Chief Justice Rush's Purdue Remarks Raise Serious Questions That Deserve Answers -- Who Can Still Trust Her?

"Every Word Matters" Rush provides evidence of a conflict of Interest, quid pro quo, and likely lies that she never knew the sitting governor, former Lugar AA, or former Bush OMB Director, who campaigned as "My Man Mitch" for a Year before serving his 2 terms as Indiana's Governor before taking a job as President of Purdue for which he had no experience to do.

During Purdue University's Presidential Lecture Series on March 4, 2026, Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush as shown above in the video clip stated that she had "interviewed" former Governor Mitch Daniels before he became president of Purdue University.

That remark may have passed unnoticed by many in attendance--Purdue students some willing to go to an uncredited law school, Purdue Global online.

It should not be ignored by the powers that be or citizens of this state, or HE.

The statement immediately raises an obvious question: In what capacity was then-Tippecanoe Superior Court Judge Loretta Rush interviewing Governor Daniels?

She couldn't be really a Republican or Hoosier of any civic consequense, if she had never met him before she interviewed him. What?  Daniels had been an omnipresent person in Indiana for many decades and even drove a Camper signed by nearly every hoosier with a sharpie.  She said too much.

When one is drunk with power one thinks she is untouchable. She has said that even her own children tell "she thinks she is all that," telling for sure. The FBI needs to investigate this crooked deal that put her on our state's highest court by a Governor who less than 2 months later went to Purdue in Lafayette for a lucrative and powerful new job, too.

But public records indicate that Judge Rush was not a member of the Purdue Board of Trustees, has not been publicly identified as serving on the presidential search process that selected Daniels, and held no publicly known formal role in Purdue's presidential succession planning.

So why was she interviewing him?

Hoosiers deserve an answer.

The issue is not whether Judge Rush and Governor Daniels knew each other. Indiana is a relatively small state and public officials frequently interact.

The concern is appearances.  Did she invite him or did he seek her support? Either way she had a conflict of interest, and now that is clear.  She never should have accepted what appears to be a quid pro quo appointment for which she clearly was not fit fill, based on her poor performance in the last decade in the role of Chief Justice..  But then again, Daniels abhorred smart judges and a smart third branch of government on the record for decades as well.

Just months after Daniels became Purdue's president, Governor Daniels appointed Judge Rush to the Indiana Supreme Court in November 2012. Two years later, she became Chief Justice. Did Daniels tell Pence to appoint her Chief Justice? These questions need answers and Pence would know, too.

If Judge Rush had a previously undisclosed role in vetting, interviewing, advising, or assisting Daniels regarding his selection as Purdue president, reasonable people may question whether the relationship was closer than previously understood.

Again, there is presently no evidence of wrongdoing. Other than Rush was paid by Purdue and still is. She lied under oath about how much she was paid on her own disclosures. And her husband, Jim Rush, is part of the Rush Crossing Family according to her, which has very deep roots at PU. She is an alumna and featured online as a promonent Purdue Graduate.

She has not effectively addressed ethics cases, and the ethics rules often focus not merely on actual impropriety, but also upon the appearance of impropriety, which this situation creates to all, warrenting a formal investigation. In Illinois a governor went to jail just for mentioning selling an open Senate appointment, here in Indiana did a Governor sell to Rush an open seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for appointment that was being interviewed for?

To ordinary Hoosiers, the sequence of events understandably invites questions:

• Why was a state trial judge interviewing a sitting governor for a university position?

• Was she acting as a Purdue alumna, community leader, informal advisor, or in some other capacity?

• Did Purdue request her involvement?

• Were there other judges or local officials involved?

• Were any records, emails, or communications generated concerning this role?

  
  

The Indiana judiciary frequently emphasizes transparency, public confidence, and avoiding circumstances that create appearances of favoritism.

Those same principles should apply here.

Unfortunately, Indiana government has too often embraced a culture where insiders move between positions of influence while the public is left to wonder whether important decisions are being made through formal processes or private relationships.

The appearance of insider networks, backroom vetting, and mutually beneficial relationships can erode public confidence even if no improper conduct occurred.

That is why transparency matters.

At minimum, Chief Justice Rush should publicly clarify exactly what she meant by saying she "interviewed" Mitch Daniels.

Was it a casual meeting? A formal interview? An advisory role? An alumni function? But then Daniels went to Princeton and Georgetown Law...; was it a community discussion? Or worse, a deal negotiated between two known opportunists?

The public deserves a straightforward answer. Rumors of this have ciruclated for years undermining her credibility and today many are asking how to remove her for cause. So, many other want her job and would do so much better. She will never restore confidence and trust in system, where she lied in order, rewarded loyolty, and frankly was a DEI RINO appointed by Daniels becuase she was dump and weak.

The irony is difficult to ignore. The reality of the failed legal system in Indiana is not. Her court leadership as failed to keep Indiana from approaching the bottom 10 states in nearly every metric. How far do want to drop? He is old, admittedly and she still sucks.

Indiana's courts routinely lecture lawyers, judges, and public officials about ethics, conflicts, and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Yet when questions arise involving powerful members of the state's legal establishment, there often appears to be little appetite for scrutiny.

If any local judge had publicly disclosed that he or she interviewed a governor and was then appointed by that same governor to one of the most powerful positions in state government months later, many observers would undoubtedly ask questions.

Those questions should not become off limits simply because the person involved is the Chief Justice of Indiana.

Public trust in institutions depends on transparency and accountability.

Chief Justice Rush may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. Regardless if you watch the entire Purdue program too will find it disgusting what a "name-dropper" Rush is, and want to know about her world travels and who paid the bill for her vacations. See that program at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbAREoOY_5o

But until an explanaiton is provided, her comments at Purdue will continue to generate understandable questions among Hoosiers that warrant an FBI Investigation into how she was appointed after she interviewed Daniels, as she admits on video.

And in public life, unanswered questions can be almost as damaging as the answers themselves. Lord knows Rush had done generations worth of damages to law in Indiana.

This article constitutes opinion and commentary. It does not allege illegal conduct, corruption, or an actual quid pro quo by any individual, only says if every word matters she's got some splaining to do and the FBI should investigate both her and her man Mitch.

The article raises serious questions concerning public statements and the appearance issues that may arise from them and supports HE's call for Chief Justice Rush's Resignation.