Franken leads +225 (+21 and +14 of the "Nauen61" the Elections Contest Court has ordered into the "Ready to Count" pile at the the Secretary of State's office; all these voters have indicated they voted for Franken)= +260.
No orders or decisions from the Elections Contest Court as of this morning.
Mostly coffee chatter over your breakfast just past the Orange fold....
Talk Radio with ...Joe Friedberg?
On Wednesday KFAN radio here in town took a time out from all things basketball and all things sport and had an interview with Joe Friedberg, Norm Coleman's lead attorney. (On the other hand maybe it was still sports, changing over to boxing?)
The heart of the conversation was this:
ROSENBAUM: Joe, are you done?
FRIEDBERG: Yes (laughing), I’m done.
ROSENBAUM: Let me ask you in a different way. Is Norm done?
FRIEDBERG: Well, I think that we’ve been trying this case with the appeal record in mind, and that’s where we’re going, and it’s going to be a very quick appeal, and then I’ll know whether or not it worked.
ROSENBAUM: Well, when you say quick appeal, are you confident that you are going to lose the case in front of the three-judge panel? By losing the case, I mean Norm ends up with less votes.
FRIEDBERG: I think that’s probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more. But our whole argument was a Constitutional argument, and it’s an argument suitable for the Minnesota Supreme Court, not for the trial court. So we’ll see whether we were right or not.
That is Coleman lead attorney Friedberg admitting a) Franken is ahead and will likely be ahead-er b) they were playing for an appeal all along.
Now how can you tell a political campaign/legal case has said something smelly? They issue a CLARIFICATION! ("What the President really MEANT to say was...."the mantra of the last 8 years)
On Friday, Friedberg issued a statement of "clarification" stressing that he believes Coleman's legal strategy has merit.
"I feel confident that if the court proceeds with wisdom and with decisions based on the facts, and on the law, that we will succeed in our case," Friedberg said in the statement.
People who know Joe Friedberg say that "aw shucks" folksiness is genuine and that he is a really likable fellow. So could this interview and clarification be an assertion of that? Could it also be Joe distancing himself from the smell of the Coleman Legal Team dairy barn where all the livestock has the farts? Recall Joe was quick to his feet to distance himself from the rest in the Pam Howell lack of discovery fiasco. The Court agreed and was careful to swing the sanction club PAST Friedberg onto the rest (but close enough Joe could feel the breeze.)
I wonder if this could also be an indicator that when this goes to appeal Friedberg will NOT be arguing it. After all the appeal is a rather different hearing. 5 MN Supreme Court justices in a half circle taking no guff off nobody and sharper than hell themselves.
(Back in December they heard a Motion argued by Roger Magnuson for Team Norm. Magnuson hasn't been heard from since but he was on the Bush 2000 legal gang along with Ben Ginsberg. About 2 lines in Magnuson invoked Florida. Assoc. Justice Paul Anderson right there said, "This is NOT Florida" with a look that boiled the varnish on Magnuson's podium. Sort of like finding out early on, "May it please the court?" "It may or may not...").
You have to be very sharp and quite nimble and I'm not sure Joe Friedberg fits the bill.
Rampant Speculation: What We do Best at KOS
Yesterday in the comment string was a nice set of questions to ponder. While we wait for news from the ECC, what do you think?
Beyond The ECC (2+ / 0-)
Not much discussion about what happens after the ECC judges come out of their self-imposed isolation and issue their rulings, so I thought I would get it started here with a few questions tossed out into the ether for anyone who wants to gaze into their crystal ball and predict the Senatorial future:
1. Will Coleman appeal (or if you want me to be non-partisan here, will Franken appeal)?
2. Will the ECC instruct Governor Pawlenty to issue a certificate to the winner, or will they simply declare who had the most votes?
3. What courts, State and/or Federal, could appeals wind their way through (up through SCOTUS?), and what sort of time frames are we talking about?
4. Will Governor Pawlenty issue the necessary certificate to the "winner" based on the ECC findings, or will he hold out until all appeals are exhausted?
5. If Pawlenty refuses to issue the certificate based on the ECC ruling and declares he will wait until all appeals are exhausted, how many days (or hours) will it take before Minnesotans march on the Capitol with pitch folks and torches demanding they be given a second Senator?
Inquiring minds (of political junkies) want to know!
by Doctor Who
For myself:
1. I think the loser appeals (and if this is AL I will be in serious doubt about the sanity of the legal system.) Appeal is straight to the MN Supreme Court and must be filed in 10 days or the ECC decision is FINAL. If filed then the trial records have 15 days max to get to the Supremes (so they can read up on it).
Apparently loser has to post a bond equal to at least costs incurred so far. Can Team Norm afford this?
The Supremes do NOT need to take the case. They could indeed say "refuse to hear"--as in, nothing to see here, the ECC did the job, done. I think they will take it, but its an option.
2. ECC will pronounce who has the most votes. When the MN Supreme Court denied Franken's request for an Election Certificate they used some language that left the door open to the Certificate being issued at THIS point, BEFORE an appeal to the Supremes.
Majority leader Harry Reid last Friday used the phrase "respect the decision of the 3 judge panel"-- again ignoring the appeal route (or at least not mentioning it.) Does this hint the Senate (Democrats) might consider an ECC decision good enough for them?
3. I think the federal courts will wait until the end of any state appeals. THEN EITHER the loser files in federal district court, OR, if the MN Supreme Court took the appeal and ruled--I believe such a state supreme court ruling CAN go directly to the US Supremes. But the pressure on Sec. of State Ritchie and Gov. Pawlenty to issue a certificate to the winner of the court cases in MN would be immense. If they would, or if the Senate seats AL on the strength of the rulings apart from a certificate, no federal court, even the Supremes, will touch it, on the basis of Article 1 of the US Constitution.
4. Pawlenty has been carefully ambiguous in his wording that I've seen (like any politician.) He didn't sign a certificate when Franken was certified the count leader because Coleman filed for an ECC. Right move by the Gov and an easy call. (May have accounted for Norm filing as soon as he could to forestall anything else.)
He has said he will wait for the appeals to run their course BUT he has been notably silent on whether he means STATE appeals or FEDERAL appeals. State appeals he can sit tight and proper. But after the MN Supremes would rule he really has to make a call. He might hold out for a little until Franken files for a writ of mandamus from the court FORCING him to sign. That way he could go to the Reichving pleading, "Those damn liberal activist judges MADE me sign...." Personally I don't think he'll wait that long. He'll sign after the MN Supremes rule.
Nothing in the news media to report. I have an breakfast appointment at 8:00 so I'll need to leave in a bit, but i hope this will hold you.
WARNING: If there is no news there may well be no diary tomorrow. you have been warned.
Thats the latest from yust Southeast of Lake Wobegon.
Shalom.