Indiana Deserves Answers: The FBI Should Determine What Really Happened in the Daniels-Rush Summer of 2012

Daniels Is Back at Purdue. The FBI Should Finally Examine the Unanswered Questions of 2012

HOOSIER ENQUIRER | INVESTIGATIVE COMMENTARY

West Lafayette — Fourteen years is a long time for unanswered questions to linger around two of the most powerful institutions in Indiana.

In the summer of 2012, outgoing Gov. Mitch Daniels was selected to become president of Purdue University. Less than three months later, Daniels used his gubernatorial authority to appoint Tippecanoe Superior Court Judge Loretta Rush to the Indiana Supreme Court. Rush subsequently became chief justice and today presides over Indiana's judicial branch.

Those facts do not establish corruption, bribery or a quid pro quo. Hoosier Enquirer has not uncovered documentary evidence proving that Daniels' Purdue appointment and Rush's Supreme Court appointment were exchanged, conditioned upon one another or otherwise improperly connected.

But that shouldn't end the inquiry.

It should define it.

Mitch Daniels is back.

As thousands of students arrive in West Lafayette for the beginning of Purdue University's 2026–27 academic year, the former two-term Indiana governor is once again sitting in the university president's office. Daniels returned July 1 as interim president following Mung Chiang's departure, putting one of the most consequential—and controversial—figures in modern Indiana government back at the head of one of the state's most powerful public institutions.

The timing could hardly be more extraordinary, right. Plus Rush said in February she didn't know Daniels "until she interviewed him here" while sitting at Purdue?" Did she play some role in picking him and then him her? That would be illegal, and so easily determined today.

But where is the FBI closing down great resturants and raiding homes of businessmen and investigating the political enemies of the most corrupt people in the state? Figures it would be their gestapo.

Just as Daniels begins another Purdue school year, Pennsylvania authorities have charged 14 people, including 13 current or former Penn State students, in what prosecutors describe as a cocaine-trafficking organization involving fraternity houses. That case prompted Hoosier Enquirer to revisit Daniels' own remarkable history: his 1970 Princeton drug arrest, two nights in jail, eventual reduced misdemeanor conviction and the extraordinary second chance that followed. More than half a century later, the young man once arrested in a Princeton dormitory became governor of Indiana, a White House official, lawyer, corporate executive and Purdue president—not once, but now twice.

The Penn State story raises legitimate questions about punishment, redemption and whether young people should forever be defined by misconduct committed in college. But Daniels' return to Purdue raises another question that has nothing to do with what happened in his Princeton dorm room.

It concerns what happened in Indiana during 2012.

That was the extraordinary year in which Purdue's Board of Trustees selected sitting Gov. Mitch Daniels to become Purdue's next president and, less than three months later, Daniels exercised his gubernatorial authority to select Tippecanoe Superior Court Judge Loretta Rush for the Indiana Supreme Court.

Those two appointments have long generated questions because of their timing, institutional overlap and the enormous power both individuals subsequently accumulated. Those questions have become more pointed following Rush's later public remarks concerning her involvement in the Purdue presidential-selection process.

Hoosier Enquirer does not claim that the available public evidence proves Daniels and Rush entered into an illegal agreement. No publicly produced email, text message, financial record or sworn testimony presently establishes a quid pro quo connecting Daniels' Purdue appointment with Rush's Supreme Court appointment. Purdue's own historical record also notes that a state ethics review found no violation of Indiana's Code of Ethics concerning Daniels' selection.

Those facts must be acknowledged.

But so should the questions.

Now that Daniels has returned to Purdue, HE believes Indiana has reached an appropriate moment for independent federal authorities to determine whether the surviving records and witnesses justify a formal public-corruption investigation into the events of 2012.

If nothing improper happened, an independent examination could finally help put the allegation to rest. If previously undisclosed evidence demonstrates otherwise, Hoosiers deserve to know that too.

Fourteen years of speculation are enough.

It is time for facts.

First, Understand the Extraordinary 2012 Timeline

Purdue University's Board of Trustees selected Daniels as the university's 12th president on June 21, 2012.

Daniels was still governor. He had no education credentials or experience in education administration or NCAA or classroom or department head research history. He was a hack and college drug dealer arrested in 1970 for possession of LSD at Princeton in N.J.

That distinction is enormously important. He didn't immediately leave the Statehouse for West Lafayette after accepting the Purdue position. Daniels continued serving as Indiana's governor through the end of 2012 and therefore retained all of the substantial executive powers associated with that office.

At almost exactly the same time, another important selection process was underway.

Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. retired from the Indiana Supreme Court effective July 31, 2012. Indiana's seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission began the constitutionally prescribed process for selecting candidates to replace him.

Twenty-two people applied.

The Commission reduced that group to ten semifinalists and, on August 8, selected three finalists: Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation, Tippecanoe Superior Court Judge Loretta Rush and Indianapolis attorney Geoffrey Slaughter. The vote selecting the three finalists was reportedly 6–1.

Slaughter would later be appointed by Pence, and did Daniels influence him or his tapping of Rush as Chief Justice? These can be reported if Indiana had a real Federal Bureau of Investigation don't you think.

On August 16, the Commission sent Daniels its written evaluation of the three nominees. Indiana law then gave the governor 60 days to select one of them.

Daniels chose Rush in September.

Rush took the oath as Indiana's 108th Supreme Court justice in November 2012. Less than two years later, the Judicial Nominating Commission selected her as Indiana's first female chief justice, a position she continues to hold today.

Daniels finished his term as governor and moved to Purdue.

Those are facts, not allegations.

The question is whether anything relevant occurred between those facts that the public record has never adequately revealed.

Daniels' Return Makes the Question Current Again

It would be easy to dismiss all of this as ancient political history if Daniels had disappeared into retirement.

He hasn't.

Daniels returned to Purdue's presidency on July 1, and now, as the fall semester begins, students, parents, faculty members, donors and taxpayers once again see Mitch Daniels as the public face of Purdue University.

That makes 2012 relevant again because Daniels' original path into that office is no longer merely the story of a former university president. It is part of the history of Purdue's current leadership.

The Penn State drug scandal makes the timing even more remarkable.

HE recently examined the strange historical symmetry: Daniels was arrested as a Princeton junior in May 1970 after police discovered marijuana, LSD and prescription drugs in the dormitory room he shared with other students. He spent two nights in jail and ultimately paid a $350 fine after the case was reduced to maintaining a common nuisance. Daniels later acknowledged marijuana use and said he believed justice had been served.

That history didn't prevent Daniels from graduating, obtaining a law degree, working for Sen. Richard Lugar, serving in the Reagan administration, becoming a senior Eli Lilly executive, directing the federal Office of Management and Budget, serving two terms as Indiana governor or becoming Purdue's president.

As HE's Penn State examination argued, Daniels' life is therefore a remarkable case study in the value of second chances.

But second chances and public accountability are entirely compatible.

Daniels' Princeton history shouldn't disqualify him from public life more than half a century later. At the same time, his enormous continuing influence shouldn't exempt consequential decisions he made as governor from legitimate examination.

Indeed, the higher someone rises, the greater the public interest in understanding how important governmental decisions were made.

This Is Not an Accusation Looking for Evidence

That distinction is essential.

HE isn't asking the FBI to begin with the conclusion that Daniels or Rush committed a crime and then search for evidence to support it.

That would not be an investigation.

It would be a prosecution theory masquerading as one.

Instead, HE believes investigators should determine whether surviving evidence supports or refutes the proposition that the Purdue presidential-selection process and Indiana Supreme Court appointment process intersected improperly.

There is an enormous difference.

A serious investigation should follow evidence in both directions. Evidence demonstrating that the processes were independent should receive exactly the same weight as evidence suggesting an undisclosed connection.

That is how allegations involving public officials should be resolved.

Purdue's Search Is Where the Investigation Should Begin

The first investigative trail begins with the selection of Daniels as Purdue president.

Fortunately, some of the people involved have already spoken publicly about how it happened.

Former Purdue trustee Michael Berghoff has described chairing the search that produced Daniels. In a Purdue interview years later, Berghoff said there was considerable conversation between the first approach to Daniels and Daniels ultimately agreeing to become a candidate.

Berghoff specifically identified Keith Krach as another participant in the effort to recruit Daniels.

He also recalled Bob Bowen approaching him after learning that Berghoff was chairing the search and recommending Daniels as the first person Purdue should pursue.

That is valuable historical information because it gives investigators identifiable people, identifiable conversations and an identifiable starting point.

Federal investigators wouldn't have to guess where to begin.

They could ask.

The Key People Investigators Should Interview

A credible investigation would need to reconstruct both selection processes simultaneously. That means interviewing people at Purdue, inside the Daniels administration and within Indiana's judicial-selection system.

1. The Two Central Figures

• Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. — Investigators should establish when Daniels first learned Purdue was seriously considering him, when he first discussed accepting the presidency, who negotiated with him and what communications he had concerning Purdue before June 21. Separately, investigators should establish when Daniels first discussed the Supreme Court vacancy, when Rush emerged as a candidate in his thinking and every substantive communication he or his staff had with Rush during the relevant period.

• Chief Justice Loretta Rush — Investigators should ask when Rush decided to apply for the Supreme Court vacancy, whom she consulted, what contacts she had with Daniels or his administration and what involvement, if any, she had in discussions surrounding Purdue's presidential search. Her public recollections concerning the Purdue process should be compared with contemporaneous records rather than interpreted in isolation.

• 
  

Neither interview should begin with an accusation. Both should begin with a calendar.

2. Purdue's Presidential Search Leadership

• Michael Berghoff — The former search chairman can establish when Daniels first became a candidate, how he was recruited, who communicated with him and how Purdue's process developed before the June 21 vote.

  
  

• Keith Krach — As Purdue's board chairman and a person Berghoff specifically identifies as helping recruit Daniels, Krach could provide another first-hand account of the negotiations and timeline.

  
  

• Robert “Bob” Bowen — Berghoff has publicly identified Bowen as someone who suggested Daniels early in the search. Investigators should determine exactly when that occurred and what happened afterward.

  
  

• Every surviving member of Purdue's 2012 Board of Trustees — Each should be asked when he or she first learned Daniels was under consideration, what information was provided before the vote, whether any trustee communicated with Rush or other Indiana judicial officials and whether anyone outside Purdue attempted to influence the selection.

  
  

• Every available member and relevant staffer of Purdue's 2012 presidential search committee — Their testimony could independently establish how Daniels moved from potential candidate to Purdue's unanimous selection.

• 
  

The questions should be accompanied by records. Investigators should seek surviving trustee emails, search-committee documents, meeting notes, calendars, telephone records, memoranda and correspondence from the relevant months.

3. Daniels Administration Officials

• Earl Goode — Daniels' chief of staff should be interviewed concerning the governor's schedule, the Purdue transition and the Supreme Court vacancy. Investigators should determine whether his office maintained calendars, appointment logs or other records showing meetings involving Rush or Purdue officials.

  
  

• David Pippen — As a senior lawyer and adviser in the Daniels administration, Pippen could explain the governor's normal judicial-vetting procedures and identify documents created concerning Rush, Nation and Slaughter.

  
  

• Becky Skillman — Daniels' lieutenant governor could provide information concerning executive-branch discussions during the administration's final months and what she knew about the Purdue transition and Supreme Court selection.

  
  

• Other Daniels administration lawyers, schedulers and appointments personnel — Investigators should identify everyone who handled the finalists' applications, scheduled interviews, prepared briefing materials or participated in discussions concerning the Supreme Court appointment.

  
  

Their testimony should be factual rather than speculative: who attended, what was discussed, what documents existed and where those documents might now be found.

4. The Other Supreme Court Finalists

• Judge Steven R. Nation — Nation should describe his interview with Daniels, contacts with the governor's staff, questions he was asked and what he understood about the selection procedure.

  
  

• Justice Geoffrey G. Slaughter — Slaughter should provide the same information. His experience is especially useful because he subsequently went through the process again and as above, he was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Gov. Mike Pence in 2016.

Is he compromised? It seems all these power brokers are dirty is some way and perhaps that is why the raise to power. Someone has their back and they have their backs. So, you can see why public confidence has erroded to the point that young peope want a socialist revolution. The creeps need to look in the mirror.

Nation and Slaughter don't need to accuse anyone of anything. Their experiences provide comparison points. If Rush, Nation and Slaughter received materially similar treatment, that would be important evidence. If investigators identify unusual differences, they can determine why.

5. The 2012 Judicial Nominating Commission

• Former Chief Justice Brent E. Dickson — Dickson served as Indiana's chief justice from May 2012 through August 2014 and chaired the Judicial Nominating Commission during the Rush selection. He should explain how the candidates were evaluated, how the final three emerged and whether anyone attempted to influence the Commission. Indiana's selected Congressman Rudy Yakim, III, was on that Commission, just a coincidence. HE thinks not.

  
  

• Each of the other six members of the 2012 Judicial Nominating Commission — Every available commissioner should be interviewed individually. Investigators should determine whether anyone from the governor's office, Purdue, the judiciary or elsewhere contacted commissioners concerning particular candidates.

  
  

• Commission staff responsible for the 2012 vacancy — Administrative personnel could help locate applications, correspondence, interview materials, meeting records and other surviving documents.

  
  

This part of the inquiry matters because Daniels couldn't simply appoint anyone he wished to the Supreme Court. The Commission first had to nominate three candidates. That institutional protection is part of the official process and must be incorporated into any fair analysis.

