Rehberg Legally Drunk at Time of Accident?
by JC
They’re “Stonewalling” says Trib Reporter
Update 2:30pm: John Adams, reporter for the Great Falls Tribune, tweeted this a bit ago:
“the stonewalling on this is highly unusual–will be part of my story tomorrow. No one is returning calls.”
Update 9:30pm: MTLowdown has posted Rehberg’s blood alcohol report for us. It shows him at .054 at 12:58am–2 1/2 hours after the accident. Do the retrograde extrapolation below, and it shows that Denny most likely was legally drunk when the crash occurred.
Nobody here is trying to say anything other than the facts about this. Others can argue the law, or debate whether or not it is politically important. The prattle from Iverson about him being only .05 was only an attempt to sugar coat his condition and misdirect criticism.
—–
by JC
The AP’s Matt Gouras, reporting after today’s press conference, stated that Rehberg’s blood alcohol content was measured in the ER sometime after 1am, three hours after the accident, and more than that from the time he left the party at the Docks.
BAC decreases at approximately .015% per hour after your last drink (update: YellowShark points out in the comments that this is called “retrograde extrapolation“). So if you take Rehberg’s .05, and add in the .045% that his BAC decreased after the accident, you’ll get him potentially having a BAC of .095%, which is over the legal limit at the time of crash.
So when you hear the .05% figure trotted out as a defense of his moderation, remember that was hours after the accident. Whether or not there are measurements taken on the scene or not remains to be revealed by the ongoing investigations.
In related news, Gouras reports that the FWP has turned over its investigation file to the Flathead County Attorney, Ed Corrigan, whom I may add, is a Republican who endorsed Barkus for his State Senate bid in ’06.
How long does it take for the Sheriff, FWP or the County Attorney to let us know what Barkus’ BAC was? They can and should release that information as soon as possible. You see that kind of information released immediately for most DUI’s and accidents. Why not in this case? Letting the defense build a case first?
-
1
Pingback on May 2nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
[...] for state Senator Greg Barkus, of Kallispell, in the matter of his tragic drunken boat ride (which included another drunk, Representative Dennis Rehberg) on Flathead Lake last [...]
-
2
Pingback on Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am
[...] work and no play makes Dennis Rehberg a drunk dull [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… Buzz Feedback on Rape is not “knucklehead… lizard19 on Rape is not “knucklehead…
August 31, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I don’t know, JC, I’m having a tough time with the moral indignation associated with the accident. Possibly that’s because I don’t have an unblemished record for doing stupid things. Granted, elected officials should set a better example but they’re only human.
Rehberg’s stands on health care, war, the poor, the environment, taxes … I find that much more abhorrent than his lapses in his private life.
And what bothers me even more is hypocrisy — you know, the ‘family values’ politician who’s screwing anything that moves (not referring to Rehberg here).
Finally, as we both know, alcoholism is a disease. If alcohol abuse was one of the root causes of this accident, then maybe someone needs some help.
I hope there’s a fair, timely investigation and all the facts come out but I’m certainly not going to cast the first stone, especially while people are recuperating in the hospital.
August 31, 2009 at 2:04 pm
There’s no moral indignation, Pete. There is an example being set here. If you are a well connected politician, you can withhold information and create an illusion that things are other than what they really are.
If this would have been anybody other than two important politicians, the headlines would be reading far differently.
As to a timely investigation, in every other accident where people are seriously injured, you get an initial report from the authorities stating the facts: who was driving, were they under the influence, were drugs and/or alcohol found on the scene. It doesn’t take 4 days to establish any of those basic facts. Those facts were all known within hours of the accident, and we are yet to be apprised of any of them through official channels.
Letting Iverson and other Rehberg spokesman spin this accident in lieu of an official statement from authorities lends itself to speculation. If Barkus’ buddies wanted to avoid speculation, they could provide the public with timely information.
Actually, I think that because this accident did involve a U.S. Representative, that the public has a vested interest to demand that answers be provided sooner than later.
