ST PAUL, MINN. – House lawmakers in Minnesota have officially filed articles of impeachment against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Flag Family News has reached out to both Walz and Ellison for comment.
Ellison’s office says the Attorney General has not issued a statement specifically on the articles, saying, “Attorney General Ellison’s priority right now is working to pass his bipartisan bill giving his Medicaid fraud fighting team more resources and stronger tools to combat fraud.”
The impeachment resolutions have been referred to the House Rules and Legislative Administration committee, co-chaired by Representatives Harry Niska and Jamie Long.
Walz impeachment resolution
House Resolution 6, filed Monday, calls for Walz’s impeachment based on ‘corrupt conduct in office.’
The resolution says Walz, who has announced he’s not seeking reelection, ‘has engaged in corrupt conduct in office by violating his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws of this state.’
Four articles of impeachment were filed against Walz.
The first alleges Walz violated his oath of office ‘by knowingly concealing or permitting others to conceal widespread fraud within Minnesota state-administered programs despite repeated warnings, audits, reports, and public indicators of systematic abuse.’
The second alleges he violated the oath ‘by actions and omissions that interfered with lawful oversight, investigation, or corrective action related to fraud in Minnesota state agencies.’
The third alleges Walz ‘failed to uphold his constitutional oath of office by placing political consideration above lawful administration, thereby breaching the public trust.’
The final article of impeachment alleges the governor ‘failed to uphold his constitutional oath of office by failing to faithfully execute the laws of the State of Minnesota, especially with respect to laws governing stewardship of public money.’
Ellison impeachment resolution
House Resolution 7, also filed Monday, calls for Ellison’s impeachment ‘for corrupt conduct in office and for crimes and misdemeanors.’
Six articles were filed against Ellison.
The first says Ellison ‘violated his constitutional oath of office by using the authority and public platform of the Office of Attorney General to defend, excuse, or minimize unlawful conduct, including the unlawful entry, occupation, or disruption of a religious facility during protest activity in Minnesota.’
“This conduct constitutes an abuse of the powers entrusted to his office; a failure to uphold and equally enforce the law; and a breach of the duty of the Attorney General to protect the constitutional rights of all Minnesotans,” the article read.
The second article alleges Ellison ‘violated his constitutional oath of office by undermining protections for religious liberty and worship.’
“While the Attorney General does not directly prosecute federal crimes, he is obligated by oath to respect and support the rule of law; cooperate with and not undermine federal civil rights enforcement; and avoid conduct that signals selective tolerance for unlawful acts,” the article reads.
The third alleges he has failed to ‘neutrally and impartially enforce the law’ and more specifically alleges he ‘exercised or signaled law enforcement discretion based on political or ideological alignment; failed to clearly distinguish lawful protest from criminal conduct; and; undermined public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.’
The fourth article alleges Ellison ‘has engaged in private communications with members of a specific community in which he suggested preferential protection, advocacy, or access involving public resources or enforcement discretion.’
“Such conduct constitutes a conflict of interest, the use of public office for functional or political advantage, and a failure to act in a manner that is compatible with the duty to represent all Minnesotans,” the article states.
Article five says Ellison, the state’s top law enforcement official, ‘made representations implying that political or financial support would be met with favorable treatment or protection connected to his official role.’
“These actions constitute an abuse of public office for the benefit of his campaign interests; corrupt conduct; and a violation of the ethical duties of a state constitutional officer,” the article read.
The final article of impeachment alleges Ellison ‘has engaged in conduct that brings disrepute upon the Office of Attorney General, including undermining the rule of law; weakening the protection for religious liberty; and damaging public trust in Minnesota’s justice system.’
