Sen. Scott Bundgaard takes extended lunch break

The Arizona Capitol Times reports that in a stunning turn of events, beleaguered Sen. Scott Bundgaard has resigned his state senate seat just moments before he was scheduled to take the witness stand in the ethics investigation against him involving a freeway fight with Aubry Ballard, his now former girlfriend. During her testimony she argued in favor of his expulsion.

Andre Merrett, the lawyer defending the Peoria Republican told a committee hearing the case against Bundgaard that the hearing is “no longer necessary.” Bundgaard resigned while the Senate Ethics Committee was on a lunch break.


13 Responses to Sen. Scott Bundgaard takes extended lunch break

  1. LD 4 PC says:

    It just goes to show that the AZ Repulsive (in this case colluding with a scorned tipsy ex-girlfriend with lunatic tendacies ) can bring the legislative house/senate down on Republican senators they want out. In the case of Senate President Russell Pearce, it was a collusion with the supporters of a RINO jerk named Jerry Lewis.

  2. Calypso says:

    Working hand in hand with the leftist redistricting commission, the liberals at the newspaper should be able to clean house, senate congress and a few county offices of Republicans in short order. I wish they’d spend a bit of time on the Dems.

  3. Clementine says:

    “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned….
    Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

    Remember that, guys.

  4. Frankly Speaking says:

    Sorry, but resigning while the committee has taken its lunch break is a pathetic move. In my estimation, that slippery act itself makes him look guiltier than I previously thought. I looked forward to his testimony. Ballard struck me as flaky and I was hoping Sen.
    Bundgaard would be able to make a case for himself.

    • GeeGollyMissMolly says:

      Ditto, Frankly. He is using the same cycle of denial right now by promising private interviews to rags like the Phoenix New Times to “quote explain” the fact that he had a chance to explain his side under oath, to a Republican dominated Ethics Committee, and instead just walked away. New Times has posted coverage of Buungaard’s quotes going back to 2001 which demonstrating the same behavior pattern.

  5. chick says:

    Now they can get to work on that smarmy Tucson guy who doesn’t live in his district and has major ethical issues.

  6. Zach Henry says:

    You are blaming this on a newspaper? Seriously? The AZ Republic was somehow able to intimidate Bundgaard out of even testifying on his own behalf?

    The simplest explanation is usually true, and I would say Bundgaard is guilty, guilty, guilty.

  7. Jane says:

    This Senate vs Bundgaard case was a certifiable circus. I would side with a woman in a physical conflict 99% of the time, but according to what I read from the police report, Ballard did her fair share to initiate the conflict plus came out with fewer bruises. It is still not clear what law Bundgaard broke…pulling off the highway rather than driving-while-fighting didn’t exactly warrant the hysterics we’ve been getting. If Bundgaard had done something slightly more egregious, the ethics committee would have my sympathy. However, even the AZ Liberal Times reported that a polygraph supported Bundgaard’s side of the story. This ethics investigation had the appearance of a witch hunt—the appearance that someone wanted this Senator out—and this was the way to remove him from a legally won Senate seat and rip off voters. Arizona voters just got raked with redistricting, a mishap of a recall, and now this. What’s the point of voting if any old crap can remove the winning candidate?

    Meanwhile we’re watching a puny marxist rub the noses of the entire U.S. Congress in poop and then dance on their heads. What’s worse, our hero GOPers are going in circles about a Constitutional crisis. Amazing how Republicans are carnivores when it comes to other Republicans, but look at all the limp wrists when it comes to Democrats.

    AZ legislature help us out here! At least Repeal Prop 106.

  8. JPD says:

    One simple fact, it’s he said she said except for the off duty police officer and his wife witnessing Bungaard assaulting Ballard when he pulled her from his car to her knees to stop her from driving off. Now what kind of guy would leave his keys in the ignition considering the situation? Is this the kind of thinker I want making laws for me?

    As sad as it is, it is what it is.

  9. vinoaz says:

    So many of our politicians are elitists. They think they “have immunity” and that they are above it all. They lie, cheat, and steal and somehow it is OK. Yet, they know what is best for us, the great unwashed. The laws and rules they make up are for us, not them. I heard some folks call a radio station defending this guy in spite of overwhelming testimony contrary to his claims. We will never clean up politics as long as we think someone is worthy just because they have an R or D after their name.

    • Marianne says:

      I blame him most for choosing a viciously vindictive nutcase for a girlfriend. I’ve known too many women who want to bring the guy they once claimed to love to his knees and then shred him, his reputation and career. This is not a defense of Bundgaard, but based on a lifetime of observation and hearing friends I’ve known congratulating each other for doing something similar. In this case, if Bundgaard was as wretched a guy as Ballard claimed, why didn’t she move on? There is culpability on both sides, but men can’t prey on public sympathies as effectively as a weeping pretty woman can.

      I’ve known women who brag about making up stories about their almost ex-husbands in order to limit the court-ordered time they can have with their own children, who they guys love and financially support.