To the Editor:
How sad for American justice. Was Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller censured based on personal reasons rather than objective evidence? Are her conservative views unwelcome among establishment Republicans? She was essentially convicted as guilty before an investigation was conducted, much less any inquiries. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty was completely ignored.
Sen. Schoenbeck’s intense dislike of Frye-Mueller is evidenced by his incendiary, hostile, harassing, and insulting public comments against Frye-Mueller, the Freedom Caucus, and their supporters in a May 2022 video. So, his immediate implementation of adverse actions against Frye-Mueller based on mere allegations, bypassing due process protocol, should be no surprise. No objective evidence existed to substantiate LRC staffer Amanda Marsh’s allegations. It was simply she said/she said.
Unless objective evidence exists [videos, audio, and witnesses (plural)] to support either side, all that remains is she said/she said. All that anyone knows with any sense of certainty, based on both parties’ own statements, is that a conversation occurred. Beyond that, nothing else.
I recall a reported incident last year in which legislators went out drinking and returned to duty intoxicated the same night. Yet, as I recall, no investigations nor suspensions were conducted, much less any disciplinary actions. Is that good ol’ boy double standards?
ADVERTISEMENT
In the end, Schoenbeck and the others who pushed this kangaroo court got at least part of what they wanted, which was to publicly humiliate Frye-Mueller, defame her and tarnish her reputation. As one senator commented, her suspension was part of her punishment, and as another put it, “Let’s put this in the rear-view mirror.” Of course, typical of those who know they’ve done wrong: conviction without a shred of objective evidence to support it.
I believe a true court of law would have thrown this case in the dumpster for a host of reasons.
Dwight Stadler
Mitchell
The Trust Project
