We Break Down the Klein Brothers Case with Journalist Maddie Roth

[00:00:12] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, a weekly podcast that breaks down politics, policy, and current affairs. I'm Becky Scherr. And I'm Michael Brodkorb. This week is a special episode for a number of reasons. First being that, once again, Michael stepped up to pick up my slack as I was sick during a scheduled interview. But the interview is also unique because of the subject matter.

[00:00:32] This week's interview features journalist Madison Roth, who writes for Racket and worked on an incredible yet heartbreaking story about three young brothers who disappeared from a North Minneapolis park in 1951. Who better to discuss this story with Madison than Michael, who wrote a book about two missing sisters from Lakeville and can connect on a different level than the rest of us? It is a fascinating interview and one you won't want to miss. Following Michael's chat with Madison, I pulled it together to join Michael to break down another fascinating topic of late.

[00:01:02] And that is surrounding Senate President Bobby Joe Champion and a recent conflict of interest allegation that has led him to stepping down as chair of the Ethics Committee. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show. We are changing things up a little bit this week on The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky. We normally cover politics and break all that stuff down. But as I've mentioned to our listeners before, and Becky and I have spoken about this, I wrote a book a couple years back about the disappearance of two sisters from Lakeville, Minnesota.

[00:01:30] And I was doing some writing at the Star Tribune at the time when I first started reporting on these stories. And it later led into a book, which is still available on Amazon. And it's a continual bestseller, which I'm really proud of. But I have the subject matter that I wrote about was really tough for me. And it was about the disappearance of some missing kids from Minnesota.

[00:01:50] And I have always had a soft spot in my heart for those types of stories because as a parent, and we all have, we all were kids. And whether we're parents or not, we know children and children are just special and they're just innocent. And the concept and the thought of a parent losing their child, having their child abducted is truly just a nightmare scenario.

[00:02:18] And a couple weeks ago, I saw a story online that was written by Maddie Roth. And Maddie writes for The Racket. And I was, the story literally stopped me dead in my tracks. I read it and I was so impressed by the level of detail, the level of work, the commitment she went into telling the story, and also the absolute gut-wrenching nature of it. I reached out to Maddie and she was kind enough to be available to come on the podcast.

[00:02:48] And so this is going to be a little bit of a different episode. And, but Becky and I run the show and we get to pick our guests. And when someone does this level of work, shoe leather, journalism, and reporting, particularly on a subject that's near and dear to my heart, I want to amplify and elevate that work and talk about it. And so I hope you will afford me editorial control on the podcast this week.

[00:03:15] Have what I think is going to be a really fascinating and I think engaging conversation with Maddie. Maddie, I thank you so much for joining us today. Maddie Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Tell our listeners a little bit about your background. You're a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota. You majored in journalism, but tell us how you got to where you are today and now on being interviewed on my podcast. Maddie Yeah. Yeah. So I graduated from the U.

[00:03:40] I worked at the Minnesota Daily for three years, got to be the managing editor, really just got to learn so much about journalism and fall in love with it. And I knew from doing different internships and things like that that I wanted to do crime reporting. And so funny enough, when this story came along, I was in my intermediate reporting class and we had to do our final on a social issue.

[00:04:09] Maddie And so I thought, okay, I want to learn more about missing people. I want to know how the Minneapolis Police Department goes about looking into these cases. Maddie And so I just looked up missing people in Minnesota, found the Klein brothers, and it ended up being a lot more complicated than I thought it was going to be.

[00:04:36] Maddie And so it took me a year and a half to write this entire story and to get it out with all of the information that there was. Maddie And I was grateful enough to have Racket publish it, but it's been a whirlwind of a year and a half getting everything together and making it what it was. Maddie Tell our listeners a bit about the Racket. Maddie And so we haven't had much conversation on the Racket, but the Racket is an online media outlet here in the Twin Cities.

[00:05:01] Maddie Describe a little bit of what the Racket writes about and where people can get more information and follow. Maddie We will, of course, promote this story and your social media and Racket, but tell our listeners a little bit about what the Racket is. Maddie Yeah, so Racket is independent. Maddie It has four editors who run everything. Maddie They do a lot of freelancing, and they write about the things you wouldn't expect to see in a normal paper.

[00:05:26] Maddie One of my friends wrote a story about cryptids, and so they just have so many weird and random things, but they're really interesting and not what you would expect. Maddie So they do write about cold cases. Maddie They write about trying different sort of beers and THC drinks and things like that, but they also do some news. Maddie And keep up with all of that. Maddie So it's a very niche sort of thing for anybody who knows what City Pages is. Maddie It's got a similar vibe to City Pages.

[00:05:55] Maddie And so it's a really cool independent outlet that writes about things you wouldn't expect. Maddie Before we get into the specifics, I want to ask you the specifics of the story. Maddie I want to ask you something that you touched on. Maddie What drew you or what was your interest in true crime? Maddie Yeah, so my mom is a police officer back in my hometown in Wisconsin. Maddie And so I grew up around law enforcement my entire life.

[00:06:21] Maddie I know so many of her fellow colleagues, and it really is a special place in my heart because I think our law enforcement, they risk their lives every single day. Maddie And so to see that and to see what my mom has done, it has always meant so much to me. Maddie And I have always wanted to elevate people who have gone through these tragedies and elevate the people who are helping them get through it and figure out what happened to their family.

[00:06:51] Maddie So it has always been a really big interest and passion of mine to write about things like this. Maddie I was, let me just say, one of the things that I didn't know that about your past, and it's interesting to learn that, but one of the things I will just say before, and I'll talk more about the case here in just a second. Maddie But one of the things that I was so impressed by was the level of detail and the care that you showed towards the family. Maddie I think, and love to get your perspective on this, but I think a lot of true crime can be very exploitive.

[00:07:19] Maddie One of the things that I never did, my writing partner and I, Alison Mann, never did is we never attended true crime conventions. Maddie We wrote our book in a very thoughtful way, very deliberative of the pictures we chose, how it was done. Maddie We didn't want to traumatize the family in any type of way. Maddie And sadly, a lot of true crime is exploitive. Just go to a bookstore, go to a library, and it's that type of stuff.

[00:07:45] Maddie What I was so impressed by was the level of care and maturity in which you wrote this story. Maddie I was, it's almost what didn't, you didn't recover, that I was so impressed by. Maddie And the editorial decisions that you made in crafting it and then working with the racket. Maddie I have to tell you, it's one of the most amazing true crime stories that I've ever heard about in this state. Maddie And your work is incredibly impressive.

[00:08:12] Maddie And so I just want to say at the onset to our listeners that I want this interview to be about your work and what you do. Maddie But I just want to share just a moment just how impressed I was with the care and commitment. Maddie These are complicated subjects. Maddie And we're talking about missing children and families that are torn apart. Maddie And the level of maturity that you showed and the care is one of the reasons you're on here today. Maddie And I just wanted to say that at the onset how just impressed I was.

[00:08:40] Maddie It was truly a gut-wrenching story, but told in such a thoughtful and respectful and non-exploitive way. Maddie There's so many ways in which people can gore up, for lack of a better phrase, true crime. Maddie And you told it in just a very humane way. Maddie And so with that being said, tell our listeners about this story that you dedicated all your time working on. Maddie Yeah.

[00:09:05] Maddie So the process of going about it, I had no idea what to do. Maddie And so I was looking at the different, on the website where the Klein brothers are, just trying to gather information from that and looking up anything I could. Maddie It hadn't really been written about that often. Maddie And so there wasn't a lot of news about it to fall back on. Maddie Because these were three brothers that disappeared in Minneapolis.

