There are probably fewer than 100 people in America who would understand the importance of a 47-second exchange during today’s marathon 4-hour and 20-minute U.S. House Oversight committee hearing at the capitol. But the brief sequence gets to the heart of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s nonfeasance/misfeasance/malfeasance in regard to the multi-billion-dollar welfare frauds plaguing the state.
Today’s committee hearing was headlined,
Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part II.
Your correspondent was able to attend, in person, Part 1, which occurred back in early January. Alas, I had to watch Part II via YouTube, as the original February hearing date had to be postponed until today.
John covers the hearing here and here.
The entire hearing can be viewed here. The portion featuring today’s star witnesses, Ellison and Gov. Tim Walz, begins at 18:52 and runs until 4:40:59.
My schedule today would permit viewing only the first two-and-a-half hours, so there may be other gems buried in the final two hours of the witness testimony.
The segment I want to call attention to begins at 2:24:03 and runs less than a minute. It involves Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) and the general topic of Feeding Our Future.
Everyone will recall Mr. Ellison’s chumminess with the Feeding Our Future fraudsters, which was captured on a 54-minute audio recording first published by American Experiment. That topic came up frequently today.
Although the half-billion-dollar free-food scandal bears the name of the nonprofit corporation “Feeding Our Future,” hundreds of other nonprofits were involved in the fraud.
Not only does Ellison serve as Minnesota’s chief legal officer, he is also, by law, the lead regulator of nonprofits in the state. And here is where it gets interesting.
In October 2023, more than a-year-and-a-half after the Feeding Our Future scandal broke, Ellison made a big point out of suing a couple of dozen other nonprofits involved in the scandal. At the time, I found these lawsuits odd as they did not seem to be aimed at accomplishing any real useful goal, other than to gain Ellison some cheap publicity for “doing something” to address fraud.
Most notably, Ellison did not demand the return of any stolen money from any of these nonprofits. Fast forward three years, and Rep. Burchett asks about two of these nonprofits sued by Ellison: Partners in Nutrition (d/b/a Partners in Quality Care) and Youth Leadership Academy (d/b/a Gar Gaar Family Services). Burchett notes that the two nonprofits (as did the others) “settled” their cases with Ellison, without giving up anything of value in return.
Burchett asked Ellison why didn’t he prosecute these nonprofits criminally. Ellison replied in the moment that he has no power to do so. That answer from Ellison contradicted statements he made under oath earlier in the hearing, admitting he does have the power to prosecute frauds, including frauds other than Medicaid cases.
Reconsidering the matter in light of Burchett’s question this morning, I have another theory. Both Partners and Gar Gaar (and other nonprofits) featured prominently in the scandal, were mentioned frequently during the two courtroom trials involving Feeding Our Future, yet have never been charged criminally.
Could the nonprofits use their “settlements” with Ellison as a shield against future prosecutions/lawsuits filed by future U.S. Attorneys or Attorneys General? Could they claim that the matter was “settled” with Ellison and raise something akin to a double-jeopardy argument?
At the end of the sequence, Burchett requests Ellison’s resignation and I could not agree more with the gentleman from Tennessee.
