What did the Minnesota DFL's investigator Susan Ellingstad write in her full report on the Monahan allegations?
Executive summary
Susan Ellingstad’s report concluded the allegation by Karen Monahan that Congressman Keith Ellison physically abused her was “unsubstantiated,” primarily because Monahan refused to produce or allow viewing of video she says exists, and the investigator could not corroborate the claim with other evidence [1] [2]. The draft report—reported as roughly 15 pages and obtained by the Associated Press—also notes shifting explanations from Monahan about the video, declined interviews with Monahan’s sons, and that Ellison cooperated with the probe; the finding prompted both the DFL to forward the report to authorities and sharp partisan criticism about the probe’s independence [3] [4] [5].
1. The core finding: “unsubstantiated” because key evidence was withheld
Ellingstad’s central conclusion was that the physical-abuse allegation could not be substantiated, a determination she linked directly to Monahan’s refusal to provide or permit viewing of the video she said documented the incident; the draft report reached by news organizations states that an unproduced piece of evidence was decisive to the investigator’s inability to corroborate the claim [1] [2].
2. What the report says about the alleged video and Monahan’s explanations
The report records that Monahan provided varying reasons for not turning over the footage—saying it was lost, kept on a USB drive in storage, or too traumatic to release—and that she would not allow the investigator to view the material privately, facts Ellingstad flagged as undermining the investigative record [6] [7].
3. Witnesses, interviews and evidentiary gaps noted by the investigator
Ellingstad’s draft notes that people Monahan referenced—most prominently her sons, who she said had seen the tape—declined to be interviewed, and that textual exchanges and other claimed witnesses did not produce corroborating testimony or records sufficient to establish the allegation on their own [6] [1].
4. Scope of the review and what the report explicitly limited itself to
The draft report, described in contemporaneous coverage as about 15 pages, indicates Ellingstad focused on Monahan’s specific allegation and did not purport to conduct a wider character inquiry; the report states an allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce asserted supporting evidence [3] [1].
5. Procedural follow‑up and institutional response recorded in the reporting
After Ellingstad’s report was completed, Minnesota DFL chair Ken Martin said the party would forward the investigative materials to local law enforcement to let them decide whether further action was warranted, and the report was reportedly sent to city attorneys and police for review though some prosecutors declined to open an investigation without law enforcement work first [5] [8].
6. Criticism, conflict‑of‑interest concerns and political pushback documented alongside the report
News coverage repeatedly records that critics questioned the probe’s independence because Ellingstad is a partner at the same law firm as the DFL’s in‑house attorney, prompting GOP attacks that the “party-led” inquiry favored Ellison; others expressed skepticism about the conclusion and noted a 2017 medical document Monahan had previously cited as identifying Ellison as causing “emotional and physical abuse,” which opponents said warranted further scrutiny [9] [10] [3].
7. What the report does not say (limits of available reporting)
The media outlets that obtained or reviewed the draft reported Ellingstad’s findings and the evidentiary points above, but the full, final report text was not universally published in entirety in the sources reviewed here, and reporting does not supply verbatim passages beyond the key conclusions and summarized findings, so any nuance beyond these documented summaries is not available in the cited accounts [1] [4].