Coleman Lawyer: This Case Is About My (Lousy) Witness
Now this is odd. At a briefing with reporters just now, Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg said that the Coleman case is not about complicated legal language or doctrines, but is instead about voters like Gerald Anderson and Wesley Briest, who were brought in yesterday to talk about how their ballots are still not counted.
Gerald Anderson sure seems compelling. He's a septuagenarian who says his signature on the ballot envelope didn't look right because he is now too blind to fill things out perfectly. But Briest is one of the two clear problem witnesses they brought in yesterday.
Briest's testimony went as thus: He initially said that he voted at the polls, and not by absentee. Then a Coleman lawyer showed Briest his absentee ballot envelope, and reminded him that he did not go to the polls, too. Upon cross-examination by Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton, Briest admitted that his wife didn't fully complete the witness section of the absentee ballot, regardless of the confusion over whether he showed up at the polls or not.
It could have been worse. Ginsberg could have mentioned Douglas Thompson, the friendly Coleman witness who wants his ballot to be counted even though he obtained it through his girlfriend forging his signature.
(Special thanks to The Uptake for carrying the presser.)
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
As I left the court room today I noticed the Coleman legal team left an envelope on a bench just outside the door. It was labeled "Case Strategy."
I opened it and found the children's book: That's Good! That's Bad! It's a story about a little boy having a series of adventures and misadventures with a bunch of wild animals.
Here's what Publisher's Weekly had to say about it:
At the zoo a boy is lifted into the sky by his balloon. ``Oh, that's good. No, that's bad! ''--because the balloon pops when it hits a tree deep in the jungle. ``Oh, that's bad. No, that's good! ''--because the wide-eyed lad falls into a river and climbs onto a hippo, who takes him to shore. Thus incidents that appear to be positive turn out to be negative (and vice-versa) as the child confronts an extremely colorful bevy of animals, including baboons who chase him up a tree, a hissing snake whom he mistakes for a vine, a kindly elephant who pulls him out of quicksand and a stork who flies him back to the zoo, into the arms of his parents. This fanciful tale is energized by exclamations (``WHEEEE!''; ``WHOOPS!''; ``GLUG! GLUG!'') that beg to be read aloud. The witty cartoons paint the jungle in a humorous light and hilariously depict the boy's alternating terror and relief. And that's good ! Ages 4-7.
Watch these guys closely. If I read their strategy right, the Supreme Court is going to scoop up Little Norm and deliver him safely back to his Mommy.
January 28, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
hilarious!
January 28, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure this voter fraud regarding the girlfriend signing for her boyfriend is not fraud at all.
Unless she did it against his will, I believe she was acting as his agent and as such, fully authorized to sign for him.
I'd have to research MN law - and probably election law - to know for sure, but I am certain that in many contexts, it is legal for one to have an agent act for them - including having their agent sign for them.
January 28, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful. I made similar comments on an earlier post and got all but called a fascist.
The MN Election law might require an original signature (or affidavit of incapacity for someone who can't physically sign), in which case the application was invalid, and the absentee vote shouldn't count. But that doesn't make this fraud. Fruad usually requires intent to deceive.
January 28, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she worked for ACORN, the R's would want her sent to prison for 20 years. What she did is technically illegal, but no prosecutor in his right mind is going to charge her for something so piddly. I suspect you're right that the MN election law requires original signatures since that's their primary means of determining if the ballot was actually filled out by the voter. Power of attorney can't be used for everything.
January 28, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding Rs and ACORN: Agreed, but that's (part of the reason) why we're better than them.
January 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink