Skip to main content

Franken leads +225 (+21 of the "Nauen61" the Elections Contest Court has ordered into the "Ready to Count" pile at the the Secretary of State's office; and now +14 of the "Nauen61" have ALSO been ordered and added; all these voters have indicated they voted for Franken)= +260.

The Election Contest Court (ECC) heard closing arguments from both sides Friday, an hour apiece, posed for pictures, and then.... took the case into chambers. Its in their hands now.

We could get answers and move toward an end anytime, yea even this week.

C'mon past the Orange fold for a wrap as we wait......

UPDATE: Looks like animal rescue and the disabled American veterans are going to get $50 each---- you people are fantastic! I have raised this version 0.1 in honor of all of you who sent something.

    1) Election Contest Court (ECC) Episode XXXVIII The Closings
    After some legal "house-keeping" early in the day there came the Main Event: the Closing Arguments of Coleman vs. Franken.
    A closing argument is NOT evidence and NOT testimony. It is basically a sales pitch, an attempt to persuade the court to use YOUR lens, YOUR field guide to look at the evidence and testimony. If justice is rightly shown as a woman blind-folded holding scales (whether or not she wears the "Full Ashcroft" or is in classical "au naturelle" Greek) then you have to appeal to the ear. Rhetoric, even oration, are tools of the trade.
    Both sides chose their champions: For Franken: Kevin Hamilton; For Coleman: Joe Friedberg. Each side was alloted one hour and both sides took full measure.

[Comment From feebog]
Just a thought. Team Franken is very effective. Lillehaug is great on examining and cross-examining witnesses. But Hamilton really can deliver an argument, and I think he is the right choice for closing.

    Hamilton closed first. He moved through his introduction-- "No election is perfect, so errors were present"--- as smoothly yet defining-ly as the cowbell, then drums, add bass and then lead guitar in the first measures of "Honkytonk Woman."  
    Hamilton took aim at the courtroom-and-hallway Coleman strategy focused on alleged errors (to the point of wanting the "fatally flawed" "error-riddled" election set aside and a new one run.) He laid it before the Court: the Berg boys' "advocacy" of that strategy "had outrun the evidence" for it:

  1. the errors have to have changed the outcome of the election
  1. the burden of proof to demonstrate this is upon the Contestant Coleman
  1. the Contestant does not have evidence to prove it.

    The contestant "has [so] woefully failed to carry the burden of proof" that the Court should grant Franken's Motion to Dismiss (from last Thursday.) It was done with real style, the legal equivalent of Mick Jagger's opening snarl after the instrumental intro, "I MET a GIN-soaked BAR room QUEEN in MEM-phis..."
     Hamilton dumped THAT freighter-full of iron ore from Duluth onto the Coleman table and then proceeded to crank through EVERY last challenge the Coleman side raised. He used the index of a Coleman (!) spreadsheet to show how weak their argument was over rejected absentee ballots. "The failure of proof is breathtaking."
    He used photos of witnesses like Pam Howell, the Coleman witness and election judge whose testimony (entered, stricken, restored, re-stricken, pieces restored) was the only limp link to the claim of "double counted" votes.
    He swatted away the Coleman mosquitoes around the 133 Minneapolis ballots that had disappeared. They should still be counted because the voters who cast them exist, signed in, and the voting machines noted their ballots.

[Comment From lostboyjim]
My god, it's like a closing argument on Law and Order. It's that good. But he needs bang his fist more :).

    He NAILED Team Coleman like an tenor hitting the high note on the National Anthem with the Coleman attempt to back out of Rule 9, which they had stipulated (agreed to) when they were leading in the recount, but now wanted to get out of since they are trailing.
"Contestants’ attempt to back out of their agreement ... is as cynical as it is groundless."
    (Rule 9 had to do with how to Recount absentee ballots and their machine-readable duplicates. What stinks like an un-tuned chainsaw burning swamp gas is the Coleman side's effort to "UN-stipulate"; lawyers and courts DON'T DO THAT)
   It was a masterpiece of methodical, never boring, detailed, factual, logical "leave no stone unturned and leave no turn un-stoned", relentless, "Karl Rove would gulp in fear if he were the defendant (a fond wish of mine)" Closing Argumentation.

"As the record before this court vividly demonstrates, Al Franken received the highest number of votes in this election. Al Franken is Minnesota’s senator-elect. He is entitled to the certificate of election."

____
    And then it was Joe Friedberg's turn to close for Team Coleman. Joe Freidberg is no Kevin Hamilton, he is Joe. And he stayed within himself. He railed against the ECC's Friday the 13th (of Feb.) decision as "changing the rules in the middle of the game" (They REALLY didn't like that ruling. Ben  Ginsberg's spinning in the hall after that date started to drill through the marble like a core sampler drill with a fresh diamond bit.)
     Joe was charming and self-deprecating. You could see he would play well to a jury. You can see if he has only to raise doubts so one juror has doubts beyond a reasonable level a Friedberg client may be found innocent by reason of a hung jury.
     He didn't do powerpoint. He didn't do spreadsheets. He worked from a yellow legal pad and his own handwriting in a time honored way.
     He asked the court to come down off its standards of "strict compliance" on absentee ballots to the Coleman position of "substantial compliance" with the law. He argued that if the court kept to the strict standard they have shown so far (particularly in those Friday the 13th rulings) then  errors were made and ballots were unequally treated.
    OTOH if the court moved to "substantial compliance" then the Coleman camp knew of about 1360 ballots that substantially meet the requirements (and implied they should be equally treated with the other ballots already counted.)
    If the court insisted on a strict standard then let the Minneapolis 133 be strictly excluded because we do not have the physical ballots. If they be allowed in then fairness/justice/equal protection calls for other ballots to also be admitted.
     His charm and self-effacement led him (perhaps inadvertently) to undercut much of his case. He was praising the judges for their learned-ness and noted they knew much more about election law than he did. In fact he himself had learned a great deal about election law in the last 7 weeks because when they started "I knew nothing about it."  

    As with all things Recount related: "We'll see."

    Afterwards there was an impromptu photo session, judges standing by their chairs, lawyers and (bless them all) the clerks and court reporters. Everyone realized it was historic and deserved a photo for the ECC ruling on the closest Senate race in Minnesota history. Friedberg said in his decades of practicing law he'd never posed with the court and counsel like that.
    Oh, and then, as everyone was getting ready to pack up, Jay Weiner from Minn Post reports:

    After that fuzzy picture-taking, there was still one final legal proceeding. It had to do with evidence that had been in dispute.
     The courtroom was empty save for the lawyers, clerks, the judges and some hangers-on.
    Franken lawyer David Lillehaug offered boxes and boxes of evidence.
    Friedberg, to make the event official, objected.
    (Presiding Judge Elizabeth) Hayden looked over her red-framed reading glasses. "Overruled," she said, with a slight smile.
    "We rest," said Hamilton.
Bang went the gavel of court clerk Christopher Channing, who added: "All rise, the court is in recess."
     Now, we wait.

     2) Next Steps
    What can we expect and when? ABowers13 likes making lists and his prognosticating has been pretty good. His take on the immediate future (like..... wrap-this-before-April future??!!)

From ABowers13 comment from Thursday March 12:
Actual schedule - from my crystal ball -
  1. Friday - Summary arguments from Coleman & Franken.
  2. Monday - Court orders the two sides to come up with 3 lists:

     1.  Ballots BOTH sides agree should be counted.
     2.  Ballots Coleman wants counted and Franken challenges.
     3.  Ballots Franken wants counted and Coleman challenges.

  3.  Wednesday List#1 - ballots stipulated by both sides get sent to SOS for counting.  Lists #2 & #3 are reviewed, one by one, by the our 3 judge court and sorted into two piles - One pile accepted and off to SOS.  Other rejected and put back into black hole with other 11,000 rejected ballots.
  4.  ???Day - SOS has ballots from all over Minnesota sent to his office.  He rounds up the usual suspects and schedules that great opening-up day.  They will be counting less than the 900 previously and will NOT mark ballots so whole thing should be over by noon.
  5.  ???Day - Court rules Dinkytown ballots IN (the lost net 47 Franken); rules Duplicates count unchanged - no uncounting; apartment numbers don't matter UNLESS apartment complex divided into precincts; election was clean, thorough, fine - no equal protection violation. And all other issues moot.
  6.  Wednesday 25? - Court rules Franken got the most votes and adjourns.  

   Again, its one blogger's opinion but worth considering.

   3) A Fife and Drum
Yesterday in the comment string I was moved by these two comments (edited for space):

One thing no one has really talked about (13+ / 0-)
   is how the judges will handle the counting of the remaining ABs.  There will be around 600 or so to count, as we've been saying from the beginning.
     But, I am hoping they will stage it such that they have written up their decision without naming a winner and allow that final counting to be the deciding moment as to who gets the certificate.  You know, the judges take themselves out of the picture and we go back to that January 3rd atmosphere of "what is actually contained in those ballots?"
    That way, in the media at least, there will be this sense that impartial justice has been done and Coleman has a chance to overtake Franken, only to have his whole world turned upside down as Franken stretches his lead beyond 300 votes.
    That's my hope anyway.  It really should not be about the court;  it should be about the people in the final analysis.  We are the ones who voted.
     by Mi Corazon on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 08:24:25 AM CDT
.........
    I hope that there is considerable drama and "suspense" built into the counting.  I want the public to sense that the decision was not made by the judges, only that they ruled certain other ballots were legal and should be counted.
    In the public's mind it is much better if they sense Franken won because of "counting" not because of the "judges".  That's what gives him stronger legitimacy.
...............
    I know one thing.  The MNSC is not going to take very long once this ECC process runs its course.  They do not suffer fools gladly, and with two Supremes on the Canvassing Board and now three very careful judges wading through all this paperwork, they understand that Coleman was given a fair hearing in a close election, and that, he lost.
    by Mi Corazon

    Mi Corazon is RIGHT ON! I started this series (v. 1.0!) because I was caught up in the coming drama of the Recount and thought Kossacks would like to keep up on it. Being political junkies around here it seemed a natural fit.
    And yet something changed in January as the whole thing moved toward the ECC and I think its because it moved from the political to the legal realm. It was harder to write about the deal, and maybe harder to read about too. Oh there was plenty of action, many twists and turns. I learned more than I ever wanted to about "Motion in Limine", "pro hac vices" and precedents and Rules of Evidence.
    But all that, important as it has been (and is yet to be) has been in essence a massive detour. Mi Corazon's remarks are the first sighting of those delightful signs "End Detour" and "Resume Speed."
    Back in the day of WineRev's youth my sister and I enjoyed laughing over the comedy show "Green Acres." Eddie Albert played a lawyer disgusted with modern urban life who moves himself and his glamorous wife (Eva Gabor, complete with heavy Hungarian accent) to a farm. The laughter came from the clashing outlooks between the locals and the new exotics.
    About every 3 or 4 episodes Oliver Wendell Douglas (Albert) would wax rhapsodic about farmers: "the backbone of the country", "here the embattled farmer stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world." As he did a fife and drum would start up in "Yankee Doodle" manner which everyone except Albert could hear playing.
    Well strike up the drum and fife, the WineRev is going to preach a moment.
    The Recount has been the long end game of the MN Senate election. But that election and the whole election that went on around the country was of course an exercise in democracy, of "demos"-- the people and "krasis"-- to rule, of "the People ruling themselves."
    The last 8 years have been a terrific assault not just on the legal system, not just on American idealism, not just on the Constitution. They have been an "Empire Strikes Back" assault on aspiration, on ordinary people living ordinary lives, on the entire concept of democratic rule.
    By the narrowest of margins (5-4) a people-loathing, power-grasping regime came to power in the home of a great democracy, our home, our democracy. Wars were started. Dissenters were trampled (the Republican campaigns and National Conventions of '04 and '08) and even murdered under suspicious conditions (Pat Tillman). People were jailed arbitrarily (Padilla) and languish still. Senator's offices were biologically attacked. Governors were railroaded out of office and into prison. The Treasury was looted for private gain and our currency debased. Mercenary armies were raised while true soldiers suffered from scaled back medical care and died from inferior equipment. A propaganda behemoth of Goebellian depravity still spouts and spumes acid on the idea that power belongs to anyone other than the few.
    But "the people" would not submit. Amid the humiliating airport searches and across their wiretapped communications they voted down, voted out, argued back against the bastards. Unevenly, haltingly, but steadily. For the last few years all those stories from American history, our history, have been unusually lively to me. For good reason I have felt a kinship to Francis Marion the Swamp Fox, and Greene, and Washington.
   The MN Senate election ended up breath-takingly close. Who won is actually NOT as important as the fact of the Recount itself. A law, drawn up by the people of Minnesota, was in place, with procedures and plans and rules and clarity of what was to be done--- so that the voice and vote of the PEOPLE would be expressed. Those 3 million votes would be counted..... and recounted, carefully, patiently.... by poll workers and election officials from Pipestone to Baudette... by the people..... for the people.
    The whole machinery cranking up and going forward was a smashing defeat for the smashers. "Brooks Brothers" rioters would NOT carry the day. (The only people I really called out in these diaries, daring those jackboot wannabes to come here for a round to offset Florida 2000. The gasbag cowards never showed.) The Jim Baker (Bush family fixer) Money-and-Lawyer machine would NOT clank their panzers to another blitzkrieg win. Ben Ginsberg's loathsome contempt and arrogance would NOT intimidate or stampede the Secretary of State or those in the courthouses. (Interesting that Ginsberg was hired on back in November but scurried in the background all through December during the actual Recounting and only emerged into light when the court maneuvering started. When these last ballots get counted I don't think Ben will be visible at all. Ballots being counted and democracy in action are like garlic and a silver cross to a vampire like Ginsberg.)
    The arguments of the last 7 weeks and the orders and decisions yet to come are merely (MERELY!) an extension of that democratic impulse. Mi Corazon is right. The ECC and even the MN Supreme Court should step back and let the votes, these finally settled upon, LAST votes of 2008, be counted in front of the PEOPLE. Its their election, their vote, their state, our democracy. Huzzah!

PS. I am overwhelmed by your kindness from yesterday. Your comments and good wishes and coins are a very real healing to me and I thank you. Thanks to you I'll be in Steel City in August.
I have the weekend off so I can get to work answering every one of those e-mails that came in. Indeed the $2 and $7 paypal entries leave me bawling because I can guess what a hardship must lie behind those "widow's mites." I want to write notes to go with the checks to animal rescue and the Disabled American Vets so they understand where those $40 each came from, the Nation of Orange. You all are good people.

Saturday Morning Minnesota Media
   The Rochester (Olmstad Co., home of the Mayo Clinic) Post Bulletin has a story from a couple days back. Sec. of State Mark Ritchie is on a statewide "listen & thank" tour, going around to local election officials to do both of those. Its a local view of how the Recount and election process is being seen, but the comments are a pretty good flame war to warm up your fingers (all those marching orders from ACORN that Ritchie is carrying out.)
http://www.postbulletin.com/...

    The Minnesota Independent has a string of short stories on the Coleman credit card info release mess, including a computer security pro (complete with slight gray at the temples and a small pony tail in true, well-aged hippie style) who calls the Coleman side's explanations and defenses BS (in unabbreviated form):  http://minnesotaindependent.com/...

   Doyle & Duchschere rate the front page today (A1, bottom left) with a decent few paragraphs on the front actually leaning a bit toward Franken. They quote from Hamilton's closing, "The law requires proof that an error did, in fact, change the outcome. This is exactly what is missing from the record."
http://www.startribune.com/...

   The Pioneer Press' blog PolAnimal (from Rachel Stassen Berger) has a nice set of insights to the human side of the trial among the lawyers. (Since it is nice and human you will have guessed Ben Ginsberg is not mentioned.)
http://blogs.twincities.com/...

OK, now we wait... for orders and decisions. I'll post when there's something to post so this series may not be quite daily. In the meantime I'll work on thank you notes and the "collection" project as noted last weekend in v. 95.0. But thats the latest from yust southeast of Lake Wobegon.

Shalom.

Originally posted to WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:40 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  What about appeals? (5+ / 0-)

      If Coleman (or Franken) loses can they appeal?

      •  The MN Supreme court (12+ / 0-)

        and Federal Supreme Court, which is the court of appeals
        for State Supreme court rulings,

        But the MN Supremes will rule fast, and they may issue
        a "Order not to slow down any investiture" as
        Coleman does not have  a high probability of success
        of appeal.

        The Supremes are unlikely to hear Coleman, after
        having laid it all on the line for Bush, the
        Right wingers on the court are ill-served as they
        know Obama will fill the bench with brilliant liberals.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:57:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Does not follow (0+ / 0-)

          Seems that if Coleman is in the Senate then the Republicans have a better chance of filibustering Obama's appointments.

          Doesn't that make them more likely to hear (and rule for) Coleman?

          In addition, based on the article, the arguments in Bush vs. Gore seem very apropos - different standards have been used in different districts.

          It would seem that it would be quite reasonable under the Bush vs. Gore precedent for the Supreme Court to remand to the Minnesota Supreme Court giving them the options of:

          1.  Uncounting the absentee ballots that did not meet the letter of the law but were counted anyway (impossible),
          1.  Counting all ballots statewide that meet the more relaxed standards that were apparently implemented in some districts, or
          1.  Redoing the election

          If there is an election redo what are the dynamics?

          •  Wouldn't they have to redo it all? (0+ / 0-)

            By this reasoning, Michelle Bachmann is illegitimate too, of course. And wait a sec! Georgia's performance here is worse than Minnesota's! Looks like ol' Saxby is back on the campaign trail too, no? LOL

            The Constitution is pretty clear that the next forum for Coleman is the U.S. Senate, not the Supreme Court, since the Senate is the judge of its own elections.

            I'm not too worried about this.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:26:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't see how you come to this conclusion... (0+ / 0-)

              By this reasoning, Michelle Bachmann is illegitimate too, of course. And wait a sec! Georgia's performance here is worse than Minnesota's! Looks like ol' Saxby is back on the campaign trail too, no? LOL

              Don't think so - no election contest.  Just like Bush vs. Gore didn't affect any other races in Florida.

              The Constitution is pretty clear that the next forum for Coleman is the U.S. Senate, not the Supreme Court, since the Senate is the judge of its own elections.

              Senate is the judge of its own elections... but in that case how do you explain the current election contest?

              I can't see how this applies to appeals but not to the current contest.

              •  The argument for a do-over (0+ / 0-)

                is based on the entire election having been illegitimate, not just the Senate race. Who knows what contests would have arisen from an honest election? If the election is void, it's void for everybody. And so is Georgia's!

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:55:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Disagree... (0+ / 0-)

                  The argument for a do-over is based on the counting of several thousand absentee ballots.

                  Any race that was not close enough for them to matter would not be affected.

                  As for Georgia, if no one sues then there is no issue.

                  I believe it is already too later for anyone there to sue.

                  Are you talking seriously or are you just sniping with arguments you know are silly?

                  •  The equal protection contention (0+ / 0-)

                    is that ballots were treated differently among the counties on election day.

                    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                    by Clem Yeobright on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:55:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So you mean you think that Bush vs. Gore (0+ / 0-)

                      says that ballots have to be treated the same between counties on election day but not afterwards?

                      I don't think that is the case... wasn't the point of contention how ballot counting was being handled after the election?

          •  Statewide standards (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            Bush v Gore, while WRONGLY decided, stated that the problem in Florida was that there were NO STATEWIDE standards for the recount.  Each county made up its own rules so different voters were treated differently.

            Minnesota has a very detailed, exacting, statewide standard that was applied during the recount.  Each county used the SAME standard. The fact that some votes were treated differently is irrelevant.  Human beings make mistakes.

            The Supreme Court noted, in Bush V Gore, that different methods would have to be applied in Florida since some counties used machines and some paper and some punch cards, etc.  But there had to be a STATEWIDE STANDARD for what counted as valid. Supremes said a standard of "voter intent" was not specific enough. Decision does not require that each vote be treated exactly the same, which is impossible.  Only that the same standards be used statewide, which they are in Minnesota.

            Supremes also said decision ONLY applied to Bush v Gore.

            •  Statewide Standards... (0+ / 0-)

              Minnesota has a very detailed, exacting, statewide standard that was applied during the recount.  Each county used the SAME standard. The fact that some votes were treated differently is irrelevant.  Human beings make mistakes.

              So let me get this straight...

              You believe that Bush vs. Gore says that you have to have a statewide standard but if you don't actually follow it - if county by county variations in how ballots were actually handled are large enough to potentially make the difference in who won an election - that doesn't matter.

              It's possible - Bush vs. Gore was a tortured decision  made on a deadline - but if so then the law is an ass.

              Supremes also said decision ONLY applied to Bush v Gore.

              That's more interesting.  And also quite bizarre.

              If you think about it, the Supreme Court was supposedly ruling based on fundamental Constitutional rights, not on its electoral preferences.  If so, how can a decision only apply to one case?  That was the weirdest part of the whole opinion.

              I can understand the Court taking the position "We had to put this opinion together overnight.  It is not as well reasoned and researched as it should be.  We don't want people parsing every badly written sentence of the majority opinion and using them to get other election results overturned."  But in that case the fundamental principles should still apply and, at least theoretically, the Court should welcome a similar case that is less of an emergency and allows them to properly articulate the Equal Protection principles behind their decision.

  •  Tips for furling yesterday's Revival Tent (206+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jay, yellowdog, BrooklynJohnny, gogol, RonV, nicolemm, PeterHug, RunawayRose, Emerson, rincewind, Eman, Jim W, shayera, GayHillbilly, mslat27, celdd, eeff, polecat, freelunch, acuppajo, Heart of the Rockies, sardonyx, Dave in DC, SecondComing, CoolOnion, ksh01, greengrrl, mnkid, khloemi, Fatherflot, peraspera, nargel, TampaCPA, librarianman, sidnora, slackjawedlackey, NMRed, asterlil, mayan, pat bunny, jbaughman, rockhound, BlogDog, PerfectStormer, count, Matt Esler, homogenius, luvmovies2000, lcs, cantwait08, radarlady, Heiuan, sc kitty, BCO gal, Clem Yeobright, zamrzla, wildcat6, maisie, Grep Agni, kaliope, techno, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Zack from the SFV, wiscmass, Brian B, JanL, murasaki, reddbierd, Island, und83, Shirl In Idaho, RustyBrown, Robert Davies, seefleur, martyc35, MTmofo, carolita, goodasgold, Eloise, LokiMom, tecampbell, Lashe, SadieSue, bleeding heart, ER Doc, BarbaraB, MBNYC, llbear, IL clb, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, NonnyO, subav8r, AmericanRiverCanyon, Sapere aude, ibonewits, Ken in MN, dogdad, Cottagerose, crodri, Allogenes, edsbrooklyn, yowsta, Jimdotz, sfbob, twinpeaks, TerribleTom, Seneca Doane, mcgee85, wilderness voice, jnhobbs, Moderation, sable, vet, Empower Ink, chicago minx, trivium, jgilhousen, Dem in the heart of Texas, coachster, Spruce, ParisBob, ratador, Youffraita, indyada, rugbymom, elwior, binkaroni, mikeconwell, Lujane, bluesheep, carver, mofembot, lenzy1000, caps lock on, HoosierDeb, cactusflinthead, lostboyjim, Fiddlegirl, cameoanne, Menlo Park Mom, multilee, StuckInGA, janmtairy, earicicle, remingtonsteele, Patch Adam, WobegonGal, followyourbliss, obscuresportsquarterly, dotalbon, realwischeese, stevenwag, 57andFemale, ravenlore, Dragon5616, davespicer, unfinished60sbusiness, browneyes, Just Bob, Norbrook, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Bull Schmitt, henlesloop, RBinDLH, Observerinvancouver, Dark Ranger, ColoradAnne, wvmom, dagnome, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, deboChicago, ItsSimpleSimon, sharonsz, addisnana, ericlewis0, Bobbysmom, cocinero, tenar, otter 8, sidious666, jeanma, nampa45, bgblcklab1, Olon, AtomikNY, Stonegate, page394, blueinmn, rvdee, zukesgirl64, Kobuk Sands, Britkid, deweysmom, aircap, mniowan, FrozeAgain, SusanL143, merrily1000, tenzen, antooo, beastiemom, Nola Sue, lizzie blue, one voice, wide eyed lib

    I have to finish sweeping up the sawdust and pack away the fife and drum.

    Thank you again for all your readings and all your support.

    Shalom.

    "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

    by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:42:26 AM PDT

    •  101 diaries down... (23+ / 0-)

      Please tell me there aren't 101 diaries to go?

      Amazing, as always!

      Sweet are the uses of adversity...Find tongues in the trees, books in the brooks, and good in everything. -Shakespeare, As You Like It.

      by earicicle on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:52:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You working the wineshop today? (9+ / 0-)

      Is it in St Louis park ? I need my Sangre De Toro
      Shalom

    •  Thank you (13+ / 0-)

      Minor quibble.

      Eddie Albert's character was Oliver Wendell Douglas.

    •  Just mentioning "Green Acres" (17+ / 0-)

      deserves more tips than I can give you.

      Yet another great diary!

      "And God separated the light from the dark, and did two loads of laundry"

      by Fiddlegirl on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:59:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the few shows ever (10+ / 0-)

        that was better than the show from which it was spun off (though that wasn't all that hard in this case).

        •  it was a spinoff from Petticoat Junction? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          freelunch, Clem Yeobright, llbear

          as i recall, that was a story about 3 hookers living
          at a railroad hotel.

          George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

          by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:58:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fascinating memory (0+ / 0-)

            That wasn't Miss Kitty who ran that hotel.

            •  3 single women (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rincewind

              living in a hotel with no visible means of support.

              Please don't tell me they were seamstresses.

              http://weeklywire.com/...

              First the history, courtesy of Bill Speidel's book Sons of the Profits. (Speidel runs the tour company, as well.) In the second half of the 19th century, Seattle wasn't nearly the boom town it is now. It was a logging town built on a mud flat below a 200-foot cliff covered with timber. (In fact, the term "skid road" was invented there; that's how they got the trees down to Elliott Bay.)

              An 1887 survey found that 10 percent of Seattle's residents were young women who called themselves "seamstresses" and lived within a three-block area of Occidental Avenue. A committee of men was put together (after an intensive application process) to investigate, and after weeks of round-the-clock fact-checking, not a single sewing machine was found. (Our tour guide told us, "That's because the girls did much of their work by hand.")

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Wikipedia calls Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres and Petticoat Junction
              as sister shows

              George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

              by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:31:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The story in Ankh-Morpork (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rincewind, nathguy

                Sir Terry Pratchett informs us that there actually was one seamstress among the seamstresses in Ankh-Morpork's counterpoint neighborhood (A-M also build over its old downtown the way Seattle did). She made as much money as the others because she was so rare and her services were so highly valued.

                The show I thought of, along with "Gunsmoke" (which was almost honest about it), when you brought up this problem was "Here come the Brides" which had the Seattle connection, but downplayed the seamstress problem.

                Yes, "Petticoat Junction" was a nominal spinoff of "Beverly Hillbillies", but it was really just an introduction of the characters, not a real spinoff. "Green Acres" had all sorts of crossover with "Petticoat Junction".

                "And there's Uncle Joe,
                He's a moving kind of slow
                At the Junction"

                Now we know why.

                I wonder if Arnold Ziffel joined in.

          •  They were all spin-offs from (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WineRev

            the Beverly Hillbillies, but both Petticoat Junction and Green Acres shared a town (Hooterville) and the general store (owned by Sam Drucker).

            © sardonyx; all rights reserved

            by sardonyx on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:45:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What do people think of this part of Friedberg's (19+ / 0-)

      argument?

      Essentially he said that because this was a "civil court" and that only a preponderance of the evidence is required to find in favor of a claim, that therefore, we should "presume" that an Absentee Ballot was a legal vote if several of the elements required for legality were present.

      To me, that's conflating the ultimate weight required for a final verdict with the rules of evidence and other decisions made during trial.  Just because a preponderance of the evidence is enough to reach a final decision does not mean that in the interim the court should back off of laws and legal rectitude.

      Am I right about that?

      Help new teachers to grow and love their work at www.newteachernetwork.net

      by Mi Corazon on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:04:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The court has already ruled on that part (11+ / 0-)

        He's trying to plow old ground here because he didn't like their decision.

      •  Equity v law (7+ / 0-)

        Didn't Lillehaug confront that when he noted while arguing the Motion to Dismiss last week that the legislature established this as a court of law and not a court in equity?

        Paraphrasing: 'We are not a European court where we all get together to determine the truth; this is an adversarial proceeding.'

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:17:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  From a non-litigator (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rincewind, Clem Yeobright, llbear, WineRev

        I think you're right about that. As someone else pointed out somewhere, it also seems that it's asking the Court to substitute this "presumption" for the on the ground evaluations of the election judges. The ballots in question have been examined and rejected for cause. It seems absurd to presume, even in a de novo proceeding, that they're valid. It turns everything I learned about Administrative Law on its ear.

      •  the way i see it. (9+ / 0-)

        The Standard is "Voting is  a right, Absentee Balloting
        is a privelige".

        "Absentee Balloting is a privilege that a Absentor must
        absolutely follow (Strict Compliance) but that once
        that test has been met,  the Election judges must only
        substantially comply with the law in order to keep
        ballots valid(Equity)."

        That is, absentors must do everything as right as they can,
        be registered, request a ballot application, sign in all
        the right places, have a registered voter as witness, etc,etc etc.

        But that once votes are submitted properly, the Judges must only
        substantially comply in order to keep a ballot properly counted.
        Because minor errors by judges should not invalidate the efforts of
        the absentors or voters.

        For instance,  Law may require that all votes be kept in a locked
        room, sealed by 3 witnesses, using a chain of evidence, but
        a judge from a rural precinct leaves a box locked in the
        trunk of his car overnight before driving them to
        Minneapolis.  It's the judges error, but it shouldn't be held
        against the Voters and Absentors if it's substantial compliance.
        i.e. the ballots show no sign of tampering, the judge lives
        in a remote area, where, intruders would be noted and the
        counts still match.

        or

        The ballots are supposed to be kept in a manila envelope
        and instead they are kept in file folders, in a drawer, but,
        they aren't lost.

        or

        A single envelope of physical ballots are lost, but the logs and
        summary tapes still retain the tally.

        essentially the ECC has already ruled that while Absentors must
        have Strict compliance, the judges must only substantially
        comply with the law.(All notes are to be in Red Ink, and some
        are done in Blue Ink),,,,,

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:08:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strict v Substantial Compliance (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you for this.  It makes sense, particularly in this context of course, and effectively clarifies an issue that had been kind of nagging at me.

