Ellison loses influence on police shooting protest

Before Richard Nixon doubled down in Vietnam, anti-war opponents in the United States offered a solution to his “peace with honor” intent that helped keep the war going: Just declare victory and go home.

Minneapolis’ political leaders tried that approach yesterday when they told protesters at the 4th Precinct that they had won all of their demands and it was time to stop their protest of the police shooting of Jamar Clark.

But the protesters knew all their demands hadn’t been met. The case will still be presented to the grand jury where, they say, police-killing cases go to die. And their demand to see the video of the killing released to the public has also not been met.

Those are two pretty big demands that pale in comparison to Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges’ contention that the protest is also contributing to air pollution. There are thousands of snowblowers firing up today that spew air pollution and it’s safe to say nobody is asking people to stop.

What the political leaders — especially African-American political leaders — are finding is a challenge to their very leadership.

“Everybody that stood with Mayor Hodges is not part of the solution, they’re part of the problem,” Minneapolis NAACP head Nekima Levy-Pounds called to protesters through a bullhorn, adding, “That’s not the Minneapolis NAACP saying that. That’s Nekima Levy-Pounds saying that as an individual, because I accept whatever consequences come with me speaking the truth because the truth shall set us free.”

That’s a challenge primarily to Rep. Keith Ellison, who stood with protesters last week, but was called a “sellout” at the protest site yesterday.

Late last night, Ellison tried to debate the issue on a poor place to do so: Twitter.

The hours-long exchange suggested Ellison will be hard pressed to maintain relevance within the continuing protest.

But politics is about controlling the narrative and public opinion. Yesterday’s news conference was aimed as much at those who aren’t protesting as those who are.

Black Lives Matters will hold a “release the tapes” rally at Minneapolis’ government center today. It’s unlikely Ellison will be asked to speak.

Meanwhile, in today’s St. Cloud Times, an editorial questioned the call to disband the protest.

Honestly, claiming it’s unsafe but then citing issues like neighbors are bothered by everything from campfire smoke to crowds (or that snowplowing will be needed) makes for a pretty weak case. Perhaps that’s why Hodges, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison and others talked Monday about only having protesters move elsewhere. More details and deadlines were nonexistent.

As for the protesters, as long as they are civil, peaceful and don’t deliberately threaten public safety, it’s hard to think they should have to leave. Indeed, while a few of the initial nights included violence and vandalism, most recently they appear to be acting within their First Amendment rights.

In fact, if Hodges and her peers really want them to disband, perhaps the mayor should work harder to provide them tangible answers to their initial request: Release video surveillance that may show some of what happened involving Clark.

After all, 15 days after the shooting — and with no official details of that probe yet to come forth — Minneapolis leaders Monday decided to apply their considerable pressure to disbanding the protesters, not asking investigators to release that video.

Why?

  • MrE85

    You might be a little less glib about the constant smoke from wood fires if the protesters were on your block.
    I think you have it backwards. Ellison and Hodges didn’t “loose” the protesters, the protesters lost the support of elected officials who could have helped them. While there are those who support the 4th Precinct protesters w/o question, others who sympathize with the BLM movement and want to stop the shootings and abuse are increasingly turned of by the Minneapolis chapter’s methods.

    Update: The protesters just lost the Star Tribune, too.

    • I guess it depends on how you view the methods. The protest has been peaceful. It’s not like they’ve rioted and burned down CVS stores. They’ve been visible, which has kept the issue visible (something, by the way, that a grand jury isn’t). Maybe that’s what turns some people off. They’re visible.

      • Dennisdread_2000

        Well that( visible) and that they’re black.

        Many are turned off simply by seeing black people, let alone black people protesting.

        • lindblomeagles

          Although I’m late to this discussion, I have to agree with Dennisdread_2000, and point out the irony: Just simply seeing black people, let alone black people protesting, turns some people off, including (wait for it) some police officers, who, allegedly, take matters into their own hands when pursuing (again allegedly) black criminals, the very essence of “Black Lives Matter’s” reason for protesting.

    • Khatti

      Look at the bright side: they haven’t blown up any police stations or kidnapped any heiresses…yet.

    • Michael Cavlan RN
    • Michael Cavlan RN

      not reported on MPR or the other corporate media

  • Gary F

    Just think if we had all that snow that was hyped up a few days ago. They would have had to follow snow emergency rules.