[00:09:32] It's Kenneth Jr., David, and Daniel Klein disappeared on November 10th, 1951 in Minneapolis. Maddie Correct? Maddie That's the story we're talking about. Maddie Yeah. Maddie Yeah. Maddie Yeah. Maddie Yeah. Maddie So we're looking at a case that's over 70 years old, which is so complicated to do. Maddie And so much has happened since then.

[00:09:55] Maddie But I got pretty lucky and I met Jack Elhi, who is an author, freelancer. Maddie And he wrote a book about the Klein brothers. Maddie It's called The Lost Brothers. Maddie Super good short book. Maddie And I got to talk to him and learn a lot about the case through him. Maddie And I think that was when I realized that this was so much bigger than I had anticipated.

[00:10:18] Maddie And so while the pieces fell into place, he asked me if I wanted to talk to the remaining brothers. Maddie Because I'm going to try to make this as clear as I can. Maddie There's Gordy, who is the oldest brother. Maddie And then it's Kenneth and David and Daniel. Maddie And then there's Mike, Tom, Lance, and Donald. Maddie And so there's eight Klein brothers in total.

[00:10:47] Maddie Three of them are missing. Maddie Yes. Maddie And so Gordy is still alive. Maddie And Mike, Tom, and Donald are also still alive. Maddie Lance has passed away due to sickness and health and all that stuff. Maddie And so when Jack told me that I could talk to Donald, I was like, yes, we have to. Maddie I need to know more about this. Maddie This would be fantastic for me to talk to somebody who has lived this and is part of this.

[00:11:15] Maddie And so he gave me his contact information. Maddie I talked with Donald. Maddie I met him numerous times. Maddie And he was the one who was like, if you want to talk to Mike or Tom, let me know. Maddie So I got to be connected to them. Maddie I got connected to Detective Jessica Miller, who got this case reopened in 2016. Maddie And so much of that was because of Donald. Maddie I truly, the story would not have happened without him.

[00:11:40] Maddie And so I got very lucky that I got to talk to the people that I did and learn so many intimate details about the family. Maddie And it almost felt like I knew Kenneth Sr. and Betty, who are the Klein parents, Maddie And so much of that was from everything that I had learned from talking to their kids and knowing what it was like growing up with this. Maddie So yeah, it was everything fell into place. Maddie And I got to interview some incredible people

[00:12:09] and have some really tough conversations. Maddie I can imagine. Maddie Tell me what, tell our listeners what happened on November 10th in 1951. Maddie Yeah. Maddie The Klein brothers lived in now what is like northern Minneapolis. Maddie They were very close to the Mississippi. Maddie They were on Colfax Avenue North. Maddie And it's right by Farview Park for anybody who knows where that is.

[00:12:35] Maddie And so let's first get into the setting. Maddie It's 1951. Maddie There's no... Maddie I feel like today we don't really let our kids go out on their own when they're that young because at the time Kenneth was eight, David was six, and Daniel was four. Maddie And yeah, very different time. Maddie The Klein brothers wanted to go to the park, Farview Park, and Gordie was supposed to go with them. Maddie He ended up not going with them.

[00:13:03] Maddie And so the brothers told their parents that they'd come back. Maddie And minutes turned into hours. Maddie And when it got dark at night and they didn't come back, Maddie And Betty called the police and the police came to her house. Maddie And I think the shocking detail that I found out about this was they didn't do anything. Maddie They told the clients that they would probably

[00:13:27] come back at some point and that they shouldn't worry, which is insane because if somebody did that now, that would never happen now. Maddie And so they waited until the next morning. Maddie And so they began investigating the area around the Mississippi and the park where the boys had disappeared. Maddie Now, this is the proximity of this location isn't, how far away is it?

[00:13:53] I know it's not too far away, but describe if you can, how close this is to the St. Anthony Falls, because there was an initial belief, I think an initial ruling or a belief that the kids drowned, that they went and just went into the water and drowned. Is that a belief based on geography that is a credible theory that the kids went into the water? Maddie So it's complicated because if you talk to

[00:14:19] Detective Miller, for example, she does not think it's likely that the boys drowned. So at the time it's November, the water level is lower. And the way that it's been described to me is that if they did drown, there would have been bodies. But to this day, there's never been a body recovered. They have gone into Mississippi and tried to find bones or anything that connected to the boys,

[00:14:45] and they just, they haven't found anything. The reason that it was believed the boys had drowned was because two of their caps were found floating on the river. And at that point too, especially November in Minnesota, it was not cold enough for the lake to, for the river to freeze, but it was getting cold enough where it, there's, there would have been something.

[00:15:10] And so a lot of the people I've talked to, part of the research that I did was talking to cold case investigators from different counties around the metro area. And even they were not truly convinced that these boys drowned. There was one individual who thought it could be a very plausible theory because he had been one of the divers who would look for bodies. And so he thought it could be

[00:15:37] possible, but I, a lot of it has been described to me as they, MPD at the time, just didn't know what happened to them. And it was a lot easier for them to say that the boys drowned, especially with it's being where they were. Let me just say not to engage in any ageism, but as someone who's 51 and grew up, was born in the seventies and lived my, my had great trouble making years in the 1980s. It was very common to go out and

[00:16:05] go out for the day and zip around on your bike and tell your mom or dad, you'd be home later on at night and check in. It was just a different time and things as a parent, myself, things that I would never conceive of doing at some point that changed. And when I hearing this story, I think to some of our listeners thinking about the 1950s is when I probably talk about the 1970s and eighties to some of them

[00:16:28] in thinking about it and how long ago that was. And it was just very common growing up just to run out and go raise heck for a few hours, particularly in the summertime and just check in sparingly, be at someone's house. And it was just more carefree than it is right now. We've talked for a second about some of the investigative challenges, because we're talking about you're kicking the tires and re-looking

[00:16:52] at a case that happened, that occurred in 1951. And I can't do the math, but that's a long time ago. Yeah, 74 years ago. 74 years ago. And so what type of investigative challenges exist in terms of records, what you can access? The other thing is that I assume this is still an ongoing investigation. There's someone assigned to it. And so there's limits as to what you can find out, but describe a little bit what you

[00:17:19] learned about some of those investigative challenges. So many. There were so many. I think the hardest thing at first was Detective Miller had told me that there was a case file that she had given to MPD. And when I reached out to MPD, they were like, hey, we don't have this file. It doesn't exist.

[00:17:43] And I was like, that's not true, because you I know the detective who gave you her file like this is she managed to like get some papers back from the 50s. And she had a lot of stuff on it. And there was nowhere else it could have been. And so it was a lot of fighting with MPD being like, I know you guys have this. Where is it? And it was a lot of going to the different precincts in Minneapolis and being

[00:18:12] like, please just give me this file. And I, to this day, don't really know how it happened. But I miraculously got a public record request sent to me with the file attached to it from the city of Minneapolis. I don't know who did it, but it was there. And I have the digital version of the file. But obviously, it's so complicated because some of the handwriting you can't read. And so I had to sit

[00:18:41] down with so many different people to be like, can you read this? I don't know what this says. And the way that they typed out files just wasn't what it is now. There was such little detail. And so getting that case file in itself was a huge challenge. But then I got, again, so lucky with

[00:19:03] Donald because he got a CD with a bunch of files on it from the 90s when Detective Jim Schultz picked up the case and reexamined it. And so there was records from the 90s on there. And I really think so much of what I did was just luck because and asking questions and asking people if they had anything that could help. Because all of that, like, that's where there's a part of my story where I quote

[00:19:30] Betty and Kenneth when they were interviewed in 1991. I got all of that stuff from the CD that Donald had gotten from Detective Schultz. So it was the hardest part about this was getting information and also just knowing what was true and what wasn't. Because I was reading so many letters from people.

