Covering — or covering for — Keith Ellison

Star Tribune reporter Jessie Van Berkel purports to cover the words and deeds that should haunt Keith Ellison as he runs for the office of Minnesota Attorney General in “Keith Ellison faces and navigates controversy, again.” Ellison is unfit to serve in any high office, but he is particularly unfit to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the state. Van Berkel’s article touches on the matters I document in “Louis Farrakhan’s first congressman,” in “Keith Ellison for dummies” and, most recently, in “Can Keith Ellison turn lawman?”

Van Berkel shows some knowledge of the relevant facts. Assume Van Berkel knows the background — an assumption that may nevertheless be contrary to fact. Query: Is she covering, covering for or covering up Keith Ellison? You be the judge.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.