American Hero Becomes Senator

[Darius871]

Richardson hasn't lawyered up yet, AFAIK,

Evidently AFAYK = not that:

Yesterday [1/5/09], Richardson hired a prominent white-collar lawyer to represent him in the investigation, which centers on a California financial services firm that won a lucrative contract from the New Mexico Finance Authority after donating to political committees linked to the governor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010503047.html

so far there's no information that directly ties any accusations to him. That's not the same for Coleman, as someone has *directly accused* him and his wife.

That's taking a lot of license - the allegation against Richardson was that the quid pro quo money went to committees he's associated with, which may or may not have been a legitimate donation, and the allegation against Coleman is that the quid pro quo money went to a company he's associated with (through his wife's employment there), which may or may not have been a legitimate financial investment for a rate of return (which is, after all, what Kazeminy does for a living). In both cases the supposed funds supposedly went through proxies (which is the case in 99.99% of these situations, including even idiots as blatant as Blago), and in both cases neither party has been even indicted let alone convicted.

As far as I'm concerned corruption investigations are utterly meaningless until the feds actually lay all their cards on the table, because for all you or I know in our extremely limited access to information, it's possible (even likely) that a vast majority of Washington insiders have been "investigated" to some degree at one time or another, only to find nothing more than technically legal back-scratching and be relegated to some basement archive never to be seen again.

That said, I'll admit that Richardson's a less apt analogy than Galloway, which you oddly ignored. None of the three have ever been on the hook.

Let's look at Coleman's electoral history:

-Lost to a pro-wrestler
-Beat a dead guy
-Lost to a comedian

Yeah, he's a champ.

I don't believe anybody denied that he's a lackluster candidate, or even that he's a lackluster intellect. I just don't see how that stands out against the usual Washington mediocrity that voters have come to expect.

[Boris Godunov]

Wait, has anyone actually accused Richardson of anything? My understanding is that it's solely a matter of a coincidental donation that may or may not indicate quid pro quo, and no one has explicitly said that Richardson did anything wrong at this point.

That's *not* the same case with Coleman so far, because there is a direct accusation of a shake-down. The Texas businessman made the accusation he was "forced" to make donations that were funneled to Coleman's wife, and he has documents showing the cash transfers.

Now I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" for legal standards, but just as we can point to what we know of Blago's actions and say he's an embarassment, I think we can do the same for the Colemans. What we know of the Coleman situation looks much worse than what we know so far of Richardson's.

Galloway: When was he ever investigated by British law enforcement officials? The only allegations made against him, as far as I can tell, were from newspapers (against which he won libel suits) and political entities (like the GOP-led Senate committee). I don't see any indication that he was ever the target of a criminal probe by British authorities.

Anyway, at the ultimate issue is Franken vs. Coleman, and so far Franken hasn't been investigated by the FBI for anything of which I'm aware.

[DaShi]

An accused republican is less corrupt than a Democrat who is remotely associated with an organization that is being investigated for corruption. This is how it works.

[Darius871]

An accused republican is less corrupt than a Democrat who is remotely associated with an organization that is being investigated for corruption. This is how it works.

Who said or suggested any such thing? I'll only go so far as to assume innocence until proof of guilt in a court of law, which doesn't apply to Richardson, Coleman, Galloway, or even Blagojevich. If any freepers want to come out of the woodwork and pretend Richardson (whom I supported in the primary BTW, and hope to see exonerated) is worse than Coleman, they can be my guest.

[DaShi]

I don't really care for your opinion.

[Darius871]

An accused republican is less corrupt than a Democrat who is remotely associated with an organization that is being investigated for corruption. This is how it works.

Wait, has anyone actually accused Richardson of anything? My understanding is that it's solely a matter of a coincidental donation that may or may not indicate quid pro quo, and no one has explicitly said that Richardson did anything wrong at this point.

That's *not* the same case with Coleman so far, because there is a direct accusation of a shake-down. The Texas businessman made the accusation he was "forced" to make donations that were funneled to Coleman's wife, and he has documents showing the cash transfers.

Now I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" for legal standards, but just as we can point to what we know of Blago's actions and say he's an embarassment, I think we can do the same for the Colemans. What we know of the Coleman situation looks much worse than what we know so far of Richardson's.

Suffice it to say that I don't buy any speculative press bull**** until there are actual court documents putting money where respective mouths are, which I then take for what it is (for instance the Blago complaint was about the only thing I read about the guy). What we have on Coleman so far is two civil suits not yet through the discovery phase, and a "probe" with no grand jury yet in place. The legal process could just as easily glean a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened, with straightforward documentation and credible deposition testimony to back it up, which would only make the guy look better than he did going in, so I'm reserving judgment for the time being, whether in terms of legal guilt or "embarassment" (as if that matters when he's already lost an election before the news even came out).

