The Star Tribune is misrepresenting a blockbuster story about Norm Coleman's recent legal scandal. The Strib has been spinning the story according to Coleman's lies -- trying to make the lawsuit seem like a political attack by Franken. This all began when Coleman's biggest donor was sued in a Texas court over illegal payments totalling $75,000 that were allegedly made to Coleman's wife. Yet the headline in the Strib reads: Coleman: Stop Attacking my Family
UPDATE: See below! Includes a great reader comment from Micorazon on what will happen if Coleman is elected but has to resign. And new information from MinnPost.com, including speculation on why a Texas company that provides underwater services to the offshore oil & gas industry would pay $75,000 to Minnesota insurance firm for "consulting."
First of all, this is a huge story: A lawsuit recently filed against Coleman's biggest donor, multimillionaire Nasser Kazeminy, alleges that Kazeminy funneled $75,000 in secret payments from his company, Deep Marine Technologies, to Coleman's wife Laurie, in a scheme involving the insurance company where she worked. See brownsox's excellent diary about this from yesterday. The Star Tribune article refers to two lawsuits -- one filed by McKim, former CEO of Deep Marine Technologies, and one by minority shareholders in the company. Since the lawsuits concern the same allegations, I've referred to them as one.
When I got online last night, I expected to see the Coleman case at the top of the Star Tribune front page. After all, he's our own Ted Stevens. We don't want Alaska to get all the good press. And the story about the first lawsuit had been on the web site in the morning with the headline: Suit alleges ally funneled $75,000 to the Colemans. But in the evening I had to search for it. The story wasn't on the front page. Finally I saw it in the "most emailed" list, with the mind-bending headline "Coleman calls lawsuit sleazy politics." The other story concerning Coleman was about his baseless defamation suit against Al Franken. But this one had the solemn headline, "Coleman sues Franken over ads."
So two lawsuits filed by people outside of politics which could lead to criminal charges are treated as "sleazy politics" by the Star Tribune. But Coleman's obviously political lawsuit (this is his fourth against an opponent!) against another politician is not sleazy? The Star Tribune is not only misreporting the stories; they are misrepresenting them.
I left a comment at the end of the first article, below comments from about 150 other confused Minnesotans, many of whom made similar comments -- that Coleman is a nasty piece of work, that the lawsuit story was all over the blogs, and that the Strib was equally sleazy in protecting him.
Then I went back to the home page. Within five minutes, the page had changed. The story now appeared on the front page, with a NEW headline "Coleman: Stop Attacking my Family." The Star Tribune is now spinning the story according to the Coleman narrative. Wring out your handkies, my friends. Norm is suffering! Here's what he says in the article:
"If my opponents have any shred of decency left in this campaign -- stop attacking my family,'' Coleman said in a statement.
Instead of focusing on the potential criminal charges, the Star Tribune is acting like a toady, doing the usual thing political operatives do for their bosses. The headline is a strong statement in support of Coleman's false attack against Franken. And the Coleman campaign is accusing the Franken campaign of "hand-delivering" the lawsuit to the press. The Star Tribune does its best to publicize poor Norm's travails:
On a campaign swing through the state Friday, Coleman characterized the first lawsuit, which was filed in Texas, as a false and "sleazy" political attack. In a written statement, he linked it to "malicious'' campaigning by DFL challenger Al Franken "and his allies.''
Here's the end of the article. Tell me if I'm wrong in thinking that it leaves the reader with the impression that this is definitely a political attack.
Franken spokeswoman Colleen Murray said no one associated with the Franken campaign had anything to do with bringing the lawsuit to light. She said Coleman was trying to deflect serious sworn allegations by Paul McKim, founder of Deep Marine Technology Inc. of Houston, in the first lawsuit. That lawsuit, filed in Harris County District Court in Houston, also alleges that Coleman friend Nasser Kazeminy steered the money from Deep Marine to the senator via Hays Companies, where Laurie Coleman, the senator's wife, has worked as an independent contractor since 2006.
Neither Hays nor the Colemans are parties to the lawsuit, but Coleman said it is clear that McKim timed the suit to use the election as leverage
.
UPDATE: What will happen if Coleman wins, but is convicted on charges relating to this scandal? We were discussing this fact in the comments. After Decembersue pointed out that Pawlenty could appoint a replacement, MiIcorazón had this point to make:
as I understand it, the appointment is only good until a special election can be held for the seat.
We should double-check this, but I believe the appointee would only serve until the following November, when a special election would determine the next Minnesota senator.
Anyway, I'm hoping and expecting that Norm will be sent packing on Tuesday and then face his legal problems as a private citizen, one without financial backing from the rich and well-connected.
As for the Star-Tribune, they are acting like the patsy they are, afraid of doing or saying anything that might swing the election, even though they've endorsed a candidate and are, by default, doing their utmost to see that he wins.
And what is arguably the best paper in the state (online only), Minnpost.com has an excellent article about the scandal. As a former Star Tribune reporter from the days when the Strib was a respectable and trusted source of news, Eric Black leads us through an argument that covers all the variables -- including why the Strib might not run with the story right away. (However, I don't believe he discusses why and how the Strib is manipulating the coverage in support of Norm.) The best line of the article is that after discussing the fact that -- as of right now -- there is no proof other than the claims in the lawsuit that the Coleman's actually benefit from the payments, Black says:
Not being in the business of servicing the underwater needs of the offshore oil and gas industry, I have no clue how credible it is that a Texas company in that business could credibly spend $75,000 in a single year to a Minneapolis insurance firm not for insurance itself but for consulting work about insurance.
LOL. Very tongue in cheek. So it is good to remember that the Strib may have had a reason not to run with the story right away. But they do NOT have any reason to be spinning the story as an attack by Franken against Coleman.