Another interesting example: The Coleman campaign was pleading for a separate ballot that was originally rejected for a mismatched signature, as compared to the absentee ballot application.
During cross-examination, Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton figured this out: The local officials changed their minds about the signatures back in December, and felt it should be counted. But it was re-rejected by the Coleman campaign, under the controversial decision by the state Supreme Court that gave the campaigns a veto over improperly-rejected absentees.
"They [the Coleman campaign] rejected it because they felt the judges were properly rejecting it for signature purposes," said Clemmer.
"Well, I guess they're changing their minds now," Hamilton replied.
One thing that should be noted: The aggrieved voters that Coleman has been calling as witnesses, when pressed on the fact that they were contacted and screened by the Republican Party, said they first received the phone calls about three weeks ago -- after those ballots were sorted and vetoed.
This particular individual was not actually in court today. But it's worth thinking about the fact that the Coleman camp didn't want to count this ballot, then changed their minds, and seemed to have forgotten their prior actions.