The OWH took their second “investigative look” at Jon Bruning on Sunday.
Look, if you want to defend or criticize Bruning for his job or his positions or for whatever the OWH is accusing him of in their recent articles, fine. Go at it.
But the problem is, What are the accusations? Spell it out.
Here were a few of our beefs with Sunday’s article about his “questionable” lake house:
Where’s the info on when he became friends with those Nelnet guys.
Isn’t that more to the point? And how? Are their wives friends? Do their kids play ball together? Same church? School buddies? What? We learned that in the previous story, but not here.
And does it really matter if he bought a house with them? Who cares if that purchase give the “appearance” of impropriety? How about any ACTUAL impropriety? This was four years ago. Was it improprietous, or wasn’t it?
The question is, was there a problem with his actions towards Nelnet? Well, was there? Because that is what any investigation should look at. Was he simply giving his buddies a special deal? If so, that’s a problem. If not, it’s not. And any lake house he may have is not going to affect that.
And then there’s the “his political critics say…” and they quote two direct political opponents and another Democrat side-opponent? That’s it? They couldn’t find a single independent to criticize the deal? Sheesh.
And OWH, What gives here? The NDP puts up their ad, asking lots of “questions”. And then you happily jump on board to answer all of them? So who gave whom the the notice on this? Was the NDP saying, “We are going to put this up, so get your Bruning stories finalized?” Or did the OWH give the go-ahead for the NDP to put up their ad when they were ready?
We are to believe this is all a co-inky-dink? Yeah?
So there are two issues set up on Bruning:
1) He made a TON of money investing with college friends while Attorney General
2) He is personal friends with the heads of Nelnet.
So, are those just the set-ups (sets-up?) or is that it?
Because if that’s it, then, frankly, What the Hell? Why print this? Was it all above board, or wasn’t it?
Is there a plan here? Let the whole story trickle-trickle out? Or is it just a meager cup with a few drops in it?
Apparently we get to wait and see.
And while we’re at it…
We will just throw out an idea:
Let’s just take it as a given that Ben Nelson and the OWH hate Jon Bruning. OK? Done.
So, What If, they both know that Ben Nelson, in fact, DOES NOT want to run for re-election? But neither wants Bruning, as the front runner, to slide into the seat. Or, maybe Nelson thinks that if Bruning is not there, a good Democrat could beat Stenberg or Fischer.
In any case, Nelson makes like he’s running, has Paul Johnson run the “show”, and attacks Bruning, along with the OWH, to either drive him from the race, or make him lose the primary.
That way it’s a win-win — either Stenberg or Fischer take it, or a Dem could have a shot against them.
It’s an interesting sneaky plan.
No idea if it is true or not.
But, for the grain of salt it is worth: Nelson has 2 Twitter accounts. One for his official office and one for his campaign.
The campaign account has not put out a single Tweet since May 31st — and only five total.
Now that is the thinnest of thin gruel to base something on. And we wouldn’t. But along with the rabid attacks that are coming in over a YEAR before the General Election, it indicates that something else is afoot in this super-early campaign season.
(Didn’t want to jam together two very separate posts today, so see Part 2 here.)