Minnesota Supreme Court GOP Candidate Lady: This DUI Charge Is A Frame-Up! She's A Patsy!

As we all know from the failed vettening of secret Muslim Barack Obama, a lot of unfortunate secrets can come to light if We The People do not carefully look into a candidate's background. It also does not help if the Candidate fails to tell anyone about an embarrassing thing that they know darn well is a matter of public record, like maybe take for instance how Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald didn't tell the state Republican party that she has a pending DUI case before they endorsed her. She may have thought that spelling her name with two "l's" was all she needed for electoral success, but she probably misjudged.

State Republican Party Chairman Keith Downey on Thursday said he was unaware of MacDonald’s 2013 arrest until notified by a Star Tribune reporter. The revelation comes less than two weeks after party delegates in Rochester endorsed MacDonald to run against Justice David Lillehaug.

“None of us, including the convention delegates, were aware of this information about the candidate,” Downey said. “She, of course, is innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time, the delegates did not have the full disclosure they should have.”

The arrest report said that MacDonald refused a field sobriety test and breathalyzer, which in most cases translates to "guilty as fuck," but she insists that she was not drinking the night she was pulled over. Maybe if we're really lucky she'll turn out to be a sovereign citizen who thinks that traffic laws are tyranny and stuff. She also said that the party's Judicial Election Committee knew about the case, which seems like maybe they didn't? The case is conveniently scheduled to go to trial in September, but maybe she figured nobody would notice.

When MacDonald was pulled over for speeding in April 2013, she refused several times to step out of the car, said that she hadn't been drinking, and added that she was "a reserve cop" and an attorney, so she would just walk home. When the police told her she was under arrest, she "began to physically resist the officers’ attempt to remove her from the vehicle and place her under arrest.” And the story gets even funner!

Court documents say police took MacDonald to the Rosemount police station, where she was read the state’s implied consent advisory, which requires those arrested on suspicion of drunken driving to submit to blood, breath or urine testing. She shook her head no when asked if she understood. She then asked to speak with an attorney and was given 34 minutes to contact one, but was unsuccessful.

Asked by officers if she would take the breath test, court documents say, MacDonald never answered the question directly, instead asked to be taken before a judge. Police warned her that not taking a test within the allotted time frame would be considered a refusal, but she never approached the machine ... Under state law, admissible blood tests must be taken within two hours of an arrest.

Now just hold your darn horses, here, because MacDonald says that she took a blood test at a hospital the very next morning, and it showed no alcohol in her system, so THERE.

Needless to say, MacDonald is pretty sure that the DUI and resisting arrest charges are all just retaliation against her for complaints she had filed against county judges, because that is how most DUI cases work. She also said that when she told the committee about the case, they thought it actually made her a better candidate, since she had everyday life experiences that voters could identify with, at least if they were (alleged) drunk drivers:

“When I was being interviewed [by committee members] they were saying this is a good thing because I’ve experienced what people are experiencing on a daily basis,” MacDonald said. “I just never thought this would happen and I’m sucked into a system. Why am I even having to bother with a case where I’ve had zero alcohol, and why am I being asked to go to a trial where they cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?”

She also said that she's pretty sure it won't be an issue in the campaign, becauseno one ever pays attention to judicial electionsshe thinks the whole case is "stupid," since, after all, "it’s ridiculous that you would prosecute somebody who has proved their innocence.”

Why even have trials for people who know they're innocent? You could save a lot of time that way, for heaven's sake.

[ StarTribune ]

 Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He has a [reader's choice] that can penetrate your very soul.