And Twice on Sundays...
One of those ever-courageous folks who anonymously uses the comment section to spout off and take irrelevant and mean spirited personal shots at people, has challenged someone to defend Scott Jensen’s co-defendant Sherry Schultz.
There is simply no other way to say this: Sherry Schultz got screwed.
Not only was she just doing her job like countless other Republican and Democratic staff members who skated, and unlike Tanya Bjrok, Ragu Devagaptapu, and many others, Sherry was never offered immunity or a slap on the wrist. And Sherry did provide legitimate and valuable services to legislators and their staff and the State Elections Board.
Sherry Schultz was the person Kevin Kennedy and his staff at the State Elections Board relied on to resolve errors in the campaign finance reports of Republican legislators. Likewise Sherry was the person Republican legislators went to for help in completing their reports and Kennedy himself testified that Sherry’s questions were often so sophisticated that only he and his legal counsel, George Dunst could address them.
During his cross examination of former SEB Board Chair, Don Millis, Korte tried to make is sound as if the SEB staff could answer any question that comes along, the real problem is that they don’t know what questions to ask in the first place. Remember that Kennedy also testified that the SEB has never received a report that does not have errors. And I’m sorry, but with the SEB staff reporting from 7:45 am – 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, when are issues regarding campaign finance reports suppose to be resolved?
Today Paul Tessmer testified about the electronic campaign finance reporting system that he developed with the assistance of Sherry Schultz. Tessmer later donated the program to Kennedy and the SEB so it could be used to fulfill their statutory requirement to develop an electronic reporting system. And Kennedy utilized both of their expertise in educational sessions.
Sherry Schultz provided the state with many hours of legitimate and valuable state service prior to 1998 and during her most recent appointment.
Ragu never did a lick of legitimate work and he got off with some civil forfeitures. Tanya broke all kinds of laws including destroying evidence and running an illegal third party organization on state property. She broke numerous laws in both houses of the legislature and was allowed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor and pay a fine of $250. And she never paid the state back for any of the $24,000 in legal fees it paid on her behalf.
Yes, I will defend Sherry Schultz, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
3 Comments:
Your defense of Sherry is admirable. I actually know her, like her, and agree she was left out to dry. And given testimony in this trial by some of those who worked with her, she probably saw this day coming. But you really didn't give defense to what she's been charged with. Yes, she provided a valuable service to incumbents and other candidates. Yes, the Democrats did the same thing, perhaps in a more in-your-face sort of way. But the fact that she was hired by Jensen, placed on the payroll of an unsuspecting member of leadership, and was hidden away in a side office to assist in fundraising activities remains the same.
Sherry's too nice of a person to warrant the same kind of "mean spirited" (yet factual) remarks about her codefendant. But she certainly knew what she was doing was wrong and, unfortunately for her, she's going to pay the price and take a hit for what many before her have been doing for years.
I think defending Sherry is OK. She was really an employee directed to do a job by Foti and Jensen. I would have rather she had plead guilty to a misdemeanor but my guess is that she refused to fully cooperate with the investigation. OR that the prosecutors believe she has a lot more to say that she is willing to say. Did she take the stand to testify under oath? If she had, what could she say about Jensen and Foti?
She didn't take the stand because if she did, she would have simply reaffirmed the testimony of every prosecution witness. And unlike Jensen, Sherry has morals and couldn't lie under oath.
Post a Comment
<< Home