15 Responses to “FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM DISCUSSES SENATE RECOUNT ON THE MICHAEL MEDVED SHOW”

1. Barack McCain Says:
   January 28th, 2009 at 10:51 PM

   A) Two of the five members on the board were appointees of Tim Pawlenty. In fact they were actually lawyers for the Republican Party.

   B) Almost all the decisions were 5-0

   C) On the majority of the very few 3-2 decisions, Ritchie actually sided with the Coleman campaign.

   Ouch, facts hurt.

2. Proud Republican Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 12:17 AM

   You’re implying the judges are the problem they aren’t. The problems are inflated votes in 25 liberal precincts and about a 1,000 absentee out of 12,000 absentee ballots most picked from heavy Democrat voting precincts. Now there are about 5,500 wrongly rejected ballots from the whole State that need the same consideration. Franken wants to shut down the open and fair process of determining true vote count for this election. It’s called democracy.

   Also, Franken supports a glaring ant-democratic bill that strips the write from workers to have a private vote. Click on this link. Former Democrat Presidential candidate George McGovern

   http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/george_mcgovern_on_the_employee_free_choice_act/

3. Tommy Johnson Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 5:10 AM

   No, PR – the problem, for Coleman, is his legal beagles are arguing the exact opposite of what they argued during the recount.

   And yesterday’s cross went over all those legal flip-flops in detail.

   Here’s the legal concept that Franken’s Team made glaringly clear:

   Doctrine of Invited Error

   Under the doctrine of invited error, the appellate court will not permit a litigant to take advantage of an error that was invited or induced by that litigant. For example, a party may not request a jury instruction and then later complain on appeal that the requested instruction was given. Such action would constitute invited error. (Lawyers.com)

   It went like this:

   Q – Mr. Gelbmann, do you recognize this e-mail from Team Franken?

   A – Yes.

   Q – Tell us about it.

   A – Well, this was about how they were arguing that only ballots that were properly and completely adhering to all aspects should be counted; that if there were any errors at all the ballot should NOT be counted.

   Q – And who brought this argument up?

   A – Team Coleman.

   Q – And did they insist on it?

   A – Yes, (long, detailed detailing people, places, times, etc etc etc).

   Q – Is there any time they deviated from that position?

   A – No.

   _____

   This went on for hours, and will continue today – on issue, after issue, after issue; detailing flipflop after flipflop after flipflop.

   Team Coleman was arguing, even to the Supreme Court, that ballots improperly filled out should be rejected during the recount phase; during this phase they trotted out a guy that admitted a signature on his absentee packet wasn’t his – his girlfriend signed it. But, since Team Coleman is doin’ the ol’ “That was then, this is NOW!!” tapdance, they think a guy who admitted his girlfriend signed his name should have his vote count.

   It should be noted, that Team Coleman tried – TRIED – to limit the scope of the cross examination, so this type of testimony wouldn’t be allowed.

   As with almost every other legal pleading by Coleman’s team, they lost.

4. Aaron Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 10:35 AM

   LOL Medved AND Santorum. LOL.

5. Leroy Jenkins Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 12:20 PM

   Can anyone answer the question why anyone in American would need to know Rick Santrorum’s opinion on the Minnesota Senate Race?

6. chile Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 12:47 PM

   Can anyone answer the question why anyone in American would need to know Leroy Jenkin’s opinion on the Minnesota Senate Race?

7. SwifteeBoatee Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 1:26 PM

   Google “Santorum” and Swiftee/Chile/Quicksand/Jake comes up.

8. Leroy Jenkins Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 1:33 PM

   I voted in this race. I am a resident of Minnesota who will be represented by the eventual victor. I think it is fair to say that these two items give me a much more firm standing from which to speak than a disgraced former US Senator from Pennsylvania who name is more famous in the urban dictionary than the history books.

9. chile Says:
   January 29th, 2009 at 2:02 PM

   Google Tommy Johnson and convicted criminal comes up.

10. Hello Dolly Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 2:54 PM

    http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearchResults.aspx?SearchLinkIndex=1

    What is Tommy’s middle name and birthdate. Click this link, there are alot of Tommy Johnson’s who have been arrested.

11. chile Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 3:32 PM

    And there are lots of Tommy Johnsons that haven’t been arrested.

12. Bubba Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    Tommy needs to get his sweet little money maker back to my cell. The boys on block D are getting real frisky.

13. Leroy Jenkins Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 5:45 PM

    What is it about mentioning Santorum that gets republicans worked up into such a frothy lather?

    Oh yeah… Never mind.

14. J.L. Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 7:19 PM

    It must be the same thing that gets Dems in a frothy lather over a Kennedy.

15. danbrome Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 10:50 PM

    Santorum is the poster boy for conservative Republican failures.. I didn’t think he had any credibility left, does he?

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.