Paul Thissen to run for governor.

Strib reports a formal announcement will be made today, Thrusday, June 15, 2017.

In an ideal world Thissen as governor would be excellent. He and Becky Otto seem the best two in the field, so far, with it unlikely any candidate later announcing would be better. There most likely will not be an Our Revolution candidate emerging in Minnesota with a chance of winning at Governor. It's the electorate.

Strib reports:

Thissen will have to persuade the DFL activists who decide the endorsement at next year’s party convention to overlook recent political history. Under his leadership, House DFLers lost their majority in 2014 and even more seats in 2016. DFL activists are particularly worried about the 2018 election, with Republicans in position to seize full control of state government for the first time in nearly half a century.

A son of schoolteachers who went on to graduate from Harvard and the University of Chicago Law School, Thissen became speaker in 2013 after leading DFLers to a sweeping victory in House elections the previous November.

In the ensuing two years, with the DFL fully in control of state government, the Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton raised income taxes on the wealthy, paid back money borrowed from school districts and increased their funding, froze public college tuition, legalized same-sex marriage and medical marijuana, raised the state minimum wage, paved the way for unionization of thousands of personal care attendants and took on other issues like school bullying and women’s economic equality.

There are idiots. With a never ending tedious mantra, nothing else to say, in their own behalf:

“It’s no wonder Thissen led the House DFL into the minority under his failed leadership — Minnesotans simply can’t afford his style of government,” said John Rouleau, executive director of the GOP-aligned Minnesota Jobs Coalition. He cited several other highlights of Thissen’s stint as speaker — the creation of Minnesota’s MNsure insurance exchange and approval of a $90 million in state funds for a state Senate office building that became a favorite target of Republicans.

The fact legislative majorities were lost while Thissen was speaker was not his fault, but will be said to be.

Thissen said he learned lessons from a series of DFL House race losses in 2014 that followed the party’s burst of activity at the Capitol. “We haven’t shown up in all the places we need to be,” he said, referring to areas of greater Minnesota where the DFL lost legislative seats that it had held for years. “And, we need to better about respecting everyone in the state.”

He first ran for governor in 2010, and finished a surprisingly strong third at the DFL convention; he took over as the leader of House Democrats in 2011 and relinquished the post at the end of last year. He said he has traveled around Minnesota as much as nearly any elected official in the past decade, having conversations with DFL activists and regular voters.

Bottom line current feelings. If voting in a primary, it would be Thissen or Otto getting my vote, of candidates emerging so far. With a tilt toward Otto because of a faith that she'd deal more properly with Tom Baak than any of the other DFL'ers. Who emerges as the GOP candidate is uncertain. They have no one with the promise of Thissen or Otto, or Walz for that matter. They are clowns, but too many who vote in Minnesota want clowns, particularly ones close to Jesus or saying so. Thinking back to Tom Pawlenty as governor, it is important that there be a DFL victory after Dayton's leadership period. If anything, the present Republican mood is substantially worse than Pawlenty. Speaking of faith and voting entirely as GOP leadership, in its "wisdom" decides, is not representing anyone but GOP leadership. Close to Lucero is not top notch, in the view of some but unfortunately not enough of our state's voters - in some districts. Peggy Scott also comes to mind.

_____________UPDATE_____________
Harvard undergrad and U.Chi law school are hurdles few could clear.

Kurt Daudt used to sell cars and carry his handgun in his Lexis when going west to buy yet another older Ford Bronco, apparently wanting not only one but more than one, for some never clarified reasons. Bless Kurt for his judgment and accomplishments. He at least has the admirable decency to not blame Jesus for any character faults he may have. He seems less the problem in the Minnesota GOP than others, as a more straightforward person than some, even while never being confused with Our Revolution or Justice Democrats quality. Better than some colleagues, guessing he was not the one that invented the standoff touched last in fit retaliation via line item veto. Fellow traveler to instigation of that mischief, yes, but original instigator, you tell me the twisted mind where that brain fart came from.

Two questions.

First, do Attorneys General prosecute violent crimes? Fiscal crimes, the kind Harry Niska would know about, there's the precedent of Elliot Spitzer shaking down Wall Street for settlement money before he got bimboed out of office. It seems that county prosecuting attorneys prosecute local state crimes such as rape, murder, mayhem, etc. where local judicial arrangements, juror pool familiarity, etc. govern. Then, while U.S. Attorneys each in his/her district does the same for federal crime; the U.S. Attorney General does not do such work (but each district U..S. Attorney reports to the Department of Justice centralized leadership). The federal arrangement is closer to what Niska's proposing, (https://harryniska.com/why/), but it's not a pattern in Minnesota criminal law enforcement to centralize and not be "local control" focused. Each county attorney is separately elected and does not report to and work as an employee at will of the Attorney General. Centralizing might have problems. An ancillary question, does Niska have any idea of the budget the Republicans have been saddling Swanson with, and has he detail of how he'd prioritize dollars and cents without wanting more money and hence higher taxes? Beyond spinning more-for-less gossamer?

Second, does Cory Booker yet have a multi-mil book deal? If not, what's holding him back? Does it take a village to raise a book deal?

____________UPDATE____________
Below is a screenshot of content from:  https://harryniska.com/why/

It is presented with highlighting two things where brevity should yield to detail. Click it, to enlarge and see highlighting.

First highlighting: "aggressively prosecute violent crime" is the basis for the opening first question (above first paragraph). A question of jurisdiction and duty; and of reach and budget as well as state-county balance.

Second highlighting: The promised focus upon what is "best for Minnesota, not my own ... ideology" begs the question of what's between the Niska ears on what's best for us, within his "ideology."

"What is best" in an absolute sense within Harry Niska's mind might differ from my equally subjective viewpoint.

----------------------------------

SPECIFICALLY, PUBLIC EDUCATION PROTECTION FROM VOUCHER SPECIAL-INTEREST ENCROACHMENT OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IS THE FOCUS. I SUBJECTIVELY PRIZE THAT NOTION GREATLY, AS "BEST FOR MINNESOTA," HENCE; BEG THAT QUESTION AND YOU ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. NOW, DISINGENUITY IS NOT WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM HARRY NISKA. I HAVE SEEN CIRCUMSPECTION HOWEVER, WHICH, FOR THE MOST PART, IS A CREDIT. MEANING THAT THIS IS A MENTIONED PRECAUTIONARY CONCERN OF MINE, BUT ONE REACHING TO SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO TAXPAYING-VOTERS IN THE STATE AND WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILY WHEN PUBLIC EDUCATION IS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, WHETHER THEY ARE A CHILDLESS FAMILY OR A FAMILY CHOOSING TO SCHOOL CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF AVAILABLE PUBLIC EDUCATION'S OPPORTUNITIES.

MONEY: Concerning the question, the Private School Review website notes for Legacy Christian Academy in Andover, MN:

Coming down to public fund usage, work those numbers out: 464 students at $7,900 a pop yields this non-profit a tidy $3,665,600 annual haul; and while opinions can differ, I'd shit a brick if seeing $3.7 million public dollars handed over to ideologically questionable privateers.

Wouldn't you?

Indoctrination of one's children in ways one chooses is arguably a parental right as long as they pay the cost to be the boss. Would the next slippery slope step be home schooling parents wanting voucher money to their own account? Give them back their paid taxes that way? Would that be fair to childless couples paying public schooling taxes? It is a thicket.

Bottom line: Even apart from the Niska AG candidacy, Minnesotans should in their next voting round be ready, given the unfortunate DeVos appointment by Trump, to face yet another voucher-premised attempted raid on the treasured public schooling fisc; while the Niska candidacy appears to present the question as possibly more real than hypothetical.

Under my radar for about a month; but all politics is local.

Harry Niska is bright. A bright lawyer. I got to know that while he was vice-chair of Ramsey's Charter Commission. If I were constructing some intricate business operation and/or had complex business litigation issues and could afford his fee, I'd be happy were he to represent me. If he's been practicing much other than business law, I could not say. The only Google Scholar online links I found are here and here. (A case that never should have happened through no fault of Niska.)

He's with Ross and Orenstein, LLC, in Minnesota:

http://www.rossbizlaw.com/

with this as the firm's Niska bio.

See:

http://www.rossbizlaw.com/bios/harry-niska/#collapse1

That litigation experience listing mentions more than Google Scholar returned by searching "Harry Niska," where representations under his full given name might have been missed via that search.

A business lawyer. Clearly so. With "bizlaw" embedded in the firm's website name.

After saying Niska is bright; Is He Ambitious? You decide:

source: CFB, here

source: CFB, here

Has he good political judgment, blowing a certain dog whistle via nominal campaign chair identity? You decide that too. Peggy Scott is like Abigale Whalen. (If you don't believe me, ask Whelan, she'd be happy to have the discussion.)

However, anybody who would not want himself and the chosen political party he's associated himself with making an endorsement of Tim Tingelstad and/or Dan Griffith, for whatever reasons he contested that, cannot be all bad. (Niska's lawyer in that case presently is registered with the CFB as Niska's campaign treasurer; i.e., of a feather and still flocking together.)

Now, is he right for the job? The answer to that, knowing nothing of Doug Wardlow as the other 2017 AG Republican wannabe, I'd trust Harry more than an unknown person, and given Swanson's incumbency strength on the DFL side if there ends up being a primary I'd consider crossing over to vote for Harry as devil [i.e., Republican] I know. Actually, if Swanson's Democratic Party opposition involves either an Our Revolution or a Justice Democrats endorsement, I'd stay in the Dem primary and vote then, if such endorsements arise, for change. Some things preempt others, and it's not saying Swanson's done a particularly good, nor particularly bad job. Just, voting one's conscience. But I digress.

Now my complaints - No. 1. A nothingburger of an "issue" page; lame beyond excuse:

https://harryniska.com/why/

It is lame to put on the web:

I’m running to enforce and uphold the law on behalf of all Minnesotans in every courtroom.

when the defining issue of the day, law-wise, is Daudt and confederates passing a poison pill to Dayton, and Dayton saying, "See you and raise you one." So, Harry, which side would you, as hypothetical present AG, "enforce?" One knows Harry would be intrigued by the situation, he has that kind of mind, and my belief is he'd say the legislature has Constitutional power to do what they did, and because the line item veto is Constitutional, Dayton too acted within his powers, and it is not a justiciable controversy because the judicial branch, in deference to its place, must allow a political question between the other two branches to either stall the government with all the mischief the Daudt first shot would entail; or there must be reasonableness given that the first poison pill did not poison the well and if good sense had prevailed it would never have been delivered. Within legislative powers, and making good sense often are incongruent. Daudt and confederates were horses asses in doing what they did, and Dayton was correct on calling them out so that Daudt et al. will be the ones bending to reason.

Dayton's had his two term elections and the Republican instigators will want to keep their paychecks; so they must cave in. If the court gets it right in any event.

But where's Harry? Big key issue and he's feeding issue-pablum via his website, as if we cannot see it as such and thus insulting.

Moreover, what content are we to read into, "enforce and uphold the law," when separation of church and state stands as the bedrock principle underlying a state and nation's public education being free of religious school voucherism? In that sense, the website's vacuous statement begs to be fleshed out in detail.

private church school tykes singing, "I Can Talk to God"

Complaint No. 2 -- AND THIS COULD BE BIG: This is based on a presumption that the Jen Niska who posted that YouTube is Harry's spouse, and that their children go to a private school WHERE at a young age they are brought to sing, "I can talk to god."

I gravely fear any chance whatsoever of an AG not dedicated one hundred percent to public education and only to that: for taxpayer money only going to public education, not vouchers, as that DeVos idiot advocates.

If a different Jen Niska posted that YouTube video, no problem. If it's from the Jen Niska of Harry and Jen in Ramsey, Minnesota - BIG TIME PROBLEM. Some taxpayers, not having children willingly pay public school taxes in order to have a body of educated generations taking over things as elders age and die. Taxation of the public, education-wise, is for public schooling and for nothing else, and if some want to send their children to a Legacy Christian Academy, then on their nickle, not somebody else's. I trust public education. I advocate spending more to make it better. It is the future of town, state, and nation being shaped.

VOUCHERS ARE ANTI-AMERICAN, AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND MINNESOTA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST BE 100% DEDICATED TO PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL FORMS OF VOUCHER ENCROACHMENT.

AN ATTORNEY GENERAL LESS THAN THAT WOULD BE A TRAINWRECK.

That said, I am not as good as a facial recognition program in NSA hands in determining whether the person in that video is the same Jen Niska pictured here, here and here. But I think it is.

_______________UPDATE______________
I was wrong. I cut more slack than to think knee-jerk party-line narrowness:

Apparently that nothingberger "issues" fluff thing had a purpose. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander is an older saying than some recognize.

Anyway, expecting more than that is subject to a "twit" - isn't that what you call a twitter post - by length limits, so that thought and analysis take a back seat. For those interested, here and here. It is not a facile thing. But those twits can make it seem so. At least this twit is reassuring that Harry would be protective of everyone's right to finance through taxes only inviolable public education free of shady special-interest voucher looting done as if the establishment clause had never been written:

Apart from Twitter and its twits - that is what they're called, yes/no? - an earlier post here.

___________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
It appears Niska did a Facebook post somewhere about the "See ya, raise ya," but I don't do Facebook, so if a reader would send me a screencapture of it, I will post it, in fairness to Harry since the implication is he fashioned a Constitutional argument, and again, he is bright so it must have been coherent in disposing of the political question - justiciability objection. The belief that handwaving can overcome the pure stupidity of legislative defunding the Department of Revenue would only resonate with a bunch of lawyers anyway. Real people would see, "Hey, you've killing the government that way, or making the threat to, and that's an Anarchist at work, doing that." Handing a Governor an anarchist document seems to suggest legislators suffering substance abuse, that or the Mark Twain "but I am repeating myself" quote:

More so, for the fish in a smaller pond than Congress. (Did Twain know some ancestor of Paul Ryan? Or of DWS?)

