Do you trust this promise? Do you see the ambiguity and want to read it differently than what I'd hope it means? Steve Timmer does not expect a Jim Schultz quiet and firm retirement from politics. My guess, having built name recognition leads to something. Likely with a different support network of people, since a well-founded campaign violation complaint remains pending, and Schultz has talent enough for a learning curve, as well as for saying, "It was my first test of politics, and I relied upon seasoned professionals." Similar to Trump saying, "I relied on what the lawyers said, or what I believed what they were saying meant."

 For posterity, this screen capture pair - first, from the Schultz Facebook page, a capture from the promise/paragraph to the end of the post. Then, the full concession statement, naming several names - with the promise/paragraph at the end of the statement:

 

https://jimformnag.com/schultz-statement-on-the-election-results/

The operative words, with ambiguity, " . . . I’ll return to the private sector but will never stop fighting for the people of Minnesota . . ."

Does that mean for the immediate short term, back to office lawyering for hedge fund Varde, then keeping an aim and intent for more political adventure? Or does it mean lesson learned, politics is for others, I'm going to private practice again, but keeping a mood while staying in private practice? 

I'd surely like the latter, but suspect the former. 

Prior crabgrass posting voiced a guess: Schultz seeking a judgeship - some court, some level, perhaps starting at the top as in seeking the AG seat; shooting for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court, where Alan Page's name recognition carried such an effort earlier. 

With Walz being governor meaning there will be no appointment into a vacancy, so instead think of his running against an incumbent soon enough that the AG run name recognition will still hold weight - at whatever judicial level strikes his fancy. 

Judicial elections being how they are.

Timmer

Steve's post, today, "The incredible lightness of being Jim Schultz," starting -

I wrote an email to a not-lawyer friend about the unsuccessful Republican candidate for attorney general, Jim Schultz. Since Minnesota has probably not – regrettably – heard the last of Schultz, I thought, on reflection, that my remarks were worth summarizing and repeating here. They are intended for our collective memory when Schultz resurfaces.

I’ve known many lawyers like Jim Schultz over the years: smarmy, smug, and supercilious, but at their root insecure and thin-skinned. Wan and apparently physically wasted, and with sweaty palms, they inhabit the warrens of Big Law as office lawyers everywhere. They are poor candidates for politics or public office.

I sound dismissive of the type. That’s because I am.

And ending -

 I understand that purring Republican sycophant Andy Brehm (shown above with Schultz) thinks that Jim Schultz would be a good candidate to run against Amy Klobuchar in two years. Seriously, I think this is a really bad idea for Republicans; Amy Klobuchar would tear off Jimmy’s limbs one by one and eat them. She made Brett Kavanaugh wail in anguish, and whatever you think of Brett Kavanaugh, he’s a much more formidable character than Jimmy.

I hope you will keep these thoughts in mind when Jim Schultz comes around again, or if you don’t, that Google will.

Steve wrote more, and the above title/link allows readers to enjoy the full thinking.

However, start and finish, this is a person who will resurface and want to touch politics again, so we should not let who Schultz is and has been escape notice from having too short a media/voter attention span.

Campaign violation complaint

Sahan Journal, Oct. 28 reporting, "Minnesota faith leaders denounce ‘race-baiting’ in GOP ads for attorney general campaign," with the subheadline, 

Interfaith leaders called on Republican attorney general candidate Jim Schultz to “rebuke and demand” that the ads be taken down. The Minnesota DFL has questioned whether Schultz worked with an independent political fund to place the ads.

This item is extremely well written and clear in everything it reports. Crabgrass readers are urged to read it in its entirety,  and to rotor over to the full online copy of the DFL's campaign violation filing. That filing copy includes exhibits, and is self explanatory. Either the CFB will show real teeth, prove wholly feckless; or land in between.

Others may know whether the CFB in investigatory mode can subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. If so, that earlier concession statement of Schultz does name several names, arguably jointly and severally liable with the candidate himself, who is ultimately responsible for actions of his campaign. Or there might be a consistent stonewall display of "non-coordination" which the CFB might conveniently buy into. 

Hopefully media coverage of the CFB handling of the complaint will not be sucked into a black hole of nothingness, as the campaigns and election this November recede into ever more distant past.

LAST: This blog, and Timmer this cycle have both been critical of Schultz and his Fearless Fosdick crime doesn't pay unimaginative and shallow campaign, as well as his appalling inexperience for the office. Crabgrass, moreover, has been disappointed that such a low-road campaign had any traction, much less making it a close race. With Schultz publishing that late polling even favored him over Ellison.

Here, that disappointment has been the motive of the AG campaign gaining more focus than any other contest this cycle. Wardlow's campaign last cycle against Ellison had a similar coverage motivation at Crabgrass. Each campaign trotted out 'police endorsed' as something special, Wardlow having Bob Kroll aboard last cycle to make it even more vexingly stupid.