Galloway: When was he ever investigated by British law enforcement officials? The only allegations made against him, as far as I can tell, were from newspapers (against which he won libel suits) and political entities (like the GOP-led Senate committee). I don't see any indication that he was ever the target of a criminal probe by British authorities.

Again, AFAYCT = not that:

UK Charity Commission launches "another probe" (yes, that means plural) into Galloway's charity

The "longest and most detailed inquiry ever held by the [Parliamentary] Standards and Privileges Committee accused [Galloway] of deliberately concealing the true source of funding from Saddam Hussein for a charity he established...In a damning report, the committee said there was 'strong circumstantial evidence' that the charity received cash diverted from the United Nations Oil for Food Programme 'with Mr Galloway's connivance'."

Serious Fraud Office team reviews documents for potentially larger criminal investigation

Scotland Yard requests documents from SFO to review for potentially larger criminal investigation

Now of course, none of these Parliamentary/regulatory/criminal/whathaveyou inquiries/probes/investigations/whathaveyous actually led to anything worthy of an indictment (or even a more large-scale investigation than cursory review), but then neither has the Coleman investigation actually yet led to anything worthy of an indictment (or even a more large-scale investigation than cursory review). Both are presumed innocent for the time being. That may or may not change in the future.

What next, do you really want to split hairs on whether Mariam Appeal is a more tangential proxy than Coleman's wife's employer is?

[Darius871]

I don't really care for your opinion.

I'm crushed.

[DaShi]

I know.

[DanS]

He's nothing compared to this American hero

.

[Darius871]

Count all the votes.

What are these absentee votes that Coleman wants counted? Why aren't they being counted?

Votes that were rejected by the local precincts for issues such as missing signatures, double votes, etc. The Minnesota Supreme Court already allowed the counting of 1300 rejected ballots, if the canvassing board and both campaigns agreed to count them (all but 400 were, with both sides being about equal in not agreeing on ballots). Now Coleman tried to sue to count an additional 650 ballots that have been rejected as improper twice. The Minnesota SC denied his request today, saying he can raise the issue should he sue over the election results later.

Looks like you got your wish Boris:

Recount trial: Judges rule thousands of ballots can be considered

By KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune

Last update: February 3, 2009 - 3:55 PM

Nearly 4,800 rejected absentee ballots may be reconsidered in the U.S. Senate recount trial, after the presiding three-judge panel issued a ruling today defining boundaries for the proceeding.

The court granted Democrat Al Franken’s request to limit the universe of ballots that Republican Norm Coleman can seek to have counted, rejecting Coleman’s attempt to have about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots reconsidered. But Franken had asked the judges to limit the review to only the 650 ballots cited by Coleman when he filed his lawsuit last month challenging the recount.

With Franken holding a 225-vote lead after the recount results were certified, the 4,800 ballots that may be reconsidered would appear to be enough to put the ultimate outcome in doubt.

The court order indicates that any of the ballots that complied with state law should be counted, along with those where errors occurred through no fault of the voter.

But the order limits Coleman to presenting evidence on those ballots specifically disclosed to the Franken legal team by Jan. 22.

Coleman lawyer Fritz Knaak said he believes that the number is about 4,800, and Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh said that was also her understanding.

The argument that many more rejected absentee ballots should be reconsidered has been central to Coleman’s effort to overtake Franken’s lead since the state Canvassing Board certified results of the recount Jan. 5.

After today's ruling by the panel, Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg said, “We’re thrilled.”

On the Franken side, head recount attorney Marc Elias said, “I don’t view it as a loss for either side or a win for either side.”

Earlier today, both sides agreed that more than 900 other absentee ballots that were initially rejected and then accepted by both campaigns during the recount won’t be contested in the trial.

In that instance, the judges said, lawyers for Coleman and Franken stipulated that the 933 ballots “were properly and lawfully opened and counted” and the results properly included in the recount results certified by the Canvassing Board.

The trial resumed today in St. Paul, as Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg questioned Washington County official Kevin Corbid about procedures for training election judges and handling ballots.

Friedberg asked Corbid about how they handled absentee ballots where voters may have sealed their registration card inside the “secrecy envelope” intended to include only their ballot. Corbid said that such votes are usually rejected, unless it’s obvious in some way that the envelope — which is supposed to be opened only by vote tabulators — contains the necessary card.

Corbid said that they would feel the envelope and hold it up to the light to determine whether it should be opened to get the registration card.

“If we couldn’t tell it was in there, we decided not to include it,” he said.

Friedberg asked Corbid if he might have used “a senstive scale” to weigh the envelope and determine whether it contained two pieces of paper rather than one. Corbid responded that “that wasn’t part of our directive.”

