Defending the liar…

August 3rd, 2011


Carrie Daklin – Fair Use

Who is Carrie Daklin and why is Carrie Daklin defending professional liar…errrrr… lobbyist Tom Minnery?

Franken missed an opportunity to be kind to a witness – Carrie Daklin

Why is Minnesota Public Radio promoting her defense of liar Tom Minnery?


Tom Minnery – Focus on the Family – Fair Use

You may have seen the video of Franken outing Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery for misrepresentation of a study in his Senate testimony, claiming it supported his statements when it did not:

First, methinks everyone should be clear that when you testify, it’s supposed to be TRUE!  If you make this sort of representation in law school, you can be tossed out.  If you make this sort of representation in a trial, you can get slapped with a perjury charge.  In Senate?  Well, were I the chair, I’d have called an immediate recess to review and if, as Franken stated, it was a misrepresentation, I’d have tossed Minnery out of the room.  That he thought it was acceptable says a lot about his character.

So on to his “defense.”  Today one of the news services in my inbox noted that “Religious right attack (sic) Al Franken for exposing false anti-gay testimony”  (where’s their editor?).  That lead me to a number of blogs posting this MPR piece by Daklin, celebrating that someone had come to Minnery’s defense.  HUH?

Listen to this pablum:

I have testified in a trial. It is not fun, it is not exciting. It is stressful. You are out of your element. Your adversary is salivating to get you to say something he can spin, some little something he can magnify out of proportion and use to his advantage. As an experienced paralegal I knew this when I testified, and I was in hyper-vigilant mode because I knew it. Imagine what it is like for someone who has no knowledge of the courtroom.

Yes, Daklin has testified at trial.  Here’s an interesting one where she sued her father, a scary display of family dynamics and family values:

Daklin v. Lyle 2003-Ohio-2231 – Court of Appeals, Eleventh Appellate District – Geauga Co, Ohio Case No. 2002-G-2440

And she states she’s a paralegal.  So one would think she has an understanding of the need for testimony to be true.

I have no knowledge of congressional hearings. I have never been to one. I can only hope that if I did have to testify before the Senate, whoever was questioning me would be kind, would recognize that this was his sandbox, not mine, and that, as a representative of our country, he would not embarrass me for his own purposes.

Sadly, when Tom Minnery testified, that was not the kind of treatment he received from Al Franken.

Excuse me?  Someone makes a material misrepresentation during testimony, what, it should slide by?  She thinks that someone, Minnery, is making misrepresentations “for his own purpose,” that is acceptable behavior?!?  Someone, Franken, challenging Minnery on his lies (and too nicely at that) is unacceptable behavior?!?

What would be acceptable behavior for Minnery?  He should start by issuing an apology to the Senate committee for his misrepresentation and his disrespect.

Yet Daklin goes on, paragraph after paragraph, whining on the “poor Tom Minnery” angle.  What?

Minnery is a lobbyist who spends a lot of time in D.C.  This guy is a pro.  He knows exactly what he’s doing.  Focus on the Family had $130 MILLION in revenue in 2008, the last year for which I could find an IRS 990.  Minnery is a Senior Vice President of GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY — he’s their lobbyists’ lobbyist.  In 2008, he made $145,284 plus $17,911 in “benefits.”  Focus on the Family reported 18,400 volunteer hours for lobbying in 2008.  They reported direct and indirect lobbying expenses of $224,641.00 in 2008 “to influence a legislative body.”  In 2008, they paid Minnesota Family Institute $41,640 for “assistance with voter guide.”  This does NOT include the “Focus on the Family Action” activities (a 501(c)(4) entity).

Focus on the Family 2008 IRS Form 990

Daklin issues this bogus “defense” of poor attacked Minnery and the anti-gay crowd is lapping it up.  Why is she taking up the defense of a professional lobbyist who spends his days influencing legislative bodies, and covering for his proven misdeeds?  Her paralegal experience and her own experience of making statements under oath should make her sufficiently aware of the importance of truth in testimony.  Why take up the defense of someone so powerful, with so much money behind him, when he was exposed as a LIAR!  When he was caught in his misdeeds?  Sounds to me like she’s acting out unresolved issues and doing herself and her credibility a big disservice in the process…