Durkan objected to Korrell's redirect on the Mail Ballot Report. Judge Bridges not only overruled the objection but thought the Mail Ballot Report was important enough that he insisted on interrogating Way from the bench.
The most significant new revelation [exact words]:
Bridges: Had you prepared mail ballot reports before this general election last fall?
Way: yes
Bridges: Did you use the same method to do that?
Way: Before we had a report that said how many ballots had been issued and how many voters had been credited with voting and then we compared that to how many ballots we tabulated and the handcount of the ballots that we did not count and we had a daily count of how many ballots we received. So we compared it with a number of different reports that we had reports that we verified our numbers against.
Ouch. That directly contradicts Dean Logan, whose spokeswoman made this excuse for the fraudulent mail ballot report
"Bobbie Egan said that ballot reports have always been created that way and that there was no falsification."Bridges went on to ask whose idea it was to install a new computer system right before the general election.
Hey, installing the new computer system was one of Dean Logan's greatest accomplishments!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 25, 2005 02:31 PM | Email ThisFRADU! FRAUD! FRAUD!
Posted by: pbj on May 25, 2005 02:33 PMAnd this is only the beginning!
Posted by: Victor on May 25, 2005 02:38 PMJeff B - I'm out of the country and felt the tremor! Is Logan on suicide watch?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 02:53 PMI guess I'd like to know why Korrell just didn't ask if the ballot report was falsified. Why hem and haw around the topic. They got Way to admit the number on line 2 wasn't accurate, but why not get her to admit it was purposely falsified.
Posted by: Tucker on May 25, 2005 03:03 PMAfter asking a series of detailed questions about problems King County faced in tracking ballots, Bridges said to Way, "I guess I have to ask who's idea was it to install this new computer software program right before this general election?"
Way didn't answer immediately.
"It's OK, you can say," Bridges told her.
Way: "Not mine."
Bridges: "Does counsel have any other questions?"
Way: "Please, no."
I mean, c'mon, the woman was directly involved, and she has no idea what happened with the ballots.
The only defense is one of incompetence. That might help these some of these dolts avoid criminal charges, but it certainly doesn't excuse them from the law which requires them to accurately submit and verify the results of the tablulation as they present them for certification. And they knowingly acted in concert to submit a fraudulent mail ballot report.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.60.200&fuseaction=section
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 25, 2005 03:13 PMBy the way, the audio feed cut out on us as the current witness is testifying about the data sets he created, but we did hear that the data sets compiled by the Democrats were skewed with more Rossi precincts, whereas the Republicans data sets were a more even distribution.
Posted by: JRR on May 25, 2005 03:21 PM'The decision from the judge in Wenatchee is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.'
Posted by: JDH on May 25, 2005 03:21 PM'The decision from the judge in Wenatchee is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.'
Posted by: JDH on May 25, 2005 03:24 PMGoldy made some good points, but the reason why polls show the majority of Washingtonians against Goldy's views is that it's just not credible to have counted some ballots and not others and call the result deterministic.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 25, 2005 03:25 PM..OK - it finally came back!
As bad as the Democats are getting pounded today...if they could have taken TVW down..they definitely WOULD have!
Posted by: Deborah on May 25, 2005 03:49 PMtrying to nail the elephant back on lots of BS technicalities.
Posted by: Andy on May 25, 2005 03:51 PMHe can't know anything about the 96 ballots we hid---- otherwise you would have found the other 1000 ballots we hid.
Posted by: Andy on May 25, 2005 04:03 PMThe donkeys should be very scared!
Posted by: Andy on May 25, 2005 04:10 PMDenny Crane
Posted by: Snake on May 25, 2005 04:20 PMGo figure, all the errors leaned in the same direction.
Posted by: Snake on May 25, 2005 04:26 PMLet's just SAY it: Democrat vote/election fraud
Posted by: Michele on May 25, 2005 04:45 PMI've known, and known of, Judge Bridges for close to 15 years. Ain't gonna happen.
Hang your hat on a different tact, Jenny.
Posted by: jimg on May 25, 2005 05:06 PMHowever, another tactic is to make it seem in the transcipt on appeal that Bridges was always overruling the Durkan and company.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 05:29 PMI think that when Bridges decision to throw out the election is appealed, though, Durkan will point out how Bridges was always overruling every one of her objections.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 05:40 PMCan anyone shed light on the distinction?
