Julie Frye Mueller Scandal: This hearing is kind of crazy.

@SoDakCampaigns

I jumped in late, but it was at a crazy moment.

Haugaard keeps insulting Sen. Wheeler, and speaks of mystery witnesses who he won’t name, and aren’t there in the room. He might be able to produce them at 24 or 48 hours. Or not? Nobody really knows.

And, as I said, I came in late. And apparently at the moment neither Senator Frye-Mueller nor her husband have been willing to testify to this point.

Is JFM really going to take the 5th? I mean really?

We’re about back, so I’ll check back in.

——-

Julie Frye Mueller is apparently taking the stand, and read a timeline… and now she’s off-script going off the rails claiming a reference to a dead cat is all about her.. and more.

Lots of denials here, and claiming there was no “filthy talk.” And more talk of “the dead cat strategy.”

Mueller is trying to imply moral superiority over others, claiming that Senators didn’t rush through “beerfest” and “there are Senators who have DWI’s,” as if it has any bearing on her hearing.

Sen. Tobin asked Mueller about her comments about vaccines. But Mueller had to refer to notes about the breast feeding… and JFM went into her comments about “having her husband help.” Tobin tried to pin Mueller down about the statement’s implications, with Mueller claiming “she didn’t know what that meant.” And she didn’t want to talk about it any more.

Jim Bolin asked more about vaccinations, and the accusation that she told the staffer her baby would die, which Mueller denied.

Senator Duhamel asked Mueller if she was friends with the staffer, with Mueller claiming she thought she was friends, but it must have been a lie – and MUELLER NAMED THE EMPLOYEES NAME, among her response.

Senator Davis questioned Mueller further, but Mueller bristled in her response and after an initial response claimed “you guys are looking for something that’s not there. Why is this more important than drunkfest?” (Lots of deflection from Mueller on the actions of others)

Tobin probed further on Mueller’s views on vaccinations causing Down’s syndrome or killing babies, which Mueller denied.

Prompted by her counsel, Mueller went back to her denial of everything, and stated outrage over the accusations. She was also prompted, and expressed that her own children were vaccinated.

Senator Duhamel noted the vast difference between the two accounts, and asked Frye-Mueller if she wanted to apologize, but Haugaard noted that she could not apologize for something that didn’t take place. Mueller claimed that Senators denied her the opportunity to apologize, and wanted to know why the two parties were denied the opportunity to work it out.

Senator Tobin wanted to probe further, and Mueller noted that she did not ask for an opportunity to apologize because she claimed that she did not know what was going on.

Bolin asked how long the interaction was, Mueller noted 10 min.

From here, her husband Mike Mueller was brought to the stand and said “this was a couple of gals talking” and claimed it was all innocent.

Mike Mueller tried to claim that with his knowledge of harassment as a supervisor, only on the third strike is “someone looking for another job.” Mueller claimed his wife has been hung out to dry.

Erin Tobin asked if it was appropriate for LRC to contact him for drafting bills for his wife. Mike Mueller says he was approved, but also admitted that he was a lobbyist.

Senator Duhamel asked Mueller if it was appropriate for him to be there when two women were talking about breasts.. he said he was a captive audience. Haugaard asked him if he was leaving the room, which Mueller claimed he was leaving but the conversation was over quickly.

Haugaard felt the need to go back and bring up that Mike Mueller was not a paid lobbyist.

—-

When Wheeler asked if the defense had people to testify, Haugaard kept complaining that they have people to testify, but are not ready.

Wheeler quipped “I take that as No.”

Haugaard keeps claiming it is an injustice that they can’t present these people, and they have people from the other side of state and out of state to testify.

In his closing, Haugaard went on for a while about the amount of time they had to prepare, etc. claimed that “the staffer did not measure the gravity of her comments,” and claims to have people to testify on the staffer’s credibility.

Haugaard noted his weird filings yesterday for the Senate, and complained about a lack of a response. He claimed it was not handled in a professional manner. And asked for more time.

——

Nesiba made a motion for censure, limiting Mueller and her husbands access to LRC, and to lift her suspension. It was seconded by Wink.

Wheeler noted that it should not include her husband, and the motion was amended, and passed.

The committee will meet tomorrow with action on the report tomorrow afternoon.

32 thoughts on “Julie Frye Mueller Scandal: This hearing is kind of crazy.”

  2. Regarding drunk fest or whatever she is talking about, to paraphrase Winston Churchill:
    yes, they were drunk, but today they are sober, and she is still stupid

  4. Good grief….I hope JFM isn’t paying Haugaard for the number of times he whines about other witnesses. And if she’s paying for this closing statement she ought to get a refund. Also….love the whining about due process but then also wanting to delay delay delay

  5. Why would testifiers and witnesses be needed for JFM? The conversation took place among THREE people…staffer, JFM and her husband. There obviously were no others. ..end of story.

    2. Turn that shame in recall petitions, at least you will go on the record for disavowing this.

  7. I’m still not sure why anyone would vote to remove her for being crude and insensitive. Can you imagine the accusations that will be coming against everyone over retaliation.

    It’s going to be a total tabloid.

      1. Putting these three people under oath over the precise details of a trivial conversation that none of them recalls accurately is ridiculous, and formally censuring a state legislator based on the testimony of a witness she wasn’t allowed to publicly cross-examine is a mockery of justice.

        I’m looking forward to the roll call.

        2. Agree on the roll call vote, it will tell a lot. Any State Senator who would vote for removal based on these petty ridiculous accusations has certainly showed their true colors. They are not MAGA conservatives and are probably left of center ideologists.

            1. That’s a good definition if you are always right based on conservative principles. However, that “always right” part sets the bar awful high. I guess I would try to categorize this JFM issue based on how well known national Republicans would respond.

              Matt Gaetz – is probably a lot like JFM.

              Andy Biggs is just as conservative as Gaetz, but a lot more tactful in his approach.

              Kevin McCarthy is more of a centrist or even a “political weather vane” turning whatever direction the wind is blowing.

              Mitch McConnell is a pretend Republican and could just as well be in the other party.

              Liz Cheney is also a pretend Republican but is a much more in your face type.

              It would appear the State Senate is primarily filled with Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell type Republicans.

              1. I am always right. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Nice restatement of your original claim

    2. anonymous at 9:19, you left out “willfully ignorant,” AKA “stupid.”
      Crude, insensitive, and stupid.

  9. If Haugaard wanted to call witnesses to attest to LRC staffers reputation I know about 30 or so people that would testify about JFM reputation. Wouldn’t be pretty.

  10. She is nothing but a buffoon and bully. Her comments to the staffer i.e. breastfeeding where insensitive and cruel. The tirade about vaccination was out of line. Is JFM a doctor? Freedom of choice as our dear governor has touted. Give her the boot.

  12. She was totally out of line. She’s part of that nutty right that will continue to say and do nutty things. Having said that, this could have all been handled more quietly and more effectively than this. All this will accomplish is to rile up the other legislators like her because they always think they are right and now they think they are victims as well.

  13. Frankly, as a South Dakotan, it’s embarrassing that our senate has stooped to a level of high school drama such as this.
    Unsubstantiated accusations leading to suspension, when intelligent, mature legislators would have gone the censure route from the start and not brought this to national attention. Instead, they chose to elevate this to outrageous proportions and make all of South Dakota look like a bad after-school special of “Mean Girls”.

    Rhoden and Pischke presented opportunities to handle the allegations in a mature, professional way, but they didn’t choose it. Why? They didn’t want it that’s why. They wanted a “dog and pony” show. And South Dakota looks bad because of it.
    The taxpayers of South Dakota deserve better than that.

    1. “Intelligent, mature legislators” would have immediately informed Julie of the accusations and given her a chance to resolve the misunderstanding privately. Formally censuring a state legislator based on the trivial, one-sided misperceptions of a witness Julie was never even allowed to publicly cross-examine is a mockery of justice.

      May God continue to bless Larry Rhoden and Tom Pischke.

      1. “Quoted – “Intelligent, mature legislators” would have immediately informed Julie of the accusations and given her a chance to resolve the misunderstanding privately. Formally censuring a state legislator based on the trivial, one-sided misperceptions of a witness Julie was never even allowed to publicly cross-examine is a mockery of justice.

        May God continue to bless Larry Rhoden and Tom Pischke.”

        Agreed…I was being “generous” and “giving benefit of the doubt” to those senators that probably didn’t fully understand what was happening at the time.
        The fact does remain, it was a dog and pony show supplemented with a kangaroo court all performed in the national spotlight. The fact that is done in the name of “Decorum” makes it ludicrously ironic doesn’t it.

        1. Understood. Thanks for your comments.

          And yes, it’s ironic when pro-liberty “pond scum” and “wackadoodles” are accused of a lack of decorum.

  14. Were her comments to the LRC staffer uncalled for? 100%. Is Frye Mueller a “wackadoodle?” No doubt about it. Do I agree with her statements? In no way shape or form. But were there any threats or or any other forms of unprotected speech? No. No there were not. I like and respect Mr. Schoenbeck, and will continue to do so, but this was taken way too far.

    A public statement condemning what she said and stating that him, nor the Senate as a whole, agrees with or encourages such language would have been sufficient. Instead we are taking a page out of the far-left handbook and canceling someone whose views and statements we disagree with and find offensive. When a publicly elected official is stripped of their voting rights for non-treating, but offensive language, its a sad day for democracy.

    “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson.

    1. There is a difference between public staments and those made in a professional setting. You dont have complete freedom of speech at work. Why conflate the two issues?

      1. Who is her employer? Who has the right to “fire” her? That would be her constituents in her district. Private businesses have much more latitude when it comes to limiting speech. But the Senate, and all its members, is literally the government. And in this case, they are limiting speech. This is much different than an employer/employee relationship.

Comments are closed.