Norm Coleman likes to tout his past job as a prosecutor in the State Attorney General’s office when talking about corruption on Wall Street, but you haven’t heard him talk about it much in the context of this lawsuit.
For a moment, let’s enter a hypothetical world where Norm is truly innocent. If this is the case, there are two general categories that the lawsuit has to fit into: (1) it’s a complete fabrication or (2) Kazeminy was trying to buy influence without Coleman’s knowledge. In either case there’s a clear plan of action. Moreover, as a former prosecutor, Coleman knows exactly what an innocent person should do in this sort of situation; it’s what almost any prosecutor would do: demand a full investigation be conducted by the relevant authorities, agree to cooperate fully in the investigation, and call on Kazeminy to come forward and tell the full truth. This accomplishes two goals: proving innocence and expediting resolution of the suit. That is, as long as you’re actually innocent.
Returning to reality, Coleman’s response to this suit has been almost the exact opposite. Instead of seeking resolution and proving innocence, he has been attacking the credibility of the suit and trying to refocus attention back on the Franken campaign, who notably has had no connection with the story. Coleman’s a prosecutor, so he should know full well that this isn’t the response an innocent guy has to a lawsuit like this.
Now, I certainly am not saying that this proves Norm’s guilt (especially since he’s been suing everyone in sight and I don’t want to be next!), but I definitely think it’s worth noting and taking into consideration. The next time Norm uses his former prosecutor credential, someone should ask him why then he hasn’t called for an investigation into this allegation of money funneling… my bet is that they don’t get a straight answer.
That’s a fair point. However, when it is this late in the election, it’s easiest to deny wrongdoing.
Coleman may have won on this issue. By ignoring the substance and blaming Franken he has distracted the public and the media while putting Franken on the defensive. Even if, after the election, he gets convicted of selling his office, the senate seat will remain safely on the right.
Has Normy REALLY put anyone on the defensive?
You have to be able to back that up - when there’s no tie to Franken that anyone if finding.
Franken has run a clean campaign to date. Why would he jeopardize that?
It makes no sense for Franken to run anything underhanded when he’s tied for the seat.
It doesn’t sound at all like Al. I think its more likely to believe:
a) Irrespective of timing, the case is REAL.
b) That its like Karl Rove bugging his own office 8 years ago.
Why else would Nor not deny it & want it investigated?
If there were dirty tricks - whre have they come from before this - the Right Wing.
Where is it most logical to think this is coming from: The Right Wing IFFFFFF its not true.
and that’s a big IFFF!!!!!
Very solid analysis. This makes an interesting
point no one else has made.
Mr. Kazeminy seems to have gone to ground.
My guess is that Senator Coleman
is communicating with him (not directly, but
through attorneys). Senator Coleman has not called
on Mr. Kazeminy to speak and, given the gravity
of the allegations, it is unlikely that either
Senator Coleman or Mr. Kazeminy’s attorney want
him to speak.
Mockingbird,
Franken dropped campaign appearances to attend a press conference where he defended himself and and his campaign.
I agree the case is real. I agree that it is most likely that Coleman’s supporter sent the 75K. I agree it is likely that Norm’s wife got the money like the docoments show. I would not be surprised to find out that someone from Coleman’s campaign gave an early notice to the now conservative Strib.
Never the less Norm has spun this event so that the media is reporting it as a battle of dirty tricks, not evidence of Norm’s corruption. Norm’s spin is working.
Coleman is a flip flopping, self-serving, crook. It would be obscene if the man who twisted the grief at Wellstone’s funeral into a political victory is now able to spin his own criminality into a second term. Take back Wellstone’s seat!
Matt - good points. However, the polls close in 48 hours. If Colemans presented such information I can guarantee the Franken response - Norm Coleman hasn’t answered all the questions. You are right, from a legal strategy - it would be wise to do that. But from a political strategy - it’d be totally dumb.
I think it would be wise to watch tonight’s debate.
Rhus - you may have awarded this to Norm, but I disagree.
As we learned from Swiftboating of Kerry, and even in McCain having been attacked by
Bush or Bush surrogates in 2000 with the race-baiting “black child” reference: you do not leave an accusation unanswered.
And you DO NOT HESITATE.
Is that necessarily playing defense? To be prompt in answering allegations?
Is that too nuanced? I agree it could become a defensive posture, but I don’t believe it has done so.
And Craig H is correct too. It was obscene the way Norm behaved after getting Paul Wellstone’s seat.
Now he’s selling us how flip-floppy “go-with-the-flow” he can be after he’s been less than cooperative.
Is Norm as bad as all that? I’m not sure he’s talented enough to be.
And I clean break would be a great way to approach a TRULY new way of looking at the future, instead of
repeating the mistakes of the past.
There are other possibilities as for the origin of this lawsuit, “IF” there is collusion.
1) True allegation, irrespective of timing.
2) The 3rd party candidate benefits all around in this, as I’ve already said in another thread.
That’s is as credible a source as Franken’s campaign. Probably MORE so. Rather like the Grunseth - Carlson thing.
I notice Norm clearly pointed to Franken & no one else. How convenient that he try to pin it on the closest challenger.
I am most of all inclined to suspect the accusation is simply true, or a shaded truth.
That Norm had money funneled to him. Looking at the other associations of the players around Coleman - its not so out of character.
Barring those options…
3) Has Norm ever MET the person filing the suit? It might be a beef someone has with Norm, who has nothing to do with either campaign! What might such a beef be? If we can’t answer that - then its really not viable to think so.
In the 3rd debate tonight Normy tried to nuance this story:
Its because Franken didn’t cry for Norm & hug him - as reason enough to attack Franken!?
But this is dancing in place. We don’t know.
Its a serious allegation. Possible criminal wrongdoing.
And Norm is trying to play it for sympathy.
(whups on the typos - I need a new keyboard!)