A Closer Look

Earlier this week I wrote about the recently released OCE report regarding Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement with the PMA scandal, and today I’d like to continue that discussion by taking a closer look at the report to find out why the OCE was unable to produce sufficient evidence against Mr. Tiahrt (even though they apparently believe he is guilty). To begin, I would like to direct attention to page 164 of the report just under the heading Introduction where it states:

Representative Tiahrt would not consent to an interview with the OCE, nor would he allow members of his staff, the Chief of Staff and Military Legislative Assistant (“MLA”), to be interviewed by the OCE.

Further, to the bottom of page 181 which states:

The Board notes that because the OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt or his staff, the Board is unable to conclude whether the Member was aware or not that the donor linked the contribution to an official act.

In these two instances, the board is not only saying that Mr. Tiahrt was uncooperative, but they are saying that his cooperation in the case would have proven once and for all if he is innocent or guilty of the accusations against him. If Mr. Tiahrt actually was completely innocent of all wrongdoing, wouldn’t he embrace the opportunity to go in front of the Board and make his case? His refusal to participate or allow his staff to participate in interviews with the OCE creates the appearance that he is guilty of all the charges made against him.

Furthermore, what is even more troubling about this episode is that Mr. Tiahrt’s failure to participate in the investigation flies in the face of what he told the public. Last fall he said, “We have fully complied with the OCE request and are more than willing to discuss our process further if there are any additional questions.” If Mr. Tiahrt was ‘more than willing’ to discuss the process his staff undertakes, then why is it that the OCE felt differently in their report.

If we are to trust the OCE report (and I have no reason not to), we have to conclude that Mr. Tiahrt was lying to the media last fall. His claim that he was “more than willing” is completely contradictory to the OCE report. Last fall, Mr. Tiahrt made sure to give off the appearance that he was fully complying with the investigation when in reality he wasn’t assisting or complying with it at all.

Throughout this entire ordeal, Mr. Tiahrt has lied to voters about his compliance with the investigation, while he has refused to talk to a board that could show the public that he truly is innocent. Why would Mr. Tiahrt refuse to talk if he is innocent? Only he can answer this question, but he apparently sees no reason to address it as he recently said, “Today I received absolute vindication.”

Clearly Mr. Tiahrt believes he did nothing wrong, and he might be right, but if this truly is the truth, then why did he refuse to discuss it with the OCE and why did he lie to Kansas voters about his cooperation? Washington bureaucrats might not care about the answers to these questions, but voters should seek them out long before they grant Mr. Tiahrt higher office.



Openly yours,

Publius