Knaak lifts Coleman-camp tent flap, again mentions conceding as option
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Norm Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak again broaches the possibility of a Coleman concession in an interview conducted 10 days ago and posted by his hometown paper last night. But he is being conjectural and makes sure to cast aspersions on his client’s Democratic rival’s theoretical victory. “Even if Norm were to concede,” Knaak says, “there would be a cloud over Al Franken.”
The story comes as media outlets near and far (one of each, actually) issue calls for Coleman to concede. Knaak’s comments to the White Bear Press echo statements early this month in which he seemed to dangle the chance that Coleman might quit the contest.
In contrast to Knaak’s concession talk, White Bear Press Regional Editor Mark Nicklawske interprets a Coleman camp style point as a sign that the former Republican senator’s supporters are in it for the long haul:
Knaak and his colleagues were issued gray fleece sweaters with the words “Coleman Recount Team” embroidered on the chest. The sweaters look warm and comfortable, good for a long Minnesota winter.
Looking back, it’s clearly been a long haul already. Jan. 17–18 was only Knaak’s second weekend off in two months, taxing his ability to find time for his regular clients or family — though he makes regular visits to his mother, Dee Knaak (who, like her son, is a former state senator).
Knaak expresses satisfaction with his often high-visibility role, even as he appears to be eclipsed by the star power of new legal-team member, Joe Friedberg. And he doesn’t toe the (subsequently decided-upon?) party line that the trial will be boring:
“It’ll be very dramatic,” said Knaak. “I’ve got a very good relationship with the press and I’m still the explainer on a lot of these things, but we’re trying to keep the focus on the litigation part of it right now. I’m anticipating that you’ll be seeing a lot more of (Friedberg) than me.”
2 Comments
Comment posted January 29, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Let’s take a comment out of context, why don’t we? Here’s what the article said:
“A true winner will best be able to carry out the state’s business in Washington, say the experts. Knaak agrees.
“Otherwise there will always be a cloud. Even if Norm were to concede, there would be a cloud over Al Franken. And frankly we believe from what we’ve seen that (Coleman) won.”
How can you read ALL of this and say that Coleman might concede? Both paragraphs argue that he won’t. 1) It would be bad for Franken because of the doubt over his legitimacy, and 2) the Coleman camp still thinks they’ve won based on the evidence they’ve seen.
This is just plain bad journalism.
Comment posted January 29, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Dr J, thanks for your comment. I accept your criticism. I am interested in Knaak’s continuing references to Coleman conceding, even if it seems to be in the service of saying he won’t. Reading between the lines, if you will.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.






