One party to the conversation (
by Steve Timmer
Apr 20, 2012, 8:54 PM

Fishing Expedition!

There was a hearing yesterday which began to address the Minnesota Senate’s (or the Republican part of it, anyway) contradictory statements about why Big Cal met Michael Brodkorb in a suburban restaurant and left him face down in the soup course.


“Sigh, we just weren’t up to keeping him on; nothing personal,” said Cal at the time.

Bonking the boss; we canned him,” said Cal’s office later when the unemployment office asked about Brodkorb’s application for unemployment compensation.

You will appreciate the inconsistency between those two explanations.

At the hearing yesterday, Michael Brodkorb’s lawyer said he wanted to subpoena some people to inquire about the firing, including:

Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem, Deputy Senate Majority Leader Julianne Ortman, Sen. Geoff Michel, R-Edina, Senate Secretary Cal Ludeman, Kevin Matzek, Chief of Staff at the Senate, and current Senate staffer Steve Sviggum

Heck, if I’d been preparing the list, I would have put the other two Senators from the infamous presser in December — Sens. Gerlach and Hann — on the list, too, and maybe Sen. Robing as well. You have read all the names on Brodkorb’s list (and those on my addendum), in news coverage of this story, and many of them have been quoted in that coverage.

Persons with knowledge of the case every one. Unarguably.

Dayle Nolan

But according to Dayle Nolan, the person described as [part] Senate counsel, Greg Walsh, Brodkorb’s lawyer, is just on a “fishing expedition.”

This what Nolan calls it because she doesn’t want the subpoena issued and can’t say: these people know nothing about the case. When obviously they do.

It must be remembered that everybody was standing around the hearing room yesterday because of an assertion made by Cal Ludeman’s office. It is very unfair now for Cal’s lawyer — because that is what she is, nothing more — to assert that
Brodkorb cannot use that great engine of truth — that’s what Wigmore called cross examination — to test that assertion. It would be a denial of due process.

We can understand why Nolan is unhappy about the prospect of, say, a quivering and pasty Geoff Michel or Cal Ludeman in the dock, but it’s all part of putting your minions where you mouth is.

The Nolan photo is from the Larkin, Hoffman website.

Thanks for your feedback. If we like what you have to say, it may appear in a future post of reader reactions.