August 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm
…I hope there’s a fair, timely investigation and all the facts come out but I’m certainly not going to cast the first stone, especially while people are recuperating in the hospital.
Once again, one of the few “responsible adults in the room” (Pete) is a voice of reason.
But keep it up with your conspiracy theories, JC. You and the other “boaters” are coming across like a bunch of loony conspiracy nuts.
September 1, 2009 at 9:04 am
Amen!
August 31, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Until the fact come out, amen, Pete. I sure hope it was the case that Barkus was the designated driver. If not, then I expect a prompt indictment.
August 31, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I would point out that even in high school, there is the agreement in this fine state that if an accident occurs and the authorities ask ‘who was driving’? Everyone in the vehicle will point to the most sober one. Everyone, every time. Count on it.
However, I don’t expect that to be the case here. If Barkus was the ‘designated driver’, that would have come out as part of Iverson’s fertilizer. It was his boat. He was driving. I accept that without a doubt. Yet still, we don’t know the condition of the driver of the boat. One of the passengers remains uncommunicative, and hence potentially would spin a different story if not briefed upon recovery. Rather odd that, wouldn’t you say?
Rusty is so full of it. This isn’t a conspiracy. It is the same BS that happens whenever one of the privileged get’s caught doing something stupid. How did Governor Judy’s tampering with evidence charge play out? Oh, that’s right, she was never charged. Score one for the assholes. And us poor schmucks accept and pay for it. And now, as a bonus, we’re not even allowed to comment on the screwing because that might be ‘mean’, ‘uncivil’, ‘without appropriate class’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘hypocritical’.
Sorry, I’m just not that into being rogered.
September 1, 2009 at 7:07 am
I “swerved to avoid a deer”. Dunno if that can be used here…
September 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It was not during his private time or private life that this occurred…he had two paid staffers on board and was coming from a dinner held for local families supportive of Rehberg’s run for re-election. This was business!
I sympathize with those recuperating in the hospital but if questions don’t get asked and answers demanded immediately important facts (and justice for those recuperating) will be lost. Its not a cold hearted political thing – its way, way bigger than political victories from either side. Yes people make poor decisions but when your poor decisions endanger the lives of others you should be held fully & publicly accountable.
August 31, 2009 at 1:42 pm
um…yeah…you do realize that if Denny was a passenger (which I’m 99.99% certain that he was) you’ve got nothin’, right?
This false outrage is amusing…keep it up! * thumbs up *
August 31, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Nope, “knowingly permit a person to operate” is the same as operating yourself
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/BILLS/mca/23/2/23-2-523.htm
August 31, 2009 at 2:51 pm
You’re wrong…
(2) A person may not operate a motorboat, including a sailboat propelled by a motor of any kind, or manipulate waterskis, a surfboard, or a similar device attached to a motorboat while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.
Section 2 refers to the “BUI”. The language you cite regards subsections a & b. Nice try though!
Like I said, as long as Denny was a passenger you got nothin’.
August 31, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Rusty is correct. Bob B. is misrepresenting the statute.
Rehberg was a passenger. His BAC is irrelevent.
August 31, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Rehberg is not in the clear. Letting Barkus drive crazy is violating the same code as if Rehberg himself were driving drunk.
August 31, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I’m not a DA or a cop so I have no idea whether Rehberg’s BAC is relevant from a law enforcement perspective.
But as the father of a two teenagers, I find Rehberg’s BAC very relevant from the perspective of a voter. I’m tired of shitheads as role models.
How about you PP? Do you like having shitheads representing our state who fall off horses and are involved in injury boating accidents because they can’t say no to another one when they are feeling high?
Sheesh.
September 1, 2009 at 9:06 pm
When you refer to drunk “shitheads”, Steve W, are you referring to incidents like this:
(1990 issue of GQ Magazine article on Ted Kennedy
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=1
“. . . . It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.
As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check. “
Or maybe this is what you mean:
“. . . . a former congressional page tells of her surprise meeting with Kennedy three years ago. She was 16 then. It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy’s limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No? How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off.