Thanks.
Posted by: Jack on May 25, 2005 05:49 PMI noticed the Dems were so ruffled over this expert witness - they asked the Judge to end todays session early! (so they could have the night to prepare cross-examination??)
Yes - The Democrats definitely DO NOT want these witness numbers crunched down to specific precincts....heh.. I have a feeling that a lot more revelations can be found on a *precinct* level...
Posted by: Deborah on May 25, 2005 05:50 PMIt is patently obvious that even $2 million can't make a purse from a sow's ear.
Posted by: handy nick on May 25, 2005 05:57 PMIt is patently obvious that even $2 million can't make a purse from a sow's ear.
Posted by: handy nick on May 25, 2005 05:57 PMIt is patently obvious that even $2 million can't make a purse from a sow's ear.
Posted by: handy nick on May 25, 2005 05:57 PMIt is patently obvious that even $2 million can't make a purse from a sow's ear.
Posted by: handy nick on May 25, 2005 05:57 PMIt is patently obvious that even $2 million can't make a purse from a sow's ear.
Posted by: handy nick on May 25, 2005 05:57 PMReminds me of Durkan ....
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 07:00 PMFraud!
Posted by: Michele on May 25, 2005 07:20 PMYou asked:
After listening to the last witness today, I got lost on the distinction between voters credited and the crediting process (which the judge has already ruled against).
Can anyone shed light on the distinction?
The judge made a limited ruling (I think it was on May 2). He decided that the GOP had to use the original poll books and the original absentee or provisional ballot envelopes to prove that an alleged felon actually voted.
Voters at the polls are credited with participating in the election by a notation made in the poll books on election day. Prior to certification, that information is put into the computerized data base by scanning bar codes next to those notations. The people doing the scanning for King County couldn't manage to do that simple task without making zillions of errors -- scanning the wrong bar code, thus making it appear in the data base that one person was issued a ballot when in fact the person whose name was above or below that person's line in the book was the real voter.
Just one more piece of garbage in the "model election" conducted by King County.
The absentee voters and provisional voters (who didn't break the law by sticking their provisional ballots straight into the ballot boxes via the Accuvote vote-counting machines) were credited directly in the computer data base at the instant their ballots were accepted as valid. Thus, there was not really a good reason to go look for the envelopes, but that's what the judge wanted. He was misled into believing that "voter crediting is a post-election administrative process that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the election." It's not a post-election process, and it does have everything to do with the authenticity of the election results. Without it, there's no way to know if people voted more than once or if ballots were stuffed into the boxes or stolen from them.
The process of crediting voters is the only way to get a count of the total who were recorded as having cast ballots.
So, when talking about total numbers rather than one particular alleged felon, the judge apparently will accept the records showing how many were credited with voting. (If he decides not to, then someone will have to go through all those poll books again to count them, and someone will have to go through all those envelopes again to verify that the ballot that was once in each one should have been accepted. The fact that an envelope is now among the empties, indicating that the ballot in it was sent through the vote counting process, is meaningless. If the computer record isn't good enough to show how many should have been counted, then you have to start at square one and verify each postmark and signature all over again -- and get people who know what they are doing and care to do it right, so you don't get another mess. If you simply count the empty envelopes, all you will find is the apparent total number sent through the vote count -- but you won't know if some rejected ballots were nevertheless taken out of their envelopes and sent through the vote counting process. Any volunteers?)
Posted by: Micajah on May 25, 2005 08:25 PMExcellent analysis. I hope that Judge Bridges accepts it for the absentee ballot crediting. Unlike poll book crediting, absentee ballot crediting is an integral part of the election canvassing process.
(Poll books are important in canvassing, but mainly to make sure that provisional voters didn't vote in their correct precincts and also to count the signatures on election night to reconcile the numbers.)
I have advocated going through all the empty absentee envelopes, counting them, sorting them (or photocopies of them) precinct, counting them again, etc. to make sure the numbers balanced (well, to make sure they didn't balance of course).
But everything should have been done correctly in the canvassing process -- the WAC requires an exact match and perfect accounting. And you are right -- simply counting the opened empties won't do. You have to make sure that the opened empties actually were accepted in the first place.
It looks like Judge Bridges is recognizing that this is the proper approach on absentee ballots -- i.e. the voter crediting records are the best evidence for who actually cast them.
