accountable because we’re star-struck or that because we happen to know or be acquainted with them–to not hold them accountable for their actions is to DEHUMANIZE them.

      1. What “honor & integrity” were you talking about, Charlie?

        The “misleading” statements made about the senator’s dehabilitating illness, or the “falsehoods” about the USAG for SD selection?

  5. Many South Dakotans believe that it would have been in Tim Johnson’s best interest to take care of his health first and not run the last time. But it was definitely not in the best interest of the national GOP who needed to keep that last Dem vote for Obamacare and much else of Obama’s agenda, thus the reason he had to run. This is not to say that all of us in SD wished for the optimum outcome for Tim Johnson healthwise, but it seems this time this took second place when it came to the national GOP. And the Dems were correct; TJ was a very dependable vote for anything Obama/Dems sponsored in the Senate.

    I don’t think we have seen the last of Brendan Johnson in SD political races. I think he was very wise to take a break from SD politics to let the issue of his appointment wane a bit. I do not know him personally although have heard him speak, and he spoke very well. I reserve judgment as to whether I could support him to his stances on the issues when and if he decides to run again for political office.

    1. Gotcha.

      But I wasn’t “arguing”: about politics; I was pointing out two FACTUAL refutations of your claims about the Johnson family’s “honor & integrity”. YOU made the assertion; I refuted it. That’s not “politics”–that’s the beginning of a discussion about the Johnsons’ honor & integrity. I understand that you’re perturbed that someone called you out, and so you snidely respond with a refusal to engage, as if your word is or should be the LAST word.

      Look, I fully understand that small folks have this desire to associate themselves or ingratiate themselves with “celebrities” in some vain effort to have their shadows fertilize the small life into something more. But, being star-struck tends to distract from the reality that the Johnsons are deeply flawed people. I doubt that Brendan Johnson knows your name from Adam.

      Accept it. Move on.

      Grab onto the rock of Truth; not the stardust of faux celebrity.

  6. Someone thinks fancy writing makes him sound smart.
    However, same someone needs to learn the difference between his emotional, biased opinions and “factual refutations”. They are not the same thing just because you say they are in a manner that hits an unintentional comedy home run.

    Thanks for the chuckle.

    1. Of course, unlike Hoffman, who claims a friendship with Brendan (thereby admitting his biases), I know neither Brendan nor Hoffman. Yet you failed to address Hoffman’s obvious biases, preferring to attack me, the UNBIASED observer.

      Feel free to offer a factual basis that my “facts” are indeed opinions, or biased. .

      Until then, the factual bar has been raised –your personal & emotional attack does nothing but raise it some more.

      Honor & integrity & nepotism are nothing to chuckle about.

    2. Really, if my proffered facts are truly off track, you could have and should have quickly dispelled them with a few facts of your own.

      But since you were not able to do so, you spent a couple of paragraphs on me.

      How lazy of you.

      The more you attack me, the more substantive my refutation of Hoffman’s views on the Johnsons become. No one has yet to respond to my proffered facts relating to the questionable behavior of the Johnsons. The longer it remains untouched, the more credible my criticisms become.

      Good luck.

Comments are closed.