Here's an audio recap of the recount events that took place today. The audio isn't great, but the content is still discernible, despite some obvious background artifacts; the time is presented as HH:MM:SS.

The first recording comes from a pseudo press conference conducted with two members of Coleman's legal counsel, Tony Trimble and Fritz Knaak:

Coleman's Counsel: We see the number as much better from our point of view. We'll know more after we've had this dialogue with the Secretary of State. Reporter A: What's your internal count at? Coleman's Counsel: Our internal count is a, something we don't share. Reporter B: Why is that? Coleman's Counsel: Because we don't, as a matter of policy; very early on we decided. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:07:28)

Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:07:45)

There are essentially only two reasons why they don't want to reveal their internal count. The most likely scenario is that their internal numbers actually show that they are trailing; and secondly they simply do not have an internal count. I find the second option very unlikely, basically impossible. The campaign has demonstrated no restraint when it comes to declaring victory. I think if they thought they were winning, we would all know that they thought they were winning. Hence because they are not stammering about their lead, they are in fact, not in the lead.

The next event was the press conference conducted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie:

Reporter A: Is it almost certain that there is not going to be a winner certified by January 6th, when they're supposed to be sworn in? Is that being taken into consideration? Sec. Mark Ritchie: Absolutely not a consideration. I have until November 2010, personally. The 5th and 6th [of January] we have scheduled from 2:00 to 5:30 both days [for the canvassing board to meet]. ... Reporter B: Can a winner be certified by January 6th? Sec. Mark Ritchie: If the stars align...Our top priority is accuracy and transparency. And the timing thing is just not our issue. You know I want to put an underline: we don't care as long as it's accurate and is done in a transparent way. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:26:10)

Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:09:19)

Finally the MN Supreme Court met to decide, once and for all, whether the case made by the Coleman campaign regarding the supposed inclusion of doubly counted ballots should be reexamined. A decision has not yet been reached, but the Supreme Court is allowed to take as much time as necessary; expect a decision by tomorrow evening:

Supreme Court Justice: Where have you shown to us, that there is, there are [more] votes counted in any given precinct than the number of voters as would be determined under §204C.20. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 1:04:38)

Video: TPT.org via MNCourts.gov (01:03:47)

I personally find it very likely that the petition, as put forth by the Coleman campaign, will fail; but I am not a great supreme court mind. My verdict is based entirely on my interpretation of the proceedings.