« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Coleman Wants Campaign To Pay Cost Of Responding To TPM Story -- Even Though It Never Responded
Now this is some chutzpah...
Norm Coleman is arguing that he should be able to use campaign funds to pay his legal bills in connection with the Nasser Kazeminy allegations, citing the need to respond to inquiries on the subject from TPMmuckraker and others in the media. But we're kind of unclear about what expenses the Coleman camp incurred here -- because they never responded to us in the first place.
In a brief that was sent to the Federal Election Commission last month and examined this afternoon by TPMmuckraker, Coleman campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg wrote that he is seeking confirmation that the campaign "may pay the legal fees and expenses described below."
Under "Matters Generating Legal Fees", Ginsberg wrote:
Over the last several months, Senator Coleman's campaign and legal counsel have been forced to (1) respond to allegations arising from baseless complaints filed by Senator Coleman's political opponents; (2) monitor ongoing litigation related to these topics, prepare for possible involvement in such litigation, and preserve documents that may prove relevant to the litigation; and (3) provide responses and information to the media on these topics. (our itals)
Further down in the brief -- after making a lengthy argument as to why such costs should be payable by the campaign -- Ginsberg attached several news stories on the Coleman-Kazeminy allegations, the first of which is this story by TPMmuckraker.
But here's the thing. We never heard from the Coleman campaign on that story, or on any of the several other stories we wrote about the allegations. Of course, we didn't contact them. Instead, we contacted Coleman's Senate office, since this was a question about Coleman's activities as a senator, not about his campaign.
The Senate office never responded to our numerous calls on the subject. In fact, as we wrote last December, we left at least ten detailed voicemail messages for Leroy Coleman, the senator's Washington press secretary (and no relation) asking whether Coleman had been contacted by the FBI in connection with their investigation of Kazeminy. We didn't get a single call back.
To be clear: we didn't get a single communication in any form -- from either Coleman's campaign office or his Senate office -- in response to our inquiries on the Kazeminy issue. So how the campaign can now be using our inquiries to argue that it should be able to pay Coleman's legal expenses is sort of beyond us.
To refresh your memory on the underlying issue: A lawsuit filed last fall claims that Nasser Kazeminy, a longtime Coleman backer and friend, used an insurance company that employs Coleman's wife to illegally pass money to Coleman. The FBI is looking into the charges. Coleman still hasn't said whether he's been contacted by the Feds, but has of course hired a lawyer in connection with the investigation. It's that lawyer, former federal prosecutor Doug Kelley, whose fees are at issue here.
We've called Ginsberg to ask him about this, and will let you know if we get a response. It'd be the first response we've ever gotten on this from Team Coleman.

















Sounds like the firm is billing for services not performed (a crime) and looking for the lint in the pockets of its now-destitute (morally as well as financially) client.
Birds of a feather...
May 12, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, wait. So a big law firm's statement of services contains narratives for work not actually performed? Really? Color me, a former big firm lawyer, wholly unsurprised.
May 12, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya', Cal and Lars. But, Lars, isn't there a distinction - even at big firms - between EXAGGERATING the time expended and totally fictitious time entries? (It would be interesting to see how they worded these time entries in the attachments.)
May 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
totally fictitious time entries
Not at all.
Think how much gets billed for objecting to interrogs.
May 13, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you forward this information to the FEC somehow?
May 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Roth, rather than dancing in the end zone over this latest bit of ludicrous...
... could you possibly send an official letter to the FEC, emphasizing to them the fact that these people are asking for a "deduction" for services you are witness to the fact that they never performed (so to speak)?
And send a copy of it to the Minnesota paper.
May 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please send to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Rochester Post-Bulletin! Many readers...
May 12, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Norm To FEC: My Campaign Should Pay
'Expense' Of Blowing Off TPM Reporter"
Umm, Guys....
This sounds like Coleman ran out on a hooker tab.
May 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I didn't wanna put it that way, but yeah, this is definitely a case of asking to get credited for an expense that never happened.
If you or I tried that, we'd be charged with, um, fraud. I'm just saying.
Something is in here, and I want to know what it is.
May 12, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another way to have "campaign bribes" cover personal expenses and line their pockets. Simply a money grab. Similar to the way Santorum was doing to his (either) PAC or charity. hell he was charging his funds for his morning sStarbucks coffee. Ginsberg just strikes me as a smarmy shylock and sneak. Really unimpressive. However, in my opinion, I would be shocked if ANY politician didn't do it. If I was a politician in DC these days, I don't know if there is anything that has been done in congress that would make me proud to be one.
May 12, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
charging his funds for his morning sStarbucks
Excuse me.
One: Starbucks is not cheap.
Two: You have to skim where you can, so as to maximize the vigorish. Skim little, skim big.
May 13, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
shylock
I just noticed this *unfortunate usage, and I'm pretty sure that the term for which you were (appropriately) reaching, is the unrelated to Shylock, shyster from the German scheisse, shit, for an incompetent and yet devious person (in later times, particularly a lawyer.)
Shylock, of course, was Shakespeare's little venture into multi-culturalism.
*Rendered so because of Ginsberg's manifest kinship with the character--by way of DNA, that is...
May 13, 2009 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the TPM home page:
Fine. Make them answer that question conclusively to the FEC, and get the specificity of it on record.
May 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya, gotta really love Yiddish sometimes...chutzpah... it is, or in down home Engish it would just be gall... or b***.
May 12, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a mistake to view shameless behavior as something deserving of positive recognition. Our society seems to give it a lot of undue props.
IMHO, admiration for sociopaths probably contributed to their rise to power.
May 12, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes? When do you ever NOT love Yiddish? It is full of great expressions!
May 12, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
...first time I heard someone pronounce "chutzpah" in it's proper form, I thought they needed a Heimlich maneuver.
May 13, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is widely rumored that Coleman is really blowing (so to speak) his campaign contributions on a goat sex ring in DC.
May 12, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!I love how you have tied Norm to the Sotomayor smear story ( and the goat sex ring) that you so eloquently commented on this morning..do you think Steve LaBonne, desertrain, thumbs, Xantur, CT Voter and ondioline have heard some say the same thing?
May 12, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just say this, it's not only one of the worst kept secrets in Washington but also St. Paul. Everybody's heard it except for Chris Mathews and Jake Tapper. Unless they see Drudge's siren next to the story it's like the proverbial tree falling in the forest to them.
May 13, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
goat sex ring
Now you're talkin'!(I wouldn't have given Norm credit for so much creativity)--did your sources provide information of sufficient granularity to enable you to confirm whether Norm or the Goat stood in back?
Or was it just a bunch of plushies...?
May 13, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does EVERY picture/tv ad of Norm and his wife look photoshopped???
May 12, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some say it's because they have a marriage in name only and don't spend much time together, so they have to photshop the pictures.
May 12, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That brief they filed was a fraud on the court.
I don't know if it's perjury or what the legal term is, but you cannot knowingly present false evidence in a court of law.
You should be filing a friend of the court type brief indicating the fraud perpetrated by the Coleman campaign.
TPM has standing to refute Coleman's lies in a court of law.
So why haven't you done that yet???
May 12, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, when a law firm does that kind of thing it's just an unfortunate error, and the client is lucky if they don't have to pay for the time spent fixing it. (I'm biased, having once seen an item from $34K from a fancy firm for time spent preparing the bill...)
May 12, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the lawyers spent 3 hours determining whether to respond each time that you called and left a message, that's 30 billable hours at what, $500 an hour or so?
$15 grand ain't nothin' to shake a stick at...
I hope Norm has to pay it in the end.
May 12, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm has developed a clever new form of bait and switch. Money which is raised so he can serve a term as an elected government official is switched to help make sure he doesn't serve a term as a government criminal prisoner. He's now up against the wall in the election contest and afraid of being on the other side of it for his funny money shenanigans. Sounds like the folks in Minnesota may have sing Norm Hey Hey Goodbye for more than one reason.
May 12, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt much time and effort was expended looking in to whether it was appropriate to respond to various queries, and perhaps draft responses were prepared by counsel and presented to Coleman and he merely declined to utilize them. They could have even gone through several drafts before tabling the matter. But that doesn't mean that the process was any less necessary.
To some extent I am mocking the campaign, but there is also some justification for incurring bills on a matter where there was no visible end product. Attorneys aren't just paid for end product. They are paid for their time--which means familiarizing themselves with all facts and researching options.
That said, I'm not sure how one justifies paying for this out of campaign monies. But of course, I haven't spent time familiarizing myself with the facts and researching options.
May 12, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Ginsberg
Well, come on.
In the dictionary, next to the definition of chuptzah they have Ginsberg's picture.
May 13, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
before the Supreme Court in 2000?
May 13, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting precedent if he pulls it off. Get involved in whatever shady dealings you like, then claim "my political opponent is behind it all", and entitle yourself to use campaign money for damage control.
May 13, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, stress can be very expensive.
Maybe the fear of answering to TPM's hard-nosed, unforgivingly liberal writers and readers resulted in a few extra trips to his psychiatrist.
With those celebrity shrinks charging a couple hundred bucks an hour, that adds up fast.
May 13, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody defines what is meant by 'response'.
Getting on a plane and hiding out in Hawaii until the story blows over is a 'response' -- a response with expenses.
May 13, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Ginsburg is drawing water before the well runs dry, with the Kazeminy affair looming on the docket.
May 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink