Coleman: Strib reporters "put themselves" in DFL ad, cost him the election

Every day brings a new blame game to the table. The latest in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race goes to the Star Tribune reporters who questioned Norm Coleman about a lawsuit in a public space. Apparently reporters are only allowed to ask serious and controversial questions in a whisper. 

In an interview on WCCO-TV "Sunday Morning", Esme Murphy spoke to Coleman about the current trial and allegations in two lawsuits that one of Coleman's buddies tried to funnel money to his family. 

When all else fails, blame the liberal media.

UPDATE: Strib reporters respond to Coleman's claim

You can view the full interview with Coleman here

Murphy asked Coleman about allegations that Nasser Kazeminy directed $75,000 from a Texas business he controls to Coleman's family through his wife's firm. 

Here is the transcript of the exchange, courtesy of Minnesota Independent:
NORM COLEMAN: No money was ever funneled to my family. My wife has a job. She does a job. And there's nothing that was illegally funneled to her. But you had two Star Tribune reporters appearing in a DFL ad on a story that came out four days - 
WCCO-TV NEWS ANCHOR ESME MURPHY: But not of their own volition! 
COLEMAN: Not of their own volition but they - 
MURPHY: Because I was there, I mean when that was taped - 
COLEMAN: But they put themselves in that ad. They put themselves. And so four days -  
MURPHY: No, they didn't. 
COLEMAN: Esme, the cameras were there. They could have asked those questions quietly. They could have had a different conversation. 
MURPHY: But they had no control over the cameras. 
COLEMAN: But they knew the cameras were there. They could have gone back and had a quiet conversation if that was the purpose. My point being they appeared in a Democratic Party ad four days before an election on something that never happened. 
And so in the end, I welcome -- let's take a full look at this. But, I can't, you can't recreate that. You can't take that back. And so in the end it's the nature of this business.  
But no -- you know, my wife never got any money that she didn't earn. There was no money funneled to her. You had two guys involved in a lawsuit. And perhaps using that relationship, my relationship with that person to maybe squeeze more money out of him. 
But that could have been a quiet story. It could have been a story that came out the day after the election. Instead you had two reporters in front of cameras confront a candidate on something they could have had a quiet conversation about if that was the purpose. 
So, be that as it may. No question: Nothing ever happened there. And it's unfortunate that those last-minute, eleventh-hour charges can have an impact on the race. I'm not lamenting anything. ... 
Those other issues will be dealt with. But emphatically, there's nothing to that. And it's a shame that those kind of charges can be thrown out. No one - There's not a single allegation that my wife or I actually received any money. Not one. Not one. And no facts to back that up.
This argument is completely off base. Should reporters limit their own reporting because there are cameras on them? Were these reporters aware that their interaction would be used for a DFL ad? Should they care? They are simply doing their job as Coleman refuses to answer their questions. And if there are serious allegations against a major candidate, should a newspaper hold that information until after the election? 

This sounds like a major whine session from a losing candidate who filed a complain against Franken days before the election for alleged defamation. Can't we simply focus on the trial on hand and stop pointing fingers at others for what happened months ago? It's too late and no one cares anymore.