Or maybe this:
“. . . . A former La Brasserie waitress calls Kennedy and Dodd “drinkers’ drinkers” whose demands led management to put a makeshift bar near their habitual table. “They drank so much you couldn’t get to the [regular] bar fast enough,” she relates. In a “standard evening,” she says, each man would knock off half to three quarters of a bottle of hard liquor, then switch to wine or champagne, and sometimes then to after-dinner drinks: “They would [sometimes] stay at the restaurant till three o’clock in the morning, just drinking and drinking. By the time they got up, they could hardly stand.”
Or do you mean drunk in front of your voters like this:
“. . . . A Boston reporter recalls seeing Kennedy on a morning after: “I had to cover him taking part in the Hands Across America thing on Boston Common and, Christ, it was like someone had poured Jack Daniel’s in his hair. It was like he was shpritzing Jack Daniel’s. And he’s holding hands with these two 50-year-old ladies, and it was just really pathetic. You look at the guy and you think, My God, he must be dying for a drink. You think, He’s really killing himself.”
I am not even going to re-hash Chappaquiddick.
Or, we could start talking about Governor Schweitzers exploits like the night I saw him in the President’s Box at the Stones Concert in Missoula, drunk, swilling down drinks and flirting with some of the coeds in the box.
Just so I have a frame of reference, is that what you mean?
Sheesh
September 1, 2009 at 9:27 pm
So, you’re saying that because somebody else has a drinking problem, we should ignore Denny’s problem? Or Barkus’ problem?
Trying to deflect the issue away from them by pointing to others’ problems is pointless. Might make you feel better, morally superior conservative and all that rot. But useless.
September 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm
The only one taking a “morally superior” position in all this is you, JC. If you want to criticize Barkus, go ahead. Let the investigation run its course then let the chips (and the penalties) fall where they belong. I have no problem with that.
But when people give only praise a binge drinking alcoholic Teddy Kennedy one day then going after passengers injured in a boating accident so you can create political spin a few days later is…….like Goof said…….Ironic……and a little sad, too.
September 2, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I would expect nothing less from the Liberal Left than trying to use this unfortunate (and preventable) accident for political gain.
Is is really true that the current Speaker of the Montana House had a personal driver during the session so he did not have to worry about a DUI?
August 31, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Same as driving a boat drunk (2) is:
(4) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel at a rate of speed greater than will permit the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, to bring the vessel to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
August 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm
No it’s not. You’re wrong, but don’t let that stop ya!
August 31, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Actually, maybe somebody should ask Wulfgar…he’s a legendary lawyer, in his own mind LULZ
August 31, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Man up and ask me yourself, coward. I’ll write the same thing I’ve written before. All of your defenses of Rehburg mean jack shit until the condition of Barkus at the time of the accident is known. And why don;t we know? Because JC’s post was spot fricking on. We’re being stonewalled, and you’re ‘lulzing’ like a fucking toddler. That’s the least surprising thing of all.
September 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm
That is actually not true – check the Montana Code – it is unlawful to permit or knowingly permit someone to operate a watercraft in an unsafe manner. Included but not limited to – inadequate number of life jackets on board, high rates of speed unsuitable for present situation or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Its not outrage by the way, its concern. Concern for the justice due to Dusty Frost whose condition is still extremely serious. This is a young man who not only serves our state, but our country – he may never live in the same capacity he did before. Brain injuries are very serious and he has one now because he was doing his job. His employer put him in an unsafe working condition and Dusty is now paying the price. I can’t imagine you think the outrage at that is amusing.
September 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Are you the real Rusty Shackleford? Or are you just idolizing a far right crackpot? Either way its hard to take constructively comments by anyone who would share a webpage (or the namesake of someone who shares a webpage) with Ann Coulter…just a little perspective on your ramblings.
XXXOOO
- Middle of the Road Montanan
August 31, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Gonna have to agree w/ Rusty on this one.
August 31, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Drinking in motorized vehicles plays well the Dem enclaves of Butte MT.
32 so far this year, well ahead of Billings and Mizzo.