[00:19:55] Like, there were letters from Alaska, California, Florida, Virginia, like everywhere around the world. People were writing to the Clines and being like, I've seen, I saw your boy. He's here in Alaska. But he's not. And it's just going through all of that and knowing what to include, but also seeing how many people reached out and just sifting through all of the information was so much and

[00:20:23] definitely a challenge. So yeah, that was probably the hardest part of the investigative part of it. This is still an ongoing investigation. This is an open criminal case. How does that impact when you're writing, when you're working on a story, when you know it's an ongoing active case? Yeah. So there wasn't a lot of things that I wasn't technically allowed to say. There is a part

[00:20:51] in the story where there are two suspects who have been named or figured out throughout the years. And when I was talking to Detective Miller, she didn't feel comfortable telling me who those people were. But she did tell me if I looked hard enough, I could figure out who they were. I did. And there was an editorial decision to name one of those individuals because he has been ruled out.

[00:21:16] But the one that a lot of people think could have been the murderer of these boys, we decided not to name him because there is family of his in the Minneapolis area. And so I think that was definitely something where we had to really sit down and be like, can we do this? Should we talk about it? How is this going to impact other people? But other than that, there really wasn't anything that

[00:21:42] wasn't fair game to say. There is such little information on this case that nobody was looking at me and being like, don't write this because everything that I knew is stuff that is out there that people know about. So it was really just the suspects that I wasn't allowed to talk about. We'll get to that at a later point. But I want to ask about the family for a second. One of the things one of the things that I know I struggled with and was certainly a motivation for me, but I struggled

[00:22:11] with was having to have conversations with the family because this is their life. This is someone that they knew. This is someone that was taken from them. How did you manage that process of speaking with the family? And to the degree, which you talk about in the story, how are they, how have they coped with this uncertainty about their siblings disappearance? Yeah. So I think that was another

[00:22:37] really difficult part of this story was because they all reacted in such different ways. I had a brief conversation with Gordy and at this point, Gordy is in his eighties. He doesn't remember much about the case and he's gone through a lot of really hard, challenging things, being the only brother who was alive when these three went missing. And so I just made the decision to stay away. I didn't want

[00:23:06] to bring him through any more that he had already been through. And so there was that part of it. And then I'll be honest, every family has some drama and the clients are no different. So talking to them. That's a really important point because I said that a lot about, and in speaking with the family that I wrote about, I would say, look, no family is perfect. Every family has got trauma,

[00:23:33] but it's really important that you say that because I think to this family, I think it helps. You don't want to normalize their trauma, but I think you want to, it helps make them feel sometimes maybe a little less like they're a freak show. Like they're like, because every family has drama. Yeah. Some more than others, sadly. And this is a real sad example of some drama. Yeah.

[00:23:59] Yeah. And so some of the, Mike and Tom and Donald all went about investigating this case in such different ways and at such different lengths to the point of, and I'm sorry if you're going to ask about this later, but I'll bring this up now. Go ahead. There's a person in the story, his name's Tom Kemp. He talked about, he believed he was David Klein. He found the Kleins and he met them in Arizona and he said, I am David Klein. I have memories of our grandparents' backyard where

[00:24:29] there was a tree that the Kleins had buried, a red toy car. And he was like, I know where that is. I know exactly where it's buried. It's by this tree right here. And so Mike and Kenneth and Betty had all met him and Tom had as well. And they were convinced that it was David Klein and they did

[00:24:50] testing to see if he was blood related and it, he wasn't. And they, I remember talking to Mike and him being so convinced that Tom Kemp is his brother and he's not like there's, he was so convinced that somebody like screwed up the testing or something happened, but they tested his DNA four different

[00:25:14] times and it just, it wasn't him. And Mike was, he's convinced. And it's, it was so tough because Tom and Donald were both trying to tell their brother, hey, this is not our brother. And Mike just wouldn't believe it. And so there are strengths between the Klein brothers because they all have

[00:25:37] different theories, which I had talked about in the story and nobody is really convinced of one or the other, but it's so difficult when you just want answers and you don't have them. And so you'll believe anything. And that was something that Detective Miller had said to me. I had asked her more about Tom Kemp and I was like, what do you have to say about Mike believing that this is his

[00:26:04] brother? And she was like, people are holding on to hope. You hold on for hope for so long and you try so many different things that when something comes up and it seems so promising and it's just not the answer you want, you're going to, your brain is going to trick yourself into thinking that this is finally something, even though it's just not. It was heartbreaking to hear Mike try to convince me

[00:26:29] that Tom Kemp was his brother when I knew otherwise. And so having these conversations with them got to be difficult when it came to a point of them looking at me and being like, look, Maddie, this is what happened to my brothers. This is what you have to write about. And I had to be, I just had to look at them and be like, I can't write about this when this is

[00:26:55] not, we don't know about it. It seems really like a lot to write about. And I'm so sorry, but like, I have a responsibility to make sure that this doesn't make you guys come off like you're crazy. And like, it was definitely difficult. I think Donald helped me the most throughout this whole

[00:27:18] process. And talking to him was definitely probably the hardest just because he was the youngest and he grew up watching his entire family be impacted by this. And he's given his entire life to this case and figuring out what happened. He moved into Betty's house when she had passed away. And so that's where

[00:27:41] he is now. He kept every documented piece. He has all of it. He has pictures. He talks to anybody about this. He never had kids of his own because he never wanted to go through what his parents had gone through. He never got married because of the fear that if he got somebody pregnant and they had a kid that they would lose their kid. And it's a similar sort of thing with Mike and Mike and Tom have their

[00:28:08] own kids. But I asked them when their children were growing up, did they parent differently than they would have? And they were like, yeah, our kids had very strict curfews. We were always watching them. We were like tracking them when tracking devices came out because they were so scared to lose their kids. And I think you look at that, you look at these people who had never met their brothers,

[00:28:34] but they live in fear that something like that could happen because it happened to their parents. And they grew up with this horrible tragedy that they weren't even alive to see. And so much of those conversations were so difficult where I just there was a point throughout my reporting process where I had to walk away. I couldn't look at it anymore because I was sobbing constantly over

[00:29:02] looking at these like the testimonies and listening to the audio. And just every time I had talked to Donald, he would start crying. And you it takes a lot out of you when you're doing that. And at the time when I was in like the thick of my reporting, I was taking four other classes. I was running my school

[00:29:27] newspaper. I was trying to have a social life and all of these other things were going on in my life where I was like, I can't do this anymore and almost gave up on the story. But I'm glad I took that time away. But it really took me a month or so to get back to it. And I did come back to it because I was looking over everything again. And I was like, I have to write this story. These people are

[00:29:55] convinced that nobody cares about their brothers anymore. And that's just not true. So I seen the positive feedback that has come from writing that story and having it out has meant so much to me, to the Clines. I sent it to all of them the second it came out. And I'm just so happy that they were

[00:30:19] open enough to let because I'm a child. Like, I don't know what I'm doing. I'm a mediocre journalist. And like they trusted me enough to write this story. And that means more than anything, because they didn't have to at all. They could have told me to get lost and to be open and honest about what they had gone through. It is heartbreaking, but it is just the greatest thing I think I've ever done

[00:30:44] in my life so far. Yeah. That was a very long answer. I didn't want to interrupt one word of it because I am so impressed. Because there is so much that you just said that it just, I'm just blown away by it. First of all, let me just say this to you. You have changed lives and you have absolutely changed lives. And I can't begin to tell you how

[00:31:12] much I identify with what you just said. And it's part of the reason I wanted to talk to you is because this, I don't know how you did this. I don't want to, I'm not going to ask you your age, but I don't know how you did this because I wrote a book and I don't know how I did it. And I guarantee you, I couldn't have done it at your age. There's no way I could have done this. And what you took, because I know in some ways, not to the same level, because this is, this is just,

