An analysis made by a well-known television network admits that during his Congressional campaign, the running mate of Kamala Harris, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, was not completely truthful about an arrest back in 1995 connected to drunk driving. Mr. Walz experienced an encounter with a trooper from Nebraska who noticed him speeding, hitting 96 mph in a zone where the limit sits at 55 mph. The incident, which happened on September 23, 1995, took an unexpected turn when the officer smelled alcohol emanating from Walz, leading to a couple of tests. The trooper’s decision to conduct a field sobriety test, followed by a blood-alcohol test, did not work out in Walz’s favor, and both tests indicated that he had in fact been drinking.
As a consequence of the above incident, Walz found himself spending a night in jail and was later proven to have been driving under the influence based on the court records. Nevertheless, the Congressional campaign of Mr. Walz promoted a distinctly different narrative. They insistently assured that on that night, Walz had not taken any alcohol before driving. Their explanation for his subpar performance on the field sobriety test pointed to a supposed auditory malfunction, pegging it as lingering damage from his National Guard service days.
The campaign justified their narrative using multiple assertions which seemed to be synchronized across different media channels, and thus, formed a chain of misinformation. For instance, the New Elm Journal, a local newspaper, published a piece based on what they were told by the staff of Walz’s campaign. In their published story, they stated that according to Walz’s campaign representatives, Walz fundamentally denies being under the influence that night. The failed sobriety test, they alleged, was due to Walz’s impaired hearing, which they traced back to his artillery soldier service in the Army National Guard.
The narrative put forth by campaign’s communication director was that because of his hearing impairment, Walz couldn’t understand the trooper properly. She continued to build upon this narrative by pointing to the plea deal Walz made, which led to the dismissal of the DUI charges. ‘Had there been any truth in the charges, the judge would not have dismissed them,’ she argued. This assumption was furthered by the fact that despite the incident, Walz was allowed to drive himself home from the police station.
A similar account was told to the Post Bulletin, yet another local newspaper. Kerry Greeley, Walz’s campaign manager, confirmed that Walz was caught speeding that night but reinforced that he was not impaired by alcohol. Greeley rationalized the subsequent misunderstanding using Walz’s auditory condition, which she said was an aftermath of his artillery service years in the Army National Guard.
Greeley stated that the officer’s commands were misunderstood by Walz due to his hearing difficulty. Balance issues, a possible byproduct of hearing impairment, was another point raised, possibly accounting for his failure on the sobriety test. According to Greeley, the dismissal of the DUI charges by the judge was due to the understanding that Walz’s hearing impairment made the field sobriety test an unfair evaluation of his sobriety.
She also provided a quote to the Star Tribune where she simply stated that Walz was indeed speeding but insisted that it was not connected with any alcohol influence. ‘He was caught speeding, which he does not deny, and that’s where the matter ends’, emphasized Greeley.
Sellective insights given by Ben Shapiro, the Daily Wire Editor Emeritus, pointed out the inconsistent details surrounding Walz and his 1995 DUI arrest. With the Harris campaign proposing an appealing picture of Walz as a down-to-earth father with a genuine Midwestern background, Shapiro noted that the persona put forth did not align with the realities of Walz’s past.
During his time as a teacher and assistant coach, Walz faced a DUI arrest and Shapiro observes that these events don’t quite glue together with the ‘dad persona’ that Harris campaign has been centering around. Considering these revelations and in contrast to the persona being presented by the campaign, Shapiro marked Walz as a firm progressive, with surprisingly intricate connections to China, claims of exaggerated military achievements, and a penchant for radical racial and gender policies.
His insights came as a part of a larger commentary called ‘Scamala: Kamala Harris Unmasked’, a series he hosts. He took a critical look at the Harris campaign’s choice of VP candidate, and highlighted the dissonance between what Walz’s public image and his actual history.
He succinctly stated Walz has shown radical leanings, labels him a ‘wild progressive’, calls into question his honesty, and raises an eyebrow towards his peculiar ties to China. Furthermore, Shapiro delves into Walz’s past to bring to light a pattern of embellishment, particularly concerning his military record and radical policies on race and gender.
Ben Shapiro, known for his incisive political commentary, launched an episode called ‘Walz Of Shame’ as part of his ‘Scamala’ Series to unravel the identity of Kamala’s VP Pick. Through the lens of this latest exploration, he lays bare some uncomfortable truth overshadowing the public image of Walz, which is conveniently veiled by the campaign’s portrayal.
All these revelations lead us to question the narrative woven by Walz’s campaign and throws a shadow of doubt on the authenticity of the persona presented so far. As we walk through the fact-checking process, we realize the intricate webs spun around political campaigns stressing on the necessity to stay vigilant to what we are presented with as consumers of information.