August 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The story isn’t Denny’s alcohol levels. The story is the denial, spinning and withholding of information for political reasons. Kinda Clinton-esque, don’t ya think?
August 31, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Maybe you’re on to something Bink.
With Clinton we got the term, “getting a Lewinsky”.
With Denny, “getting drydocked”.
August 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Sometimes it takes a headline to get people’s attention. I totally agree with the “denial, spinning and withholding of info for political reasons” though.
Actually, I fully expect this incident to play a significant role in Rehberg’s reelection campaign next year. Why let Iverson be the only one setting the stage for how to spin it?
If Iverson and Barkus’ buddies want to spin this thing and control information flow, then it is only fair that their efforts get some push back.
August 31, 2009 at 2:30 pm
of course Rehberg was drunk at the time! you refer to retrograde extrapolation. his bigger problem is under MT Code 23-2-523, where even as a passenger, he’s responsible for making sure the pilot of the boat allows proper room ahead to stop. check my blog post on it at http://completelypissedoff.com/2009/08/29/take-the-long-way-driver/. cheers.
August 31, 2009 at 3:00 pm
the text of the statute is “may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate”… I don’t think I’d agreed that a passenger in a boat is “permitting” the driver to operate the boat.
August 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Oh, so now the defense of Rehberg is that nobody would have listened to him if he would have asked Barkus to act responsibly?
Rehberg is only former Lt Gov and a statewide elected congressman.
August 31, 2009 at 4:39 pm
No one listens to him in Congress. Why would someone listen to him in a boat headed for the rocks?
;-)
August 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I have no idea what “the defense of Rehberg is” was, or will be. I wish only the worst for him, politically.
You seem to have mistaken me for someone else.
August 31, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I’m not defending Denny, I’m simply pointing out EVERYONE’S inability to read AND understand MT Code Annotated.
August 31, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Let’s be honest, Rusty. You called everyone, *everyone*, at this website a … how did you put it? Oh yeah, a “bunch of assholes”. That had nothing to do with any Montana statute. It had to do with the fact that you’re a toddler who doesn’t like anyone looking too closely at your comic-book heroes.
Even in this thread, you’ve shown far more interest in pointing fingers than in defending the law. Have you called for a release of information? Even once? Nope. You just want to pronounce people wrong and be a total jerk. Your tantrum is obviously pretty hollow at this point, Oxidized.
August 31, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Dustin’s in pretty rough shape, and all you assholes care about it unseating Rehberg…real nice.
It’s not my fault that you morons don’t know how to read MCA. You’re either a bunch of liars making shit up OR you’re truly stupid…which would you rather be Wulfy, a dumbass or a liar?
You’re the pseudo-lawyer…rally your troops and give ‘em wut fer!!
September 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Riding in a boat that another person is driving is not permitting them to operate the boat????
Do you have to sign a piece of paper saying I permit you to operate this boat? If you get into a boat with someone else and their driving it – you’ve permitted them to transport you….same as permitting them to operate.
August 31, 2009 at 3:25 pm
You’re wrong, see above =)
August 31, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Did they call in Judy Martz to wash their clothes, too?
September 1, 2009 at 6:39 am
Hey heartland, if you want to stay comparative, did they swim away and leave anyone to drown? For you Steve W, I’m tired of dangerous drunks paraded around as heroes too. Sheesh!
September 1, 2009 at 1:27 pm
no…they were going so fast they landed on shore.
January 26, 2010 at 8:54 pm
They landed well up on land, but Frost wound up unconscious and face down in the water. Had a camper not pulled him out, he would have been dead in another minute or so.
August 31, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The simple truth is anyone caught doing anything illegal or criminally negligent has the right to say nothing. This isn’t stonewalling, just exercizing your rights. Let the law prove guilt or charge you with whatever they feel you did. Of course the problem here is the politically connected are worried about the perception of guilt, so they’ll start spinning. Usually law enforcement will back off these guys because it’s just easier to let it go away than risk your career chasing after people who call the shots. Just ask the investigating officer who showed up after Dick Cheney shot the guy in the face. .
