Election Worker Admits She's "Somewhat" Sympathetic To Coleman
Franken lawyer David Lillehaug today questioned Pamela Howell, the precinct election worker from Minneapolis whose testimony on potential double-counting of ballots has become the center of controversy due to the Coleman camp's prior efforts to hide evidence surrounding her. He's been spending time running her down as a partisan, pro-Coleman witness -- and she hasn't exactly been disagreeing.
Lillehaug reviewed with Howell the fact that she spoke and e-mailed numerous times with Team Coleman during the recount and this past January. On the other hand, she refused all opportunities to speak with Franken lawyers when they'd previously attempted to contact her:
Lillehaug: And that's because, fundamentally, your sympathies were with Senator Coleman, correct?
Howell: Not -- not my object.
Lillehaug: But your sympathies were with him, were they not?
Howell: Somewhat.
Howell has been called because of a failure to properly label a small number of duplicated absentee ballots in her precinct -- and at the very start of the recount, she began phoning the Coleman campaign about it. Lillehaug pointed out that she had no way of knowing who benefited from this in her Minneapolis precinct, because she couldn't know which individual ballots were copied and not properly marked:
Lillehaug: You trusted that even if the clerical error had benefited Mr. Coleman, that his attorneys would bring it to the court - you just didn't know?
Howell: I didn't know.
Lillehaug: You trusted them.
Howell: They would do the right thing.
Lillehaug: You trusted them.
Howell: You never know.
Later on, under examination by lead Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg, Howell said she took steps to conceal her story from the Franken side because she wanted it out of the general public eye -- and she worried about what her Democratic neighbors would do:
Howell: Well, I did not want the press at my door, and I did not want a target on my back.
Friedberg: What do you mean by that?
Howell: I live in south Minneapolis, and it's a predominantly DFL area. And I'd just feel vulnerable.
Friedberg: You have friends in both parties?
Howell: I do.
Friedberg: Was this directed more towards not wanting your name out there, and people talking about you?
Howell: Yes.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Howell's testimony has been interesting in her very apparent preference for Coleman vs. Franken. When Coleman's attorneys spoke to her, she was eager to answer, actively searched for documents being asked about, and just generally forthcoming. When Franken's attorney questioned her, she sunk into not being able to confirm anything. Ex: Q. Are these your initials on this line? A. They appear to be. Q. Well, did you recount Ward X, Precinct Y? A. I don't know. I wasn't paying attention to which ones I recounted. Q. Are these your initials? A. Maybe. And on and on. Beligerance and non-cooperation oozed from every poor.
March 2, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
sometimes witnesses think it is a game being disingenuous but the game is not about them it is about being part of telling the whole story and letting the facts fall as they may.
This appears to be coached and in all impugning her entire testimony....
March 2, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. As a practicing attorney for over 25 years, I will tell you that the Panel of Judges will let this go on as long as Team Coleman wants it to, and will then hang her (and them) with her own words -- they will find cause to discount what she says from her own words, and her demeanor in answering questions from each side. And when she denies, or diminishes the extent of, her obvious loyalty to Coleman, it undermines the credibility of anything and everything she testifies to. These situations are a gift, not a problem, because they form the foundation of a final decision in Franken's favor.
March 3, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is this dimwitted judge panel going to put an end to this charade? The fat lady sand along time ago
March 2, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For much of the trial I've agreed with that idea, but since this is one of Coleman's main witnesses, the judges have to give Coleman leeway. They must surely see that she's acting as a partisan rather than an election judge trying to be impartial.
March 2, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
accusing the judges of being dimwitted and suggesting that they are doing the wrong thing in allowing coleman to present his case only shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
March 2, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about the appeal at this point. I'm a recovering lawyer and a long time since I've either practiced or been in law school, but if memory serves, the appeals court reviews findings of fact (which include judgment calls on the credibility of witnesses, for example) under a more lenient (deferential) standard than it does rulings of law (such as striking a witness entirely). So letting this witness testify, and then discounting her testimony on her obvious bias and lack of credibility, is a smart thing both from the court's POV and from Franken's.
March 2, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave the argument in. Hear the witness out. Base the decision on the obvious lack of integrity of the witness and the Not-so Nimble Norm's paid jack_holes.
Kill the argument. Make it unchallengeable. If it stinks badly enough even the Fascist Five of SCOTUS would give it the time of the day.
March 2, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her testimony really is awful, borderline contemptuous for the whole process. Must drive the judges crazy, wasting their time like that. "Maybe" those are my initials. Come on.
