Excerpts from recent Minnesota editorials

St. Cloud Times, Sept. 21

What’s in a name? Credibility. Hate crimes discussion must not be silenced

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda.

Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

It worked. The discussion was postponed. More on that later.

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible - by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Their leader - Freedom Speaks Coalition state director Marni Hockenberg, who lives in the Twin Cities - was more than willing to use her anti-Muslim megaphone to inspire her followers. However, she would not be interviewed by the Times to make her case to the community at large.

Also worth noting: The man who said he is her lawyer would offer only his first name. (Wonder what he does in court?)

Yet all of the picketers were more than willing to hold signs or loudly proclaim that the FBI is working on behalf a terrorist group - one of which the protesters apparently believe has ties to the panel.

If that is the case, it’s no time for bashfulness. A patriot would declare that injustice, that absolute threat to our nation and betrayal of the citizenry, in full-throated roars. They’d certainly sign their names to it, at the very least. To do otherwise is the definition of cowardice.

Such mass reliance on anonymity (not to mention conspiracies) spurs some basic questions: How many people who hold those beliefs actually live in the St. Cloud metro area? Do they actually believe their own chants, or is it cover for deeper ugliness in their points of view? Do they interact with people in this community who are different than themselves? Have they ever actually had a real conversation with the people who, through their stereotyping and vitriol, they clearly hate, or fear, or both?

And if they answer “yes” to any or all those questions, why are they afraid to be identified? If they are so sure about the validity of their beliefs, based on their own experiences, why not own them?

The question for the rest of us is simple: If they won’t put their names behind those beliefs, why should anyone take them seriously?

The truth is that anonymous slander of large groups of people based on their religion, their race, or their nation of origin is exactly why the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission must reschedule this panel discussion.

Freedom Speaks Coalition’s website shows it’s an ultra-conservative national group supposedly championing the values of America’s founders - except one: freedom of religion, namely the Muslim faith.

The St. Cloud area already has experienced enough of this Islamophobia - much if it fostered by people like Wednesday’s demonstrators, led by Hockenberg.

The formula is familiar: Use social networks to whip up a small segment of the community, gather in St. Cloud, stay long enough to incite fear, hate and discord and then - in many cases - leave town. It’s worth noting that some of the most vitriolic calls to this newspaper and letters to our editor don’t come from people who live within 50 miles of St. Cloud.

Also of note: Few if any of the headlining speakers at anti-Muslim events are Central Minnesotans. Are they using us to make a name for themselves?

Maybe. But at least they put their names to it.

That’s why rescheduling this panel discussion in a timely way is critical. It’s why all the original panelists - St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Minnesota leader Jaylani Hussein, Minnesota Department of Human Rights Director Rebecca Lucero, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Michael Melcher and American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota Legal Director Teresa Nelson - need to be on the panel when the event takes place.

They should not be silenced. And to those who say protesters like those Wednesday would be silenced by being expected to stand up and take credit for their words, we say: Be as brave as the panelists, who did not expect to be taken seriously without being identified.

The objective of the panel discussion is to define hate crimes, explain criminal and civil responses and discuss prevention - nothing that any rational person would argue against. All are steps that could help the St. Cloud area make progress in climbing out of this mess we’re in.

Don’t let people who are too afraid to take credit for their words and actions stop important community conversations. Hold the forum.

___

Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 25

Impeachment inquiry is needed but not without risks

Impeachment of a president, whether it results in removal from office or not, is a serious matter. House Democrats have taken the first step on that road, opening an inquiry that could build a case for articles of impeachment.

That they waited nearly a year after taking the majority to do so speaks to the fact that this is no rush to judgment. But after reports that President Donald Trump had attempted to enlist a foreign government in investigating a chief political rival in the upcoming election, Democrats had little choice.

Since taking office, Trump has upended many conventional norms. But the efforts to get the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination, go too far. Americans already know that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, attempting to tip the scales to Trump. A lengthy investigation proved that, although it did not prove that candidate Trump conspired in the meddling.

This time, we have the president’s own words, in a five-page memo summarizing a half-hour phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump repeatedly reminds Zelensky how much the U.S. has done for his country. Zelensky knew that just days earlier, Trump had inexplicably frozen $400 million appropriated by Congress as aid to Ukraine. Then he hears the president make this startling request: “I want you to do us a favor.” What follows crosses every ethical boundary an American president should have.

Trump not only implores Zelensky to investigate Biden, he asks him to work with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, who holds no position in the government. And with U.S. Attorney General William Barr. That elevates the request to one that carries the full weight of the federal government.

Impeachment is so serious an action that Congress must undertake a thorough investigation, as is happening now. The issues at hand go beyond a single phone call. Giuliani has already said that his efforts in Ukraine to investigate Biden came at the behest of the State Department. “I never talked to a Ukrainian official before the State Department called and asked me to do it,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News. And although it runs five pages, the declassified memo - which is not a verbatim transcript - contains several ellipses, indicating missing passages.

The investigation must be thorough because if it comes to a vote on articles of impeachment, the American public must have a complete accounting of the facts. There can be no room for credible accusations that Democrats are merely engaged in a hasty witch hunt. Democrats should establish clear boundaries, a timeline and be as transparent as possible if they want to restore a measure of trust with their actions.

An impeachment battle could deepen divisions in an already polarized country. But there are other risks as well. There is the risk to election integrity if we do nothing, and let yet another standard fall. Americans must be convinced that the integrity of the upcoming election will not be tainted by the actions of yet another foreign government. And the office of the presidency, so central to American leadership in the world, must be protected.

The nation would be better served by bipartisan support for the inquiry. But at least for now, Republicans appear fixated on what they consider the lack of a quid pro quo. But as the House committee chairs countered in a joint statement, “No quid pro quo is required to betray our country. Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections - that is betrayal enough.”

An inquiry by itself is not impeachment. It is a search for the truth. And it is desperately needed.

___

The Free Press of Mankato, Sept. 26

Fake news/Online smears of Omar proliferate

The Free Press has, for several months, run on the weekends an Associated Press feature labeled “Not Real News,” an examination of false “information” that somehow finds traction on social media.

It is alarming how often canards denigrating Minnesota’s Somali community in general, and Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Democratic congresswoman from Minneapolis, in particular, are part of that feature.

Last weekend, for example, one of the “Not Real News” items dissected the false claim that a pair of violent robberies in the neighborhood of the Twins stadium was the work of Somali gangs. The robberies were real, but Minneapolis police say there is no reason to connect the crimes to Somalis.

Earlier in the week, we published a story, labeled by AP as “Not Real News,” about President Donald Trump retweeting a false claim that a video of Omar dancing was in celebration of the 9/11 terror attack anniversary. The video came from a Congressional Black Caucus social event days before the anniversary. Trump, as he so often has, embraced and spread the lie while disclaiming responsibility for it.

Another “Not Real News” item a few weeks ago reported on a photo that was supposedly Omar getting weapons training in Somalia. The photo was actually made years before Omar was born.

We fully recognize that one need not be a racist or a habitual liar to disagree with Omar’s policy positions. But we find it noteworthy that her opponents seem unable, or unwilling, to forgo the character smears and outright lies - even ones so easily disprovable.

Facebook and Twitter have, unfortunately, turbo-charged the adage that “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” The people who fear what Omar is - an intelligent black Muslim woman who wins elections - and the community she comes from - the Somali diaspora - appear to have nothing other than lies to lean on. That’s not much of a support structure.