It wasn’t a try. That information was not presented. Even if it was, “rare” and “only if” are the phrases that show you do not have anything definitive.

On top of that it has yet to be shown that what he is paying is low for what he is receiving. I was not aware of a law that stated that any elected official renting an apartment needs to pay utilities separate from rent.

I agree that there is most likely something wrong and would like it to come out. There just is no smoking gun, yet. His post-facto lease and utilities check are the most damning evidence to date. The key would still be to show, in a standardized and unbiased way, that he is paying substantially under market rate. Without that it just “looks like something” or could be blown off as “sloppy book keeping”. Not that I would buy it.

I am sure the Senate Ethics Committee can look into this next month.

As Ricky would say, Norm has some splainin to do.

Nice try, though.

While questioning the arrangement is a good thing so far only the possibility of a violation has been shown. Not any evidence that it has actually occurred. Getting any politician on an ethics violation is a very good thing. But if it ends up being nothing more than mud slinging it will only increase people’s cynicism.

http://www.mnblue.com/node/1993

“But I digress. There really are two questions that are very important:

So now it’s ‘fess up time, for Norm. And not only does he need to show a bill in his name, he needs to show a cancelled check, too.”

This is big.