August 31, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Sure, politicians have the same rights as anybody else. They cab either make nice PR statements like Iverson did for Denny. Or they can be silent like Barcus.
The stonewalling on the other hand is coming from law enforcement. We haven’t had a statement from the Sheriff, the FWP, the Highway Patrol–anybody official about the accident. That is stonewalling. It’s been 4 days with nary a peep from the investigators. That’s very, very unusual, and I for one will be very interested to see what John Adams has to write about it, as the stonewalling is taking on a life of its own, outside of the issue of Barkus’ culpability for crashing the boat.
August 31, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It’s quite amazing that writers to newspapers around the state are claiming that this is a “socialist communist website.”
August 31, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“socialist communist,” huh?
LOL.
September 1, 2009 at 9:07 am
So according to you JC, getting a ride home from the bars with a friend is now illegal?
Whether his BAC was high or low, the man wasn’t driving! You’ve never had a beer or two? Get real.
September 1, 2009 at 10:36 am
I never said what Rehberg did was illegal. I said he might have been drunk at the time of the accident.
I think it is important for the people of Montana, who Denny represents, to know that their congressman could have been drunk at the time of the accident, and his PR flak was trying to cover up that fact.
And I think that politically, it is a huge issue that could come out in the election campaign. So the disinformation campaign by Iverson needs to be pointed out for what it is.
And drinking? I quit years ago, partially to avoid stupid actions like Rehberg and presumably Barkus have exhibited in their “service” to their constituents.
It is easy to forget that drinking can have consequences. Particularly in a place like Montana, where it is practically the state pastime. And Denny and Barkus are showing themselves to be such outstanding role models for our youth.
September 1, 2009 at 11:42 am
I respect your personal choice to not drink, but that is exactly what it is…a personal choice. As long as I am responsible, my BAC is none of your concern. Rehberg was not driving and therefore his BAC is none of your concern.
What is sad is that you’ve missed the bigger picture. This isn’t about democrat, republican, citizen versus politician. This is a tragedy that will possibly affect the families of the injured for years to come.
September 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Millions of people have personal and family tragedy every year. Myself included.
I happen to think that Rehberg’s ducking the issue of his character, and failure to take any responsibility for his putting his staff members in harms way to be a huge tragedy.
Frost and Smith were Rehberg’s employees. They were doing their job. He took them to a party, and then, most likely while drunk, allowed them to get in a boat skippered by most likely another drunk person.
That’s the tragedy: a U.S. rep who is to chicken shit to man up to his responsibilites.
September 1, 2009 at 11:42 am
“I never said what Rehberg did was illegal. I said he might have been drunk at the time of the accident.”
Sounds like much ado about… something! It seems like once you get down to the brass tacks of this issue, the outrage level expressed by you guys comes off as nothing short of ridiculous.
“I think it is important for the people of Montana, who Denny represents, to know that their congressman could have been drunk at the time of the accident”
Something any logical person assumed right from the outset. The problem is that most logical people also don’t really give a damn.
“it is a huge issue that could come out in the election campaign”
insert the words “for me” between “issue” and “that” and you’re spot on here.
Is it really cliche of me to ask people to focus on the issues and not petty soundbites along with faux-moral outrage?
September 1, 2009 at 12:26 pm
So, you’re fine with a U.S. rep getting plastered, and letting his staff get in a boat in the dark with another guy who had been drinking at the wheel? A guy who already has an arrest record for reckless driving a few years ago and other arrests for driving incidents?
Goody for you. And yes it is too cliche for you to ask me or anybody else to focus on the issues. I just happen to think the issue at hand is Denny Rehgerg’s character.
September 1, 2009 at 12:30 pm
You know, it’s possible that Denny was just hanging out with friends. It’s not an issue of him “letting” anyone do anything.
As I said, there’s “something” here. It just ain’t as much as you guys think it is. You’re completely losing your shit over something that 90% of adult Montanans have done at some point in their life – getting into a motorized vehicle while intoxicated.