        •  I don't see that at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Nowhere has the court endorsed an election judge's decision to open an absentee ballot that does not strictly comply with the law. Since Minnesota does not 'un-count' votes, that is not at issue.

          Has there been a question raised to the ECC about the validity of the recount with regard to your first two examples? I haven't seen it.

          Regarding the missing 132 ballots, the court will definitely impose a strict interpretation of what may be vague law. There is a good argument that they will have to assert that only the ballots that exist to be recounted can be recounted.

          Coleman's argument regarding 'preponderance of the evidence' and 'substantial compliance' refers to Rejected Absentee Ballots, i.e., the matter before the court. He has not argued that all the evidence has not been available, just that his strategy - differently from Franken's, which he commends - is not to present best evidence but to assume it and ask the court to assume it.

          The argument about the SoS's database being unreliable may have been convincing to a jury but will be quickly dismissed by this court. There has been no presentation that the status of specific ballots is 'murky' because of ambiguities in the database, just that it might have been a fool's errand to pursue that evidence regarding any ballot.

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:48:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how i view it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind

            Nowhere has the court endorsed an election judge's decision to open an absentee ballot that does not strictly comply with the law. Since Minnesota does not 'un-count' votes, that is not at issue.

            That's the strict Compliance part. To do an Absentee Ballot, you
            need "Strict Compliance"  and at this point, all of the ones
            that were in strict compliance or Substantial compliance
            were rolled in and opened.

            I'm sure the ECC would order ballots "Uncounted" if the reason
            for their existence was so gross as to shock the conscience of the
            court.  For instance, if someone had gone around and registered
            as voters people in a long term hospital and bulk absentee
            voted them, if the court had any good shot at removing those, they would.

            Has there been a question raised to the ECC about the validity of the recount with regard to your first two examples? I haven't seen it.

            as i recall, there was a dispute over one judge who had kept
            a box or two of ballots in his car overnight and there was one
            precinct where they found 800 ballots in a closet
            during the mandatory recount phase.  these were both
            dismissed as non-issues because the rest of the documentation
            was so precise as to make the objectors seem like wingnuts.

            Coleman's argument regarding 'preponderance of the evidence' and 'substantial compliance' refers to Rejected Absentee Ballots, i.e., the matter before the court. He has not argued that all the evidence has not been available, just that his strategy - differently from Franken's, which he commends - is not to present best evidence but to assume it and ask the court to assume it.

            and that's where Coleman is mking a fools argument.

            the ECC is using strict compliance to enter ballots at this time,
            but substantial compliance in accepting the rulings of precinct
            judges and the Sec of State's office.

            at the precinct level, the judges were doing their best to get
            voters in and then handle 300,000 Absentee ballots (Absentors).
            if not every absentor was checked against the registration
            database, while that may not be strict compliance, the
            ECC isn't going to go "Hey , lets toss out all the absentee ballots
            because 5 precints in Hennepin didn't check the registration
            database".  

            The argument about the SoS's database being unreliable may have been convincing to a jury but will be quickly dismissed by this court. There has been no presentation that the status of specific ballots is 'murky' because of ambiguities in the database, just that it might have been a fool's errand to pursue that evidence regarding any ballot.

            and that in a nutshell was the entire coleman argument.

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:22:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, ya lost me (0+ / 0-)

              the ECC is using strict compliance to enter ballots at this time, but substantial compliance in accepting the rulings of precinct judges and the Sec of State's office.

              I can't identify the motion in which the ECC was asked to review the rulings of precinct judges or the Sec of State's office to which it responded with an order citing deference (which is in itself different from 'substantial compliance' but ambiguous with regard to your contention).

              Did Coleman introduce a single ballot he wanted 'un-counted'?

              I think the court has - so far - been laser-like in enforcing strict compliance with the law.

              Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

              by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:44:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                that's what all that whining about the 2/13 ruling was.

                The ECC raised the bar at that time from Substantial compliance
                to "Strict Compliance".

                Coleman began whining that "on election night, certain
                ballots were admitted that were 'Substantially' compliant
                and now the 2/13 ruling raises that to 'Strict' compliance
                and that's so unfair to us, because we have hopes that out
                of 3,000 rejected ballots, perhaps we have a chance of
                finding ballots that would raise us over the line.

                so almost every motion, where coleman wanted
                to either uncount ballots from the recount, the
                unstipulation, the whining about admitting more
                ballots after 2/13 were all about the difference
                between substantial and strict compliance.

                and when Coleman goes to the Supremes it will be
                all about the difference in those standards.

                George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:44:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The whining, as I see it (0+ / 0-)

                  has been over the court's rejection of Coleman's effort to qualify categories of ballots. Coleman had contended that if a ballot was rejected for the given reason that the voter was not registered, then it should be sufficient to demonstrate that he was registered to qualify that ballot.

                  In the hallway last week, Ginsberg apparently felt he was making a concession to acknowledge that after ballots went to the Secretary of State the SoS might undertake to determine if the voter had voted in person at that time.

                  The Coleman camp has been inexplicably lazy in this case. It's as if they can't afford the staff and the overtime to accomplish what Franken has accomplished - recall the ballot that Coleman had not qualified but that Franken did (from the day of the Motion to Dismiss arguments). I said at the time that Franken had demonstrated that it wasn't that the proper evidence didn't exist, it's that Ginsberg the Hutt and company couldn't rouse themselves to go get it.

                  Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:50:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wee Mama, Clem Yeobright

                    With the staff and money and time that Coleman's team was spending, were they really LAZY or was it also something else?  I think that partly they were overwhelmed with the task ahead of them - namely how do you find 250 Coleman votes/needles in the 12,000 ballot haystack?  And of course the problem is more than finding Coleman votes.  These votes must also have been WRONGLY rejected even though they had been rejected at least twice by competent professionals.  

                    And I think the other part is that Coleman/Friedberg just did not realize how specialized election law is.  So his lawyers were always two steps behind.  It was kind of like asking a medical doctor to remove a brain tumor.  It may all be part of the medical field but that is not good enough.

                    •  The court certainly gave enough hints (0+ / 0-)

                      and the Franken team showed that the information existed even for one of Coleman's chosen ballots!

                      I suspect they're broke. There must be hundreds of Minnesotans who could have exploited the SoS database and they must have had plenty of offers to do that research ... for the same good wages Franken was paying his team, of course.

                      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:52:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  please, WineRev (18+ / 0-)

      don't "pack away the fife and drum". It's good to be reminded WHY we've been doing this, despite our impatience, and why it matters so very much.

      January 20, 2009 -- It's a Beautiful Day!

      by rincewind on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:19:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Superb diaries--thank you (5+ / 0-)

      2/10/07 Freezing in Springfield 11/4/08 Celebrating in Grant Park

      by chicago minx on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:28:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  *helps pack up the tent* (11+ / 0-)

      Tipped and recced. I dreamt I was explaining "pro hac vice" to someone last night. Gaaah!

      By the way, did the Paypal send go through, and be it verily received in the land of WineRev? I've never sent money to just an email address before. I didn't want to risk much before I knew that it worked, so if it did, shout up and I'll throw a little more into the hat.

    •  Is there a breakdown, guess, prediction of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llbear, blueinmn

      these ballots?

      1.  Ballots Coleman wants counted and Franken challenges.

               3.  Ballots Franken wants counted and Coleman challenges.

      Does number 3 include the Nauen61 ballots?

      I'm thinking that all those who have followed this with attention know the answer....I've only been casually following. Thanks.

      •  It's not a matter of 'challenge' any more (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ksh01, llbear, henlesloop

        The evidence is all in, and it's the court's spreadsheet that matters.

        As for the Nauen ballots, the order has already been issued.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's the first Nauen order (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ksh01, llbear, henlesloop

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:55:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  thanks clem, at the risk of appearing dense (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, llbear

          Sorry about that....but is the court's spreadsheet available anywhere?

          I guess what you're saying is the court has already decided on 2 and 3 and the court's spreadsheet will show me how many ballots Coleman will get out of it and how many belong to Franken?

          •  No no one knows what's on the court's spreadsheet (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind, ksh01, llbear, henlesloop

            and it may not even exist - but that's hard to believe.

            I think the court has a spreadsheet with a row for every ballot that has been proposed. I think we can guess what are the columns of that spreadsheet; it must closely resemble the Franken team's.

            For each column, I'm guessing there is a citation of an exhibit - or multiple exhibits. And for each element that has been declared (2/13) as necessary for admission, I think there is a boolean column, and at the far right (left?) there is a column that ands all those booleans and presents flatly Yes/No.

            My thought is that that spreadsheet is complete for 95% of the ballots by this time (noon Saturday). Some ballots are waiting for county certifications of the 3/4 data-dump due noon Monday, but that can be input with a re-formulation of a formula in a particular column and the spreadsheet re-calc'd in sixty seconds. A few cells may require review by the court as to 'preponderance of the evidence'; it wouldn't be many, only those affected by cross-examination and rebuttal, and they would be identified by looking at the 'proposals for findings' coming in soon. 4 hours work, max.

            Then: sort by that column, export to Word the names and counties on the ballots that qualify as a table in an order, and move the process on.

            The Nauen orders suggest that this is the process already used, I think.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Addendum as to Franken's v Coleman's (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rincewind, ksh01, llbear, henlesloop

              It appears there are rows on the spreadsheet that will qualify based on some Franken exhibits and some Coleman exhibits. Recall that last week while arguing the Motion to Dismiss one of the judges asked Lillehaug if he had not - in the contestee's case - supplemented Coleman's evidence for one or more voters. Lillehaug pointed out that the discussion had to do with the Coleman case at the time Coleman rested and the answer to the question was therefore irrelevant.

              So there is a column specifying by whom the ballot was entered, but we know the answer in some cases is 'both'.

              Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

              by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:17:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not that quick (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, WineRev

              Even if the court works on Saturday, updating their database requires a LOT of deletions - remember the original lists of voters from both camps was 3,000 for Coleman and 900 for Franken.  

              Not until Friday were these reduced to 1,300 and 252 respectively.

              Combining disparate spreadsheets is also easier said than done.  Unless same format was used which is NOT likely.

              •  Work with spreadsheets much? (0+ / 0-)

                I don't see the problem.

                I don't expect that there was any 'combining' at all - every entry, every character in the ECC's spreadsheet ought to have been manually entered by court staff. Feb 13 was a sort of "Feeling lucky, punk? Make my spreadsheet!" day, doncha think?

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:46:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Combining disparate spreadsheets (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                would indeed be challenging. The court is probably running some freakin' Windows 2003Server eJudge 3.7 for their spreadsheets.

                Team Franken's is likely on Mac OS27 with holodeck projector and a virtual Mr. Data to correlate with the "primitive and barely stable" Windows sheets.

                And if thats not hard enough then they have to add in Team Coleman's spreadsheets
                .
                .
                .
                .
                done on Crayola 3.2 and mostly (although not always) colored inside the little box lines.....

                Shalom.

                "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

                by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:01:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I see it pretty much in reverse of that (0+ / 0-)

                  A ballot is interesting when it - or something related to it - is entered into evidence. A proffer - which is what the spreadsheet is - is not evidence.

                  The court will crossref its spreadsheet with the final ones in the parties' proposals for finding of fact pretty much as a courtesy, just to see if an exhibit was accepted but not recorded, and I expect this to be a manual process for the staff to complete in a day.

                  I work with huge spreadsheets all the time and I don't see anything challenging in what is at hand for the court. But I've been wrong before ...

                  A week from now we'll know, won't we?

                  Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:06:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, we will (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    You keep assuming the court is diligently following along with every twist and turn and is up to date.  You may be right.  I just don't think they are or could be.  But they certainly show they are willing to work hard and spend long hours at it.  So either way, I hope they are ready to roll next week.

        •  Actually I think we may have another round (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind, Clem Yeobright

          of challenges when the AB are counted. Both sides had the option to challenge when they counted the 933. Let's look at the backside first, followed by Franken,Franken,Franken,Franken,Barkley,Franken,Franken,Coleman,Franken.

          •  Yep. But that's not the 'challenge' discussed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind, henlesloop

            Whether a ballot will be opened or not is no longer in the attorney's purview, i.e., to be challenged as ABowers13 describes it.

            Any disagreement about which oval has been marked on a ballot will come back immediately to the ECC for resolution in 10 minutes.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:51:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Rochester MN is in the heart of conservative (17+ / 0-)

    Minnesota.  Should no doubt be lots of people donning tin foil hats in fear of the "ACORN national takeover" down there.  

  •  Al Franken should be seated by April Fool's day (9+ / 0-)

    Or maybe on April Fool's day?  

    How apt.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:55:25 AM PDT

  •  Even though I fear... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, Lashe, llbear, Allogenes, blueinmn

    ...that Coleman will never, ever, ever concede ("cold dead hands" style), it does make me feel better it's up to the judges. For now.

    Thanks, WineRev!

  •  Thank you for all your hard work! (11+ / 0-)

    "What a long, strange (and enjoyable, thanks to you) trip it's been."

  •  Proposals for finding of fact are due (11+ / 0-)

    according to Ginsberg in the hall: Tuesday noon. But he also said that schedule might be being changed in chambers while he spoke.

    It has been noted during the trial - particularly during the arguments over the Motion to Dismiss - that both sides have been submitting weekly reports of what they propose they have proven.

    Since the adjournment came at 12:12 Friday - probably half a day before it could reasonably have been predicted - I'm guessing it's been moved up to some time Monday. Noon Monday is the deadline for Coleman to submit the counties' validation of their Wednesday data-dump contributions, and all Franken deadlines will have expired by then, wouldn't it be appropriate and nice if the proposals are due quickly?

    Then: Let the counting begin!

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:01:21 AM PDT

  •  Coleman will of course appeal... (14+ / 0-)

    This hasn't been about Coleman winning, although if that outcome were in the cards, the Republicans would take it in a heartbeat.  This is about stalling and delay, so once this process reaches a conclusion, there will be an appeal.

    •  But it is (6+ / 0-)

      Appealing when you don't have anything to go on just shows how completely foolish you are.

    •  Maybe not (16+ / 0-)

      As Eric Kleefeld noted yesterday at TPM, Coleman may find that he can't appeal.

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:54:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GREAT catch Clem - rec'd in hopes others read it (12+ / 0-)

        IN hopes others take your link to Kleefeld's TPM article, which I'd missed

        Kleefeld cites Prof David Shultz for the point that
        "the entire appeals process [could come] to a crashing halt" allowoing a Cert of Election since
        (a)

        The election-contest proceeding operates under a loser-pays system -- ... [Prof] Schultz estimates it at anywhere between $1-3 million.

        and (b) appellants are often served with - and ordered by the court to

        place in escrow the amount for which they are currently liable.

        For those who have not yet linked to TPM - do go read the whole article - and give Clem [and TPM's Kleefelder] some well deserved recs for finding this gem!

        We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

        by puffmeister on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for expanding (5+ / 0-)

          Since I had blockquoted this at length in WR100, I hesitated to C&P yesterday's comment here. It's easy to forget that not everyone is following this as closely as some of us are.

          Thanks!

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  quick Q- what is 'c & p' mean ? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            please forgive that I am ignorant, thanks clem.

            We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

            by puffmeister on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:55:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  never mind, my slow brain caught it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            cut and paste.

            many times the lights are on and no one has yet arrived home.

            I stared at that C&P repeatedly without the slightest idea - until after embarrassing myself by printing the Q

            [sigh]

            We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

            by puffmeister on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:58:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Chump change to the national party... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind

          The wingnuts across the country can raise this much just to put some more time on the clock.

          The only thing that would change things is if the Senate provisionally seats Franken after the ECC rules.  Were this to happen, there would no longer be any advantage to any more stalling tactics..

          •  You're probably right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            henlesloop, puffmeister

            but let's go ahead and play the point anyway ...

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:18:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just wanted to say thanks to you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, maryru

              along with the winerev, you have both kept this fascinating and fun with your comments and observations, along with keeping a layman like me up on a legal case so I almost feel like I know what's going on.  Peace to you all, and may the wind always be at your back.

              It's not really cherry picking. Cherries are sweet and delicious. It's more like ...turd mining

              by henlesloop on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:13:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, thanks for that (0+ / 0-)

                IANAL, and I have been wrong and misguided and led down primrose paths many times over the past couple months. If you'll recall, I am the one was arguing in January that since this is the same process that is to be used to settle a contested primary, the judges would have to set up procedures that would end it in 3 weeks tops. Guess I got snookered there!

                I am grateful to the lawyers who have shared their expertise here, and every time I present a new idea I nervously check my recs until I see that rincewind in particular has given me her endorsement.

                BTW: I've enjoyed your contributions and your wit immensely as well. Best to you (and WineRev, of course) in everything!

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:37:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  not sure it's the only thing but WOULD be great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            as seating Franken after he wins in the state would reduce the value of continuing the fight both monetarily and morally.

            My thoughts in disagreement with you are that - in this economy and for a case unlikely to have a good outcome, I do not think that coming up with $3 million for past legal fees makes the thought of millions more going forward very palatable - simply to delay the inevitable.

            At some point, Repubs are I think going to start looking at the big picture, such as [sadly] spending more of tough- to- acquire millions in trying to dump Nevada Sen Reid - for a more permanent loss of one Senate Seat from the Dem Column.

            Ditto with Louisiana, etc.

            On the other hand, just becuase I think that following the long view is the logical thing to do by the minority party, does not mean that the Repubs will follow logic - so you may be right!

            We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

            by puffmeister on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:51:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Lawyers' fees (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Bloggers keep saying that loser pays ONLY court costs.  That Franken must pay his own legal fees.

          Court costs would be chump change to Repubs.

          •  The final footnote to the sanctions order (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            puffmeister

            is pretty definitive that Coleman will pay all Franken's costs.

            Attorneys' fees incurred by Contestee are not awarded as part of this order. If Contestants do not prevail in this election contest, the statute provides that Contestants must pay the fees and costs associated with this proceeding....

            Here, page 7.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:32:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Howell sanction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright

              This order was to sanction Coleman for the mishandling of the Howell testimony.  The Court charged fees for all three days of botched litigation.  But that does NOT mean that the Court will order Coleman to pay Franken's legal fees for the whole trial, does it?

              Once again, I hope I am wrong and that Coleman gets stuck with the whole bill.  But half a dozen different bloggers on UpTake said that each party pays its own lawyers' fees.

              •  That's what they wrote, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

                If Coleman wins, we'll order him to pay 3 days of Franken's bills, but if he loses ... it will all be taken care of anyway. How else can you read that clip?

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:56:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  another great catch clem [otherwise costs are all (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright

              that might be awarded - as in many court cases] - so I am delighted to read the great point that fees would be awarded - and thanks as always for sourcing this, Clem

              And you are right, many of us get caught into other maelstroms of life [ in my case, sudden horrific health problems for my beloved elderly dad, exacerbated by two simultaneous court cases] so end up out of the loop, sometimes for [gasp] more than a day or so!!!

              The first place I look when returning to Kos is wineRev's delightful diary and all the wonderful, illuminating comments, such as yours.

              Kudos to all.

              We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

              by puffmeister on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:43:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  God, when, when (9+ / 0-)

    is this mess finally going to be over? Coleman's already working as a freaking lobbyist, he knows it's over. This is abuse of process, pure and simple.

    Fume, anger, rant :-)

    Without hope, life is not worth living. You gotta give em hope. - Milk

    by MBNYC on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:07:11 AM PDT

  •  I had to laugh (18+ / 0-)

    It was reported somewhere (senior moment) yesterday that Mitch McConnell said Coleman "should appeal". Why is this funny? Because there hasn't been any counting or ruling yet, but even McConnell is assuming that Normie will lose. ROTFLMAO!

    January 20, 2009 -- It's a Beautiful Day!

    by rincewind on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:13:06 AM PDT

  •  Today's 3 sweetest words (6+ / 0-)

    Closing arguments completed.

    "We had a decisive win... and so I don't think there is any question we have a mandate to move the country in a new direction." Barack Obama

    by pollbuster on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:17:05 AM PDT

  •  Rachel Maddow on the phony Coleman hacking story (18+ / 0-)

    Rachel is joined by Adria Richards who found the information sitting on Coleman's website, out in the open for all.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:18:51 AM PDT

  •  At the end of this case (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Esler, llbear, WineRev, blueinmn

    we should all get together, and get someone a very nice big bottle of wine.

    The other side will be sharing a bottle of whine.

    "We had a decisive win... and so I don't think there is any question we have a mandate to move the country in a new direction." Barack Obama

    by pollbuster on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

  •  Friedberg's argument and 'substantial compliance' (8+ / 0-)

    Joe Friedberg was effective in arguing that ballots excluded only because of witness's registration should be included in the count, since in most of Minnesota they were not excluded on election day. I'm not sure how many such ballots were identified, - if there were any they came from Coleman-leaning counties - but unfortunately it doesn't seem that Joe made any effort to qualify them in every other way.

    But - it seems to me - Joe ruined this line of argument by extending it to mismatching signatures. By the same reasoning, he contended, the court should qualify ballots with mismatched signatures by assuming a signature is genuine. Here he contends that after an election judge has exercised a sworn responsibility to compare two signatures and has made the judgment that they are not by the same hand, the ECC should set aside that judgment, not by making the comparison itself but by grossly declaring it to be irrelevant despite the clear law.

    How do election judges know what to do in the next election by this reasoning? In 2008 there was a single standard statewide, and if some election judges (and county officials) ended up applying it in a 'substantial compliance' way, they had no authorization from the legislature to do so.

    Oh, and wouldn't the Coleman camp be having fun if there were a substantial compliance standard? Wouldn't they be railing over the equivalent of the 2/13 ruling which would say which elements of the law could be overlooked and a ballot still qualify? Wouldn't their position be, as it was with Rule 9: How can we know which ballots qualify if we don't know which oval is filled in on the ballot?

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:26:03 AM PDT

    •  Registered witness (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      This is the ONLY requirement that I think the SOS/Legislature should change immediately.  Most states do NOT even require a witness, much less a witness reqistered in home state.

      Next election - either SOS will have to buy lots of computers so every place has quick access to state voter registration rolls, plus training, plus extra staff, so every place checks - or forget about it, like most do now.

      By the by - most of the ballots without a registered witness on Coleman spreadsheet had other errors too.  Even if he won that one, he lost.

      •  It's a legal document. (0+ / 0-)

        Many of the county officials were caught unawares by the date question, because a signature is seldom accepted prima facie, it's only a legal signature when it's dated and witnessed - by a witness who can be subpoenaed, meaning identifiable. These are county clerks who never accept a signature unless executed in front of them (with proper ID) or notarized.

        Can you imagine the state of the trial with a few 'Lizard People' witnesses to deal with?

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:24:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Question: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, llbear, blueinmn

    Has Franken's legal team requested that this court order a certificate of election by the Governor and Secretary of state along with their decision? What's been reported previously is that these two have indicated that they will only issue a certificate of election when ordered by a court to do so...because without that, based on the way the Republicans have been allowed to stall an interim seating of a Senator, it seems they will be allowed to continue stalling until some other court makes such an order.

  •  Brilliant ["the full Ashcroft v natural Greek"] (8+ / 0-)

    I always love reading your Diaries, WineRev - but at the above summarized -

    Your line regarding whether one's imagery of Blind Justice in in

    the "Full Ashcroft" or is in classical "natur[a]l" Greek

    - at that moment I felt compelled to stop reading, mark your diary 'recommend' even before finishing - and add this compliment - before continuing.

    Thanks again for your brilliant and imaginative coverage WR!

    We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

    by puffmeister on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:50:12 AM PDT

  •  Dude. I think you should keep the series going (6+ / 0-)

    EVEN AFTER Franken wins.

    You could just make up shit , that way Coleman would continue to have his say.

    Or, if you felt uncomfortable with THAT, you could go all Reality Show on Norm's ass: You know- coverage including a Youtube vid  of Norm muttering, leaving his house in a bathrobe. Norm shuffling down to the ehnnnd of the driveway, still  muttering, a trail of undetected toilet paper still wraggling behind, still stuck to the bottom of one of his slippers...then it's lump-de-lump baaaack towards the house, Coleman barking out the random profanity, worse on days when Al is in the headlines....LOL.

    Seriously. winerev- Thanks for all the work. :D

    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
    and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Robert Davies on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:13:35 AM PDT

  •  How did it get from 249 to 225? EOM (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, llbear, blueinmn
    •  It's still 225, but there are court orders for 35 (5+ / 0-)

      rejected absentee ballots to be delivered to the Secretary of State to be counted when the court directs. These are 'Nauen petititioners' and have almost certainly been vetted to be all Franken votes.

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:20:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Terrific (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, llbear, WineRev, blueinmn

    reading, per usual. Thanks for your continuing effort on our behalf. Hope to meet up in Pittsburgh.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:20:19 AM PDT

  •  Disagree with ABowers13, somewhat (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, llbear, WineRev, blueinmn

    His paragraph 2 is covered, I think, by the proposals for finding of fact that are already due no later than Tuesday noon (if the deadline has not been moved to Monday).

    After that, the attorneys have no more input and there will be no more court sessions, just an order regarding certain ballots similar to the 'Nauen' order:

    The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under the law.

    with an accompanying order to the Secretary of State to count them.

    I think the court has its spreadsheets very much up to date as to what has been proven and what not and will have the order ready the same day the proposals are presented. I think the delivery of the ballots and their counting will take no more than 48 hours. And during that period, the court will be preparing its decisions regarding the 132 Minneapolis ballots and the alleged 'double-counting'.

    Decision this week, I think!

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

  •  101? Guess you have to make a book (4+ / 0-)

    Suggest the book talk about:

    1. These 10x diaries as background
    1. Problems with voter registration
    1. Problems with voting (incl voting machines)
    1. Problems with vote counting
    1. Recommendations

    Course if you can make it all work within a courtroom drama, it will be a best-seller!

    Well? Shall we go? At least that man is gone.

    by whenwego on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:11:08 AM PDT

    •  See diary 95.0 from last Sunday (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whenwego, llbear

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:37:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many points (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        luvmovies2000, Island, llbear, WineRev

        Firstly, just collecting these diaries and making them available in some format is not going to cut it as a book. You need the drama, the human interest. For example, Mother Jones just interviewed Robert Kaiser on his book about lobbyists:

        Mother Jones: You structure the book around the career of one immensely successful lobbyist, Gerald Cassidy of Cassidy and Associates. Why did you make that decision?

        Robert Kaiser: I'm a storyteller and it's always seemed to me that a good story has a good lead character. When I decided to do this project, I began looking around and I discovered the S-1 that Cassidy had filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission when he proposed to take [Cassidy and Associates] public in 1998.

        In your case, you have to choose between Coleman or Franken, depending on what human interest info you can get on either character. Franken may appear to be the more colorful, but Coleman has had more shenanigans and that would peak reader interest.

        You also have the entire courtroom drama that you have been recording in these diaries. By choosing the dramatic moments in them, you can, IMHO, build a great story line.

        However, the story of Coleman/Franken, though the main story line, can also be filled in with the voting issues of our time.
        And that, in my opinion, would be a bestseller worthy of Barbarians at the Gate.

        Well? Shall we go? At least that man is gone.

        by whenwego on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:30:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  tl;dr (4+ / 0-)

    /snark

    101 entries later, and I'm just amazed. Magnificent, WineRev.

    Your excellent work is certainly expansive and interesting enough for a complete book on the story. If you've not gone to a publisher yet, find one and offer several of these entries as precursory work.

    It's as detailed a work up for a book as any other journalist that covers trials or protracted news events.

    It's so good, it's insurable. Consider, if you've not done so already, publishing. You've already sold several copies from myself alone.

    Mahalo nui loa.

    "Hew out of the mountain of despair A Stone of Hope." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Patch Adam on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:13:04 AM PDT

  •  Excellent Synopsis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Thanks, WineRev.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Thanks once again, WineRev. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, llbear, nathguy

    BTW, I live for similes like this:

    What stinks like an un-tuned chainsaw burning swamp gas is the Coleman side trying to "UN-stipulate"

    Also, enjoyed your "Honkey-Tonk Women" references, although, based on your rant, you obviously have no "Sympathy for the Devil."

    "Obama is just too smart to be stupid." --NYmind

    by Dragon5616 on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

  •  Caffeine and Wine(rev) in the morning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llbear, dotalbon, WineRev

    Who knew this would last long enough to create a "habit"?  Now what'll I do?  Thanks for sticking with it.  And please repost the paypal link (temporarily, like through next weekend, on your profile?). If I can't go to NN, I'd love to hear of the adventure from you.

    •  It goes like this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luvmovies2000, llbear, dotalbon

      You click on winerev just below here, takes you to my winerev page here on kos. Note down my e-mail address.
      Go to paypal dot com and go to the "send a freewill love offering" link and put in my e-mail and an amount with a comma. :-)

      Real easy....... and thank you for your kindness.

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm humming the Jeopardy theme (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, llbear, one voice

    ...and annoying myself. :)

    "Our brighter days are still ahead. But we have to invest in our people again. It will require us to all come together." -Obama

    by Word Alchemy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:48:50 AM PDT

  •  Thanks WineRev (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, count, llbear, RBinDLH, WineRev

    As someone whose first big political moments came from following the 1962 recount between Rolvaag and Anderson, I am glad to see you are another recount junkie.

    This one was MUCH uglier, to be sure.  The campaign was the ugliest in Minnesota history so why wouldn't the recount be just as vile.  But Minnesota law was up to the task.

    All those good government types--you know, the ones who drive everyone crazy at the caucuses--have certainly proven their worth.  So here's to the Joe Manskys who make voting an honor and a pleasure.  Here's to Joan Growe and the rest of the Secretaries of State who have made honest elections routine.

    And BOO, HISS to those fools who have said this would be a re-run of Florida 2000.  This is Minnesota!

    "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." JKG

    by techno on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:56:48 AM PDT

  •  I keep coming back to the irony (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    count, Clem Yeobright, llbear

    that Coleman has had to argue against all the machinery put in place due to imaginary fears of voter fraud.

    I believe that even if all rejected absentees were counted Franken would still win anyway but it is sweet sweet justice that Coleman can't get his cherry picked ballots in because they were kept out by the enforcement of standards that they now argue are unecessary because voters are honest.