When will Jarad Kushner testify publicly before Congressional panels?

Is he making family business documents available as well as documents generated from his actions in the Executive branch?

Ossoff had better win.

AJC reports:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $4.3 million in the runoff phase, and other left-leaning groups have chipped in around $500,000. But his fundraising totals means he hasn’t needed as much additional firepower.

Contrast the flood of spending in Georgia with the other recent House special elections. Montana’s air wars cost about $10 million, though Democrats only reluctantly helped Rob Quist after weeks of attack ads from GOP groups. And less than $200,000 was spent by outside groups in the Kansas race.

Rob and Halladay ought to incorporate the Cabaret "Money Makes the World Go Round" song into their repertoire. Their world spun less than Ossoff's, ya betcha; DNC being penny wise, pound foolish with the body-slammer winning. Rob has a good heart. For trying, for singing, for music, for people. He'd make a good Senator.

Trump learned from Roy Cohn the tactic of dropping lawsuits hither and yon, and now . . .

. . . chickens come home to roost? In the WaPo item:

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said. To fully know the extent of Trump’s constitutional violations “we’ll need to see his financial records, his taxes that he has refused to release.”

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said.

(When suggesting discovery of Trump tax returns, "checks and balances" seems an apt term.) WaPo reports that more litigation is in the pipes:

The constitutional question D.C. and Maryland will put before a federal judge is whether Trump’s business ownership amount to violations of parts of the Constitution known as the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses.

[...] The lawsuit, to be filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will be the latest and most significant legal challenge to Trump over the issue of emoluments. The first was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a D.C.-based watchdog group. In March, a D.C. restaurant sued Trump, alleging the new Trump International Hotel in D.C. benefits from unfair advantages because of its close association with the president. And last week, a group of Democratic members of Congress said they plan to file suit soon. Each, however, has faced legal hurdles over standing to sue the president.

In the Trump administration’s most detailed response yet, the Department of Justice filed a 70-page legal brief on Friday arguing the CREW lawsuit should be dismissed. The administration said Trump’s businesses are legally permitted to accept payments from foreign governments while he is in office. [...] going all the way back to farm produce sold abroad by George Washington — to assert that market-rate payments for Trump’s real estate, hotel and golf companies do not constitute emoluments as defined by the Constitution.

Racine and Frosh, however, argue Trump’s violations are on scale never seen before and that both D.C. and Maryland are being adversely affected by the Trump hotel near the White House.

[...] Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other states.

[...] Strict adherence to the emoluments clauses, D.C. and Maryland argue, “ensure that Americans do not have to guess whether a President who orders their sons and daughters to die in foreign lands acts out of concern for his private business interests; they do not have to wonder if they lost their job due to trade negotiations in which the President has a personal stake; and they never have to question whether the President can sit across the bargaining table from foreign leaders and faithfully represent the world’s most powerful democracy, unencumbered by fear of harming his own companies.”

The suit seeks an injunction to force Trump to stop violating the Constitution, but leaves it up to the court to decide how that should be accomplished.

WaPo posts a link to the actual court filing; online here. Of interest, it appears the Justice Department is representing the billionaire, with him not having to pay his own litigation expenses? There was a Bubba Clinton Legal Defense Fund, back then, when, apparently, litigation costs were privatized.

Trump wants the public to carry his weight, hence, research might be needed on why Bubba's situation was apparently different. (Somebody interested enough should pursue that question.)

And I thought Republicans want stuff privatized. Perhaps there's some devilish detail at play?

UPDATE: It seems the same shoe fits Kushner. Why is he not being sued; he took some form of oath of office, didn't he?

FURTHER: The CREW suit, online here. Brookings paper, same topic, here. Reporting from January, 2017.

Nelson Rockefeller was VP back after Ford pardoned Nixon and Agnew was bypassed; and with his net worth, how did he skate? Aside from being one of the elite which is now suing Trump, is it a distinction without a difference? After Attica Rockefeller had, in the minds of some, more baggage than Trump ever will have.

FURTHER: Without pretending to have studied sources, the CREW v Trump suit has a Wikipedia page.

Second Amended Complaint, CREW v Trump, here.

Internet Archive materials, here; specifically having DOJ response items, Motion to Dismiss, and Memorandum in Support of Motion, i.e., the Trump (via DOJ) responsive papers.

The Archive items were found as linked to from here. There is much reporting online, without further linking, readers are encouraged to do their own research. Because of the recency of the motion/memorandum, June 9, 2017; the CREW response is unavailable until filed, with a future deadline.

For a hoot, here. Yep. Nothing there. Perhaps due to a lack of search term specificity: "CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President."

Surely not evasiveness by the Sessions' minions. Downplaying what's unwelcome? Not that. Not from JB.

It is sad Corbyn did not get a majority.