So lightening really does strike twice, eh?

Okay.... if this event doesn't cause her testimony to be stricken and Coleman's claims of double counting to be thrown out, then those judges are absolutley in the pocket of Minnesota Republicans. This is no longer an issue on which they can appeal. One act of failure to disclose can be an error, two acts is a pattern of obstruction.

Eric - So how did the judges react to this latest "innocent mistake"?

So they failed to disclose something twice?

And is the throwing under the bus behavior a sign of a "rift" in the Coleman campaign?

This is shameful behavior.

With Trimble saying "frankly, I don't even remember seeing this statement" and that he never gave the statement a thought could lead to Trimble being suspended or disbarred. Lying in open court is a huge no-no. I feel sorry for Hoopaja, as a former junior associate who has had to stand up to my boss when your career is just starting.

Wow. Just, wow. Its like I'm watching a movie called "Brownie Goes to Court."

This should end the whole case. They've been caught playing tricks with key witnesses.

I maintain it's all intentional. When the judges threw out the testimony, it was seen as potential grounds for appeal & those grounds were removed when the judges reversed the ruling. Now there's another issue that could throw out the witness' testimony... These attorneys can not be as incompetent as they seem. They're setting up for further appeal, anything to delay Al being seated in the Senate. That's the whole point. They know they lost they just want to delay and discredit as much as they can.

Did Coleman's team attend college with Monica Goodling?

I wonder what the fallout from this is? The judge must be steaming.

Someone should stick a microphone under Norm's mouth and make him comment on his legal team's antics.

Perhaps the reason that they didn't want her identity revealed before the trial was that anyone with access to the voter file could see that she was a "Strong Republican" and a "Strong Coleman supporter". It probably wouldn't play in the media as well as they'd have liked if the public saw that the election official crying foul was a staunch Coleman supporter. So they let it float for a couple of months that 'some' election official claimed there was double counting.

I think MarkC is onto the Coleman strategy. It is nothing about him, but all about the National Republican party. They can't win elections, but they can gum up the works for the dems.

They know they are going to lose the Coleman litigation, so they are doing everything they can to create a grounds for appeal. Not one that can win, but just enough for the court to have to consider it on it's merits and not reject without comment. The objective is to stretch this thing out as long as possible so it keeps the dems at 57 (Franken and Kennedy out of commission).

Every vote counts when you are trying to delay and obfuscate. To filibuster all they need to do is keep one of the three wild cards (the maine girls and Arlen) and a couple of fewer blue dogs need to move over to defeat actual legislation.

Coleman doesn't really care--he is now gainfully employed by the Republican Jewish Committee. In fact that was probably his price in order to agree to pursue this route. He can't go back to Minnesota politics, so professionally he has no future except for the party to pay him off.

As an add on to my prior comment, this is why the court is bending over backwards to allow Coleman as much deference as possible while he is presenting his case. They want to make it easy for the court of appeal to deny the case.

Sensing this the Coleman litigation team is stooping to the level of moronic imbeciles to try to get room for error to create a basis for appeal. Since malpractice on their part is not enough for a civil case, they can be as incompetant is they possibly can to get the court to exclude evidence which can be the basis for an appeal.

It seems a bit weird to me for this reason. On the stand she says she had previous communication with Coleman's lawyer. Then Coleman's lawyer is able to immediately produce a document, which comes awfully close to witness tampering ("to avoid tying you down to any particular testimony"). If I want to find a particular email from January it would take a little time and if I didn't want to find it it would take longer? Surely he wanted this email in.

It is similar to the first time Howell's testimony was stricken, it came after Coleman's attorney approached her on the stand during a break and reviewed documents. It is almost as if they want her testimony stricken, maybe they know it won't hold up.

This is pure incompetence. You should NEVER write this type of stuff down. Do lawyers talk to witnesses about their testimony? Yes, of course. But you NEVER write any of it down because this is what happens. This is elementary.

LMAO, Corruption is bliss isnt it? Pretty sad.

RT
http://www.be-anonymous.us.tc

The GOP will continue to pursue frivolous litigation until they are barred from seeking any further legal recourse. They are intentionally bogging this case down in minutiae to keep the Democrats from seizing a filibuster proof majority of the Senate.

The Senate majority needs to take matters into their own hands now. They should immediately seat Al Franken and force the case to a federal level where it can be concluded.

I'm afraid we are seeing inaction by Harry Reid simply because the Democratic Party is afraid that Franken may become an embarrassment.

How many Coleman dirty tricks will these judges allow? Seems like they gloss over one after another, like good little Republicans.

The failure of the Coleman camp to provide evidence was prejudicial.
It is not just destruction of evidence but purposeful withholding.

Spoliation of evidence is the destruction of relevant evidence by a party.� Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co., 587 N.W.2d 66, 70 (Minn. App. 1998).� A district court may sanction a party that destroys evidence if that party gains an evidentiary advantage due to its failure to preserve evidence after having had the opportunity to examine it.� Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc., 565 N.W.2d 469, 470�71 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 1997).�

The severity of the sanction depends on the prejudice suffered by the opposing party.� Hoffman, 587 N.W.2d at 71.� But a party can avoid sanctions for spoliation of evidence if the opposing party had sufficient notice of the claim, giving the party the opportunity to correct defects, prepare for negotiation or litigation, or �safeguard against stale claims being asserted after it is too late . . . to investigate them.�� Id. at 70 (quotation omitted).

No wonder Ginsberg didn't want to go into court! I bet he knew they were trying to con the court! He and the others probably will be billing hours anyway.

In all seriousness, when and how is this going to end? Who is going to tell him it's over that he will accept it from? Traditionally, that would be senior members' of his own party's responsibility, but somehow I don't anticipate that happening.

Scenarios?

If this were the usual kind of civil litigation between two people over a contract or a car crash or something similarly personal to the parties, Coleman would have been tossed out of court long ago.

I think that the judges are aware that they are not just deciding a lawsuit but also an election, and that the rights of the voters who cast ballots for Coleman need to be considered despite the mistakes (or even intentional deceptions) of his legal counsel.

So the judges may be trying to reach the "right result" despite Coleman's shennanigans.

If this last play by Coleman's legal team gets approval by this judge you can pretty nearly accept the fact that this is strictly P O L I T I C A L
End of story . . .

What are the people of MN saying about all of this? As the state has such a history of clean elections, aren't they embarrassed by all of the seemingly waste of time and their money spent by a single politician, especially as this has devolved over time?

Just think what it would have been like, if in 2000, the supremes would have ruled, as they should have, for Florida to get its act together and do a complete and accurate recount. Or maybe the supremes looked at Florida and realized a complete or accurate count wasn't possible. Imagine if someone asked a member of the court and they confirmed that.

For all the fuss, Minnesota looks really good by comparison. I'd bet, lawyers notwithstanding, there are a lot of states where you just could not do a recount and expect better than what Minnesota delivered.

Utterly absent from most commentary is Coleman's dual role of working for a lobbying group, the Republican Jewish Coalition, while trying to stay a Minnesota Senator. Conflict of interest anyone? Anyone? This sums it all up....

http://www.examiner.com/x-4120-Minneapolis-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Norm-Coleman-who-are-you-representing