  •  Teared up at "...by the people" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    count, llbear

    This expressed the feelings I have had since the stolen election. At least we will KNOW who won in Minnesota. It was the "citizen Minutemen" like WineRev and the band from THEUPTAKE" that quickly assembled to stop yet another invasion from getting off the ground by assuring that every step of the way, the light of day was shining on the process.

    Thank you again and again and again.

  •  i iwish the ECC had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llbear

    acted on the petition to dismiss.

    Instead, they've let it ride.

    i think the tea leaves would have been a lot easier to read
    if they had issued orders on the Dinkytown 133 or the
    "Dupes" issue,

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:36:15 AM PDT

    •  Since the two cases were alive until Thursday (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llbear, dotalbon

      I don't see how they could have issued those orders without all evidence in.

      And granting the Motion to Dismiss would be exactly the wrong thing to do, as Mi Corazon argues persuasively. Sez I.

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:43:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you don't have to grant the entire motion to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, llbear

        dismiss, but had the Dinkytown 133 been put to bed
        early or the Dupes Issue, then we would have had
        a simpler case.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotcha. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          llbear

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:20:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and you know (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, llbear

            the Drooling right wingers are going to
            complain no matter what about "Invisible" ballots
            and the "Duplicate" ballots,  but,
            because Coleman had done so little to prove his
            contention, and that at the end, that issue is more
            one of law then one of fact, it seems the ECC could
            have covered that issue at summary judgement,
            letting the Contest cover Absentee ballots to be entered.

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:09:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think Coleman will win the 132-vote matter (0+ / 0-)

              Precedent is strong that the only ballots that can be counted in a recount are those that exist, unless all ballots in a precinct have been lost, when the previous records become the 'best evidence'.

              Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

              by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:20:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  really? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                this is clearly one where the judges screwed it up
                and the Sec State sure wasn't leaning that way.

                George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                by nathguy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:44:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nor the Attorney-General (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nathguy, henlesloop

                  but this is one the Court gets to decide and there are arguments both ways. That's what a contest is about.

                  Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:26:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dinkytown!! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    How on earth did Dinktown get that name?  Don't you just love it that a MAJOR legal battle is going on over a place called Dinkytown?

                    And what REALLY happened to that envelope?

                    Yesterday Franken's lawyer said that a net 50 some ballots were lost, all over Minnesota, every one for Franken!  What the @#$#$? Conspiracy theories - were are you when we need you?

  •  To be on my wall as a reminder of the "dark ages" (8+ / 0-)

    In one hundred and one diaries, this will be your most enduring paragraph for me:

    THE DARK AGE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    By the narrowest of margins (5-4) a people-loathing, power-grasping regime came to power in the home of a great democracy, our home, our democracy. Wars were started. Dissenters were trampled (the Republican campaigns and National Conventions of '04 and '08) and even murdered under suspicious conditions (Pat Tillman). People were jailed arbitrarily (Padilla) and languish still.

    Senator's offices were biologically attacked. Governors were railroaded out of office and into prison. The Treasury was looted for private gain and our currency debased. Mercenary armies were raised while true soldiers suffered from scaled back medical care and died from inferior equipment. A propaganda behemoth of Goebellian depravity still spouts and spumes acid on the idea that power belongs to anyone other than the few.

    by the winerev
    on DailyKos
    March 14th, 2009

    I salute the good people of Minnesota, who, with their fair and methodical judges, and have demonstrated that democracy is worth fighting for one vote at a time.

    winerev, I am going to print out your words on really good paper, send them to you for an autograph along with a check $100.

    That paragraph is why, 40 years ago, I became a veteran. Many times in the interim I've asked myself why I did that. You and the good people of Minnesota just reminded me. Thank you.

    Sec. Shinseki deserves our best ideas to re-make the VA. Make them practical, affordable, and effective.

    by llbear on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:47:34 AM PDT

    •  (Gulps) Wow. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llbear, henlesloop

      And thank you for 40 years ago in some very hard days.
      (WineRev rises and doffs (DOFFS!) hat to llbear in low sweeping bow!)

      (My e-mail addy is on the winerev page if you click my name below. I'll send you a streeet address.)

      Shalom.... with lump in throat.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:22:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Someone slept in today!! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    prose, llbear, WobegonGal, henlesloop, WineRev

    Winerev, I know you probably think you have an audience as far away as New York, Alabama and California but you actually have readers in the European Union, specifically the United Kingdom.

    You know, its tough for us in the EU to maintain a schedule when you decide to get a little extra sleep.

    Cheers!!

    I am an ex pat lifelong Republican voting for Obama, dual nat member of New Labour, that works in The City.

    by Libertarian Friend on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:56:14 AM PDT

    •  its the down side of "going global" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libertarian Friend, henlesloop

      but sometimes the body DEMANDS.

      I hope up above the joke I posted to britkid from the "Club" and a bit further down the one about bagpipes will make up for the beastly hours and time differential.

      Shalom, pip pip.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:01:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Much Love to you Winerev (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, Clem Yeobright, llbear, WineRev

    from the land of the brave and home of the free here in western Oregon, where our elections are much more boring (by mail) and all our elected officials good progressives.  In this election, we booted the last west coast R senator (Smith--the guy who pretended that Obama endorsed him over Merkley AS IF!).

    I don't know what I'm going to read when this is all over and our politics is soooo boring around here.

    This case will stand in history as a bookend to that rancid bag of crap, Bush v. Gore, closing one of the scariest chapters in American history.  Now if we can just get on prosecuting all these criminals.  I think we all got a taste of how long and difficult this road will be, even though the evidence is equally clear and most of the lawyers will be the same if we can just get the ball rolling.

    Looking forward to Lillehaug v. Friedberg, the Grudge Match during US v. Bush Administration War Criminals, covered in detail, hopefully, by none other than our magnificent Winerev.  

    •  When it comes to prosecuting (8+ / 0-)

      I know Obama wants to "turn to the future" and I understand. The proto-fascists actually agree with him because THEY don't want anyone looking closely at the last 8 years either.

      But when it comes to going after the WHOLE Reichwing apparatus: Blackwater, Halliburton, Murdoch News Empire, Clear Channel, every last rat bastard who met with Cheney in that "energy task force" meeting in 2001 and their companies, the Carlyle Group (yeah you too Poppy Bush!), Scaife, Coors, Focus in the Family, as well as ALL the players (Cheney, Rummy, W, Addington, Feith, Yoo, Gonzales, Rove, Delay, Lott (Yeah you!),
      .... well, we could go on a while

      ...this needs to be like 1945-1949 Germany: de-Nazifying the whole country, entire swaths of foundations and think tanks and interlocking syndicates, root and branch fumigation to the LAST Monica Goodling!!

      And if you don't like the German reference, fine.
      I've reached back to the American Revolution lately in these diaries, but for this campaign against the Reichwing I'm ready to raise the ghost of my fellow Ohioan William Tecumseh Sherman.
      I want 60,000 "bummers" cutting a 60 mile wide, 200 mile long swath through the "Georgia" of the Reichwing...... and after that I want them to leave their good behavior behind them, turn into the "South Carolina" of these democracy despising arrogant SWINE and treat them like Columbia!

      What keeps springing to mind as to what needs to happen to these liberty-hating, pestilent, pus-leaking lummoxes is that image of when Sherman's men reached North Carolina. They went back on good behavior and the area they were in was sparsely populated. But the men had the habit of burning things and they decided to try out their sulphur matches on the pines along the road (the ones with sap competing with bark for a covering?)
         The effect was spectacular, a road lined by fire and 60 foot flames. Civilians who saw it were terrified as first smoke, then fire drew near and then out of the inferno the sound of 60,000 hearty male voices booming out "John Brown's Body lies a-moulderin' in his grave".

      These American bastards deserve nothing less than scorched earth.

      WineRev has spoken.

      Oh.... and shalom. Have a nice day.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:42:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bet on it. Appeals and Federal Actions Coming. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luvmovies2000, Clem Yeobright, llbear

    Coleman's Legal team will appeal this to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Next, It will file a Federal Action seeking to overturn Franken's 200 vote advantage.  Remember, the Federal Courts are stacked with wingnut Judges.

  •  Thanks for all your good work, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ky DEM, llbear, lenzy1000

    WineRev. It's been quite the ride. Looking forward to Senator Franken at some point this calendar year, and may it be soon — we need him.

    Book excerpts: nonlynnear; other writings: mofembot.

    by mofembot on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:49:52 AM PDT

  •  How much does all this cost? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llbear

    Disregarding the costs of the judges, the court facilities and time, etc... How much does something like this cost to pursue in court?  How many billable hours for the attorneys involved on both sides?

    And politics in this country is a worthy calling.  It's about honesty and our values as a people.  Sure it is.

  •  Just watched CNN update on Franken/Coleman... (4+ / 0-)

    Can't these networks get someone on who knows what's happening?  Like, for instance, WineRev, or so many who have commented so astutely here.

    Their correspondant went on and on about how Coleman could not only take this to the MNSC but right on up to the US SC, thereby delaying the trial for months more!  This is greeted by oh my gosh sort of facial ticks and utterances from clueless anchor.

    I've seen it on MNSBC too.  Are these not national networks?  Do they not have any reporters on the gound, anywhere?

    Not that I expect them to follow this trial like we have, but at least enough to know the basics--- that Franken is widely presumed to win this thing and that he will be seated after the appeal to the MNSC, as indicated by the court itself.

    When it comes to politics, there is no news---only opinions aired to gin up a horse race.

  •  damn, just great WineRev n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  WineRev, you are PFA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    henlesloop, mniowan

    (pretty frakkin amazing) to have kept this up so faithfully since election day.

    when this is over I hope you get appropriate recognition from Senator Franken!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    President Barack Obama. At last.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:06:03 PM PDT

  •  Sack was absolutely hilarious today (5+ / 0-)

    Norm is obstructing
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  I've got a little list.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Clem Yeobright and I had an ongoing debate over whether the Court would order lists from the lawyers or would maintain their own and just add data in. (I am SURE none of you care one whit who is right.)

    However the issue is now moot because whether the Court ordered it or not, both Franken and Coleman have produced the lists I predicted. (If the Court HAS a master list, it would have names of possible voter's ballots, plus information from witnesses and Nouen.  But it would NOT be very complete since Franken did not even produce his list until Friday afternoon and Colemnan is STILL tinkering with his.  Late to the last.

    So how do the lists break down?

    1.  Franken's list is a thing of beauty and a joy forever.  It also contains ONLY 252 names!  However each name is accompanied by a column citing the necessary requirement and even a cite to the exhibit.  So if column C notes that there IS a ballot application, then it also notes the number of the exhibit of the photocopy of the application.  And the column for voter registration notes the SVRS number for the registration, etc.  He also notes if a witness testified, whether in court or by affadavit, and on what date.  It is all cross-tabbed and can be sorted, printed, e-mailed, turned into an electronic airplane...Whoops. Made that up.
    1.  Coleman also came in with a list.  And it is about what you would expect from a man who did NOT know that a spreadsheet has numbered rows!  Maybe someone could tell him that it also has lettered columns - or maybe not.  Anyway, he stuck to his guns and his list has 1,300+ names and almost none of the required proof of voter eligibility.  In court, he said that absence of proof is not proof of absence and it was unfair to expect him to provide proof for every requirement.  The Court should just ASS U ME that the voter was honest and meant well. And if Franken's spreadsheet made him look like he didn't know much about election law, well he didn't.

    Even if Coleman could win that argument on something like mismatched signatures (and he can't) what on earth was he thinking to leave hundreds on names of voters who were NOT registered?  Does he really think the Court is going to allow a ballot to be counted from an unregistered voter.  Jeez.  The only thing I can think is that finding only 89 registration cards was a real killer for him and they did not have time to do the required delete.  (Not that it is hard in a spreadsheet where you sort by the column with unregistered voters and delete the bulk of rows.)

    1. So how many do both Franken and Coleman agree on by Friday?  Six.  Yep. Six.  Franken said that only 6 ballots on Coleman's list met ALL requirements and could prove it.  

    Of courst Coleman did NOT challenge any of the ones on Franken's list yet and not sure if he still could. So if they go unchallenged, then we have 252 +6 = 258 on the list to send to SOS. Plus 47 already on their way from Nouen = 299. That's it kossacks. 12,000 ballots, 7 weeks, and 299 is final result. Never have so many, labored so long, for so little.

    Clem Yeobright also seems to think that the Court will NOT just take list 3 at face value but will want to verify ballots for themselves.  Sounds good to me.  But if they actually go through each ballot and each exhibit of proof for that ballot, then they certainly will be checking 258 ballots X 3 minutes per ballot = a couple days work.

    And the Court may not just reject, out of hand, Franken's claim that all but 6 of Coleman's are good.  Although they could make life easier by checking the challenge first rather than looking at the whole thing.  So if Franken said there is no photocopy of an application, then check - is there a photocopy of an application?  No then no.  This will also be a test as to how well organized the Coleman boxes of evidence are - 1,300 ballots means a LOT more paper to go through. More than 3 times what Franken had. Sounds like a job for some law clerks to me.

    In summary - I predict there will definitely be at least 290 ballots opened.  Since Nouen still has a few to add and Coleman may get some more in, but Court may throw a few out, 290 is the floor.

    And with Franken's pile down from 800-900 to 252, I suspect some serious cherry-pickin went on.  So I think that Franken can add as many as 200 to his total and end up with a 425 vote lead.

    Winerev - I liked your article today about the last 8 years so much I almost cried.  You are the man.

    •  Agree, mostly (0+ / 0-)

      But

      Clem Yeobright also seems to think that the Court will NOT just take list 3 at face value but will want to verify ballots for themselves.  Sounds good to me.  But if they actually go through each ballot and each exhibit of proof for that ballot, then they certainly will be checking 258 ballots X 3 minutes per ballot = a couple days work.

      All that work is being done - has been done - by court staff, and I can't imagine any of the judges looking at a single photocopy of a ballot application or envelope or SoS DB printout. 258 x 0 time = (let me get my calculator ...) dinner with the family and 100 pages of a good book before bed!

      And

      Since Nouen still has a few to add and Coleman may get some more in, but Court may throw a few out, 290 is the floor.

      The cases are closed and the exhibits are in and the exhibits are catalogued.

      And

      So how many do both Franken and Coleman agree on by Friday?  Six.

      Nope. Friedberg acknowledged in his closing that all the Franken ballots should be qualified. They agree on ~258.

      Finally: of course there was cherry-picking, that is what an election contest is about. Had these four ballots been counted for me - as is obvious - instead of him, and had these 6 double-marked ballots not been counted for him, and had these 21 rejected ballots been counted as they should have, then instead of losing by 25 I would have won by 10. Except it wasn't 25 in this case, it was 225 ...

      We're back to the question of 'commission or adversary process' that has been extant since this began. The court has come down heavy for the latter, based on a decision in the days before 2/13, I expect. For three weeks, they had drifted and circled about but on that day they set sail and tied the rudder and it's been a thing of beauty ever since.

      Decision by Friday! Sez I.

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:12:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for careful read (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        I realized after I wrote it that I was not clear about how many ballots were agreed to by both parties.  I noted that Coleman did NOT challenge any of Franken's 252, but I was not sure how much time Coleman had to challenge since Franken did not seem to show his spreadsheet before Friday. Franken's lawyer was very coy at the Thursday press conference.  When he was asked how many ballots he was going to submit, he said they were still adjusting their spreadsheet and would not even give a ball park number. Of course, if I were Coleman, I would not waste my time trying to challenge Franken either.

        There were a few more ballots entered by Nouen Thursday morning, maybe four, that I don't think have been ruled on yet.  I could be wrong.

        As I noted in the end - all of Frankens and 6 of Coleman are probably going into the open/count pile.

        As to whose hot little hands will paw through the evidence, it seems it MUST be law clerks with the Coleman garbage dump.  But who do you think examined and decided on the Nouen group?  That would tell whether the judges are actively reviewing or just rubber stamping.

        Either way, I agree - decision no later than Friday.

        •  You're right on the Friday Nauens. My bad. (0+ / 0-)

          Notice that the two Nauen orders to date look like Excel tables embedded in a Word document. There were many ways to format the order; Nauen's motions did not look like this. They were practice runs, I think.

          Meanwhile, if you recall, the guy Rock presented a spreadsheet at the Motion to Dismiss arguments rationalizing the data-dump. It's not the court's responsibility to organize the litigant's data for him. If he thinks he has proven something, it's up to him to cite the specific exhibit that supports his claim.

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:05:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thursday Nauens. Bad AGAIN! LOL (0+ / 0-)

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:08:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Word table? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            Probably an embedded Excel spreadsheet.  Just because Friedberg is a Ludite does not mean the judges are - and certainly young law clerks are NOT.

            But it could also easily be a Word Table...

            Only you and I care.

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              I don't use Word much at all, but I c&p pivot tables into e-mail several times a week, which made me think 'table' when I may have meant 'spreadsheet'.

              Can't get anything past you! LOL

              Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

              by Clem Yeobright on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:24:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

N in Seattle, RakDaddy, Mo, JWC, buffalo soldier, coral, Jay, fcvaguy, True North, BrooklynJohnny, ogre, gogol, TrueBlueMajority, Unstable Isotope, nicolemm, BigOkie, mattman, PeterHug, RunawayRose, Emerson, dengre, DDinIND, rincewind, Eman, redlief, donna in evanston, ericy, shayera, GayHillbilly, celdd, eeff, Mnemosyne, freelunch, acuppajo, Semblance, MMinNY, Heart of the Rockies, Noah Jenda, sardonyx, raines, landrew, nyceve, understandinglife, whenwego, CoolOnion, jparrott, khloemi, Fatherflot, javelina, someRaven, peraspera, librarianman, andreww, JimDev, pat bunny, wdrath, eartha, count, Matt Esler, Wife of Bath, homogenius, furi kuri, Julie Gulden, luvmovies2000, cantwait08, radarlady, Lefty the playwright, Robin7459, citizenx, Clem Yeobright, Grep Agni, pandawoman, nwsound, bjedward, newtonsthird, techno, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, wiscmass, Gottayo, Brian B, murasaki, Land of Enchantment, und83, Shirl In Idaho, danmac, RustyBrown, Robert Davies, seefleur, martyc35, ccmask, MTmofo, carolita, goodasgold, tecampbell, Lashe, gooderservice, bleeding heart, ER Doc, BarbaraB, MBNYC, llbear, IL clb, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, ohiojack, lynneinfla, NonnyO, AmericanRiverCanyon, Sapere aude, BeninSC, ibonewits, Ken in MN, dogdad, crodri, Allogenes, edsbrooklyn, yowsta, Jimdotz, drchelo, twinpeaks, TerribleTom, Seneca Doane, jnhobbs, Moderation, gchaucer2, JML9999, homerun, sable, vet, on the cusp, LynneK, Empower Ink, chicago minx, Send Rahm a Cheesecake, jgilhousen, JDWolverton, Dem in the heart of Texas, ratador, Youffraita, Steve PB, binkaroni, OutCarolineStreet, Judeling, mikeconwell, Lujane, rssrai, royce, Quicksilver2723, mofembot, Pogyak, iowa67, Piren, Uncle Bob, lenzy1000, HoosierDeb, cactusflinthead, lgcap, lostboyjim, Fiddlegirl, maggiejean, multilee, Ran3dy, emboyo, Physics Student, cantelow, velvet blasphemy, Hugo101, earicicle, Ned Rifle, Patch Adam, IndyRobin, WobegonGal, EquationDoc, DefendOurConstitution, followyourbliss, Alise, obscuresportsquarterly, IreGyre, XNeeOhCon, stevenwag, 57andFemale, ravenlore, Dragon5616, JDog42, davespicer, Bodyguard, jpmassar, SweetMartha, Larsstephens, Engaged Voter, Just Bob, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Bull Schmitt, henlesloop, mudmanor, happyinfla10, RBinDLH, robertacker13, Observerinvancouver, wvmom, Man from Wasichustan, ATFILLINOIS, puffmeister, Eddie L, shenderson, ItsSimpleSimon, Puddytat, addisnana, ericlewis0, Loose Fur, cocinero, tenar, Jack Pine Savage, jeanma, nampa45, bgblcklab1, StellaRay, AtomikNY, MiscellanyMan, kevin k, page394, blueinmn, 4JenTandT, Oregon Progressive Dem, zukesgirl64, Britkid, badscience, mniowan, alswearingen, MRA NY, IL JimP, beastiemom, Nola Sue, one voice

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site