The Minneapolis Star Tribune has finally done a front-page investigative report on a Congressional candidate in Minnesota's Fifth District. Aha, you say, finally! At last, the Strib has gotten around to reporting that DFLer Keith Ellison was a member of the Nation of Islam for at least nine years, not 18 months as he has claimed; and they are finally telling their readers about Ellison's public appearances with a former Vice Lords gang chieftain in support of Vice Lords members who murdered Minneapolis policeman Jerry Haaf, and the other instances of Ellison supporting convicted cop-killers.

No. The Strib still isn't reporting any of that. Instead, it makes a front-page story of the the fact that in 1995, Republican Alan Fine was accused by his then-wife of slapping her. She had Fine arrested and he spent a few hours in the Hennepin County jail. He denied that he had slapped her, she dropped the charges, and the record of the incident was later expunged. Nevertheless, the Strib has dredged up this bit of domestic history in hopes of putting the last nail in Fine's campaign.

It isn't clear how the Strib obtained the expunged records. It says:

The Star Tribune learned of the arrest in a routine records check after Fine won the Republican endorsement in May. The newspaper obtained the expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago.

Interesting. Does the Strib "routinely" check Hennepin County records from 1995? Or do they routinely do record checks on Republican nominees? The real question, though, is, how did the Strib "obtain" the expunged record that was supposed to remain confidential? One possible source, of course, is Amy Klobuchar, the Hennepin County Attorney who is running for the U.S. Senate. Did Klobuchar or one of her aides leak the expunged record to the newspaper to help her fellow Democrat? If so, was a crime committed? We know that the Klobuchar campaign has already been involved in one dirty trick, which resulted in her communications director being referred to the FBI for possible criminal prosecution. Is this another instance where the Klobuchar campaign may be involved in criminal activity? This whole episode cries out for an investigation. I don't suppose, though, that the Strib will be calling for one.

The Strib also makes a point of the fact that between 1995 and 2005, there were five 911 calls placed from Fine's address. It isn't clear exactly what the point of this is, since, in three of the four instances where records survive, it was Fine who placed the call.

The point the Strib wants the reader to take away from its article is clear, however. This is the last paragraph of the story:

After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched a persistent attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters."

Touche.

Here's a funny thing, though. If the Strib thinks it's front page news that a Congressional candidate has been involved in a 911 call--hey, even if he made the call himself!--then it wouldn't have to go back to 1995 for a story. No, it could have reported on a 911 call that a young woman made on May 16, 2005, saying that she had been assaulted by Keith Ellison:

CLR RPT'G [Caller reporting] SHE WAS ASL'TD BY ELLISON/KEITH/BM/41/WRG SUIT LS [last seen] LEAVING APT …UNK DIR [unknown direction]…NO EMS [emergency medical services needed]…CLR WANTS TO SEE SQD [police squad]

Here is an image of the record of the 911 call. Which, by the way, is publicly available, so we didn't have to break any laws to get it:

I suppose the Strib didn't think that one was relevant because it was so recent.

One can understand, perhaps, why the Strib thought Alan Fine's encounter with Hennepin County District Court reflected on his character, even though it was eleven years ago and the charges were dropped. Of course, nothing like that could have happened to Keith Ellison; otherwise, surely, the Strib would report it. No, wait...

Actually, a motion for a restraining order was brought against Ellison in Hennepin County District Court. It was brought by a woman who alleged that Ellison punched, shoved, and verbally abused her, placed harassing phone calls to her, and broke the screen on the door to her apartment. Gosh, sounds an awful lot like the claim that was made against Fine, only worse. Maybe the Strib wasn't interested because the incidents were so long ago that they were ancient history, and thus not relevant to Ellison's character? Well, not exactly. Actually, the hearing on the woman's motion for a restraining order against Ellison is scheduled for October 23, fifteen days before the November 7 election.

It's entirely possible that the charges against Ellison are untrue. (I heard an Ellison defender on the radio who said that the woman, rumored to be a former babysitter for Ellison's children, is "crazy.") Likewise, the charge against Fine--which, unlike the proceeding against Ellison, was not pursued--was very likely false. But is there any conceivable ground for thinking that an allegation that Fine slapped a woman in 1995 is front-page news, but the allegation that in 2005 Ellison "punched, shoved and verbally abused" a woman doesn't need to be mentioned?

Until now, we've said nothing about these charges against Ellison because we have no way to gauge their reliability, and we think they are a distraction from the very serious, and indisputable, aspects of Ellison's record that disqualify him from public office. But if the Star Tribune is going to slime Ellison's opponent with a front-page story on an unproven, eleven year old domestic allegation, how on God's green earth can the paper cover up a more serious claim of the same nature against Ellison, that was made last month?

UPDATE: I haven't had time for exhaustive research, but expungement of criminal records is governed by Chapter 609A of the Minnesota Statutes. Here are some of the relevant provisions. Sec. 609A.01:

The remedy available is limited to a court order sealing the records and prohibiting the disclosure of their existence or their opening except under court order or statutory authority.

Sec. 609A.03, Subd. 5(c):

If the court issues an expungement order it may require that the criminal record be sealed, the existence of the record not be revealed, and the record not be opened except as required under subdivision 7.

Subd. 7(b)(1):

(b) Notwithstanding the issuance of an expungement order:

(1) an expunged record may be opened for purposes of a criminal investigation, prosecution, or sentencing, upon an ex parte court order;

I haven't seen the expungement order, but it is hard to see how the Star Tribune could have "obtained" the expunged records legally under these provisions. Again, we don't have all the answers, but an investigation appears to be in order.

Posted by John at 06:26 PM  |    |