I just arrived in Wenatchee. The trial resumes at 9am. I'm not sure how much Internet access I'll have during the day and I doubt I'll be able to liveblog. Post your impressions of the trial in the comments.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 03, 2005 12:05 AM | Email ThisShe seems so nice too... kind of like my Mom, but my Mom wouldn't wouldn't fix an election. She is a real Democrat!
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 01:28 AMOh, and Stefan, if you can bring back some farm fresh produce and kicka$$ fireworks WEOU. ; ^)
Thanks for being there...
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 01:56 AMMay the blog off begin.
Posted by: Erik on June 3, 2005 02:22 AMIf the 'captain' went flying, you knew you had them. If a number of 'swabs' were thrown, you knew the 'captain' was 'Covering His A**'. Lightening the ship for a Great Escape!
Whom do YOU see in the water?
Posted by: arky on June 3, 2005 04:40 AMI appreciate all your time and hard work. If we were stuck with Postman, no one would know the real scoop. Thank you sooooooo much.
Posted by: maggie on June 3, 2005 06:34 AMAlso note that Gregoire has hired a former Seattle Time/PI/AP reporter as her $125K/year communications/PR director ... I guess she is ramping up for the main event.
Posted by: Newman on June 3, 2005 06:36 AMEEEEWWWWWW!
Shark! Say it isn't so!
Just remember, if he wants to play "Hide the sausage", show him how to play "Hide the slipper" (Boot up his butt!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 3, 2005 06:41 AMLogan, simms,Huninens (sp?) all get a pass. King county will be free to rule over all of WA with the blessing of the liberal media.
I do not believe some honest citizens of this state will accept this any longer.
Revote or Revolt!!!!!
Posted by: Doggfish on June 3, 2005 06:46 AM
Great Work !!!!!
I will be waiting for your impressions.
Tony Z
Reelect Rossi
Posted by: Tony on June 3, 2005 06:53 AMI pray to God he is wrong.
Thank you all for your comments and the wonderful insite you all have brought here to this site. And Stefan Sharkansky, never give up the fight, one person can and will made the difference.
Take the loose with dignity,
Take the victory with integrity.
See you all on the other side of history.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 3, 2005 07:35 AMI caught the voter putting the two ballots into the counter--too late to stop her. I filed an incident report with the county--don't know if they did anything about it.
We had very busy elections--sometimes we were moving a voter every 30 seconds. But we always maintained, with that exception, pretty good control over the process.
As to provisional ballots, in Texas they are colored differently, and they do not go into the main ballot counter. Instead, the voter is allowed to "vote" by placing the ballot inside an envelope. That envelope is then placed inside a second envelope, and on the second envelope the reason for the provisional nature of the vote is stated. The outer envelope also functions as a voter registration application. The whole package is then placed by the voter inside a provisional ballot box.
Hoping the decision is a wise one, and that WA gets its act together.
Posted by: Paul on June 3, 2005 08:05 AMI can't get the feed (my comp at work stinks) so keep all of us in this boat up to date please. Oh yeah, Trolls, find your own page so those of us who want to find out the truth can. Even you can understand that.
Posted by: Jarhead on June 3, 2005 08:29 AMIt's a tough act to follow.
After this, if I hear one more complaint about "disenfranchisement" due to longer lines, I'm just going to laugh.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 08:30 AMHowever, in Texas for example, precinct workers are one step above volunteers. Clerks get paid 7 bucks an hour; the judge gets paid 8, plus $25 for travel expenses in picking up and delivering election materials. Believe me, it is a labor of love. As a judge, I have to sweat out finding people to help--the first time, I had to cold call around the precinct, since there had been no turnover of election workers from the previous judge. Fortunately, I found reliable, dedicated people, and my alternate, a man full of integrity from the opposite party, is the type I can knock down a brew with when it's all over.
Posted by: Paul on June 3, 2005 08:40 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297354_election03m.html
Posted by: JDH on June 3, 2005 08:44 AMWhatever the judge rules, US citizens do have a right to vote, so there's always the possibility of a federal case.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 08:54 AMI looked on the KC Website and couldn't find the kind of budget info needed.
Posted by: Hanna on June 3, 2005 08:56 AMChin up, eyes forward. This judge will bring sense to this. I will be happy with whatever outcome he comes up with because I believe he is a good man and wants the best for all of us. In this case, I am on the R side.
Posted by: swatter on June 3, 2005 08:58 AMCourt will return at 9:00 am
AAAAAHHHHHHH! Court has returned!
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 09:01 AMIf you are conservative, the only possible "man full of integrity from the opposite party," is the Marine who was found on a desert Island still fighting the Japanese.
There is simply no such thing as integrity from the opposite party. That's why liberals choose their party -- to escape reality and responsibility. It also why (Handcock, Adolph) do whatever they can to answer ONLY their own questions rather than the ones asked of them. Whenever they directly answer a question it hurts their case.
If you have a beer with someone from the democrat party, make sure you know where your money is at all times.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 3, 2005 09:01 AMIt's when they vote that you have to worry.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 09:03 AM"Mr Korrell, I'm going to admit (yada yada) document, subject to RECALL (with a little grin on his face when he said it) upon your overlooking it."
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 09:06 AMShark Rules!
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2005 09:08 AMEither of the 2 results is a loss for the dems.
First, if the judge rules against the reps, he will most assuredly acknowledge the gross errors of the KC elections personnel. This is a win for the reps to say that there is a big problem that appears to be unfair, even if fraud is not proved.
Second, if the judge rules for the reps, then this goes to the supreme court of Wa and the process begins again. Either way, the reps will have proved their point of the problems in KC.
Maybe a loss will not be so bad for the reps as it frees up a candidate for a tough senate run.
dB
Posted by: dB on June 3, 2005 09:08 AMI have very little faith that our election system means anything in the State of Washington.
Rossi may not have won the contest in court from a "legal" standpoint. but, the testimony sure did sway this democrat.
The Democrats in this state have received my last check, my last volunteer hour and my last vote as well.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 09:16 AMIs there any movement in the Democratic Party to correct these behaviors and bring it back in line?
Posted by: appalled on June 3, 2005 09:20 AMIt seems that not enough was made in the trial of the consistent pattern of mistakes made by KCE. The judge does seem to be an impartial and fair man, and seems to appreciate the importance of his ruling, not just for its bearing on this election, but for the future of fair elections.
I hope that the mathematical evidence was enough for Bridges to realize that some very funny things occured. I have wondered during this week why the Repub attorneys didn't call Shark as a witness? With his command of the data and facts, I think he'd have been a better witness than any of the mathematicians!
The MSM has continued to trivialize the huge errors in KC. They compare a handful of felon votes found in "Republican counties" to the plethora of errors in KC, as though these offset each other. There is so much riding on this, I just hope that Bridges does the right thing.
Kudos to all for not letting this slip quietly away. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Spokane Repub on June 3, 2005 09:21 AMEither the "Who'da" from this blogs comment area had a near religious experience over night or someone is just playing with us.
Posted by: rb on June 3, 2005 09:23 AMHa Ha! I'm just saying that the two party system is so important, but when one party goes so far haywire, it is hurtful all around. The old D's (maybe just the conservative D's) although I wouldn't necessarily agree with them, could debate and enhance understanding of the issues. All this eviro/feeling/robinhood crap has got to be reworked from inside their party.
Posted by: appalled on June 3, 2005 09:27 AMSo how will this new election be any more trustworthy than the last one? Or are you banking on beating Sims and having this new election in 2006? How long will you need to give the new KC executive to hire and train an entire elections department?
I'm not using this as an argument to let the '04 election stand -- I'm seriously curious about how you see this working out.
Posted by: the radish on June 3, 2005 09:34 AMI do not doubt Whoda's conversion. I too was once a Democrat. After 911, it became painfully obvious to theis veteran that the Democrat party today is ruled by the leftover 60's Anti-War protesters who instinctively beleive that America is evil.
If you go back and read Whoda' initialy postings weeks ago, you'd have called him a troll. He has had a sincere conversion. It does happen, as it did to this Democrat of 40 years.
To me whether Rossi becomes governor or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the nonchalante attitude by the liberal Democats of King County of clear Chicago Style voting Shenanigans. I can handle Rossi losing in a FAIR election. What I cnanot handle are dead people voting, felons voting, illegal aliens voting and election workers falsifying reports. I have at one time been a poll worker and I can tell you - it ain't rocket science!
Posted by: pbj on June 3, 2005 09:45 AMAnd taking what you said at face value...
