Coleman Campaign Reaffirms That They Will Challenge Franken's Win In Court
A follow-up to tonight's completion of the recount in Minnesota, which has apparently made a victory by Al Franken a foregone conclusion: In a brief press conference, Norm Coleman's campaign lawyers reaffirmed that they will challenge the result in court.
Coleman's lead lawyer Fritz Knaak said the process in the recount was broken, and today's events were just further proof of that. "We are prepared to go forward and take whatever legal action is necessary to remedy this artificial lead," said Knaak.
So what does this mean? Minnesota law is unique in that it prohibits the issuing of an official certificate of election until the legal challenges are all resolved. Unless Coleman backs down and concedes defeat, he could bottle up a Franken win for weeks or even months, depending on how appeals go -- even though it appears to be nearly impossible that he could ever succeed.
And since the Senate Republican leadership has promised to block the seating of Al Franken on any provisional basis, that means this seat could stay vacant for a while.
Petty. No other word for the Coleman campaign and the Senate republicans.
January 3, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't know. Childish, petulant, delusional, contemptible, repellent, malevolent, dishonest, juvenile, bellicose - any of those work for you?
January 4, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure there is: Republican.
January 4, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about SORE LOSER? (Kerry's bane)
January 6, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of a few more words, SpiderPig.
Corrupt, cowardly, dishonest, and anti-American.
That's for starters.
~
January 3, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could I forget: WATB!
(Whiney Ass Titty Baby)
~
January 3, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint or even a middle-distance race.
We're going to win. All they can do is delay the inevitable. When Franken gets in, he has the option of (and the perfect excuse for) making Senate Republicans miserable.
He won't do that, of course. But it will a lot of fun watching him make some of them squirm a little.
January 3, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't sweat it, peeps. If it drags out much after Jan. 20, the Senate will just pull it from the courts and assert plenary jurisdiction.
I figure both Franken and Burris will be seated on the same day around January 23rd.
January 3, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think that the only people who are more pissed off about a Franken win than Norm Coleman are the Democratic leaders in the Senate. As long as there is any posssibility of a Coleman reversal of Franken's win the courts, the Dems will stand tall with their Republican brethren and refuse to seat him.
January 3, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Splain yourself...
January 4, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
... Rush Limbaugh and his listeners.
January 4, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really that stupid?
January 4, 2009 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point to any statement on behalf of Franken by a prominent Dem, or go fuck yourself. Better yet, go fuck yourself anyway.
January 4, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really are that stupid. Thanks for the evidence.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
January 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you can't respond to the substance of my comments, asshole. Just look at the comments in the post about Charles Schumer's statement in support of Franken being seated - they all express surprise at a Democrat finally speaking up.
You may be a grouch, but you are also a prick. Eat shit and die, moron.
January 4, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you six ways in your empty shitpot brain. You offered no substance and you know it.
Fuck off and die a miserable death, in the sight of your grieving family.
See, I can dish it out too, loser. And better than you could ever dream of doing.
Now go home and cry like the child you are.
January 4, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least my family will grieve at my death. I'm sure yours will rejoice.
January 4, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/schumer_franken_has_won_senate.php
January 4, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what your point is with the link, but I mentioned the Schumer post in an earlier comment.
And, given the fact the majority of commenters there expressed surprise that a prominent Democrat finally spoke up on Franken's behalf, it seems pretty clear that I am not the only one who felt the Democratic leadership was less than enthusiastic about a Franken win.
I don't know why you all feel it is so important to defend Harry Reid here. And, again, if you can point to anyone in the Democratic leadership fighting for Al prior to Schumer's statement (after Franken has fought and won on his own), I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't think you can.
And the level of vitriol was totally unwarranted. Expect to be flamed anytime you say something I disagree with in the future.
January 4, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to wonder how much money Norm and more importantly his supporters will want to pour down the drain just to be a sore loser.
They all know its over and he knows he will need all the money he can hold onto to pay his criminal defense attorneys. I read last week about complaints from some of his supporters who found out their contributions they thought were going to the recount effort were instead going to his criminal attorneys. They weren't very happy.
It's quite a dilemma. Poor Norm.
January 3, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, we have two standards of behavior:
One, in which Democrats Al Gore concedes in Florida and John Kerry elects not to contest the Ohio outcome, and another in which Republican Norm Coleman contest his loss to the bitter and logical end, and likely whines post-outcome that he has been cheated.
Class act, for sure.
January 3, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before and I'll say it again. As much as the Democratic Party pisses me off some- make that most- of the time, Republican = shit. I have no more time for the mythical "good Republicans". When the chips are down this is how every last fucking one of them behaves. And they can all bite me.
January 3, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely, Steve. At the end of the day, Republicans will show their colors, and they're ugly. I've said for decades that people become GOP for a reason; it's who they are. And I hate the bastards.
January 4, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree. I think there are sore and gracious losers on both sides.
Slade Gorton (2000), Dino Rossi (2004), and George "Macaca" Allen (2006) all did not challenge the results of their close election. [I grew up in NoVa, was a teenager when George Allen was Governor, and I believe there was no Virginia Governor worse than Allen. I voted for Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, and was ecstatic when Webb unseated Allen.] Because Dino Rossi did not prolong his election challenges, he maintained his future political viability. Had George Allen, big of an a$$hole as he is, not uttered his famous racial slur, he, too, would have been more politically viable. Had it not been for his age, Slade Gorton would have been politically viable to run for another statewide office.
On the Democratic side, Christine Jennings certainly was a sore loser for challenging the election results for nearly two years (not that I like Vern Buchanan), significantly damaged her future political viability, she paid dearly for it in her rematch.
Also, there is only one governor and one President while there are 100 U.S. Senators and 435 (or 438) U.S. House Representatives. It's a lot easier politically to challenge when you are one of many than when you are one of one (Governor or President). At the some point, Minnesota, however, will need two full-time Senators to respond to constituent services, and it will be politically untenable for Republicans to block seating Franken. I don't think a politically astute politician like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who ultimately has the political responsibility for managing the Senate election and is running for reelection himself in two years, wants to lose reelection over not having two Minnesota Senators for two years.
January 4, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful comment! Yes, a reputation as a 'sore loser' taints a candidate deeply, and risks tainting his entire party. Pawlenty and the Minnesota party may not be entirely ecstatic about Norm's grasping at legal straws, even if the national party and national senatorial committee love it. Minnesota's not South Carolina, and obvious delaying and sore loserdom could (and should) do the Minnesota Repubs lasting damage.
Also, the Minnesota Supreme Court has been good about responding to the endless Coleman suits very quickly. They might well respond to Norm's last gasp in days. The question then is whether a Federal court would accept a petition to review, which is frankly not very likely, and would also happen reasonably quickly, I suspect. The Federal courts (despite the SCOTUS intervention in 2000) is NOT very interested in getting drawn into every close state election, I'd venture.
As a legal question: would a petition for Federal review even be relevant for certification of the result under Minnesota law? When Minnesota law says "all legal challenges", does that apply to the state, or also to the Federal level?
January 4, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman has been out-worked, out-recounted and out-lawyered by Franken. The MN officials have been very, very careful about this entire process. They know that this is all stalling tactics from Coleman. Considering how quickly the MNSC has dealt with the court challenges, I think the legal challenges will be resolved by the end of the month.
Can you say "Senator Franken, boys and girls?"
January 3, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I apologize to Senator-elect Franken for doubting the wisdom of his tactics. Clearly, he knew what he was doing and I was the idiot.
January 3, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. This has been the most thorough, diligent, and transparent recount in my memory. Kudos to Mark Ritchie and the election officials who carried this out under heavy pressure, and congratulations to them for bringing an extra dose of sunlight to the process.
January 4, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a Minnesotan who gets tired of my state being ragged on for the recount supposedly taking forever and being chaotic, thank you for acknowledging that. Ritchie deserves credit, but there was a long-serving DFL secretary of state who set up most of our process, DFL legislators (often with some Republican cooperation I have to admit) who set up these transparent rules, and a lot of election rights activists who opposed the efforts of Ritchie's Republican predecessor to screw up our elections.
January 4, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT:
I always laughed at the DFL moniker. In yacht racing the scoring is tagged using TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) such as OCS (On Course Side - over the starting line early), DSQ (DiSQualified), DNS (Did Not Start), DNF (Did Not Finish), etc. The most popular unofficial one of these reflects the worst possible finish position : DFL (Dead F*&^g Last).
A great acronym for a political party I should think :-)
January 4, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fool. Even if he wins in court, he loses the election and Franken goes to Congress. What is to be gained by this? Coleman (and the RNC) should accept the inevitable. As they would say under circumstances that favored them: "Time to move on!"
January 4, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Coleman, I would be more concerned with possible federal charges vis a vis corruption.
He will need a lot of bucks to fight his wifes payments from his pals,
January 4, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm struck by the swing in votes and how it's almost a mirror image. After the election
Coleman with a 215 vote lead: "Franken should not call for a recount. It's divisive."
After the recount
Coleman behind by 225 votes: "We will contest ad nauseam. The process is broken."
January 4, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know Coleman said that about not calling for a recount, but did Franken in fact ask for it? I understand he didn't concede, but state law called for the recount IIRC, not Franken.
January 4, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In point of fact, Franken's response was terse (and I paraphrase here but I think I'm pretty darned close):
Okay, perhaps he was only thinking that last word.
And even concession is not an issue. Even if Franken had conceded, the recount would have gone forward. The relevant law says nothing about calling off the recount if one of the leaders concedes.
January 4, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In point of fact, Franken's response was terse (and I paraphrase here but I think I'm pretty darned close):
Okay, perhaps he was only thinking that last word.
And even concession is not an issue. Even if Franken had conceded, the recount would have gone forward. The relevant law says nothing about calling off the recount if one of the leaders concedes.
January 4, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course coleman will continue on to court challenges, displaying the same concern for unnecessary expense and delays for his "constituents" from the great state of Minnesota, that he mouthed when he was recommending to Franken that Al step aside and accept coleman's initial claims of winning.
January 4, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it is only 225 votes out of millions cast. Also, minnesota has the intent of the voter issue, which is subject to interpretation, so I personally don't see why coleman should concede. He has a right to his day in court and this is a democracy after all. Everyone was beating the drums about the stand up comedian taking it all the way when he was 200 behind. At the end of the day the courts probably won't overturn the election board in any event, but coleman has the right to do what he is doing. The stand up will be senator soon at this point. I hope that he does a good job and gets reelected in any event, even though I am not a fan.
January 4, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Michael, who says "Everyone was beating the drums about the stand up comedian taking it all the way when he was 200 behind."
Um, Michael: everyone said that Franken had no obligation to conceded preemptively as the Colemanites were saying he should. Most progressive/liberal websites simply said Franken should let the recount, mandated by state law, proceed. That's the 'taking it all the way' you're referring to.
Now, the recount has been carried out with extraordinary care and attention to detail, under constant view of both campaigns and the public, and with every potential issue taken almost immediately to the highest possible authority (usually the MNSC).
And we have a result. Franken got more votes than Coleman. "This is a democracy, after all."
January 4, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words:
Nuclear Option
January 4, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been living in Minneapolis since 1983. I watched this carpet-bagging asshole roll in from Chicago and buy the St. Paul mayor's office. I danced with glee when he blew the governor's race and lost to Ventura. Yep, I was on the "Anybody but Norm" campaign.
I was devastated when we lost Paul. Horrified when Norm took the election.
This is GREAT NEWS FOR MINNESOTA.
Unfortunately, it's bad news for the rest of the country. You other 49 better watch out. He'll be moving your way just after he deals with his legal entanglements. My money's on Alaska. I hear there's going to be a vacancy in the governor's mansion. Norm meets all the qualifications (corrupt, selfish, liar, great wardrobe bought by others).
Goodbye Caribou Barbie! Hello Caribou Ken!
January 4, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty funny comment in Garrison Keillor's column today on Franken's effort.
January 4, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big Bad John's not going to let Franken take his seat
The lawsuit is intended to deny Obama one more yes vote on cloture for as long as possible
January 4, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear option. It's time to get rid of the undemocratic filibuster once and for all. When's the last time Democrats used it effectively to block anything significant when the Thugs were in power? So what is there to lose?
January 4, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response is when have you ever seen lawyers go to the microphone and say:
Coleman's lead lawyer Fritz Knaak said the process in the recount was [actually quite fair and transparent instead of] broken, and today's events were just further proof of that. "We are prepared to go forward and take whatever legal action is necessary to [spend multitudes of other people's money available to us as a stalling maneuver as our client simply cannot emotionally come to terms with the inevitable outcome instead uttering] remedy this artificial lead,"
January 4, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink