Ramblin’ screed, ramblin’ screed
Why you ramble, without need
Wild and windblown, that’s how you’ve grown
Who can stomach a ramblin’ screed?
While I like to think myself above the baser pleasures of life, I must admit a sense of satisfaction reading the Alabama Democratic Party’s amicus response in the case of McInnish v. Chapman and the phrase therein that is this article’s title. Referring to Mike Zullo’s latest affidavit, insinuated into the case by Appellants, they said:
…the ADP assumes that it is unnecessary to further address whether this Court should consider the rambling screed that passes for an “affidavit” attached to the Appellants’ Motion to Strike. Virtually none of the information contained in the affidavit is admissible or credible…. The “affidavit” is inadmissible on its face and is composed of hearsay, speculation, and unsupported conclusions.
You can read the rest of that scintillating document here. There’s just so much more gravitas and validity when the Alabama Democratic Party says something, than when I say it.
While most of the non-technical concepts in the ADP response might have been found in comments here, they make one observation that I didn’t:
The ADP notes that the affiant signed the “affidavit” solely in his personal capacity and without any title, even an imaginary one.
That seems significant to me because it undermines the Appellant’s argument that Zullo’s investigation is somehow “official.”