The left often assumes the worst of the right, that either they have nefarious purposes for their beliefs, or that they are lemmings, or simply echoing the beliefs of their parents.
My experience is that most conservatives that I know believe as they do because of the way that it expreses their views at the end of a process of discovery and understanding.
Often this process includes an awareness, similar to what you have seen these past weeks, that there are numerous things from the left that do not add up for one reason or another. The real revelation comes from pondering the next question, "if they lie, obfuscate, and/or defy logic (or the law), then what other things are they not honest about?"
The answer to that question is not comfortable for the diehards to answer, but often results in converts...not so much from dismay at their behavior, but from efficacy of the positions.
Hang on to your hat. It could be a wild ride.
Posted by: scott158 on June 3, 2005 09:49 AMMark
Posted by: Mark D on June 3, 2005 09:50 AMHave you also heard that the dems table that is supposed to match exhibits with depositions, etc.. has errors? hmm! you'da thunk they'd be more careful?
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 3, 2005 09:51 AMI think you are being to harsh on who'dathunk?. I do not think it was a 'religious conversion'. He has been posting here for quite a while. The support for the Ds started evaporating when the testomony came in. If people on both sides of political discussions were as willing to actually LISTEN to what is being said and then rationally THINK about it I think this country would be in a far better situation. There are far too many people that are stuck in an opinion. It doesn't help having bomb throwers mudding up the water confusing the issues. He should be comended for being open to discussion.
Posted by: Fred on June 3, 2005 09:54 AMVery nice post who'dathunk, and very well said.
Posted by: rolling eyes on June 3, 2005 09:54 AMI know it's a touchy subject with some, but whichever way this case goes, maybe changing the legislation on that might be something to think about in the future?
Posted by: Disgruntled IT guy on June 3, 2005 10:01 AMWhile I have lost faith in the Democratic Party, I have not made a "conversion" to the Republican party either. I do not have Chris Vance on speed dial, nor do I have my checkbook in my hand.
I am interested in a whole new slate of politicians. I would probably vote for anybody that 1) has owned a business and has had to make payroll 2) has had to deal with the paperwork necesarry to stay in business 3) appears to be intelligent 4)not convicted of any crime. 5) has honorable track record of selfless service. 6) has support from members of both parties.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 10:05 AMI'd by the man a beer if he's been looking honestly at the info and realized what a pack of lies that KC has been spinning. That's an intelligent response to the data. (don't misread this to say I'm a blind follower of R's. In general, I don't like political parties, I'm strongly conservative, not strongly an R).
Posted by: rb on June 3, 2005 10:06 AMThe Dems need to be spanked and their twin sister, the Reps, need to be watching so they don't even think about pulling the same thing.
Posted by: swatter on June 3, 2005 10:08 AM
No revote....Revolt! You have left us no choice!
I for one would support a state campaign drive to "vote out every incumbant" to send a message to Olympia, NO MATTER WHAT PARTY THEY MAY BE. Yes, some will say, it'd be "throwing out the baby with the bath water", but if that's the cost we have to pay, so be it.
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 10:13 AM Either way, I think this is a good exercise for Democracy and our State, and we will all be ahead in the long run...
I love Dale's slapdown response...
..."overruled"
Posted by: scott158 on June 3, 2005 10:16 AM"I am interested in a whole new slate of politicians. I would probably vote for anybody that 1) has owned a business and has had to make payroll 2) has had to deal with the paperwork necesarry to stay in business 3) appears to be intelligent 4)not convicted of any crime. 5) has honorable track record of selfless service. 6) has support from members of both parties. "
While I have a couple of other criterion I'd want, I'm with you on your list.
rb
Posted by: rb on June 3, 2005 10:17 AMHOW are they going to fix it? Geeze, haven't you seen the next post by Jim Miller? They're going to throw $22 million at it ($66 million in really dollars). It works EVERYTIME.
It's not the workers - it's the BUILDING, stoopid.
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 10:18 AMI can live with that.
Posted by: who'athunk? on June 3, 2005 10:22 AMRon Sims reminds of a the serial killer who volunteers with the police to try to find the missing victim! He's probably been told by the Dems to stay far away from the election issues during the trial - yet he just can't! He must be there in some capacity! He has to witness his dirty work and take some recognition for it! So he comes along to sell some lame idea that wasting tax dollars on another election building - is going to be the cure-all for the mess....when he actually just sees the building as another place to hide his crimes...