Corbid said that such ballots made up only “a fairly small number” of the roughly 400 rejected absentee ballots that county officials looked at after the Supreme Court ordered a statewide review.

In the end, Washington County officials decided that 34 of those ballots had been improperly rejected and should be counted.

The trial is continuing this afternoon, as Coleman lawyers question individual voters whose ballots were rejected without their knowledge.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/...DiaMDCinchO7DU

[Tuberski]

You didn't bold the most relative passage:

Coleman lawyer Fritz Knaak....

We wish we you a merry Fritz Knaak...



ACK!

[DaShi]

Gore may still have a chance.

[mrmitchell]

They should've actually done what Minnesota law dictates, and flip a coin, so as to avoid the ensuing *****ing.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Gore may still have a chance.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/supreme_court_overturns_bush_v

Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore

December 9, 2008 | Issue 44•50
Article Tools

* Share This
o Digg This
o Facebook
o Stumbleupon
o del.icio.us
o Reddit
* Email This
To: From:

* Print This

Related Articles

* Gore Upset That Clinton Doesn't Call Anymore 07.25.01
* Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet 07.30.08

Related Media

o
Onion News Network:
- Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency 07.02.08
o
Onion News Network:
- Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass' 06.23.08

WASHINGTON—In an unexpected judicial turnaround, the Supreme Court this week reversed its 2000 ruling in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, stripping George W. Bush of his earlier political victory, and declaring Albert Arnold Gore the 43rd president of the United States of America.
Enlarge Image Gore

President Gore, retroactively determined by the Supreme Court to be the winner of the 2000 election, is sworn in for his six-week term.

The court, which called its original decision to halt manual recounts in Florida "a ruling made in haste," voted unanimously on Wednesday in favor of the 2000 Democratic nominee.

Gore will serve as commander in chief from Dec. 10 to Jan. 20.

"Allowing this flaw in judgment to stand would set an unworkable precedent for future elections and cause irreparable harm to the impartiality of this court," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his majority opinion. "Furthermore, let me be the first to personally congratulate President Gore on his remarkable come-from-behind victory. May he guide us wisely into this new millennium."
Enlarge Image Bush

Former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush gets some much-needed rest Monday after his 2000 presidential campaign loss to rival Al Gore.

Added Roberts, "The system works."

Moments after the court's noontime announcement, Gore was flown to Washington, D.C. aboard Air Force One, sworn in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and immediately escorted to a brief victory rally at the National Mall. By 4:30 p.m., his 15 cabinet appointees had been vetted, contacted, and brought to Washington, where they were all simultaneously approved by a majority vote in the Senate.

Gore then delivered the first of seven consecutive State of the Union addresses.

Shortly after being notified of the court's historic decision, a gracious George W. Bush appeared at a press conference with four hastily packed suitcases to congratulate his 2000 opponent on the decisive victory.

"Al Gore has fought a strong and patient campaign, and he has prevailed," said the former Republican candidate and Texas governor. "I wish him nothing but the best, and hope that his leadership will help see this nation through a catastrophic recession, an unending war in Iraq, and the single largest housing crisis in history. Congratulations, Mr. President."

In his first and last 42 days as president, Gore will reportedly visit U.S. troops overseas, meet with dignitaries from France, Great Britain, China, Azerbaijan, Japan, and Eastern Europe, formalize a plan to bail out the struggling airline and automotive industries, sign the Kyoto Protocol, take a photo of himself and wife Tipper in front of the White House Christmas tree, and ensure a smooth transition between his own administration to that of incoming president-elect Barack Obama.

"Great humility, honor, I'm President," Gore said to a crowd of tourists hastily shuffled into a White House corridor to hear the president deliver his acceptance speech. "Thanks, bye."

According to political analysts, the road ahead for President Gore is not an easy one. During his first conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, NATO, OPEC, and the United Nations, Gore admitted that making good on his campaign promises in the next six to eight weeks might be difficult. The president noted his pledge to provide affordable health care to every single child in the U.S. by 2004 as "specifically in need of possible amending."

Gore also withdrew his intentions to pay off the national debt by 2012.

Although the president has already instituted a number of impressive environmental initiatives, he has drawn criticism from Republicans who claim that he is completely unprepared to deal with the current national climate.

"Throughout the entirety of his 2000 campaign, never once did Gore mention the tragedy of 9/11, or our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said. "Does he not care about our national security? Does Al Gore plan to ignore the needs of our brave men and women on the ground? What kind of world does Al Gore think we still live in?"

President Gore will not be the only new arrival in the White House to face criticism, however. Joseph Lieberman—the former independent senator from Connecticut who in just two months has gone from the short list of possible Republican running mates to nearly being ousted from the Democratic Caucus to becoming the first Jewish Vice President—will also have much to answer for.

"Uhh," Lieberman said in his first official address Wednesday. "Umm…yeah."