He Asked for an Answer 'Under Penalty of Perjury.' Her Campaign Gave One, Sort Of

Six days out, the governor's race has a new catchphrase. Republican Mike Minogue posted on Facebook asking whether Gov. Maura Healey "cut a deal with the State Troopers for an endorsement," then demanded she answer "under penalty of perjury." Healey campaign spokesman Kerry Patrick Lyons replied that this was "an unhinged rant from an unhinged, desperate candidate" and said his response was "issued under penalty of perjury." Cute. Also meaningless. A campaign press statement isn't sworn testimony.

The underlying facts are pretty plain. The State Police Association endorsed Healey Sept. 10 along with three other police groups, none of which endorsed her in 2022. Healey's September supplemental budget, which the House passed last week, ratifies the troopers' new contract and sets up a $30 million reserve. Minogue says the timing "raises serious questions." Union president Brendan Murphy calls the quid-pro-quo claim "categorically false" and says the raise is 11 percent over three years, not the 18 percent Minogue posted.

So who's right? Here's my take: Minogue has a timeline and no evidence. Healey has a contract the House already voted on and four police endorsements she clearly loves. Asking a governor to swear she didn't trade a contract for a union's support is a fair political question. Calling it "illegal" without showing anyone actually traded anything is how you end up getting fact-checked by the troopers you say you're defending.

And Healey's answer? "Lies and nonsense." Fine. But the easy move would have been releasing the bargaining timeline. That would end this in an afternoon.

What we still don't know: when the contract terms were agreed relative to the Sept. 10 endorsement, and whether the Senate will pass the supplemental budget before or after Nov. 3.