Making sense of the Coleman-Franken recount trial

  • Article by: Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 2, 2009 - 12:13 PM
  • 88
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
johnelJan. 31, 09 5:52 PM

Coleman needs to prove his claims with actual evidence - not speculation. Get on with proving your case.

60
6
BucklawJan. 31, 09 6:06 PM

Coleman is a fraud and a disgrace. This article points out one of Coleman's arguements for dragging us through this ridiculous trial:

"...his earlier opposition to considering rejected absentee ballots during the recount was due to his belief that an election contest, the proceeding now underway, was the proper forum to do so."

In another argument he says he is fighting the recount result because it is important to Minnesota that all votes be counted.

So then are we to believe that if Coleman had won the recount he would still be taking this to court so that we could be reassured that all votes were counted as he claims?

Anyone that thinks Coleman is a man of high character is not paying attention. Get that clown out of here. Perhaps EX-Senator Coleman can find a different state to adopt as his next home state. (Move on, Norm. We're becoming a pest.)

57
13
aonanodadJan. 31, 09 6:09 PM

"preponderance of the evidence -- meaning more likely than not -- that errors during the voting and during the recount skewed the results."

Coleman believes that counting absentee ballots will more likely than not alter the results of this election? When overall Franken got 8% more absentee votes than Coleman, and led by 20% from the improperly rejected absentee ballots that were opened so far? It is more likely that not opening more absentee ballots will alter the outcome of this election?

If it is possible that opening more absentee ballots will change the outcome, it certainly isn't likely. In fact, the likelihood is somewhere between the likelihood of winning the lottery and having a meteor destroy earth in our lifetimes.

No, this case is all about delay and obstructing the work of the government. Sadly, it seems like many Republicans are devoted to that goal, spurred on by Head Cheerleader Rush Limbaugh, who hopes our government will fail.

60
12
BucklawJan. 31, 09 6:10 PM

Ex-Senator Coleman is the pest! WE, on the other hand, are impatient with the pest. (Typos are a problem in my aging years...)

40
12
helterJan. 31, 09 6:14 PM

Hey - the Coleman campaign has tons of hearsay and conjecture. Those are "kinds" of evidence :D Seriously though, don't you think if they had any actual evidence that they would have mentioned it during the first week of the trial? This trial is nothing but a farce.

50
10
sfccarrierJan. 31, 09 6:18 PM

According to this excerpt from an AP article that just came out, Ginsburg is pulling us into the Florida 2000 debacle. He is going to make Minnesota look as bad as Florida after conducting the most efficient recount in history. "The success of Norm Coleman's lawsuit to reclaim his Senate seat could depend on how willing the trial judges are to find a precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from another messy, political charged election battle: Bush v. Gore. Republican Coleman's greatest hope to overtake Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead is his argument that about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots should be given another look by the three judges hearing the case. His lawyers argue that many were rejected while other ballots with similar mistakes were counted, that standards were applied differently from county to county in violation of the constitutional standard of equal protection. "It's a long shot," said Jan Baran, a Washington election attorney and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "But it worked for Bush v. Gore."

45
6
topmanlbJan. 31, 09 6:39 PM

The MN Republican party is going up in smoke by way of Coleman. Not only did he run a vile campaign causing many reals Republicans to defect to Barkley, he now looks weak and more than desparate. Pathetic and impotent are words that fit. He has long over stayed his welcome and his behavior is not within the realm of respectable.

51
11
BucklawJan. 31, 09 6:44 PM

How do we contact Ex-Senator Coleman now? If you go to his page on the Senate Website you get:

The Honorable Vacant
United States Senate
320 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2303

(That address would have worked for the preceding six years, too...Dear Senator Vacant)

Ex-Senator Coleman is a regular citizen again...anyone have his St. Paul home address? I'd like to send a letter...

33
14
garbageacct1Jan. 31, 09 6:46 PM

Finding a precedent in a decision that explicitly states that it is for that situation only and is not setting a precedent is, well, messed up. (I'm being polite here.)

40
2
helterJan. 31, 09 6:50 PM

Day 1: Coleman campaign attempts to enter badly doctored copies of absentee ballots into evidence. When they are asked why their copies are missing vital pieces of information that are clearly present on the originals, they blame mysterious "copying errors." Yes, my copier also often refuses to copy things that are detrimental to my cases. Day 2: Coleman campaign brings forth 6 voters whose ballots were not counted. One had committed obvious fraud (actually his girlfriend did when she forged his signature on an official state document). One couldn't remember whether or not he had voted at the polls. One told a very touching but completely false story about how he had cast his first ballot for DDE in '52. Day 3: Franken campaign spends the day pointing out that all the things that Coleman is currently mad about are things that they had argued were completely proper when he was winning. Coleman campaign responds that they'd rather be raging hypocrites than, and I quote, "total doody heads." Day 4: After the Coleman campaign had spent 3 days claiming that the voters they brought up were just random people, who were not cherry picked at all, we learn, surprise surprise, that the voter they had called to the stand had been specifically asked by the campaign if he had voted for Coleman when he was initially contacted. People everywhere are shocked. Just kidding, we all known Norm Coleman and are not at all surprised. Day 5: Coleman campaign triumphantly gets the admission that a legally cast ballot was improperly rejected and but still not counted. Except, it turns out the reason why the ballot hadn't been counted was that the Coleman campaign had vetoed it. D'oh.

73
10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT