Allegations are allegations. So a guy in Texas testified under oath. Didn't Bill Clinton testify "the truth" a few years back? No skepticism that this lawsuit may be politically motivated? This will, or should not have any more press than say the admitted financial inappropriateness of Al Franken. Wasn't it reported that he made $17,500 last year? Franken wears some pretty sharp suits and designer lenses for a guy making that kind of money.
I suppose Franken's commercial touting that a bipartisan watchdog group headed by Melanie Sloan of the DNC and funded by labor groups is justified. Perhaps the lawsuit was not the best route to take - but Franken should be held accountable, after all the whining he and Brian Melendaz have done about the "smear" campaign where Franken's own work is scrutinized.

LASMBERT: But what if ... if ... Franken and the DNC had nothing to do with this?

This is a very serious allegation in that Hays Companies as an insurance broker really can't be in the business of passing money along to sitting Senators.

At face value, the thing smells. The lawsuit is magically filed a week before the election, withdrawn, and re-filed. That feels more like a desire to grab attention from the media, the story went no where initially. The lack of documentation (invoices, checks) also bothers me.

Granted that if this is true, Tom Petters may be getting a cell mate. I just have to give a pass to all charges this close to the election. Raising crap the week before an election is the oldest trick in the book.

LAMBERT: I'll be skeptical, but I won't give "a pass".

Doesn't Norm have a pattern of last minute lawsuits in close campaigns?
Again, Norm?

Lori Peterson ambushed Norm in Moorhead on the subject; the Fargo Forum has up a typically incompetent story putting them one incompetent story ahead of the strib.

It's a tough sell that McKim risked perjury to help a guy he apparently didn't know by filing papers which in three months time might boost that guy's poll numbers enough for him to win the election in a state a thousand miles away.

Hard to do a cost/benefit that makes sense for McKim.

LAMBERT: At best ... for Norm ... McKim (or someone) is using the election for an out-of-court squeeze. At worst ...

Do you have any thoughts about the deep Metro placement of this story.

LAMBERT: The Strib isn't sure what is going on, and are being careful not to overplay what could be a private scam. If the paper knows more, and is holding back until after the election to avoid being a central character in a possible game-changing drama ... well, that would be pretty lame, wouldn't it?

You use a lot of equivocating language which makes me wonder if you feel obligated to do so in the name of "balance and fairness."

You want to be dismissive of Norm receiving a significant gift from Jeff Larson and his company in the form of lodging in D.C and a favorable rent often uncollected just because... well just because... I don't get it.

Getting special privileges and very close proximity to the Senator (literally he is sleeping in their offices) is wrong. Really wrong. It is not the size of the room or the condition of the carpeting, etc. it is the privileged relationship. It's like a kid living at home in his parents basement -- its not how much it effects his pocketbook as much as his attitude and psychological sense of dependency.

Coleman lives in a culture of corruption whereby men in power (especially lawyers) are constantly rubbing shoulders with extremely, extremely rich executives, CEO, lobbyists, high priced corporate lawyers, and consultants and Senators and Congressman are constantly told they are not making enough money or "making what they are worth."

All of a sudden these people are going to take pity upon the poor Senator only making $169,300 (benefits are impressive) when these powerful men are getting $25 million bonus' or million dollar retainers. And so they start buying them suits and giving them a room to stay in while in Washington.

In contrast, it all about expectations and indebtedness to a standard or norm of society. Paul Wellstone gave up a meager college professors salary in Northfield to get his $169,300 and for him it was not a financial burden or sacrifice. Live within your means. Most Americans do and at the very essential level of daily expectation and a sense of reward that obligations are created.

Travel. Fishing trips. Flashy suits. A place to crash. All these things are a part of a package that make Norm Coleman the chameleon he is in politics.

You say: "Yeah, yeah, rules are rules," who cares about the rules... I don't see why you Brian want to nitpick every other one and give Coleman a break on taking a gift from a lobbyist in the form of lodging in Washington. That is so personal, so intimate, so essential to the daily needs that it is probably the most corrupting of all the gifts Coleman receives.

Don't expect Eichten to do anything with this; he may ask one question to Coleman about it, but be assured he will accept whatever Coleman says, then move on to the next inane question. Eichten is a true tool of the corporate masters who rule Money Public Radio.

LAMBERT: I wish I didn't share your skepticism.

I hate to say it, but this Senatorial election is the first time I've ever wanted to choose None of the Above.

LAMBERT: What? No Dean Barkley for you?

I’m noticing a softer tone in the latest television ads this week. The ugly ones are still coming fast and furious, attributed to groups now, not candidates. But new ads in quiet colors and soothing tones that appeal to the non-aggressive constituency are now sandwiched between them.

Growing up, my community was filled with decent corn fed maidens and bachelor farmers as well as educators, artisans, commuters and local businesspeople. I recall a live and let live philosophy - people look and think differently, that's for sure, but that doesn't make them wrong, just different. Education, fairness, hard work, social and environmental responsibility and kindness were core values, with humor being a major equalizer. Times change but these still play.

There are a slew of us voters out here that don’t respond well to threats, tattling or fear mongering. The horrifically negative ads against Al Franken, for example, don’t turn me against Franken nearly as much as they turn me against Norm’s team. They jangle my nerves and irritate my sense of fair play.

I’m not so quick to mute these new ads though. They take that tone your mom used when you had a really bad cold but lobbied to go to the football game anyway – It’s your decision, dear. I trust your judgment and I know you won’t disappoint me. Worked every time.

LAMBERT: The RNC stuff is absurdly over-the-top. To hear them tell it, Charlie Manson is a safer playmate for your children than Al Franken. Feed the base, I guess.

"But what if ... if ... Franken and the DNC had nothing to do with this?"

May not have. Doesn't mean there is not underlying political or business scores to settle.

LAMBERT: Well, I'd suggest Norm settle that issue, pronto. Otherwise shouting, "Franken did it!" seems paranoid.

First off I'm just to the right of being a commie so factor that into my comments if you wish. One thing most people are missing is that the $75,000.00 in payments is just a small part of this lawsuit. Also the second lawsuit (not the refiling of the first lawsuit) names Mc Kim as a defendant as he was in a top position (along with Kazeminy)and would also be in trouble for okaying these payments along with other matters of mismanagement - even though he says he was threatened with being forced out of the company if he didn't go along with the Hayes payments. It just doesn't seem to have the look of something the dems could have cooked up. It's way too complicated. I'm sure McKim used the closeness to election as a tool in the attempt to settle his lawsuit, but at first look this is a very messy matter that will be resolved in court with probably no one coming out of it unscathed.

LAMBERT: The complaint is specific about $75,000 and the highly suggestive path the money was supposed to take. I can't pretend to know what is going, but it certainly smells like something ... and, more to the point, something concocted by people very close to Norm's action, and not the Franken campaign or even the national Democrats.

Your point about Norm's cheap apartment is well taken; I remember seeing a photo spread on it and thinking that this guy's a member of "the world's most exclusive club" or whatever your favorite pundit cliche for the senate is, somebody paid about $9million for him to get the job, and he lives like a graduate student.

However, there is just no plausible line from Paul McKim to Al Franken. The most reasonable argument would be that McKim decided to damage Kazeminy's pet senator the way a guy would get drunk and kick out the headlights on the Corvette of the guy who stole his girl. Still, even in Texas perjury is a jailhouse offense, at least for non-politicians, and this is not complex: if those checks weren't cut, McKim goes to the pokey. (There is apparently documentary evidence that a warrant was issued for at least one of the checks.) If the checks went out, then Norm or somebody has to explain why a marine construction firm in Texas, already insured by a London underwriter specializing marine insurance, needs a $100K worth of insurance help from a MN firm not licensed to do business in Texas.

LAMBERT: That's succinct.

I'm going to assume that Coleman will win, barely. And that these ethics issues will continue to drip, drip, drip for the next several months. Coleman will end up being toast.

Funny how Norm's usual litigation right before an election (what is he 4 for 4?) get's usurped by this!

LAMBERT: Norm rises and falls based on Obama's coattails. In a "normal year" he'd win by 4-5 points. This time, combine with extreme antipathy toward the Bush era, a genuinely charismatic presidential candidate that 4-5 is gone and Norm is down by maybe 4. Only lack of "lovability" on Franken's part keeps Norm in the race. I think Franken wins.

Zack Roth at tpm has an update. He points out that neither Norm, Jim Hays, nor Kazeminy have denied specific charges with one exception--Hays said that they were licensed in Texas, or at least denied that they weren't. All the denials have either been to criticize Franken (for what is unclear since Norm's people have been going through tv scripts a quarter of a century old for evidence of nothing worse than bad taste) or couched in the vaguest sort of "we are wonderful and are highly offended at the groundless besmirching of our good name.

LAMBERT: I'm thinking he can run out the clock on this one.

" Only lack of "lovability" on Franken's part keeps Norm in the race. I think Franken wins."

and lack of character, lack of experience, lack of proven leadership.
There is a third party which I think will be good for Coleman.
We shall see the result Wednesday.
To paralell Obama and the Democrats remember the numbers Amy Klobachar pulled, and Tim Pawlenty still won.

Well, it is becoming history now, and I just wanted to thank you Brian for all the work you put into these postings and the forum you present here.

I suppose there is a bit of a chapter turning over here, I look forward to your next post.

Best wishes--Mike

As for Coleman's lowly cheap-rent D.C. "apartment," does anybody think he actually stays in that hole in the basement? Given that Kazeminy obviously travels a lot and is based in the Twin Cities (and may be spending some extra time in Texas to defend himself in court), I'm sure Norm has the run of the mansion for the peanuts he pays in rent.

LAMBERT: The argument that Norm is better off losing the recount -- because it spares him an (energized) Ethics Committee investigation -- may be valid. The non-denial, denial thing isn't going to work.

Hopefully if everything continues to go the way it seems, the Al Franken experiment will be history. Good job DFL. Doug Grow hardly a friend of the right summed it up pretty well in MinnPost this morning.
None of these so called "ethics" issues have even been investigated by a Democratic controlled ethics committee. Where was this outrage when it was discovered Franken either did not know how to run his company or did not have the judgement to hire the right people to run it? The difference between Coleman and Franken was Franken broke the law.