Name the Witnesses, Then Find the Documents

The investigative roadmap therefore begins with a substantial but manageable universe of people:

Mitch Daniels. Loretta Rush. Michael Berghoff. Keith Krach. Bob Bowen. Earl Goode. David Pippen. Becky Skillman. Steven Nation. Geoffrey Slaughter. Brent Dickson. The other six members of the 2012 Judicial Nominating Commission. Every available 2012 Purdue trustee. Members and staff of Purdue's presidential search committee. Daniels administration lawyers, schedulers and appointments personnel. Judicial Nominating Commission staff.

Those interviews should not substitute for documentary evidence. They should lead investigators to it. All Indiana media outlets should demand it, not just the Hoosier Enquirer. Selling a seat on the state supreme court is a serious matter.

What Records Should Federal Investigators Seek?

Investigators should attempt to reconstruct a master chronology covering at least the period from the earliest discussions of Daniels as a possible Purdue president through his departure from the governor's office.

That means locating Purdue trustee emails and correspondence, presidential-search records, Daniels' gubernatorial calendars, governor's-office appointment files, telephone logs where available, Rush's judicial application, written evaluations of all three finalists, Judicial Nominating Commission records and communications involving people participating in either process.

Investigators should also determine what records no longer exist and why.

The passage of fourteen years obviously presents challenges. Retention schedules may have resulted in lawful destruction of some records. People change phones and email accounts. Memories fade.

That makes surviving contemporaneous evidence even more important.

What Would Actually Turn the Timeline Into a Corruption Case?

An unusual chronology is not a federal crime.

Knowing someone isn't a federal crime.

Having political relationships isn't a federal crime.

And receiving a prestigious appointment after participating in another public process does not, standing alone, establish bribery.

Investigators would need substantially more.

The evidence that could materially change the picture falls into several identifiable categories:

• Concurrent communications: Emails, texts, letters, calendars or call records establishing previously undisclosed substantive communications among Daniels, Rush, Purdue decision-makers or intermediaries during the overlapping selection processes.

• Evidence of an exchange: A communication, recording or credible witness indicating that an official decision or benefit was conditioned upon another action.

• First-hand testimony: A trustee, commissioner, government employee, judicial employee or other participant claiming direct knowledge of an improper agreement.

• Financial evidence: An undisclosed payment, contribution, financial benefit or other thing of value connected with an official act.

• Independent corroboration: Evidence supporting any allegation made by a witness. A fourteen-year-old recollection unsupported by records would require particularly careful scrutiny.

HE presently possesses no evidence establishing such a corrupt exchange.

That disclaimer doesn't weaken the argument for investigation. It explains why an investigation is being requested rather than a prosecution being demanded.

The Penn State Case Makes the Daniels Story Newly Relevant

There is another reason this moment matters.

The Penn State cocaine case has forced universities to confront an uncomfortable question: what should happen when students become involved with drugs?

Pennsylvania prosecutors aren't alleging simple experimentation. They describe a cocaine-distribution enterprise involving fraternity houses and substantial quantities of drugs. Every defendant remains presumed innocent, and the allegations against individual defendants vary.

Daniels' Princeton case was substantially different. He was not convicted of running a trafficking organization. His eventual conviction was the reduced misdemeanor offense described in HE's previous reporting.

Yet the contrast illustrates something important about accountability.

HE has argued that Daniels' life demonstrates why a college drug arrest shouldn't necessarily condemn a person forever. America gave Daniels opportunities after Princeton, and he made extraordinary use of them.

But a second chance does not mean a lifetime exemption from scrutiny.

The fact that Daniels overcame his own youthful misconduct doesn't mean decisions he subsequently made as governor cannot be examined. Indeed, Daniels' remarkable career demonstrates both sides of public accountability: people deserve the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, and powerful public officials remain accountable for what they do with the authority subsequently entrusted to them.

Those ideas aren't contradictory. They are complementary.

Imagine the Purdue Campus This Fall

There is something almost cinematic about the moment.

A new Purdue freshman arriving in West Lafayette this month was born roughly four decades after Daniels' Princeton arrest. That student walks onto campus in 2026 and encounters a university led by the same man who was arrested as a Princeton student in 1970.

That is an extraordinary testament to the possibility of rehabilitation.

But the same freshman is attending a public university whose president was selected for that job in 2012 while he was still governor of Indiana—and who used his remaining gubernatorial authority to select a Tippecanoe County judge for the Indiana Supreme Court.

That judge is now Chief Justice Loretta Rush. Something he could have asked Pence to do, too. Daniels once made a racial comment regarding African American Scholars and yet he's back?

Daniels is now back at Purdue. Rush is still chief justice. This is "beyond the pale."