[00:31:41] this is not easy material. This is not easy content. And I had the opportunity to meet law enforcement and other journalists that wrote about this. And I don't know how they did it for their job. And you took this on and you put that on your shoulders. And there's an emotional toll. There's an emotional trauma because you obviously want to tell the story, but in order to tell the story, you have to believe in the story. And in order to believe in the story, you have to hear the

[00:32:09] pain of the story and you have to engage with the family and you're on the front line. And that takes a toll. That takes a toll on you. It takes a toll on them. But then for you then to take that and then produce a work product is just simply remarkable. And you should be so impressed and you should be so proud of your work, what you did. I will tell you not many things after not many things stopped me

[00:32:39] like this did. And what you did is simply remarkable. And there are so many, sadly, there are so many stories out there and there are not enough Maddies in the world to tell all the stories, but this world would be such a better place if there were more Maddies to tell those stories. I wish every family could have a Maddie that could tell their story like this and get information out there because you bring

[00:33:09] awareness, you're bringing hope, but there is a toll. There is a trauma that is on you. And again, as you're a journalist and I'm an author, and we don't want to talk about that because it's not about us, but the bottom line is we're not robots. You're not a robot. And what makes your storytelling so impactful is your compassion, your humanity, your ability to craft words to make people care

[00:33:37] about a missing kid case from the 1950s. And someone who doesn't have a heart and someone who doesn't care and can't be sympathetic and empathetic and also someone who understands the difference between those two words couldn't pull this off. This took someone with a heart and a mind and a soul and compassion to do that. And you should forever be proud of that because if anyone knows the level

[00:34:05] of the toll, and I don't know what you experience, but I just know what I did in the time that I wrote my book and I'm still impacted by it. And I can't imagine where you're going to be. And you should be so proud of your craft and what you did because it's impressive. It's so impressive and you should be so proud of yourself. I appreciate that. Thank you. Give our listeners a little bit on theories as to

[00:34:34] what they think happened here. Yeah. What do you think without, without, and we're going to push a link to the story. This is an ongoing investigation. There is nothing I'm trying to do to curtail. I want everyone to read every word that Maddie ever writes, but tell me, give our listeners a little bit of some theories as to what the working kind of theories are on what happened to these three boys.

[00:34:58] Yeah. So obviously the number one theory is that they drowned. And the reason it is, it got reopened, it got reopened, was because that theory was contested and it just wasn't something that would probably be possible. And so the next theory is that they were murdered. There was a

[00:35:21] neighbor of the Klein's who had gotten into some trouble. He was an alleged pedophile, to say the least, and there had been some other neighbors who had said that he had touched the neighborhood kids and appropriately said sexual comments. And the reason that this person is a suspect is because he poured

[00:35:45] concrete in his basement the day after the boys went missing. And apparently was supposed to have some people come help him, but he did it all by himself. He replaced his truck bed the day after the boys went missing. And so the theory is that their bodies are underneath the concrete in that house. That house is still standing. Police have tried numerous times to get into that house and to use like the sonar

[00:36:15] detection to see if the boys are underneath it. But the owners have said no. Donald has told me that the second that house goes up for sale, that he will give as much money as he can to buy that house to see if they can finally figure out if the boys are underneath there or not. But it's been years and these owners will not let police go into their home. Are the owners connected in any way to the people that we would call a person of interest in this case? Not that we know of, no.

[00:36:45] So there's a possibility that a house in Minneapolis near this, where this crime happened, those boys are in that house. Yeah. What's your take on that theory? It seems credible, especially because there has been, there was a record that showed that this

[00:37:10] suspect had told Kenneth Klein Sr. that the boys were not worth looking for. There is documentation of the suspect telling Kenneth that. Is the suspect alive? No, he has passed away. And so, yeah, that's obviously a really difficult part, too, is we can't talk to this person and ask if anything has happened. But I can say that he was later convicted

[00:37:35] of raping an underage child. There's real promise that he could have killed them. But we, I mean, if you think about it, these boys were so young at the time. He was a neighbor that they knew. When I was growing up, if my neighbor was like, hey, come to my house, I would have been like, yeah, okay, I'm a, yeah. So it's, that seems like the number one theory if they hadn't drowned.

[00:38:02] But until we can get into that house, we just, we won't know. And I think the even crazier part is if those bones are not underneath that concrete, where are these boys? What happened to them? Is there another theory? There is another theory. Yeah. So this theory is a little bit complicated, but I think for the time period, it does make sense. There is a theory that the boys were sold

[00:38:26] into either child labor or human trafficking or something along those lines. I had some conversations with historians and apparently there was, there is a, there was a trend back in the 50s that when people, when World War II, because World War II had just wrapped up in about a couple of years, but so many parents had lost their sons and their children that they, there were cases that

[00:38:56] boys were getting kidnapped to go to other families around the country. And so the reason that there is something to stand on with this theory is because the Kline's had adopted or were in the process of adopt, adopting a foster boy and he got taken from their driveway in midday. Like Donald,

[00:39:21] Tom and Mike have all confirmed this story. And that boy was taken back by his mother who CPS had taken him away from her and he died eight months later. And so there, I don't know. That theory is a little bit more complicated because we just don't know if that is actually something that could have potentially

[00:39:47] happened. But I feel like sometimes I have a hard time believing that theory because I'm like, if these boys were taken and they grew up somewhere else in the world, how do they not know? How do they not realize that they're one of the Kline brothers? And maybe news just hasn't gotten out there, but I like when there was a broadcast when they first went missing or not when they first went missing, when they, when the

[00:40:14] case was brought back up in the nineties, that went out in Arizona. And so I just, I feel like if they were out there, somebody would know, somebody would have figured something out, but we were just never feels like we're just never going to know. One of the most difficult things to read in the story

[00:40:34] was the efforts the family kept to keep the story alive. Yeah. And I, that is the, that is such a nightmare. This family, they ran newspaper ads, followed up on leads. They did an extensive amount of work to keep this story alive. And who I always think about is I think about Patty Wetterling, who the Wetterling foundation was helpful to the family involved in the case that I worked on. And I had the

[00:41:02] opportunity to meet the Wetterling family that, that pain and that trauma that family went through is simply unimaginable. And to read this story and to know what the family did to keep hope alive. I'm using that word specifically because that's what Patty Wetterling would use. And this is a woman who didn't change her phone number, kept her light on because she always wanted to

[00:41:28] Jake up to know where to go. And so it's difficult to think about losing three kids and then that family being so persistent because that's tough. They're reliving trauma and it doesn't go away. And this isn't, this is three kids that just leave and they're gone and no one knows. And to think that

[00:41:52] that, how much that family has gone through the anniversaries, the missed days, and then to meet someone like you has to mean so much to them to meet someone like you who comes in and cares enough to cultivate, curate, and tell this story. But it was just very difficult to read because it's clear as it would if it was sadly one person. But here you have three members of a family that are just gone and no answers.

[00:42:21] I was just going to say, yeah, it's one of the things that I think was the, by far, the hardest part for me to hear was Donald and I were having a conversation about Kenneth and Betty and just what kind of parents they were and who they were when it came to raising the boys did have. And Mike, Tom, and Donald all talked about how loving and dedicated their parents were and how

[00:42:45] much they meant to them and how they still showed up at all of these life events and milestones despite going through the pain that they were going through. And the hardest part of this was, I'll never forget this, Donald told me that he has so much peace knowing that his parents know what happened to his brothers because they have both since passed away. And he was saying that he

[00:43:11] can't wait to get to heaven so that he can figure out what happened to his brothers. And it's heartbreaking to look at somebody and be like, you are waiting for death just to figure out what happened. Because there, he does think that there's hope, but he told me, he asked me once if I thought that

[00:43:36] there was still hope. And I said, yes. And he said, then God bless your soul, Maddie, because I don't. And I just, it's heavy. It's hard. You want to believe so desperately that someday we will know. But when you live your entire life not knowing, it's, you begin to lose hope. What can people do who are listening to this podcast who I know are going to want to help this family in your efforts? What should they do?

[00:44:06] Share the article, get the word out. Tom and Donald live up in Monticello now, so they're up there. Mike is in Arizona. But I really think what is so important is talking about this and letting people know who the clients are. And I don't know if I'm ethically allowed to say this, but part of me is encourage these people who live in this house in Minneapolis to open up their home. Like, we just

[00:44:35] want answers so badly at this point that it's like, how do you not have it in you to let police just see? There would be no damage. MPD has said that they will pay for any damage that would happen to the home if that's what they had to do. But it's just a sonar detector. Like, how would you not want to

[00:44:57] give this family closure? And so I think the biggest thing is let's talk about this. Let's get to know who the clients are all over again because, like, I know it's been 74 years since that November day, but this is so

[00:45:17] real to the clients. They live this every single day and they continue to. And it's just if as long as you, like, share it to one person and that person shares it to another, like, so many people are going to be able to see this. And so many people are going to be like, how can we help? What can we do? And it's, it, I think it

[00:45:41] really just comes down to we got to talk about this. We got to let people know that these boys are either out there or that something happened to them and that there is an answer. Somebody knows what happened to them. And it's just a matter of if we can figure that out and finally have some closure.

[00:46:05] But yeah, we just have to keep talking about it. I'm going to ask a question that I know I've been asked before and I didn't like, but I know why people ask it. And I'm going to ask it to you, but I'm going to just preface the question. I have, I believe that you're never going to stop pursuing this case, that I think that there's a connection between you in this case and whether it takes a year or five years, if there's a break in this case, I think it's going to come from you,

[00:46:33] Maddie. I believe that. But where can people, because there's more stories out there. And my question for you is, do you have the bandwidth? Do you have, can you carry another story or two? And do you have any intention of doing that? Because there are sadly not enough Maddies and there's a lot more of these families. And so are you going to be capable and are you going to be pursuing more stories like this?

[00:47:03] Yeah. If I could have my beat or like the topic I cover be missing people, 100%. Because as hard as it was to write this story, I am so blessed that I had the opportunity to write it and that I am

[00:47:21] the reason that this story is alive again. And I just, I've lost people in my life and it was awful. And I think what is a huge motivating factor for me is a quick little side story. I had a really good friend of mine pass away from addiction. And so many people said to me, he was a heroin addict.

[00:47:48] What did you expect? No, he was so much more than that. And so I, a big fat motivating factor for me in this is like one of the questions I asked the, when I was talking to Donald, Mike and Tom, I was like, can you tell me what your brothers were like? Do you like, from what you remember, I know you never met them, but even like from what your parents said, what were they like? Who were they? What was

[00:48:12] Kenneth's favorite color? Do you know that? Do you have documentation of that? Anything to just learn about who they were. Kenneth's favorite color was red. The hat that he lost that night was red. David's was blue. He loved the color blue. And he loves saying the word blue because he was four. I think, yeah, Daniel was a four-year-old child. He loves saying he, Donald was telling me

[00:48:38] that he would call it boo because he couldn't say like the L in it. And so that's what this is about. It's not about like, of course, yes, it is about the fact that like these boys lost their lives and this family went through this horrible tragedy. But it's also about these boys had eight, six and four years of life before they went missing. And we need to talk about that. We need to remember

[00:49:01] who these kids were. And if I can do that for other people and like anybody who wants to talk to me about their missing family member, I'll ask them, who were they? Yeah, you went through this horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to you. But tell me about who they were. I want to know so that we can focus on that. That is so important. And I think no matter what I have to go through, none of this has ever

[00:49:30] been about me. It never has. I appreciate all of the compliments. And I love that like I got to do this. But this is about Donald Klein. This is about Tom Klein. This is about Mike Klein. This is about the parents. And that's what I did this for because it's never going to be about me. It is always going to be about helping these people. That's why I got into this industry. That's why

[00:49:59] I want to do what I'm doing because so many people don't have the platform to talk about what happened. They don't know how to go about it. And so if I can come up to them and be like, look, I have an editor. We'll publish this in a place. Just tell me about it and I'll write something up for you. I would give every single brain cell and every ounce of my mental health to these people because

[00:50:26] this is what matters. This is so important. And we just we have to do more. There has to be more people out there who are willing to talk about this because if you look at the Minnesota missing persons list, it's there's hundreds of people. And why are we not talking about this more?

[00:50:49] Why are we not helping people more? And if I can do that, I would every single day, I'd make it my beep if I could. But I don't think places hire journalists who just do that. So I should. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things I want to say is I want to put a plug out to the racket and to support. I'm going to do something I haven't ever done before. I want to I'm going to encourage our listeners to go to

[00:51:16] the racket. I'm going to share their link in the bio and I want to encourage people to donate to the racket. It's independent journalism, support their work and support the work of Maddie. Maddie, I just have to say that I'm just simply blown away. And you have made this is I just I'm almost at a lost for words about what this what we've discussed in this interview. I want to just make a couple promises to you. Number one, any updates on this case, you can always come on our podcast at any

[00:51:45] point. And if there's any updates in this case, anything we can do that Becky and I can do to help promote this case and your work on it, we are absolutely willing to do. That's an open invitation. Number two, I am. You are an absolute guardian angel to to this family and the manner in which you discuss the topic today. Boy, if this is a tragedy, there's not any circumstance that we've

[00:52:14] that you find an answer to what happened to these kids that doesn't involve there being pain and trauma. But the one thing that I think positive has come out of this has been you. And I think that's something we should all as a society be proud of is that's there that in a world full of people who take kids, there's a Maddie Roth out there who wants to make sure that doesn't happen and is

[00:52:40] committed to helping these families find some closure. And God bless you for doing that. And I literally mean, God bless that there are people like you out there. I don't mean that in some, like I'm preaching in any type of way other than what I actually said, because you're the type of people that makes this world such a better place. You could have written about any subject and you

[00:53:05] chose this one and the beat and what you want to work on and where you want to focus is all about finding closure for families. And my God, we all should just applaud that. And as much as this isn't about you, it is about you. And I just want to say thank you for all the work you did, the hours you spent and the dedication you gave to telling the story of three people you're likely never going to

[00:53:32] meet. And you did it for all the right reasons. And these are absolutely the types of stories we want to tell on this podcast, but it's going to be pretty tough to beat this one because what you've done here is just incredibly special, important, and very just, it's so emotional and it's so difficult and it's such a topic. And I'm just blown away by the work that you did. If there's anything we can do

[00:53:58] on this podcast, anything I can do, I'm going to promote the hell out of this episode. We're going to send some attention your way and we will share all of the links to where people can contact you in the podcast, in the notes, and we're going to promote the hell out of this. And we're going to try to bring as much attention as we can. Maddie, thank you for taking time, doing what you do, and just being humane in a really inhumane time. I appreciate you giving me a platform to talk

[00:54:28] about this. It means the world to me. I had told you before, like I was so excited to do this because it will always be a part of me now. So thank you for giving me the chance. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Becky, it is great to have you back for this portion of the episode. How are things going for you right now? As our listeners should know, you have a baby slash parasite inside you right now. How are things going?

[00:54:59] Things are going well. We are nearing the finish line here. So it basically could happen anytime, but it's scheduled to be a little over two weeks away. So we are really getting down and down to it in numbers. And unfortunately, with that comes some aches, pains, headaches, and all the joyous stuff that comes from being about 38 weeks pregnant. But I'm healthy, baby's healthy, so we're hanging in there. I explained to our listeners and particularly men like me who have no concept of this,

[00:55:27] what is 38th week likes when you're pregnant? Because I'm sure that's exactly what you want to do, which is explained to an entire group of strangers and me what walking around at 38 weeks is like. How comfortable is it? Is everything that's cracked up to be? I mean, I do love being pregnant. It is really cool to feel the baby moving around. And it's just fascinating of what women's bodies can do. That said, I have a rather large baby. It's measuring

[00:55:55] very large. And so I'm walking around with an eight pound bowling ball just weighing down here. I have to wear like a belly band to help take some of that pressure off because it's just heavy and uncomfortable. And then sleeping, moving side to side is like a whole rigmarole escapade kind of thing. You got it. The baby's pushing on the bladder. You got to pee every 30, 40 minutes. It's a very

[00:56:22] joyous, wonderful thing. And then also, so I was out, I had a migraine and you can't take a whole lot. There's not a whole lot. If you've ever had a migraine, Tylenol just doesn't cut it. We can't take a whole lot of the medicine because that goes through to the baby. And yeah, we're dealing with that and all sorts of fun stuff, but they're monitoring. Everything's looking normal and healthy other than just a very large little boy in there. Are you getting much sleep?

[00:56:50] Um, surprisingly more than I was because my husband is now in the preparation for me dealing with a baby overnight. My husband is dealing, our toddler still is not the best sleeper. So he has to deal with that. So I do get more sleep than I was getting about two or three months ago. It's just not the best sleep because again, when you have to get up and use the restroom five times a night, that's real fun. I think what the listeners also really want to know is how is your husband

[00:57:17] doing? Is he getting the rest recuperation that he needs during this stressful time? Yes, he is doing great. He is sleeping. We're working in some naps when we can do that. But as I keep telling him, this is my year, so I don't really care how he is doing. It is about me and how I am doing. And just to remind our listeners, you are still married, correct? I am still married, happily married. He's putting up with all the complaints. Yes, yes.

[00:57:46] Thank you. I want to just say how much I appreciate you doing this podcast with me and also that you're being so available during this very important time in your life. And I just want to wish you and your family all the best during this time and hope everything gets rest and that your husband gets the rest that he needs. We appreciate your concern. The podcast listeners are really rooting for him. Perfect. That's really good. All right. Thank you. Okay.

[00:58:13] Yes. And also thanks to the listeners to putting up with my congested nasally talk that I get to deal with. Hopefully that will go away after this baby Sina. But we have really exciting stuff to talk about because it's not another week during legislative session unless there is some drama and fireworks going up on up at the Capitol. And we got some this week. And as wearing my partisan hat, thank God it's on the other side of the aisle for once. It's been.

[00:58:41] But this week we had a big article come out actually last week and then some of the follow happening this week from the Minnesota Reformer. They did a big article detailing how Senate President DFL Bobby Joe Champion was is involved with this client named Reverend Jerry McAfee in a nonprofit that he runs. And Champion has helped steer millions in public funds to this legal client.

[00:59:08] Basically how to break it down, set the table a little bit. Looks like in 2022, Senator Champion in his day job as an attorney, because remember, we have all of these members who have jobs outside of the legislature, Representative Jerry McAfee and his nonprofit in a couple court cases that was involving nonpayment of mortgage on multiple Minneapolis properties. And as the article lays out, that period did overlap slightly with the 2023-2024 legislative session when lawmakers gave

[00:59:36] a $3 million grant to McAfee's nonprofit. Senator Bobby Joe Champion was the chief author of that bill. Now, Senator Champion has said he did not. His work with McAfee as an attorney was pro bono. He said it was completed in December of 2022, which was not really true. Some of the legal proceedings, really the filings and what the outcomes didn't come out until spring of 2023. But he said he felt he

[01:00:03] didn't need the need. He didn't feel the need to disclose through a spokesperson said, quote, there would be no need to disclose a work relationship which had already concluded at that time and which provides no financial benefit to me. So then we get to... Good. Can you explain to our listeners as the legal analyst for the podcast what pro bono means? For free. Okay.

[01:00:25] So he was not getting paid in legal fees, as he claims, from McAfee. However, there was when McAfee was in an interview with the reformer, he refused to say whether he paid Champion for his legal services. He said, I will not... I won't answer that. And then he said, is there something on the books that would prevent me from hiring him as an attorney? So that's a little sketch as well. So December 2023,

[01:00:51] just a year slash nine months after this court case concluded, there was a $3 million grant to McAfee's nonprofit. And then, I'm sorry, in December was when McAfee and his wife then each donated $1,000 to Champion's campaign committee, which is the maximum allowed. It's outside of legislation session. It's not... That is just a little fishy, but it means it's not also outside of the realm of what we see in normal

[01:01:19] politics. But the biggest thing here is really that this tie, this conflict, potential conflict of interest occurred and was not disclosed. There's a lot of different paperwork that members of legislature and Congress have to fill out to detail who they're connected to, who they've done work with, and just make sure things are above bar. And it just feels a little weird. When you read this article and we were chatting about it, what's your take on this?

[01:01:49] First of all, as anyone should know, if we're ever talking about ethics at the legislature, particularly in the Minnesota Senate, I'm your guy. Talking about all matters related to ethics in the Minnesota Senate. A couple of things. First of all, I swore a lot the last episode. And while I learned some new technical editing skills, I'm trying to cut down on that. So I will say in a PG way possible, the biggest load of BS that we, I think Minnesotans believe about themselves

[01:02:17] is that we are a good government state. I believe we have great elections and I'm going to stand by Secretary Steve Simon and running and overseeing good elections. I think he's an election nerd. I think he's a great guy. So let's separate elections from government. I think the biggest load of BS that Minnesotans believe is that they're a good government state. And this is a perfect example of this. And I think you and I having worked at the

[01:02:44] legislature and you obviously have congressional experience, which I don't. And I would just say is that this right here, and let's get to the heart of the issue is Bobby Joe Champion for a second. He is the president of the Senate. And when you're the president of the Senate, you're also the chair of the ethics committee. And so Bobby Joe Champion has, I'm going to be polite and say a little bit of a reputation on some of these matters. And I will say where I have run into Senator Champion is that

[01:03:13] I wrote a book, which we discussed a little bit earlier in this episode. And there was some disciplinary matters that came out of some writings and stuff that I did related to one of the attorneys involved, Michelle McDonald. She had a attorney that was representing her who had her license suspended for a period of time. And Bobby Joe Champion came in and represented Michelle McDonald's attorney in some of these suspension matters. One of the things I learned that there was a little

[01:03:38] bit of a reputation that Bobby Joe Champion had is that cases that, and one of the, I want to be very careful, is that Bobby Joe Champion is a sitting member of the legislature and members of the legislatures, member of the legislature can limit their work activities when they're in legislative session. And Bobby Joe Champion, I want to just be careful, but I would love to have a spin room

[01:04:08] off the record podcast where I talked about some more of the stories and narratives that I've heard about Senator Champion. And I would just say, I think it's interesting that he's the head of the ethics committee. That's the, I think within the bounds of the first amendment, I think it's interesting that he is the head of the ethics committee and in this type of matter comes up. I think the problem here, and let's set aside all the contribution stuff because, and I get your perspective on it. I think that the, I think the most important thing to watch

[01:04:37] about contributions is not the dollar amount per se, it's the timing. That's what I look for. And we discussed on an episode or two before that my, my late father and I would look through FEC reports and campaign finance as all kids did and with their parents and talk about, and I was always focused, not necessarily on the dollar amount, but on the timing of them. And what I found interesting in your prep work and, in laying this out and what's been reported, it's the timing that's interesting. I don't know necessarily

[01:05:05] the dollar amount, but it's the timing. And to me, again, I'm not a lawyer. You're the legal analyst. If we get sued, it's coming your way. But I just, I think the timing is of question here about the contributions. I think people sometimes get fixated on the dollar amounts, but I just, we don't, it's not, this isn't pre-Watergate in times where there was millions and millions of dollars in cash on hands. And when we're talking about some of the feeding our future issues, this is somewhat

[01:05:33] small potatoes in terms of the contributions. But the issue here, if we can really focus is on the timing of the contributions and then what he was doing as a legislator. That's ultimately the real rub here is that what can legislators do in authoring bills to steer things, to steer legislation towards entities that they have relationships with in some way. And I think the challenge here is

[01:06:02] when did the relationship start? When did it end? And there's a whole bunch of issues, but I want to break it down in a way where that I was not surprised in the, in, in that, in my opinion, I was not surprised to see that Senator Bobby Joe Champion was caught up in some of this stuff. So I danced around that as much as I could. You did. I loved it. It was brilliant. It does look like if we look at it as the timeline. So again,

[01:06:31] it was 2022, the attorney pro bono case outside of the legislature happened early 2023, that concluded and the, that champion spearheaded the effort to steer that 3 million towards the nonprofit. End of 2023 is when those donations happened to champion's campaign committee. Now, as you said, champion is sitting or was sitting as the chair of the subcommittee on ethics. He did earlier this week

[01:07:01] step down from that, asking the ethics panel for, to advise on whether he had a conflict of interest, quote, out of abundance of caution. They would have done it anyways, but okay. The Senate rules committee did vote to remove champion and install Cindy, Senator Sandy Pappas as the new subcommittee chair. So that's where we stand today. There obviously will be, I don't know if it will just be an advisory, an advisory that comes out. I think there will be a full hearing on this. It certainly seems as though,

[01:07:30] especially when we look at the scope of this with $3 million being spent. And this should also be noted that this article came out just two days after a hearing on a new bill that champion is the chief author of introduced in March of this year, that would provide another $1 million grant to 21 Days of Peace, which is a violence prevention group headed by Reverend Jerry McAfee. So that was introduced in

[01:07:59] March this year, chief author by champion outside of that $3 million grant from 2023, 2024, session, had a hearing on April 2nd. This article came out earlier this week. I also saw subsequent reporting saying that it should be noted that Champion's executive assistant or LA, I believe, also previously did work for this 21 Days of Peace. So it is a wild little web that has been spun here.

[01:08:26] And again, I think it's an interesting conversation to be had because obviously legislators have connections and networks, right? And that's their job, right? Is to go into the community, to be a part of the community, to be advocates for different issues, to talk to upstanding people within the community who are active on a number of different policies and issue areas. That's their job.

[01:08:50] It's the lack of disclosure here where I see the really big issue, because I think that is something where it lends itself to have questions about ulterior motives, if there's kickbacks, if there is payment, are things being done on the clear and even scale of things. And it's just with this not being disclosed now over two different sessions, which in my understanding, conflict of interest or

[01:09:17] different things, there's paperwork at the beginning of each session that are required by members. And so it just, as the kids would say, is a little sus. Yes, it is a little sus. It is sus. And here's, let's break down some of the loopholes that I think this story is exposed. Number one, we do not have full-time legislators. Minnesotans, our listeners, may be surprised, not surprised, know that we have one of the highest per capita members of the

[01:09:44] legislature in the country. And so we have 201 legislators, 134 house members, 67 senators, 201. That's a big, we have Minnesotans have a very high amount of elected representatives in the, in what would the general assembly, but they call it other parts of the country, general assembly, the house of representatives and in the Senate, we have a very high number in terms

[01:10:09] of 201 in terms of our state population. They're not full-time. And so what that means is while they are getting paid much more than they used to, it's not a full-time job. And so the only clean way in which to do this is to have it be a full-time job. And even then it's complicated because members of Congress is considered a full-time job, but, and members of Congress also, but they're not required

[01:10:37] to put their monies, their financial holdings into trust. They're not precluded from having outside work, although it's considered full-time work and you have to balance your duties when you're a member of Congress and doing other things and make sure it's done. It's just a complicated web. And when you, when there's a, when they're not to be too specific on Senator Champion, but because of the attorney client relationship, because of the ability of to shield some of these things,

[01:11:03] it does create an opportunity for things to be, and not to say that's being done here, but when you're a lawyer and you have that attorney client privilege and you're an officer of the court, you obviously have to hold yourself to a certain standard, but you can also, there's also, it creates opportunities for this type of stuff to happen and you can shield it through the attorney client privilege. Not to say that's being done, but it does, there is a lot of smoke here.

[01:11:31] And I think it raises a number of questions. It raises a number of questions that I think we're always going to wrestle with. Are we paying legislators too much? Are we not? Should legislators be full-time? Should they have outside income? Then it gets to, are we paying them too much? What's the pay scale? That's always a dicey issue. The only way I think to truly solve these ethical issues and ethics is in the eye of the beholder. Senator Champion has offered,

[01:11:58] I'll have some commentary on that though, but he's offered, he's, he stepped down, he's asked for an advisory opinion, all that types of stuff. But there are legitimate ethical questions here. The only way I think you can really stop that these types of ethical questions is full-time pay. And we remember the legislature has to put no outside income, blind trust, and there has to be a faster disclosure and a more, and a more piercing level of economic

[01:12:26] disclosure that currently exists. That's never going to happen. That's Pollyannish and that's fantasy land. It's never going to happen. The real world is what is incumbent upon legislators is to be as transparent as possible about this. The reality is the system is geared. And as you described, it's in the eye of the beholder. What you just described is absolutely true. Someone can, a legislator can, without any hesitation, meet someone that they know in the community,

[01:12:53] their neighbor or someone else that they run into and hear about an idea and say, I want to steer some legislative money towards that. That's nothing wrong with that process. There's nothing wrong with, that's what lobbying is. It's all, and lobbying comes in a variety of ways. It can be a smoke-filled room or it could be someone that you bump into at a local coffee shop or a grocery store. It could be someone out in the community that you just randomly walk into. I don't think lobbying in every sense of

[01:13:22] the way is bad. And there is so much good work that's going on in the legislature. And Shannon Watson would be upset with us if we didn't acknowledge the good work that the vast majority of legislators do on both sides of the aisle. And Shannon, don't be upset. I'm going to make sure, it's a reminder that majority in the middle exists and Shannon Watson is doing great work. And so I'm not trying to put a pot in everyone's house, but there is, there's a lot of questions

[01:13:49] here. I also want to say something. Let's talk about the illusion of addressing this problem and actually addressing this problem. The ethics committee is unique in the Senate in a sense that it's bipartisan, meaning you have to, it's, it is truly the process. It's truly the committee where literally everything goes to die because you can't get a resolution on matters because it requires bipartisan

[01:14:14] action. You can, the math of it is there's usually the political party that's in the majority usually has the majority on the committees so they can just whip their partisan votes and they can get legislation and to move through both bodies in the Senate, in the ethics committee, it is bipartisan and equal number, which means you need one Republican or one Democrat to support something, to make it bipartisan,

[01:14:40] to move on. Now that sounds just adorable and fun, but what it creates is it creates a roadblock of where partisanship rears its head and people see two different, people see the same sets of facts from their partisan lenses and don't move. For instance, the Nicole Mitchell matter, which Senator Champion was the chair, the ethics committee. And so it's this act of notifying the ethics committee and self-disclosing

[01:15:06] it. That's like me driving, driving 41 in a 35 in my neighborhood and me turning myself into the police. They're not going to give me a ticket. They didn't see it happen. And so I can have all the, I can self-report it. Sure. It sounds good, but is it meaningful in that sense? And I would, I'd ask you push back if you think I'm wrong, but do you think this is meaningful? I don't think his requesting of