I can't see how Judge Bridges can ignore the 1,091 extra ballots in King County -- 875 absentees and 216 polls. (This is in addition to illegal votes cast by illegal felons, double voters, "dead" voters, and the unregistered.)
I am cautiously optimistic that we can pop the corks next Friday, and that the state Supreme Court will hear this case on an expedited schedule and affirm Gregoire's ouster in time for the start of filing week in late July (at least issue an order to this effect, with detailed opinion possibly following later -- maybe after the November election, like they did for the primary election veto case last year).
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 25, 2005 10:11 PMAs Richard Pope noted, it looks as though the judge is already beginning to get the idea about voter crediting -- and I would add: with no help at all from the lawyers, who don't seem to know where to find a copy of the Revised Code of Washington.
If it becomes important to revisit his earlier ruling about the "best evidence," it's possible to request that he reconsider. As for proving which alleged felons voted at the polls, the judge's ruling is correct anyway -- King County's workers demonstrated that they couldn't figure out how to scan the bar code immediately adjacent to the "I" that noted which voter was credited with participating. It would be pure luck to identify the correct person from their work. (And it's pure bad luck that a candidate was declared to be duly elected based on that work.)
Posted by: Micajah on May 25, 2005 10:25 PMI wonder if they will be covered in the trial?
I have to give the Republicans (and the Judge) credit...They have been able to cover a lot of ground in just 3 days!
Posted by: Deborah on May 25, 2005 10:25 PMI'll cross those off of my wish list!
I think the Republicans have more than enough to work with as it is....
This doesn't really mean anything -- perhaps King County's implementation is more at fault than Diebold -- but it's amusing to imagine how loudly some of you would be screaming fraud if Diebold were headed by a prominent Democrat...
Posted by: Bruce on May 25, 2005 11:32 PMCHI-DOOH LI's commentary starts to spell it out:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/225768_skip26.html
They still want to spin it as human error "Pathetic litany of a bungled election". It's spin for they screwed this process up so bad it can't be salvaged. Any defense of the errors will have to bring to light more errors.
The crux of the 'Rat defense seems to be, "we aren't crooked, we're just idiots". Just like with Clinton, the defense was, "I'm not a criminal, I'm just a lying, lecherous deviant (but should still be President)."
Well, they can have that defense. If they're going to plead stupidity and incompetence, why would anyone in their right mind have any faith in the outcome of this election, or in the legitimacy of Fraudoire as Govenor? If idiots are running the election (which will be the only logical conclusion if the 'Rats win their case based on their own arguments), then that alone casts doubt on the election results, and lends credibility to the argument that it should be tossed.
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 26, 2005 06:31 AMAfter listening to the Dems (longer than is healthy), I get the impression that someone could have walked into a precinct with a stack of ballots, put them all into the accuvote and if the accuvote inspector (judge) looked the other way and didn't stop them, then, per the Dems, the votes are "valid" and "legal" - the inspector just made a "mistake".
Aside from what Dems say, we don't want a perfect election. We want the government to strenuously strive towards a 100% perfect election. We know that INNOCENT errors happen and will reduce the perfection, but without 100% accuracy being the absolute, ironclad goal, I don't think we'll feel comfortable with races being as close as 1%.
Posted by: Jack on May 26, 2005 07:04 AMThe thing about software and machines is that you pretty much can dulpicate the "bias" at will if it exists. If there really WAS an attempt by Diebold to bias an election, all one needed to do is to run a controlled test of known ballots to see if it consistently misreported the results in favor of republicans. So, I am not very impressed by claims such as that unless the plaintiffs are willing to put it to a test rather than simply lob blanket accusations.
It would be a very stooopid thing for Diebold to do since if they were proven to be "inaccurate" in their election tallies, they would lose big in the marketplace. One thing capitalists like more than republicans is profits. It would be strange for them to risk profits for politics.
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: Eyago on May 26, 2005 07:19 AMI find it amusing that seemingly intelligent people still think there is not major deliberate fraud involved. Like conspiracy, fraud is nearly impossible to prove. Circumstantial evidence is all one ever has unless someone breaks the code of silence. That rarely happens unless criminal charges are filed and someone cuts a deal with prosecutors. That's going to happen, right?
Denny Crane"
I say, AMEN! Boston Legal is one of the best shows that I have seen in years! It's intelligent, funny, amazingly balanced and just darn good!
Posted by: bf on May 26, 2005 08:53 AM