The institutions involved remain among the most powerful in Indiana. That is why this isn't simply an archival curiosity.

An Investigation Could Vindicate Daniels and Rush

There is an outcome that critics of an FBI inquiry should consider carefully: federal investigators could conclude that nothing improper happened.

Perhaps Berghoff, Krach, Bowen and Purdue's trustees recruited Daniels entirely on their own because they believed a successful two-term governor would make an exceptional university president.

Perhaps the Judicial Nominating Commission independently concluded that Rush, Nation and Slaughter were the three strongest candidates among the 22 applicants.

Perhaps Daniels then reviewed those three candidates and independently concluded that Rush was the best choice.

That sequence is completely plausible.

It is also broadly consistent with the official record.

If documentary evidence and witness testimony establish that sequence, then Daniels and Rush would benefit from an independent examination that finally answers persistent allegations with evidence.

People accused by insinuation deserve that opportunity too.

But Indiana Shouldn't Be Asked Simply to Trust Powerful Institutions

Public confidence isn't maintained by telling citizens that questions are inappropriate.

It is maintained by answering them.

Purdue University is a public institution. The governor of Indiana is a public official. The Indiana Supreme Court exercises enormous governmental power. The Judicial Nominating Commission occupies a uniquely influential position between the legal profession, judiciary and executive branch.

When unusual circumstances involving those institutions generate persistent questions, transparency strengthens rather than weakens them.

Fourteen years have passed.

The principal witnesses are aging. Records may disappear. Memories will continue fading. Every additional year makes reconstructing 2012 more difficult.

If the matter deserves independent examination, the time isn't ten years from now.

It is now.

Start the School Year With Transparency

Mitch Daniels begins Purdue University's 2026–27 academic year as one of the most unusual figures in modern Indiana public life. More than half a century ago, he was a Princeton student arrested in a drug case that could easily have derailed his future. Instead, Daniels went on to work for Sen. Richard Lugar, rise through Republican politics, become a senior corporate executive, serve as White House budget director, win two terms as Indiana governor and ultimately lead Purdue University. After leaving the presidency once, he has now returned to the university's top office.

That remarkable career is one reason HE's recent examination of the Penn State cocaine case and the meaning of second chances is so timely. Daniels' own experience demonstrates that a serious mistake made as a young man need not permanently define an entire life. At the same time, his return to Purdue makes the unresolved questions surrounding his original 2012 selection newly relevant because the decisions made during Daniels' final year as governor continue to shape two of Indiana's most powerful institutions.

Indiana should not prejudge Daniels, Chief Justice Loretta Rush or the ultimate answer to those questions. What the public should demand is evidence sufficient to determine whether the official account is complete.

That means interviewing the people who directly participated in the events, including Mitch Daniels and Loretta Rush; Michael Berghoff, Keith Krach and Bob Bowen; Earl Goode, David Pippen and Becky Skillman; Steven Nation and Geoffrey Slaughter; Brent Dickson and the other members of the 2012 Judicial Nominating Commission; and the Purdue trustees, presidential-search participants, Daniels administration officials and Commission personnel who handled the two selection processes.

A serious inquiry also should be built around records rather than rhetoric. Investigators should locate whatever surviving emails, calendars, memoranda, appointment files, telephone records and Purdue search materials remain, establish a detailed chronology and compare that documentary record with the recollections of the people involved. If the evidence demonstrates that Daniels' Purdue selection and Rush's Supreme Court appointment were completely independent, that conclusion should be stated just as clearly as any evidence pointing in another direction.

Daniels' own history provides an appropriate lesson for how such an inquiry should proceed. A person's life should not be frozen forever at one controversial moment, whether that moment occurred in a Princeton dormitory in 1970 or in the final months of an Indiana governorship in 2012. But second chances do not eliminate public accountability, and public institutions should never be afraid to examine consequential episodes in their own history.

As Purdue opens another school year with Daniels once again at its helm, Indiana has an opportunity to recognize both principles. The state can acknowledge the extraordinary second chance that allowed Daniels to build a distinguished career after Princeton while also insisting upon transparency concerning the governmental decisions made during his final year as Governor.

The Penn State scandal reminds Americans that accountability and rehabilitation can coexist. The Daniels-Rush timeline raises the same principle from a different direction: powerful people deserve neither automatic condemnation nor automatic exemption from scrutiny.

Investigate fairly, obtain the records, compare the testimony and follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the evidence clears those involved, say so plainly. If it establishes wrongdoing, pursue it. Fourteen years after the events of 2012, Indiana deserves something more durable than suspicion or reassurance. It deserves the facts.