Yet Another Coleman Witness Admits She Was Cherry-Picked
The Coleman legal team just went through another round of calling aggrieved voters to the witness stand, pleading that their absentee ballots were improperly rejected. And again, they've run into some problems.
The Coleman campaign called Elissa Jackson, a sympathetic mother of a five-month old. During direct examination, Coleman lawyer James Langdon tried to be open about the fact that she found out about her uncounted vote because of a phone call from the Republican Party.
Then came the cross-examination by Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton, who confirmed that, as with a prior case, the Coleman/GOP people who called her up also asked her who she voted for, and made sure she voted for Coleman. "They didn't send you that affidavit before they got the answer to the question of who you voted for in the Senate race, did they?" asked Hamilton.
"No, they didn't," Jackson replied.
Now remember: During last week's proceedings, the Coleman camp was saying repeatedly that they were not cherry-picking voters, that they didn't know whom the people they're advocating for actually supported, and for all they knew they were helping out Franken-voters. Apparently that wasn't quite 100% true.
Jackson also admitted that she didn't sign the ballot envelope. Apparently, a local election workers had placed sticker over the full instructions at the top, but the section requiring the signature was still clearly visible and contained its own self-explanatory certification statement.
"Honestly, I don't know why I didn't sign," said Jackson. "I don't know what the confusion was."
During a press conference after today's proceedings, Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg lambasted the Franken legal team. "You heard the vicious grilling that the Franken campaign gave the mother of a five month-old about her ballot not being filled out properly," said Ginsberg.
Ginsberg was also asked at the presser about comments earlier today by Coleman lawyer John Rock, about the impossibility of a totally accurate vote count. "I'm not sure that it's possible. If I thought it was possible before, I would have to take the testimony of Mr. Mansky seriously that it's not."
A reporter then asked if the goal is to get a count just accurate enough that Coleman is ahead. "No, no," Ginsberg said. "I mean, I think that at this point the issue is there are a lot of uncounted ballots that were wrongly rejected and should be counted."
(Special thanks to The Uptake for carrying the Ginbserg presser.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
I don't know why Coleman's lawyers are continuing this pretense of not cherry-picking their witnesses. No one with the IQ above that of a chicken would believe them. In fact, if they just pulled people at random to put them on the stand, then they have the IQ of a chicken.
One really has to wonder about them putting up witnesses so they can admit that the county officials had valid reasons for rejecting their ballots. If, as anyone would assume, they've selected the best cases to testify, is this really the best they've got?
February 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign, incidentally that is how litigation works. You pick your best witnesses and put them on the stand. Duh. It really isn't rocket science. Also, the feigned, oh my gosh, they cherry picked a witness is frankly absurd.
I really can't wait until this greek drama is over. It really is pathetic.
February 2, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is not cherry-picking by itself, it's the fact that the Coleman team was insisting that they weren't doing it. At one point the lawyer had a witness on the stand, and was even saying we don't know who you voted for.
February 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, the lawyers are complete idiots and have lost all credibility with the Court with that nonsense. You can easily dance around the issue without making yourself look like a fool claiming that you didn't know who these people voted for. That really is plain stupid. Every single judge on that panel knows damn well that the witnesses were "cherry picked," as does opposing counsel. Dumb move on their part.
February 2, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just dumb, but dishonest. Which, if I were the judge, might make me feel a bit testy toward the Coleman folks.
Eric, at the end of all of this can the judge rule that Coleman's use of the court's time, not to mention denying MN voters their proper representation in the US senate, warrants some sort of sanction? Might Coleman not only lose, but be required to pay Franken's legal fees? Seems only fair.
February 2, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Coleman team represented in court to the judges that they did not cherrypick, or just in their pressers and public statements?
February 2, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a practical point of view, I'm not sure if it makes any difference. The judges aren't sequestered; they can read and watch the media coverage (including the blogosphere). I imagine that when they hear the lawyers espousing this "we're not cherrypicking" crap--whether in court or on the street--they get just a little more disgusted with Coleman and his antics.
February 2, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Eric. And that lie to the court has two levels.
There is also the cherry-picking that went on to advocate for that person's ballot to count. They made sure in advance that they were NOT advocating for anyone who voted for Franken.
Litigation includes cherry-picking the witnesses that give the best examples of their case before the court. But they also cherry-picked who they were going to assist with the election administrators.
Then they lied about both decisions and told the court that they never asked which way the voter voted.
They are not only serial liars, they are BAD serial liars. Since I doubt that they are bad lawyers, that strongly suggests that their case is so weak they have no better case to present. Otherwise, why lie repeatedly? (This time and others.)
February 2, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not rocket science
Harumph
Never tried a case right Eric
Who is spot on. You don't put on witnesses that the adversary will make you eat
Take it from me. Their stuff doesn't taste as good warmed over
February 2, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that as well. You don't put on a witness that the opposition will crush. Also, you don't lie to the court or the opposition about the witnesses, because it will always bite you in the a**. My point was that everyone knows that the witnesses are cherry picked based on your points as well. You just deal with it in the proper way.
February 2, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the lawyahs for Team Coleman stupidly made a knowing misrepresentation of fact to the court and now they can't walk it back without admitting that they violated their obligation of candor to the tribunal under the applicable rules of professional conduct and, most likely, under Minnesota's equivilent of Rule 11.
February 2, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric takes to litigation like a duck on a june bug!
February 2, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're tempted by the law Eric, my advice as an attorney is for God's sake don't do it!
February 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign that one big time. It is a complete waste of time, money and effort and is totally unfulfilling. Do something constructive, like be an honest journalist, or an engineer, or a scientist, or a teacher. The law is not like la law, probably too young to remember that one, or law and order, or boston legal, or all the other hollywood crap on tv and in the movies. It really sucks as a profession to be quite honest.
February 2, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many cherry picked witnesses who admit they flubbed the process does it take to establish that people can self-disenfranchise??
Coleman is clearly digging his own grave on the credibility and sympathy side, even as it's crystal clear that voters made mistakes. The substantive question is whether the election process, not the voters themselves,
1) gave one candidate an edge
2) disenfranchised legit voters and if so
2a) is that relevant to the lawsuit
?
This article from Eric doesn't much address these.
February 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, has everyone noticed ALL the news on this. I can't keep the TV on more than 10 minutes without hearing of the farse Coleman is creating.
February 2, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When does this end? Coleman wants a new election. When does he either get it or lose his silly case?
February 3, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink