Keith Ellison abused his girlfriend and Democrats are covering it up
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The available reporting shows credible allegations were made by Keith Ellison’s ex‑girlfriend, Karen Monahan, that he physically and emotionally abused her, and Ellison has firmly denied those claims; a DFL‑commissioned investigator concluded the specific claims were “unsubstantiated” largely because Monahan would not provide the video she said existed, and Minneapolis police later declined to investigate citing a conflict of interest [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. There is no authoritative public record in the provided reporting proving that Ellison committed the abuse, nor definitive evidence that Democrats engaged in a systematic “cover‑up”; party officials did commission an investigation and later said they could not substantiate the claims [6] [3] [4].
1. The allegation: what was publicly asserted and by whom
In August 2018 Karen Monahan and her son publicly accused Ellison of repeated emotional and physical abuse, including an incident in 2016 in which Monahan’s son said Ellison “dragged my mama off the bed by her feet,” and Monahan posted that she had video and medical notes describing abuse [1] [7] [8].
2. Ellison’s response and his request for oversight
Ellison immediately denied the allegations, called the alleged video nonexistent, and publicly asked for formal review — requesting a House Ethics investigation and welcoming a review to “resolve” the matter, while also dismissing some reporting as inaccurate [2] [9] [10].
3. The DFL‑commissioned probe and why it concluded “unsubstantiated”
The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party hired attorney Susan Ellingstad to investigate and her draft concluded the claims could not be substantiated because Monahan refused to provide the video she said corroborated the incident, a point repeatedly cited in contemporaneous reporting [3] [4] [11].
4. Law enforcement posture and investigative limbo
After the party’s report, state Democratic officials asked Minneapolis police to investigate, but the department said it would not handle the matter because of a conflict or the appearance of one and said it was coordinating with other agencies about referral, leaving no public criminal inquiry documented in the cited coverage [5] [1].
5. The “cover‑up” claim examined against available facts
The claim that “Democrats are covering it up” does not align cleanly with the reporting: the party initiated and paid for an investigation and the investigator reported the matter unsubstantiated; critics — including political opponents and some Republicans — called the probe insufficient and accused Democrats of bias, but the record in these sources shows actions consistent with commissioning a review rather than suppressing allegations [6] [3] [4]. Independent fact‑checks also flag misinformation circulating around the case, such as miscaptioned images and incorrect timing of party appointments, suggesting partisan amplification and errors in some public narratives [12].
6. Divergent interpretations and political context
Interpretations split along partisan and strategic lines: allies emphasized the unsubstantiated finding and Ellison’s denials, detractors stressed the refusal to produce evidence and urged independent law enforcement review, and some reporting noted past claims by other ex‑partners that fed public doubt — all occurring in a high‑stakes campaign context that both politicized and complicated fact‑finding [3] [8] [13].
7. What the reporting does not prove and open questions
None of the provided sources contains publicly available, independently verified evidence proving the abuse occurred, nor do they show a formal criminal conviction or a completed independent law‑enforcement finding; likewise, the sources do not provide conclusive proof of an organized party cover‑up, only contested investigative choices and partisan dispute over adequacy [3] [5] [4]. Absent new, verifiable evidence or an independent prosecutorial determination, the factual question of whether abuse occurred remains unresolved in the published record cited here.