<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Senate wrangling continues; nobody wins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog//2009/01/06/the-senate-wrangling-continues-nobody-wins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2009/01/06/the-senate-wrangling-continues-nobody-wins/</link>
	<description>If it’s legal, you can discuss it here</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:05:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Cohen, editor</title>
		<link>http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2009/01/06/the-senate-wrangling-continues-nobody-wins/comment-page-1/#comment-1262</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Cohen, editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnlawyer.wordpress.com/?p=1207#comment-1262</guid>
		<description>The last statement you reference refers to the (I think) self-evident fact that, if the currently certified recount numbers stand (i.e. are not changed as a result of the  litigation process), Franken will come out on top and become the senator. But with Colemen&#039;s lawyers announcing that they will pursue the litigation option (and assuming that Coleman follows through), the result is once again a matter of conjecture. The only real question here was whether Coleman would chose,  similar to Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, to forgo the court option. It appears that will not be the case. Stay tuned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The last statement you reference refers to the (I think) self-evident fact that, if the currently certified recount numbers stand (i.e. are not changed as a result of the  litigation process), Franken will come out on top and become the senator. But with Colemen&#8217;s lawyers announcing that they will pursue the litigation option (and assuming that Coleman follows through), the result is once again a matter of conjecture. The only real question here was whether Coleman would chose,  similar to Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, to forgo the court option. It appears that will not be the case. Stay tuned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2009/01/06/the-senate-wrangling-continues-nobody-wins/comment-page-1/#comment-1261</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnlawyer.wordpress.com/?p=1207#comment-1261</guid>
		<description>Shame on the WSJ and the Franken campaign for jumping the gun and not making clear that there is a contest phase.  They should also acknowledge that, as you put it, the &quot;legal wrangling&quot; is &quot;far from over.&quot;  Cue Frank Stallone song.

Then there is this little quote from the post below:

Barring the intercession of the courts, it appears all but certain now that the state’s new U.S. senator will be Al Franken.

Hmm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shame on the WSJ and the Franken campaign for jumping the gun and not making clear that there is a contest phase.  They should also acknowledge that, as you put it, the &#8220;legal wrangling&#8221; is &#8220;far from over.&#8221;  Cue Frank Stallone song.</p>
<p>Then there is this little quote from the post below:</p>
<p>Barring the intercession of the courts, it appears all but certain now that the state’s new U.S. senator will be Al Franken.</p>
<p>Hmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