  • Gary F

    Think Hodges and Ellison got to see all the videos? Think they know the handcuff mystery?

    • I don’t know. I wonder what the plan is for if/when the grand jury issues its no bill?

      • Gary F

        “handcuffs” becomes the new “Hands up don’t shoot”?

      • Jim in RF

        It’s When. Grand jury = “cops have latitude to act as they think they have to.” (Which I disagree with)

        • Neil

          While I do not totally disagree, I think this notion really lets the prosecutor off the hook. Yes, people on a grand jury no doubt give cops wider latitude. However, the standard for an indictment is so low that a prosecutor can no doubt get an indictment, even for a police officer, if they have any semblance of a case. (see: ham sandwich)

          The problem with the grand jury process in these cases is two-fold: 1) the prosecutor needs to work with the police on other cases and is unlikely to push as hard to indict an officer as she would for you or me, and 2) the proceedings are (supposed to be) sealed, so that if the prosecutor DOES give the case the soft sell, we don’t know, but they can use the process as cover: welp, I tried!

          So, there is reason to be distrustful of a grand jury here, but a lot more of this is in Mike Freeman’s hands than has been generally acknowledged.

      • Dan

        Try to limit the damage from all the rioting?

        • Dennisdread_2000

          Justice, then. This isn’t as complex as we continue to pretend that it is.

  • Khatti

    Political leaders and civil servants prefer order to disorder. This is an instinct that is most likely far stronger than any compassion or sense of outrage they may feel for any one group.

    • Kassie

      If you saw this civil servants desk you would not suggest I prefer order to disorder.

      • Khatti

        Point taken.

    • Dennisdread_2000

      Rein in the killer cops, then.

  • BillyB

    I guess if you expect immediate agreement, Ellison is losing influence. True leadership is never so neat and tidy. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was roughly the reaction he expected. It takes more than one news cycle for these things to sink in, play out, and have an impact.

  • ChrisF

    I’ve always had a lot of admiration for the Urban League after doing volunteer work with them years ago. My observation was that they were doing the heavy lifting in the community. If they’re saying this is tough on the local neighborhoods I don’t know why I would doubt their word on it and it bothers me they are labelled as sell-outs. Maybe Ellison is speaking to a community larger than BLM?

  • Mike Worcester

    The politically cynical part of me keeps wondering if Rep Ellison is angling for a run at Minneapolis Mayor in a couple years, especially if he remains in the congressional minority.

    This whole incident also shows how quickly the disconnect between community “leaders” and the community itself can be exposed.

    • Neil

      A Congressperson wields a LOT more power than the mayor of Minneapolis.

  • Step 1. Stop fighting Step 2. Tell the family to give back the hush money and take a stand Step 3. Get a lawyer that is not afraid to put illegal white people behind bars. They are willing to put up hush money to support and sustain white supremacy. Step 4. Forget everything you know and start with step 1

    • simong02

      Maybe you should start on step 4.

  • Hannah Mae

    Much love Bob Collins. Thank you for speaking Truth.
    -A northsider

  • Sandi Sherman

    Thank you Bob Collins!

  • GonzoRedux

    “After all, 15 days after the shooting — and with no official details of that probe yet to come forth — Minneapolis leaders Monday decided to apply their considerable pressure to disbanding the protesters, not asking investigators to release that video. Why?”

    Because the case is going to the grand jury, and spreading half-truths distorts witness testimony. Pretty simple, huh?

    Perhaps you should be asking why BLM is so gung-ho on trampling on the due process rights of a cop? It’s almost as if their political desires outweigh their good sense….

    • Dennisdread_2000

      Political desire to not get shot dead ‘just because’. That doesn’t strike me as exceptional in any way.

      It’s what every normal human being wants, even smug bastards such as yourself.

      • GonzoRedux

        “Just because” potentially involved the attempted murder of a cop. If that’s true, Jamar Clark got what he deserved. We’re waiting to find out of that is the scenario that played out. That’s how the justice system works, you ignorant slob!

        • Dennisdread_2000

          It isn’t true. It’s yet another cop lie. When you find that out, will you then be calling for this pig to ‘get what he deserves’? Somehow I doubt that.

          Meanwhile a man in Colorado actually killed a cop, and shot 5 others, and he’s alive today. Wow! Inexplicable, right?

          Shut up.

    • Kassie

      How does releasing the tape go toward “spreading half-truths?” A video is not a half-truth, but the words the Police Union Boss has said are very likely half-truths, at best. Are you condemning his speaking out?

      • Nick

        It can lead to half-truths if what it shows is unclear (which it probably is). It is like football replays, you tend to see what you want to see and no one can tell you different.

      • Michael Cavlan RN

        A police chief- Kroll with ties to a White supremacist Biker gang nom less. Funny how that isn’t covered in the corporate media isn’t it? Including MPR

      • GonzoRedux

        An unclear or incomplete video provides half-truths. For example, you probably know the Rodney King tapes as being composed solely of the LAPD officers beating on King. A “more complete” video would feature Rodney leading the police on a long, dangerous high speed chase, beating up female officers, and generally acting like a maniac. The fact that only one part of the record–the LAPD beating–was broadly made known to the public helped instigate the LA riots, when in fact that jury that found the LAPD officers mostly not-guilty had access to a much more complete record of the going-on.

        But if you’ve ever criticized Fox News before, you know that video can be used to distort, so perhaps you were being deliberately obtuse.

        The police union boss is trying to distort witness testimony, he should be punished. But there’s no proof he’s tried to do that. BLM is clearly trying to distort due process, but what can you expect from a treasonous horde of savages?

  • Dan

    Took a bit of guts on Ellison’s part. He had to know they weren’t going to listen to him, and that he’d catch flack (“sellout!”) for it.

    • crystals

      I was thinking about it from his perspective as a father, too. His son has been active in the protests (the incredible/terrifying photo from the beginning of the protest of the young man with the police gun pointed at him – that’s his son), and his daughters possibly have been too. I imagine this is extraordinarily difficult for him personally and professionally.

      As a white lady, it’s not my place to tell the black community (which contains a lot of diversity of thought, as we’re seeing) and black leaders (ditto) what to do or how to act. It is certainly more my place to share thoughts with a fellow white lady, Mayor Hodges, and yeah – she needs better advice and communications help than what she’s getting.

  • Dennisdread_2000

    ” one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all..”

    Right up until a cop kills some black man.

  • MootsVaMoots

    While I generally appreciate the intention behind this protest and the manner in which it’s being conducted, I also think it’s reasonable to ask whether the protest is serving any legitimate purpose, and whether its concrete objectives make sense. Ultimately it will be up to the investigators (both state and federal) to determine whether a crime was committed here. In the meantime I am not convinced the continued occupation of the 4th Precinct serves any purpose.

    The assumption that the incident videos will help clarify what happened (much less that they will tend to show that the police involved committed a crime) is, in my view, unjustified on the facts as we know them. We shall see. In any case, the investigation would be badly compromised by releasing the videos, as BLM demands. It does not appear to me BLM’s sincere interest is “justice for Jamar,” but rather to see these officers prosecuted, regardless of whether they deserve that.

    I find it hard to understand how anyone familiar with Jamar Clark’s background or his actions on the night of his death could be confident there was no justification for his shooting. He was a repeat, violent felon who was very likely engaged in violent behavior that very night (both in assaulting his girlfriend and in blocking EMTs trying to attend to her injuries). If arrested, Clark was facing 5 years in prison or more (because he had received a suspended sentence for threatening to burn down the house of that same victim earlier this year). I am not saying any of that means he deserved to die – just that it casts light on whether, as some claim, he was fully cooperative with the arresting officers and was killed anyway. It strikes me as wildly unlikely (though I suppose anything is possible) that the police simply executed a handcuffed, placid Jamar Clark in full view of a crowd of witnesses.

    I am confident that if the most extreme eyewitness accounts are true (that is, that the police executed a handcuffed, fully compliant Jamar Clark), the officer who pulled the trigger will justifiably be promptly prosecuted. If, on the other hand, the evidence supports his actions, or is inconclusive, he probably won’t be. In the meantime, let’s all try to approach this situation with calm and respect.

    • Dennisdread_2000

      While we’re examining every inch of Jamar Clark’s psyche, let’s look examine the very fiber of the essence of the cop who killed him( while handcuffed no less) as well.

      • MootsVaMoots

        I am not examining “every inch of Jamar Clark’s psyche.” I am looking at the man the police were dealing with that night – a repeat, violent felon who had (according to the best evidence available to the police that night) badly hurt his girlfriend and was preventing EMTs from reaching her when the police arrived. Certainly if there is similar evidence regarding the shooter (that he was a repeat, violent felon who had engaged in violent behavior that very night), that would be material to evaluating what happened here. I doubt that is true, since he is a police officer, but if I’m wrong, I will give that evidence its due just as I am the evidence against Clark.

        Again, I am not saying Jamar Clark deserved to die because he was a violent criminal, but the fact that he was a violent criminal (which he undisputedly was – he pled guilty to two violent felonies) can’t be ignored when we are evaluating whether the force used against him was appropriate. It just strikes me as very unlikely that a) this violent criminal would have been fully cooperative with the police, given the circumstances (a parole violation would mean 5 years in prison for him), and b) the police would have murdered him despite his total cooperation.

        All of that being said, I feel strongly that it should be the very rare exception to the rule when the police kill a suspect. They are, after all, in the “to protect and to serve” business, and they should be able to handle even difficult suspects, the great majority of the time, without resorting to deadly force. Whether or not this was one of those rare situations in which deadly force was required will be decided by people with far greater knowledge of the case than anyone involved in this discussion has.

        • Dennisdread_2000

          You really need to get out more. The police kill people with impunity often. It’s almost routine.

          As for history of violence, the cop who killed Clark has his own long history of violent incidences, he’s no angel, he’s no hero.

          So as for consequences are concerned, he’s now getting his, and since you’re obviously such a fan of people accepting their consequences your upset over this is at best, inconsistent. Can you explain that?

          I mean, you should be happy, right?

          • MootsVaMoots

            I don’t understand your post. What should I be happy about? At this point there have been no “consequences” for anyone other than Jamar Clark. I am certainly not happy Jamar Clark is dead, nor am I happy anytime the police kill someone. If the use of force in this case was unwarranted, I hope the involved officers are prosecuted.

            Please provide evidence for the notion that “the cop who killed Clark” has a long history of “violent incidences.” At this point we don’t even know which officer killed Jamar Clark. It is true that both Dustin Schwarze and Mark Ringgenberg have been sued for excessive force – once each. The Schwarze suit is ongoing and the Ringgenberg case settled with no admission of wrongdoing. Neither officer has ever been disciplined. If there is other evidence of a “long history,” please let me know, but to the best of my knowledge neither officer has a history of violence anything like Jamar Clark’s (which is well established by his own guilty pleas).

            I certainly don’t agree that police killing suspects is “almost routine.” It is, in fact, vanishingly rare, given how many millions of interactions occur between the police and the public every day in this country. That being said, it’s something that should happen very very rarely in my view, and in each case it must be carefully examined in order that justice is served. If police intentionally kill someone without justification, or kill someone due to their own negligence (e.g., due to lack of trigger discipline), they can and should be prosecuted.

    • Kassie

      No, it isn’t up to the investigators to determine if a crime was committed. It is going to be up to a Grand Jury.

      • MootsVaMoots

        Assuming the investigators and the County Attorney conclude there is enough of a case to submit it to the grand jury. It’s hypothetically possible the video is so clearly exculpatory that they will conclude there is no way the officers could be convicted, and thus that the matter should not be submitted to the grand jury.

        • Kassie

          No, this has already been decided. The county prosecutor already issued a statement saying this will go to a grand jury.

          • MootsVaMoots

            My apologies – I had not realized he had announced that. Frankly given the furor the case has engendered I would expect he would submit it to a grand jury unless the video were very clearly exculpatory. It sounds (based on what the Governor has said) as though the video that exists is inconclusive.

          • Dennisdread_2000

            You wish.

          • MootsVaMoots

            What, exactly, do I wish? Personally I think it’s probably appropriate to submit the case to the grand jury unless it’s very clear the officer’s shooting was justified. Since the public has been privy to very little evidence about the incident itself, I have no way of knowing whether that is the case.

          • That also speaks to a problem with going directly to the grand jury. The proceedings are secret and there’s no guarantee the results , evidence, transcripts etc will be made public. If not, then there’s no real opportunity to a public examination of all evidence which you would have if the prosecutor would file charges without a grand jury indictment.

            I ASSUME, on the other hand, that Freeman knows all of that and knows that without that public examination, there is no trust in the process and he would do what the prosecutor in Ferguson did when the judge originally said he might keep things secret. He’s a pretty smart guy.

      • I think it will be important that, even if a no bill is returned, all of the grand jury evidence is released.

        In Ferguson, they originally weren’t going to release the documents, until the prosecutor said he would go to court to get an order to unseal the documents.

        http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html

  • The middle man

    My problem with BLM is many times during their protest they have disrespected the Mr. Clark’s family wishes and directly gone against them. Sometimes they say they want justice for Jamar but when his family says the protest need to end they say it’s bigger than Jamar. Can’t have it both ways

    • Dennisdread_2000

      It’s bigger than Jamar. Get that.

      Pick up a history book!

      • Khatti

        Any preferences as to which book?

        • Dennisdread_2000

          Make Me want to Holler–Nathan McCall is a good start. But…this area is wide open, literally. After that he can find his own books to read.

    • Michael Cavlan RN

      Wow amazing that. Given that Jamar Clarks family were there LEADING the protests last night. Where did you get your info? KKKSTP or MPR perhaps? Or maybe the elected reps who are now calling for this to end?

  • Michael Cavlan RN

    Oh dear. Poor white middle class liberals looking to MPR (Minnesota Pentagon Radio) for assurance. Problem is that MPR and all the rest of the corporate media have ZERO credibility with activists. The same thing is happening to the current elected representatives like Mayor Hodges or Congressman Ellison. For the record- I have been down there most nights and am proud of the people there. Oh and to counter the lies that KKKSTP Channel 5 and the rest of the copra media are spreading. The FAMILY of Jamar Clark were there last night. LEADING to protests. They are concerned for people’s safety (when White Supremacists shoot at people and the Police Federation Head Officer Kroll has ties to a White Supremacist Biker gangs- funny how that is never mentioned in the corporate media) and that is what they have been saying.

    My dear God- you folks are clueless. But then you get your information from MPR, KKKSTP, WCCO, Star Tribune, CNN, FOX news etc etc. So you can be excused for not knowing what is really going on at the 4th Precinct in Minneapolis.

    • Kassie

      Did you read the post? No where did it say that Clark’s family were against the protests, that was a comment. In general this post seems to side with BLM against Ellison and the other leaders. I think you are angry when you should be happy with the coverage here. Sure some of the comments are off base, but you should address them, not the post.

      • // In general this post seems to side with BLM against Ellison and the other leaders.

        To be clear, only to the extent where I’m pointing out that, no, the protest demands were not met, i.e. they haven’t “won” what they were looking for. And, also that Twitter is REALLY bad place to have difficult conversation.

        On the larger issue, I’ve said it before, I don’t know what happened and I want to find out like everyone else.

      • Michael Cavlan RN

        Kassie- I agree. I ws responding to the comment.

    • Khatti

      You think MPR is corporate? What is your definition of “Corporate”? What makes something Corporate to you?

      • Nah, let’s not go there guys. The post is about what the post is about. Michael obviously some strong objections to MPR but, no, we’re not going to have a thread hijacking here. Some other time, perhaps.

        • Khatti

          Oh no! Let’s go there! What fascinates me about politics is the psychology that underpins it. And no where is that psychology more nakedly apparent than with political extremists.

          • And there’s plenty of other places to have that same-old, same-old conversation. The newspaper website of your choice or YouTube come immediately to mind.

          • Michael Cavlan RN

            Khatti

            I will absolutely “go there.” I have been a media activists for over 20 years now. Schooled in the Noam Chomsky theory of Manufacturing Consent via the 5 filters of media manipulation. So this is a perfect time to have this discussion. Given that the corporate media – including MPR is where many people go to get information about the events and state of our nation. Firstly- we should look at the history of NPR and MPR. In the run up to the Iraq war – the media watchdog group FAIR- Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting did an analysis of how the media responded in the run up to the Iraq War. By their study NPR had about 92% of their guests were pro-war- giving the Pentagon line. Fox News was at 98%. Not much difference. Then we need to look at the advertisers of MPR- It isn’t the Public. It is groups like UBS Banking, Monsanto corp, ADM Big Ag as the mainstay of money reports. I have talked to reporters at MPR- who have said that “MPR has a good PR campaign and hs a good home town image but in reality- they are just as corporate as the others.” This is reporters at MPR. Who obviously wished to remain anonymous. Many are now gone.

            Given Chomsky’s ideals of the five filters of media control and manipulation- This fits in perfectly with his analysis.

            Given the level of control by corporate powers in the media and given that this is where most Americans get their access to news and information- I say that this is critical to understand just how much democracy is at risk in this nation.

            Oh and this conversation is NEVER allowed to happen in the media. Instead we hear about the “liberal” media by right wingers. Never how MANY progressive and social justice activists talk of the corporate media and manipulation.

            To quote that radical Thomas Jefferson

            “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

            “The press [is] the only tocsin of a nation. [When it] is completely silenced… all means of a general effort [are] taken away.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (*) ME 10:341

            “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” –Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

          • You are correct, Michael. I was working at NPR at the time. I remember Scott Simon’s rah-rah-let’s-go-to-war op-eds published in the Wall Street Journal, his speech in Seattle and his on-air essays saying the same thing. I remember the grotesque euphemisms “harsh interrogation” and “enhanced interrogation” being used left and right by NPR reporters and hosts instead of the accurate word “torture” (which is still going on).

            I worked in the news department for two years and in the now defunct arts/cultural dept for longer. And NPR smeared me and my reputation when, 20 months after I had left my employment there, I became involved in the Occupy movement. Anyone who thinks NPR is unbiased or, more laughable, liberal, has his head up his you-know-where.

          • Michael Cavlan RN

            Lisa

            good to hear from you. I guess MPR (Minnesota Pentagon Radio) doesn’t want its carefully crafted “home spun image” discussed does it. good for you for having that little thing called journalistic ethics and integrity. Something sadly missing inside the corporate media. Including MPR

          • Rob W

            NPR is now a shill for TPTB. Take a look at their coverage of the autoworkers and the contract the UAW jammed down their throats. Sad. This is a big story, as it is the first of the great unmaskings.

          • Michael Cavlan RN

            There is a reason that the Free Press (the media) are the only corporation that is mentioned or protected join the Constitution.

            Because of their critical role in informing the public. Frankly the corporate media in this nation have failed in that duty- Epically failed.

  • gregstaffa

    I found myself homeless for three year after a injury at NWA. Ellison reached out after I won a court date and my story got some media attention. Ellison asked to meet and requested his staff to set up a meeting. But when Ellison learned that my union was more at fault for my situation than the big bad company he backed out and blocked me on social media. Earlier when another NWA/Delta employee found himself out of a job Ellison once again jumped in, wrote letters to Delta attended a protest. This time it was the company not the union to blame. Ellison knows where the money is. Not surprised as I am still waiting for my meeting with Ellison. But because my union which lead to my homelessness is one of his biggest financial backers.

  • Laura

    The real question is whether the continued protest is accomplishing anything. What are the goals? Are they best served by continuing the protest in its current form? Or is the current protest just a way to funnel off energy that might be best used somewhere else?
    I think a real leader in this movement would probably be moving on to other venues by now. Instead of annoying the neighbors with campfire smoke, they’d be working with the state legislature to get bills passed that might improve things: get rid of the law that won’t allow a residency requirement for police officers, increase police recruitment from within the community, make the grand juries into police-involved shootings transparent, etc.
    This is not really about the Clark case. That’s just a catalyst. A real leader would be using this catalyst to get something concrete done, not just squawking about how their campfires were going to get put out.
    Whoever moves forward to get some of these things done will turn out to be the real leader.

  • SandezRey

    Keith Ellison has always been a scofflaw and a scumbag. That’s why he had 44 unpaid parking tickets that had to be cleared up before he could run for office. That’s why he cheated on campaign finance forms and tried to divert money to himself and when he was caught red handed, blamed his wife and tried to wring pity for her medical condition. That’s why Keith Ellison let’s Saudi Arabia fly him in at their expense and put him up lavishly so he can kiss Saudi ass in a speech about how America needs to do more for the poor Saudis. He’s done that 3 times now, I think. Keith Ellison has no moral principles, he is a classic political parasite profiting off misery and oppression while claiming to be on the side of victim. He is a lying pile of sh*t.