Just because something can be used for political advantage in an upcoming campaign doesn’t mean it actually deserves your outrage. Seriously.
September 1, 2009 at 1:25 pm
So, let me get this straight.
You think that because everybody (90% of Montanans) do it (driving drunk), that it is ok for Rehberg and Barkus to do so?
And that it isn’t ok to question their fitness for office because they do something that everybody else does?
Many may feign indignation over some of us wanting to hand out some responsibility like grownups are supposed to. But I’m not going to just ignore what Rehberg and Barkus have done and are doing and shut up.
Though it seems that Iverson’s work has been directed to just such an effect.
September 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I find your comment, “letting his staff get in a boat”, offensive. Those individuals are adults; they aren’t his children. Rehberg doesn’t tuck them into bed and tell them night time stories.
I agree with Steve. This probably wasn’t Rehberg’s smartest choice, but the issue here is about Barkus not Rehberg. Quit stretching…the conspiracy theories are exhausting!
September 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm
They’re his employees. He has a responsibility to them.
There’s no conspiracy. Nothing compared to deather/birther conspiracies put forth by teabaggers, that’s for sure.
September 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Well then golly gosh, you might want to let them speak for themselves before you put the victim tag on them.
But then again, I’m the dude who supports drunk driving, so why would you listen to me anyways?
September 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
No, JC, I’m not “fine” with it. Everything has its degrees, you know. I’m a little annoyed. I think it’s slightly stupid. But it’s not worth wasting actual anger over. In fact, it wouldn’t be worth changing my vote over if I thought he wasn’t a douchebag in the first place – which I do.
Get off your damned high horse, man. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, Barkus deserves whatever he gets for this, and I hope he gets the book thrown at him. But you’re not focusing on Barkus – you’re focusing on Rehberg and his BAC – which is patently absurd.
Anyways, what’s certainly not fine is for you to do is to deliberately distort what I said as well. I did not, at any point say that 90% of Montanans drive drunk, therefore making it OK. You knew I wasn’t saying that, but distorted it anyways because you’re an expert at inventing a moral high ground for yourself where none exists. Even if you had a point here, you’re ruining it by acting like a jackass.
September 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm
HAHAHAHAHA if you guys cared a tenth about things like Charles Rangel or Obama staffers not paying their taxes as you do about Rehberg’s theoretical BAC as a passenger in a boat and his “responsibility” and “criminal” behavior for not giving everyone breathalizers being taking a boat ride….
Geez. Keeping inventing fictional stories while the real raping of America by your own party goes largely unnoticed.
September 1, 2009 at 8:42 pm
after eight years of rule by the rich in this country we are taking it back tim. understandable you might be upset.
January 26, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Some of the posters above are quite correct.
Any employer has a duty to his or her employees to see that they are not subject to unnecessary danger. Smith and Frost would have never gotten into the boat had not Rehberg preceded them.
The ride itself was chaotic, obviously dangerous before the crash, as Kristen Smith related. Rehberg was drunk, but not so drunk that he couldn’t understand that their lives were in jeopardy if Barkus was continued to be allowed to operated the boat.
Rehberg’s BAC hours after the accident demonstrated absolute retrograde proof of intoxication. However, he released it because he thought Iverson could use it to spin away his responsibility for involving his on-the-clock employees in the tragedy.
He also had others lie for him. A fundamentalist preacher whose day job is a cabaret singer wrote letters to newspapers all over the state claiming that Denny hadn’t been drinking heavily, and that he was sober. He claimed some magical expertise as a counselor that he could tell when someone was drunk or not. There was no scientific evidence for such claims so they never would have been admissible in any objective courtroom.
They claimed that the bar tab “proved”that he couldn’t have drank that much, but in fact numerous witnesses stated that they saw him drinking all the time he was in the restaurant.
Rehberg has lied to cover up his alcoholism in the past. When he took the drunken fall off that horse in Kazakhstan, he claimed he hadn’t had anything to drink. Then a staffer said that he had “three vodkas.” Then a U.S. colonel who was there said it was at least six.