A report from The Daily Beast details the 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a potential vice presidential candidate, and the subsequent handling of this incident by his campaign team.
Nebraska State Trooper Stephen Rasgorshek arrested Walz for drunk driving in September 1995. Walz initially responded responsibly, admitting fault and using the incident as a teachable moment for his students. However, when Walz ran for Congress in 2006, his campaign manager Kerry Greely claimed Walz wasn't drunk during the arrest, attributing his behavior to ear damage affecting his balance and hearing.
Following the arrest, Walz displayed immediate remorse, reporting the incident to his principal and offering his resignation. The principal, however, urged him to stay, although Walz chose to step down from his extracurricular duties. This early response to the arrest was seen by many as a genuine attempt to take responsibility for his actions.
The legal proceedings culminated in a March 13, 1996, hearing at Danes County Court, where Walz pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving. He was fined $200 plus court costs. Despite this setback, Walz continued his career in education, moving to Minnesota, where he taught and coached. His team’s success, including a state championship win, marked a significant recovery in his professional life.
Walz entered politics in 2006 when he ran for Congress as a Democrat. During his campaign, the 1995 DUI arrest resurfaced, prompting his campaign staff to address the issue. Kerry Greely, his campaign manager, and Meredith Salsbery, his spokesperson, attributed the arrest to a hearing issue that they claimed affected Walz's balance and comprehension during the sobriety tests.
Rasgorshek strongly disputes these claims. According to the trooper, Walz was given the sobriety tests in the patrol car, and both the breathalyzer and hospital tests confirmed that Walz was over the legal blood alcohol limit, registering at .128. Rasgorshek expressed disbelief at the campaign’s narrative, noting that his loud voice is well-known among his friends and family, making it unlikely that Walz couldn't hear him.
The trooper recalled his initial impression of Walz, suggesting that if Walz had maintained his early stance of taking responsibility and quitting alcohol, it would have been commendable. Rasgorshek believes that Walz’s later attempts to downplay the arrest through explanations about ear damage undermined the honesty he initially demonstrated.
The contrast between Walz’s early response to the DUI arrest and the narrative presented by his campaign years later has fueled ongoing debate. While the initial handling of the incident was marked by transparency and accountability, the later shift in messaging has cast a shadow over the event.
As Walz’s vice-presidential bid brings renewed scrutiny to his past, the 1995 arrest is once again a topic of discussion. Supporters and critics alike are revisiting the details of the arrest and the conflicting stories that have emerged over time.
Rasgorshek's perspective on the incident has remained consistent. He emphasizes that anyone can get a DUI, but what matters most is how they handle the aftermath. In his view, Walz’s decision to attribute his arrest to a medical issue rather than continue with the narrative of personal growth is regrettable.
Reflecting on the situation, Russell Harford, a colleague of Walz, noted that Walz took his role as a teacher and coach seriously, understanding the impact his actions had on the students. Harford mentioned that Walz began using his experience to educate students on the dangers of drinking and driving, finding a way to turn the negative experience into a teachable moment.
Judge Hansen, who presided over the 1996 hearing, also commented on the potential for positive outcomes from the incident. He urged Walz to share his experience with students, highlighting the idea that every adversity contains the seed of greater benefit.
The 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a vice-presidential candidate, continues to be a topic of discussion, particularly in light of the conflicting narratives that have emerged over the years. While Walz initially responded with accountability, the subsequent explanations from his campaign have muddied the waters.