March 2, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that her direct testimony is over, can anyone who's actually viewed/reviewed it tell us whether she personally witnessed this, or is she repeating what someone else says they saw?
March 2, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judges, like jurors, are required to evaluate the credibility of each witness's testimony as well as its ostensible factual content. So much rope, so few lawyers.
March 2, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is still going on? When will they just say, "Fuck it", and start filming "Al and Norm: The Reality Show"? Because it feels more like a soap opera than a real attempt to help the people of Minnesota get the second senator that they elected into office.
Franken won. Let's go already.
March 2, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't look like the judges want to decide this on the civil trail standard of "preponderance of evidence." Apparently, to me as a non-lawyer it looks like they are trying to get as close to "Beyond all reasonable doubt."
No matter which way they finally decide, close to half the voters in the state are going to shriek.
March 2, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do hope this woman is never again allowed to work a precinct. I would have a hard time trusting that she was impartially taking part in the electoral process regardless of whether the voters were voter for "her" candidate or not.
That she was concerned that some ballots didn't get marked as duplicates was fine-it was her job to be concerned; however, it was also her job to note it in the incident report. It was the telephone campaign to Republican HQ and then to every Coleman lawyer she could find names for that gives me serious pause. That she refused to talk to a Franken lawyer brings me to an abrupt halt. As an election worker, she should have been concerned about the integrity of the vote as a whole, not just when her guy came up on the short end of the count.
Interestingly enough, Franken's atty suggested last week in his cross that there were complaints about Ms. Howell's from her co-workers in the recount. I've wondered if that's fact.
March 2, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Partisan Republican poll workers?
Who'd a thunk it...like the gambling at Rick's Place.
March 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clayface Coleman's days are numbered. I saw testimony the other day where Coleman's lawyers were caught twice witholding evidence. First, it was the very existance of this Howell woman and the fact that they had previously emailed her while claiming that they hadn't previously spoken with her and the second time was for witholding notess. Give it up Herman Munster! You're toast!
March 2, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't want her name out there for Franken but its ok for her to hjave her name out there for Coleman? Her bias is palpable
March 2, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I'd said before, anyone with access to the voter file could look up Ms. Howell and see that she's listed as a strong Republican, based on her voting record, and as a strong Coleman supporter, based on her responses to phone surveys.
It should be counted as giving false testimony when someone uses "I don't recall" to avoid giving a direct answer. Likewise, for Howell to say her sympathies were "somewhat" with Coleman was just plain dishonest.
There are plenty of Republicans in Minnesota who serve as election judges and they do it without looking for ways to use their position to help their chosen candidate. I hope Howell hears from some of them.
As for her fears about being 'found out' by her neighbors, she's got nothing to worry about. It's not the Democrats around here who go around yanking out the opposition's lawn signs or making threatening phone calls to supporters of the opposing candidate. But, I've lived in a red corner of the Twin Cities metro area in the past and the political retaliation from the right is rampant out there.
March 2, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"political retaliation from the right is rampant out there."
Ever been to Oklahoma or Kansas?
There are people in western Kansas and all over Oklahoma who won't wear a political button or put a bumper sticker on their vehicle for fear of either getting fired or demoted by a Republican boss, or getting pulled over by a partisan patrolman.
And too often, those fears are quite justified.
The past 10-12 years, starting with Clinton's impeachment debacle, will prove to be an historic story of bullies and victims, pernicious peer pressure, and the wages of greed.
When partisanship outranks citizenship, we all suffer.
March 3, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
She seems to be a miniscule Katherine "Pink Sugar" Harris circa FL 2000. Do you suppose Ms. Howell believes she will be treated any better by her chosen party than the infamous Ms. Harris?
Poor delusional GOP women
March 3, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
These Republican rank and file only believe in democracy when the win an election. When they lose, forget it, they are not just sore losers, they are lousy Americans.
Accepting political defeat, and graciously rejoining as one nation after the division is settled with an election, requires a certain kind of courage and loyalty that not many Republicans seem capable of.
Democracy is great, as long as they can win, but it must be somehow flawed if they lose.
March 3, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DemonRat/LibTards barely failed in their attempt to steal the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 and this infuriated them.
This failure only energized them. If only the stupid party had this much zeal. But, then again, most repubs have jobs and don't have the spare time to scheme.
The primary thing that should be determined is how many dead people, felons, and pets A.C.O.R.N. registered to vote that cast their ballot for Franken.
March 4, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink