Judicial Jujutsu

Posted on October 30, 2008 by Joe Loveland

Lawsuits are flying around the Minnesota Senate race right and left today.

LAWSUIT #1: First, the Huffington Post reports that a lawsuit in Texas against Coleman alleged that a family friend provided $75,000 to the Senator’s family through the friend’s business. If true, that would be a very big deal, but this lawsuit has apparently been withdrawn.

LAWSUIT #2: According to news accounts, Coleman’s has filed a lawsuit alleging he was defamed by Franken, because Franken said Coleman was ranked the fourth most corrupt Member of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Which lawsuit is righteous, and which is frivolous? I have no idea.

It’s worth noting that Coleman has filed similar suits against Senator Paul Wellstone and Attorney General Hubert Humphrey in the waning days of past campaigns, so there’s a fighting chance that this lawsuit may be more about winning in the court of public opinion than winnning in a court of law.

But Franken did seem to make a factual error. Apparently CREW said Coleman was one of the 20 most corrupt Members of Congress (out of 535), a fact Coleman doesn’t seem to dispute. But Coleman does dispute that CREW specifically ranked him fourth.

And lots of crazy lawsuits get filed against incumbents like Coleman in the final week of campaigns, and there is a good chance that the Texas suit lacks merit as well.

Merit aside, I do find this back-and-forth interesting from a public relations standpoint.

First, does it really help Coleman to call in the news media to essentially declare “how dare my opponent say I’ve been named fourth most corrupt, when I’ve only been named as one the 20 most corrupt?!” Is shining the light on a corruption ranking ever a good idea?

Second, if Coleman is innocent, shouldn’t he deny the allegations? Might the mum and run routine (see videoclip above) feed a perception of guilt at a delicate political hour?

Finally, shouldn’t the Star Tribune mention both the pro- and anti-Coleman lawsuits in its coverage? In the current on-line story, only the anti-Franken lawsuit is mentioned.

- Loveland

Post-post postscript: Since the original post, the Star Tribune has published a separate story by investigative reporters Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy about the anti-Coleman lawsuit. Hence, the deletion above. The Pioneer Press did a story on the anti-Franken lawsuit, but not the anti-Coleman lawsuit.

Filed under: Communications | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before McCain’s “Hail Sarah” Finally Comes Down…and Falls Incomplete »

5 Responses

  1. Joe Loveland, on October 31st, 2008 at 7:37 am Said:

    I still can’t figure out whether the Texas suit is live. Coleman staff — still nothing but sprints to the car from the Senator — have been widely quoted saying the lawsuit has been withdrawn. But CBS News, citing The Politico, writes: “Harris County court clerk, reached Thursday afternoon, said the suit was still active but no future hearings had been scheduled.”

    And Huffington Post added this to it’s piece:

    UPDATE: An official close to the proceedings tells the Huffington Post that the case is now going back to court. The two parties, he said, had reached an agreement to drop the suit and hammer out a settlement. But negotiations broke down and the suit has been re-introduced.

    Reply
  2. EMM, on October 31st, 2008 at 9:58 am Said:

    All of my confidential sources close to the investigation confirm that the lawsuit is still in play.

    And good luck to any candidate in the heat of reelection arguing he had an upstanding reputation that was defamed by an opponent. Usually politicians ruin their own reputations all by themselves.

    Reply
  3. Joe Loveland, on October 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am Said:

    The lawsuit document is available on-line.

    It includes some flowery, at least for a legal document, language:

    From Abscam to Adelphia, for many years American principles of corporate governance have been disregarded in the name of “might makes right.” And from Pete Williams to David Durenberger, political alchemy involving business, power and money has proven not to be so rare. But rare is the occassion when a person, such as Sherron Watkins at Enron, stands up against oppression and wrongdoing. Where Deep Marine Holdings, Inc. (”DMH”) and Deep Marine Technologies, Incorporated (”DMT”) are concerned, Paul McKim is that tperson.”

    It claims the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by “directing improper payment to Hays (Companies) for the benefit of Senator Norm Coleman and his spouse for no legitimate business purpose.”

    Serious charges from high places (McKim is the former CEO of the company allegedly doing the “directing”). People would probably take these charges more seriously if it weren’t the weekend before the election.

    Reply
  4. Joe Loveland, on October 31st, 2008 at 2:47 pm Said:

    Norm’s response statement here. Very emphatic denial.

    Let me be clear: Each and every allegation in this lawsuit relating to me and my wife is false and defamatory.
    …

    Let me tell you how this arose. This is not about public documents researched by an investigative reporter. No. Sometime last week, even before this Texas lawsuit was originally filed, a copy of these false allegations was delivered in Minnesota in an unmarked envelope to two Minneapolis Star Tribune reporters.

    Then on Monday of this week, my opponent began running vicious, untrue attacks against me with charges the media called “false”. That same day, some person in Texas, unknown to me or my wife, files the lawsuit with these same allegations given to the reporters a week earlier. Within hours, that lawsuit was withdrawn.

    Then, yesterday morning, my campaign filed a legitimate lawsuit against Al Franken and his campaign for violating the state’s fair campaign laws – and before you know it, we learned that this false and malicious lawsuit had been refiled in Texas. And now the Franken campaign and its allies are trying to use it for political advantage.

    …

    My wife has been devastated by this. She turns on her computer and reads on the blogs the most vicious attacks, impugning her integrity and trying to destroy her ability to do her job. She’s angry– and she has a right to be — and so am I.

    This is the kind of 11th hour, sleazy attack the people of Minnesota are sick and tired of. This is not the Minnesota way and I know the people of Minnesota. This will backfire.

    If my opponents have any shred of decency left in this campaign – stop attacking my family.

    Reply
  5. PM, on October 31st, 2008 at 7:18 pm Said:

    I still don’t get the link between Franken’s campaign and this lawsuit–other than that it was filed the weekend before the election.

    Fram what i see, this is a fight between McKim and Kazeminy (he of the suit buying), and it seems to me that McKim is filing it now to embarrass him when it will draw the most attention in the national media–which would support why it was almost withdrawn as they tried to reach a settlement–McKim was trying to use the media attention to get more $$ from Kazeminy–or at least that is how it seems to be happening to me.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean that Norm is either guilty or innocent–but he certainly doesn’t seem to be the target. I would have to assume that McKim must have at least some evidence to back up this claim, otherwise he has opened himself up to a lot of suits (so to speak).

    Anyone else see it differently?

    Reply

Leave a Reply