Al Franken Hires Six Lawyers Per Voter
Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Breaking News
You’ve heard of the Franken factor before, I’m sure. Well now we know the number. Six. It’s the approximate amount of lawyers he has working for him per ballot he hopes to overturn in the upcoming Minnesota recount. That’s 1,250 lawyers. So, for now anyway, there’s a Franken factor of six in Minnesota.
The pre-recount drama continues to unfold in the Minnesota Senate race. Over the week and change since election night, more and more votes have mysteriously popped up for erstwhile left-wing pundit and Rush-basher Franken, bringing at last the reported margin in the race to around 206. Most of the new Franken votes came about through a series of events I wrote about here. Since I wrote that story, the questions have continued to pile up, and Franken has, to say the least, lawyered-up.
Franken is suing the state to have absentee ballots which were rejected turned over to his campaign for review. Citing fake sob stories, the campaign is continuing their effort to paint a picture of election day irregularities to gloss over the glaring irregularities in Franken’s favor since the election.
Aside from the number of lawyers, there are a host of numerical oddities in the swinging tally over the last few days. For example, from John Lott:
The Senate gains for Franken were 2.2 times the gain from corrections for Barack Obama, 2.7 times the gain Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races and 5.6 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.
That alone is staggering, and it’s not even the most tell-tale sign of shenanigans.
On of the biggest gains came from the town of Two Harbors, where 254 votes have been counted for Franken post-election. I asked County auditor Steve McMahon if he could shed some light on the subject of the votes, and especially on why the totals in other races remain unchanged. By email reply, he points out this article, in which the additional votes are attributed to a typo on election night. Although it seems clear that, as yet, no one has provided the discussed evidence to the Coleman campaign, the story is plausible.
There are, nevertheless, a number of questions to be answered, not least the shocking number of coincidental errors which represent a remarkable gain of almost exactly what Franken needed. Some would cast all those doubts aside on the thin premise that the “32 ballots in a car story” was supposedly false. Going by the she-said part of this he-said she-said, it’s concluded that Senator Coleman just made the story up, a baseless claim of course. Interestingly, they were in her car, they were not counted until Saturday, and they were overwhelmingly for Franken. Precisely what was originally asserted. It seems some people don’t understand what “questionable” means.
All of these massive swings to Franken are decidedly questionable. It would be wonderful if there were an explanation for them and, in some cases, there may be. But, I ask you, how are Senator Coleman, or the bloggers and handful of mainstream media outlets reporting on this, wrong for questioning them? They are not, of course. The oft-repeated 32 votes in a car story had the facts right, if not the sum of the details. This is why they votes are called suspicious. There are many hundreds more votes, most of which are quite a bit more suspicious. Franken and his thousand plus lawyers want you to think it isn’t so.
The recount is coming, and there will be people trying to determine the voter’s “intent”. All of this, as I pointed out before, overseen by extreme partisan and ACORN ally Mark Ritchie, who recently stated that the Coleman campaign’s objections to all these mysterious new Franken votes is merely part of a strategy “to win at any price”. Very non-partisan of him.
There is a bleak picture developing in Minnesota: that Al Franken and his army of lawyers and allies are trying to steal the election. Perhaps it’s partisan paranoia, but the questions are legimitate and the activities highly suspicious. With a pending filibuster-proof majority hanging in the balance, the stakes couldn’t be higher. It remains to be seen if a clean recount will be achieved, but in the meantime it would be extremely helpful if the hundreds of questionable changes to the first count can be explained. The last two days since I first wrote about this give me little confidence that they will be.
Did you love this post?
Then please share it!