Ron Sims - the arsonist who just HAS to return to the fire!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 10:22 AMApart from anything else, you'll never get many Democrats to turn aganst their party, while a lot of Republicans do so six or eight times a day without encouragement. So practically speaking, your plan would simply solidify Democratic control of this state and set back the cause of true reform by decades.
Posted by: ScottM on June 3, 2005 10:23 AMLike I said, someone was going to say it. Just didn't know it would be so quick.
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 10:26 AMwith some investigation, I could see voting for him.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 10:34 AMThanks!
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on June 3, 2005 10:38 AMI think the judge will (and should) accept proportional deduction for clearly illegal felon votes. He pretty much has to -- the law says the question is whether the result "appears" to change after deducting illegal votes for each candidate, and proportional deduction is the best way to do that given the limited information available. There could be a good debate about whether to base proportional deduction on geography (precinct) or other demographic data -- the latter is more relevant but less easily obtained -- but my impression is that both sides are going along with precinct-based deduction. My impression is that, if you accept both sides' lists of illegal voters, these votes won't change the result. But if they did, he would overturn the election.
I also think that the judge should apply proportional deduction to provisional ballots that were improperly counted without being verified. However, only the proportion of those ballots that statistically should have been rejected would be deducted. I haven't followed the trial closely enough to recall what has been said about this.
I don't think the judge should/will consider the discrepancies in election and post-election procedures to be evidence of illegal votes or fraud. Those are very serious charges and require a witness, a whistle-blower/confessor, or specific evidence like lots of fraudulent registration cards with the same ink and handwriting. Yes, it is certainly possible that such fraud is not caught, but that possibility does not equal a successful election challenge.
And the judge has made it clear (rightly in my opinion) that the standard is not whether the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory. There is simply no provision in law (or precedent, for that matter) for such a standard. As a policy it would have pros and cons, and this is a reasonable debate for the public to have in coming years, but the court would have no basis to impose it.
wow. A judge who can think!
Scott in Carnation: go to www.tvw.org. there is a live video and a live audio feed.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 10:42 AMThe gist of Pearson's testimony is that, if KC had followed the guidamnce in the SoS training materials, the errors could have been corrected before certification. Democratic attorney Durken pops up to object to something about every 15 seconds. The judge consistently overrules. Good stuff for the repubs in my opinion.
Posted by: Mike on June 3, 2005 10:43 AMCan someone in their jammies help out?
Posted by: MB on June 3, 2005 10:43 AMIt's linked on Orbusmax, but I've also posted it below. Just unbelievable.
Here's part:
"That's how Christine Gregoire became governor after the third counting, and that's where matters should have rested. All elections are imperfect. The winner is the person for whom the most votes are counted—not cast. The goal of beleaguered elections officials is to try to get the votes cast to match the votes counted, but when the difference is greater than the margin of victory, it's the tally that matters."
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0522/050601_news_geovparrish.php
Posted by: Mark D on June 3, 2005 11:18 AMSince we're not sure that any particular elections worker might have seen the best practices document produced by the SOS office, we can't expect any county to have properly handled the election and we can pretty much excuse any and all errors and just be happy with Gregoire in office.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2005 11:20 AMObviously, Judge Bridges is more that a little preturbed by the gross negligence of KCE. Does he have any power to force KC into cleaning up it's Elections department? Is there any reason that he cannot find that the grossly negligent manner in which KC conducted the election along with the falsification of the MBR constitutes fraud?
I sure wished someone had the power to FORCE KC into having an elected Auditor run their elections. Can the County Charter be amended by Inatiative or the Legislature? After the 2004 election, I cannot imagine Dean Logan getting elected anything but, of course, TaxToTheMax will be re-elected and I doubt he will jettison Deano.
Posted by: JC Bob on June 3, 2005 11:21 AMThe fact that we have one sort of governor or another means nothing in the long march of history. We will live through Gregoire, just as we lived through all her predecessors, and all who will follow.
I have been here 14 years, but my work is "on the road" in other states. I wouldn't trade this state for any other. The people here are not only great, but genuinely care about their communities (and their elected officials). I wouldn't want to live in a state where they don't care.... (or order helpless people to be starved to death) ((sorry couldn't resist))
Posted by: fire_one on June 3, 2005 11:23 AMFits the Liberal philosophy quite well huh. We can't attain perfection. We're just small, meek humans. We're just dust in the wind. No sense trying to attain accurate elections, or to achieve anything of any real value. Let's just stop flying into space as it's dangerous, and might not go perfectly well. Banks shouldn't expect complete accuracy. Minorities are all victims and will never attain a higher stature in society, so we must have affirmative action. People can't be trusted with weapons, etc. etc.
These people have no faith in man. And no understanding of the concept of heroes and achievment. It's only to make sure that the least common denominator is satisfied, and that the collectivist, sociali$t power base retains control.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2005 11:27 AMIs it fair to say that the election community are humans?
Uh, no, the people in KC Elections behaved more like animals, with no accountability for their actions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2005 11:33 AMGiven that "the difference" is their code word for "margin of error," don't these guys have this backwards?! What is wrong with them? Is it that hard to understand what uncertainty means?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 11:42 AMI've enjoyed reading your comments over the past 10 days or so. Romney '08!
Posted by: Ryan from Vancouver on June 3, 2005 11:44 AMThey understand fully. If the shoe were on the other foot, they wouldn't be making this argument.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 11:44 AMTHIS IS WHAT THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE (intentionally, to keep KC Elections from looking worse than they already do??): Doris McFarland says "I called up the elections board and said 'Can't I do it beause he wanted me to vote?' The person...said 'Well, who would know?'"
People, THIS is our KC elections department. That person should be outed and fired! If they are willing to say these kinds of things, they are very likely to have done even more than we already know they've done. Where is the outrage from Dean L. and Bill H?
Posted by: Michele on June 3, 2005 11:45 AMJudge Bridges has shown little sign of how he would rule. But an incident during trial testimony on Wednesday clearly showed he is troubled by the rampant incompetence and violations of election law that have been uncovered in King County, which includes Seattle.
After Mr. Logan finished speaking, a long silence followed as Judge Bridges appeared to read something in front of him. He looked up and began quoting from post-election report from Mr. Logan's office that claimed that none of the problems it had found -- from felons and dead people voting to absentee ballot reports being falsified -- compromised "the transparency and integrity of the election."
The judge continued: "I've read maybe a couple thousand pages of deposition testimony and have been here a week and a half, reading and listening to what many of the employees of your department have had to say." He recalled that when he had served in their army, there had been an expression about "taking names... and kicking tush." After Mr. Logan failed to react, the judge asked pointedly: "Is there any sense of urgency in King County about fixing some of these problems?" Finally, Mr. Logan got the message and replied: "I can assure you there are steps being taken right now to address those issues."
Perhaps Judge Bridges is contemplating addressing King County's perverse system of vote counting in his own way: by ruling that its flawed count tainted the entire election and the voters deserve another chance to register their preference in an election that has the public's confidence. New polls indicate that even now 57% of Washington state voters, obviously including many who supported Ms. Gregoire, believe that Republican Dino Rossi actually won last November's election.
I reported to Dan as an election observer in December during the hand recount. Dan is an honest, likeable guy, the kind of guy you would want as your neighbor, thoughtful, articulate, etc. His direct reports, Timothy Borders, etc. were also quite forthright and pleasant.
Compare an contrast this with the Democrat Observers, young, moonbats, poorly dressed and filled with collectivist ideas from their professors at various universities throughout the area. Many not very cordial. Always resentful that the Republicans were interested in an honest observation.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2005 11:48 AMMark
Posted by: Mark D on June 3, 2005 11:48 AMFrom Postman's running commentary at the Times:
Pearson said specifically that he, as a former military voter, objected to Republican claims that military ballots were not being sent to overseas voters because he knew that was false.
He also cited Republican claims that ballot accounting problems indicated fraud, saying, "We knew there were good reasons why those numbers did not balance."
So, the two main complaints by the GOP are called untrue by their own rebuttal witness.
OOPS!
Posted by: JDB on June 3, 2005 11:55 AMDrives me nuts.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 12:01 PMA revote would not have the effect of creating more election challenges in the future. A revote would prevent this from happening again because it would scare the pee out every county auditor for years to come. A revote is perhaps the only thing that will instill a sense of urgency in the county auditors and force them to maintain a higher degree of accuracy.
Robyn, this was discussed just before the start of the trial, but I don't remember the reasoning well enough to answer your question. This was a BIG issue in this election mess. I still think it was a major error not to at least bring this issue before the court. Was it ballot enhancement or ballot divination?
