When it comes to ethical scandals, the MNGOP protects their own. Sure, Scott Newman refuses to meet with anyone who supported his opponent. But the Senate ethics committee refused to charge him. In fact, Newman’s attorney Fritz Knaak seems to believe this behavior is perfectly acceptable!

“If you have people that are not your political supporters, that are your opponents — who’s kidding who?” Knaak asked. “Of course, it is unlikely that that person is going to be treated in the same manner by your staff as other will. I’m not suggesting anybody needs to be rude, but c’mon, the fact is, that’s the way it works. And that’s the way it operates in a political institution. Nothing in Senate rules precludes that, or should it.” [MPR]

That’s absolutely disgusting. So it’s ethical to refuse to see constituents who didn’t support you in the election, as long as you’re not “rude?” Sorry, but no. Senator Newman is charged with representing all of his constituents, not just those who voted for him, and definitely not just those who gave him money or political support.

Not only was Newman not charged, but a fundamental question appears not to have been answered: Who established the policy that Newman would not meet with opponents? Newman threw his legislative assistant under the bus, but that doesn’t square with the initial email she sent:

Unfortunately, Senator Newman will not see any organizations that donated to/supported his opponent Hal Kimball. After some careful checking, I discovered that the MNA had donated to Kimball’s campaign. Your association will be unable to schedule an appointment with Senator Newman.

That email doesn’t make it sound like it was the legislative assistant just making up this policy. She categorically states that “Senator Newman will not see any organizations that donated to/supported his opponent Hal Kimball.” And are we really supposed to believe that she just undertook this “careful checking” of campaign finance records by herself?

In his defense, Newman argued that his assistant was just too young and stupid to know what she was doing. If that were really the case, though, wouldn’t she have been acting under his orders, rather than being given the authority to make up her own policies?

“I did not author that email. It was without question stupid,” Newman told the committee. “I also want you to understand that I am dealing with a legislative assistant who at that time had two weeks on the job. She is very young. She has never worked down here before.”

And exactly what does Newman think was “stupid?” That she refused to allow the nurses to see Newman, or that she honestly explained why she was refusing? Does Newman, like his lawyer, believe that refusing to see political opponents is ethical?

The “ethics” committee is happy to sweep this one under the rug. But just because Newman’s buddies in the Senate refuse to charge him doesn’t make his conduct any less reprehensible or unethical.