[01:15:31] doing that, if I was working for a member and was in this situation requesting, we've seen this in Congress with some different issues with some Minnesota delegation, even in the last four, six, eight years, where there were some issues coming up and they go to the committee and ask them to look into it. It looks good. It's the PRs of it. I'm an open book. There's nothing to see here. Please look into this and let me know if you think, you know, I did wrong. So you're exactly

[01:15:56] right on that. It's so tough because this is another situations where we have the opportunity to set something to clear things up for the future, right? You want it to be bipartisan because you want these members to go in and say, maybe this is even less about just champion, but more about the future to make sure that this doesn't happen again. And it just doesn't work out that way. And I'm very interested to see how it comes down. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the members on

[01:16:26] this committee. I think, I don't know if they've changed it. My experience when I was there, I think it was like two Republicans, two Democrats that set up. So like you say, they have to, one of them has to switch over. But it clearly, at the very least, I think that they would say a slap on the wrist that, you know, that in the future, you should do this just to have the appearance of things that are

[01:16:51] above board. Senate Republican leader Mark Johnson did just say, it is entirely inappropriate for a legislator to request state funding for an organization they are also representing in court. Even if the work is pro bono, any conflict of interest or even the appearance of one should be fully disclosed. And I feel like that's maybe where they're going to come down and say, hey, you didn't technically do anything wrong here. You didn't get paid. The timeline is clear.

[01:17:16] But going forward, let's have this be a little more clear. But who knows? Again, we're dealing with such a tight split in the Senate. The House, the legislature is just still bonkers. We have a special election coming up. It is just, you can't catch a break of something just like moving nice and easy and some policy coming out of this legislature. So we'll have to wait and see what really comes down. But I think you're completely right. I think this is just a way for him to save

[01:17:45] face and look as though he, nothing to see here. I didn't intend to do anything nefarious and look into it all you want. Just one more, just a couple more points in this I want to just make. I think I was a little off on my comparison because in the scenario I said I was self-reporting myself to the police for speeding. What I think what he did here is I saw the cop was going to pull me over. So I just pulled into the police station myself. That would be probably more of an example. Senator Champion didn't ask

[01:18:14] for this advisory opinion in a vacuum. There was substantive reporting from the Minnesota Reformer and tip of the cap to Jay Patrick Huligan and the team over there at the Minnesota Reformer for this, for their work on this. But this was in reaction to, in response to, after the lights were turned on about this situation. And so as much as we want to give, I think Senator Champion wants to be given credit for going to the ethics committee himself.

[01:18:44] I have a feeling, and please correct me if I'm wrong, if you think I'm wrong here, that the ethics committee was going to be taking this up in some way, whether it was Senator Champion's self-reporting it after it had been disclosed, or there would have been an ethics complaint filed. It was a race to the courthouse door to see who was going to be there first. Is that, am I reading it fairly? A hundred percent. Just as though he stepped down, but also the rules committee voted to remove him.

[01:19:08] It's the chicken and the egg, right? It was going to happen. What came first? A little unclear, but yes, I think you're completely right. Here's my last question. In your perfect world, how does this get resolved? What's the solution to make everyone feel better about this? That is a really good question. I don't know if there's a fine of some sort. I feel like it needs to be something more than do better next time. I also don't know that I think some more digging

[01:19:37] would need to be made, some FOIA requests into communication between these two individuals, what was actually done on Senate. If you are working to spearhead an effort for $3 million to somebody's nonprofit, that communication should be done through your official channels, right? It should be emails and voicemails and phone call logs that show that this was being done

[01:20:01] through his Senate office and not through his personal time, personal efforts. So I think having a little bit more investigation into that to figure out really where that is, because I'm not saying you need to claw back $3 million. If this is something that the legislature granted, it's a lot of money, but it's a lot of money. So in my mind, I want to give the benefit

[01:20:25] of the doubt that this is a worthy cause. That is, it deserves $3 million of a grant to do the work that they plan on doing. But there needs to be something done. I feel like something needs to be done to change this from going forward, from not happening again. I don't know if he loses his chairmanship of his jobs committee or his Senate leadership position, but I feel like there needs to be more than just a slap on the wrist and say, hey, going forward, pro bono work needs to be disclosed.

[01:20:55] Yeah, I would agree. I think the challenge is, and I'm not a lawyer, but you're the legal analyst. I think a lot of lawyers, I think most lawyers, and I don't know how I would define most, but I think a fair number of lawyers do some amount of pro bono work in some way. I'd be curious as I was talking this through, and in some of this, I'm not trying to cast any new dispersions or accusations, but I

[01:21:21] would be very curious, what was his schedule? What type of clients did he give pro bono work to? Is there something that could be read more into the pro bono, the offering of a pro bono relationship or things like that? That's what I find interesting. And I'm going to look forward to some of that investigative work. I don't know. What I do wonder is this wasn't an ethics complaint. It was a request for an advisory opinion. What I wonder is, does that carry less investigative teeth? Will the Senate

[01:21:51] pursue it as aggressively if it was an investigation versus what this is in his advisory opinion? Will it be treated more in a friendly way and less in an adversarial way? Because this, I think we're both of the opinion that this was going to get to the ethics committee either doing a complaint or, in this way, it was the ethics committee was going to be getting this material. And so I just hope that

[01:22:15] whatever comes there, whatever work product comes out of this process is truly thoughtful and examines the issues fully. One other question, just as we're spinning and chatting through this is, again, I am no expert on how pro bono cases work and what you're taking them up. But I would be willing to bet that if

[01:22:39] Champion or another attorney was in court and there was some sort of involvement in a paid client and a pro bono client, let's say you're my paid client and George over here is my pro bono client and there's some interaction with you two, I would have to just like the judge would be required to know that even though George didn't pay me. Like, I just feel like there's, it's just really odd to me

[01:23:08] that because any conflict, whether you were paid, whether you ran into each other in the bathroom and spilled your coffee over somebody, those kind of relationships and interactions in the court of law, at least in my experience watching all sorts of law, law and order, other court case television, is required to be disclosed, whether there was financial documents and signatures and payment

[01:23:32] done. So like, I just don't buy, I just don't buy it. Sorry, that was just one last little red, little black helicopter. No, I think it's true. And the other point I make is that there's no difference, I think, in the eyes of the court, if you're representing someone pro bono or whether you're paid, you still have the same ethical responsibilities. And I think in this matter, I think that there's, there is, this is a little bit of a shiny object, as we would say, just focus on the fact that it's to the ethics committee and Bobby Joe champion did it himself.

[01:24:02] Why would someone turn themselves in? And I think this is an example that you and I have seen in closing this topic out, but you and I have seen consistently of where people take advantage of some of the administrative opportunities that they have to show that they're being, that they're self-policing themselves when this is a little bit of smoke and mirrors, but,

[01:24:26] and whether, and how much smoke versus mirrors this is and what is truly there, that now lies with the ethics committee of the Minnesota Senate. And we know that product's going to be good because we've seen that the last, the last couple of years, particularly with the Senator Mitchell matter, that, that they have really struggled. And so we'll see what happens here, but we'll be following it on, and all developments and all Becky baby developments on the breakdown with Broad Corbin Becky.

[01:24:57] Perfect. Thank you so much for coming today and being a part of this. And I want to thank all of our listeners for joining us of this episode of the breakdown with Broad Corbin Becky. Before you go show some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us to view an Apple podcast or on the platform where you listen, you can also follow us on our website and across all social media platforms at BB Breakpot. The breakdown with Broad Corbin Becky will return next week. Thank you so much. Bye.