Posted by: otto on June 3, 2005 12:18 PMSince King County Elections has done worse, to the detriment of honest voters everywhere, why shouldn't the same remedy be imposed on Dean Logan & Co?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 3, 2005 12:18 PMThe Democratic Party and legal team have shown us all we can count on them for one thing every time....and that is their consistent ability to have the NEGATIVE MIDAS TOUCH..........
you could give these LEFTIST PINHEADS a 500 ounce bar of Gold....and in less than a day, you can be assured they will turn it into a pile of hot, steamy, runny feces!!
When a police officer pulls you over for breaking the speeding limit, he doesn't care if you have a "good" reason for it. KCE knowingly broke the law and thus threw the election.
Posted by: Shannon C on June 3, 2005 12:20 PMDemocrats have no interest now or in the future of requiring picture ID to vote. If fact, it is just the opposite.
Being in power the Dems had (have) every opportunity to clean up election laws. They have deferred. They are spending million$ right now to defend the current flawed system.
A WA DL is not proof of citizenship anyway.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 12:21 PMTo rule otherwise would be a huge disservice to the People of Washington State, and the nation.
Such messy elections need to have zero tolerance or our whole democratic way of life will crumble and become inferior to the new democratic order in places like Iraq or Georgia. This thought keeps me awake some nights, and I fear for what my children will have handed to them by our current ruling generation.
I just don't see how any judge could, in all good conscience and ethical professionsalism, rule that this election is anything but null and void.
The cost to prosecute would overwhelm simply adding Governor to the November election.
Posted by: swatter on June 3, 2005 12:23 PMI hear you and understand fully. I am worried too. What I have learned however is that this trial has no interest in determining right from wrong.
Like most court cases today it seems, it's only about legal posturing.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 3, 2005 12:24 PMOh, if only King County had an elected Auditor running the elections rather than an appointed political hack.
Posted by: JC Bob on June 3, 2005 12:24 PMFor what it's worth, one thing that I-900 will do is allow the state auditor to step in and audit elections. Even in cases of appointed political hacks. Of course, you need a state auditor with a couple of big brass ones.....
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 12:31 PMNo matter what it costs, it is my belief that the public should nail each one of the bad actors for every item to the full extent that the law allows. Both civil and criminal, and both in jail time and financial penalties.
With, of course, a strong recommendation for no rehire put in their official file...for ANY government job, including crossing guard and dogcatcher.
A sense of trepidation is not enough. There needs to be a complete reversal of the culture of bias and excuses.
IMHO.
Posted by: scott158 on June 3, 2005 12:33 PMYes its true that Rossi had/has some good ideas. It was Rossi's ideas that allowed so many cross-over votes from the centerists who voted Kerry/Murray to vote for him.
That said, many, if not most, centerists on both sides would have accepted Gregoire's election but for the gross incompetence and/or fraud that tainted this election.
I think the Repiblicans have clearly shown the Judge and the public that incompetence, particularly in King County, may have swung the election.
While I hope that the Judge can see a way read the errors, etc statute as plain English, I know enough about how the law is administered to know that this is not always true. Case law at his level in the system can bind him in ways that will make plain English irrelevant to his decision.
I look forward to the final arguments, but I am ready for the worst on Monday. I for one WILL remember what happened in November 2004 and will MAKE SURE that those responsible hear from me.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 3, 2005 12:34 PMThe only upside to the judge ruling that everything is just fine would be the backlash.
I believe that the next election would show a landslide historical Dem loss and Rep win, as voters approach the polls with a bitter taste in their mouths (after paying additional gas tax money to get to the poll). No one, even the WA Dems, would be capable of fixing such overwhelming Republican wins.
I still wonder, though, how I can withdraw funds from any ATM anywhere in the world and my bank account still balances to the penny--- but something as important as voting cannot balance to the hundreds of units.
I believe the dems lost the case but will win the PR war.
People who read this blog know damn well what has gone on and what the dems intend to do about it.
However most people will form their opinion about this issue from the coverage or..non coverage they get from the MSM. The MSM has and will continue to play this down as a non story. Fake election reforms will be sold by the MSM to the uneducated as real reform. No criminals will loose their jobs or be prosecuted. There will be no consequences to stealing an election.
Baring a favorable ruling from Judge Bridges on Monday, they will have pulled it off.
To put it simply, they have no credible threat that forces them to behave or to be open, and no threat of punishment or sanction if they screw up.
One thing dems can't/won't get is that from a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter if it is "deliberate" or and "accident"...the sense of the public being robbed is the same.
To put it another way...if you have a gun in your hand and someone is shot, premeditation likely leads to a murder charge, but cleaning your gun while loaded might be manslaughter...
In either case, you pay consequences.
So should it be with government empolyees. And the fact that the punishment would be swift, just, and sure would tend to keep out the slackers for whom big pay and no accountability are criteria for job searches.
Posted by: scott158 on June 3, 2005 12:43 PMHaving said that, that may be part of a solution, but there needs to be a check on the SOS.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 12:46 PM2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud
Is cover-up an act of fraud ? According to the above definition, it is. KCE has been covering up since last election day ! Connecting the dots leads me to know what the verdict should be..
Posted by: KS on June 3, 2005 12:49 PMb) it would make take the director of elections and change that from cheerleader to the buck stops here. Had that been in place last election, Handy would be facing jail time.
c) it would eliminate Reeds excuse that he has no authority to NOT certify.
Posted by: Itsasquak on June 3, 2005 12:52 PMYes OR...That's what I think they were doing...however, I believe the Judge just took that option away in his response to the Dems objection....sigh...
I could be wrong though....
No matter! The Republicans have more than made their case in this contest!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 12:57 PMThat's why I hope there's a federal case lined up after this. Prosecute 'em! Nothing else will get their attention!
Posted by: Bostonian on June 3, 2005 01:07 PMWe can always hope.
Posted by: Doggfish on June 3, 2005 01:38 PMShe's sharp....very detail oriented. Hammy better watch it on the cross.
Posted by: MB on June 3, 2005 01:51 PMFrom: http://dictionary.law.com/
fraud
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood. Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one's own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent. Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit. Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted. Borderline overreaching or taking advantage of another's naiveté involving smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests the victim seek a "civil remedy" (i.e., sue). However, increasingly fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.
The readers can draw their own conclusions but testimony clearly proves that canvassing boards were not given all the known pertinent facts and that is fraud. Did it affect the outcome? It is not possible to say. With the shear volume wrongful votes, insecure ballots, known errors, etc., Judge Bridges really has no option but to declare the election void. If there were 100 erroneous votes he most certainly would not. However, we are beyond the threshold where any reasonable and rational person would uphold an election.
This was not tried in Chelan County by accident. The Republicans went to a county where they would get a fair chance. In Thurston, King, or many others they would not. In Thurston County I would give 10 to 1 odds on the outcome. The majority of Judges there are little more than political hacks.
If your books didn't match, would you fake the result?
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 01:53 PMQuoting Postman:
"Hamilton then asked Brady about a brief filed by the state Republican Party in an earlier lawsuit during the manual recount.
He read what Republicans at the time said about King County's plans to have observers watch: 'It's hard to imagine a fairer and more meaningful opportunity to observe than the procedure proposed by King County.'"
Once again, the GOP shows that this is all about PR, and nothing about the law.
ripping into witness with smile on face...cold.
Posted by: MB on June 3, 2005 01:58 PMbig surprise....but not everyone covers them up. In fact others would note that the outcome is probably not accurate.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 02:07 PMPosted by: Miss Florida on June 3, 2005 02:07 PM
...and she STILL reconciled all of her ballots.
Posted by: JRR on June 3, 2005 02:08 PMthe problem is that they not are not only consistently missing the target, they have refused to fix the problems pointed out and then willfully covered it up and faked the outcome.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 02:16 PMI can't even imagine what that sinking feeling the wingnuts here are having in their stomache feels like. You can't say that we haven't tried to keep you in touch with reality. But I doubt your tinfoil hats are going to save you now.
Posted by: JDB on June 3, 2005 02:16 PMWho's reality?? I think you're hoping for a role in the sequel to The Truman Show.
When you're living inside that fantasy bubble, anything outside of it is fantasy to you...
it was your guy on the stand that the judge was shaking his head at in disgust.
If the election doesn't get overturned, it'd be like a child molester getting off because the cop didn't read him his rights (after being arrested for the 10th time).
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 02:19 PMAnd if Vance made his statement before we knew any of this, then it really doesn't matter that he said there was no fraud in KC.
Posted by: JRR on June 3, 2005 02:22 PMIt sounds like KC would like to be broken up!
GO Ceder County!
You're conveniantly omitting one critical piece of information... Vance made those statements on Nov 9th, well before the first count was even finished.
Every allegation of wrong doing was based on evidence found much later. The Dem's looked like idiots entering that statement after they had to admit the date it was made... and you look like one offering it as proof of no wrongdoing.
Posted by: Mike H on June 3, 2005 02:37 PMYour hatred and prejudice will not help you or your ilk in the coming years.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, Washington is a battleground state. So are Wisconsin, Hawaii, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, while Florida and Ohio are red, red, oh so red.
But keep saying things like your fearless leader, Howard Dean, and keep wondering why there are more Republicans than Democrats (even in the college ranks) for the first time in decades.
Tinfoil hats or not, we're taking the battle to a precinct near you. See you around, you idiotic moonbat.
Posted by: Larry on June 3, 2005 02:41 PM
I am interested in a whole new slate of politicians. I would probably vote for anybody that 1) has owned a business and has had to make payroll 2) has had to deal with the paperwork necesarry to stay in business 3) appears to be intelligent 4)not convicted of any crime. 5) has honorable track record of selfless service. 6) has support from members of both parties.
I respecfully suggest you make an opportunity to hear David Irons speak. http://www.davidirons.org/events.html I think you'll like what you hear.
I don't think the judge was very impressed with Hamilton's performance.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 3, 2005 02:45 PMSure, Vance said everything was great when his canidate was leading, but remember that the GOP brief to the Supreme Court during the re-count said it was an open and trustworthy system.
Given that nearly 8 months later they can't show one instance of fraud, you have to admit, it looks like they were telling the truth to you back then, and lying to you now.
Posted by: JDB on June 3, 2005 02:48 PMI disagree w/him on the point of either situation being better than the current- I don't think Rossi being appointed would be better than a revote.
Let him kick Gregoire's butt fair and square.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 02:48 PMI have this feeling he/she/IT does.
Posted by: Big M on June 3, 2005 02:49 PMFirst, the Judge sustained the Republican's objection and did not accept it as eveidence in the case but he DID accept it into the court. I don't know the exact disticnton, but I think it comes down to making it available to the Supremes.
Second, What Vance said is very telling in that he made a big show of giving his insider experience in the "prcess" to say how fine and above board the process is, so I think the Dems scored an emotional victory.
However, I have additional thoughts on the matter. One, he was speaking to only some things, and issues in general, and could not have known how provisionals and absentees were mishandled contrary to past elections and procedures, and two, the issues that arose during the hand recount shed light on a system that seemed to be in chaos which was not apparent during the initial count.
Finally, it was a slick move by the Dems to get the video played even though they were not allowed to use it as evidence. The question is, did it cast doubt on Vance or did it make the judge irritated that they would play such a trick? I think the Judge already knew Vance was a partisan player and would be playing "politics" throughout the controversy, so I don't think it would have influenced the judge much on that score. It might have made him slightly less likely to cut the Dems any slack though.
Anyway, that's what occured to me.
Posted by: Eyago on June 3, 2005 02:51 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 3, 2005 02:53 PMDo us all a favor and have a nice tall glass of kool-aid.
SHEESH!
Posted by: kim in vancouver on June 3, 2005 02:57 PMNo, it not just you. One of the other KCE defenses is "We're too incompetent to get an election right."
Posted by: otto on June 3, 2005 03:00 PMThe woman in the red dress that walked up to the bench and conferred with Judge Bridges really brightened up the courtroom. Who doesn't like a lady in red.
The view now being shown with the R lawyer doing closing in the foreground and Durkin and other D lawyers in the background is priceless. The Ds are really worried as evidenced by their body language. This won't go good for them.
Posted by: eagleeye on June 3, 2005 03:06 PMWhy do I think the tone will change to shrill whining and victimhood when it's the Dem's turn?
Posted by: Skeptical on June 3, 2005 03:22 PMThis is what Durkin has to be feeling. Best friend to the Queen of the bottom feeders.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 03:28 PM"...people from every walk of life turned out to vote..."
...including dead people, felons,...
Posted by: Mike H on June 3, 2005 03:30 PMwowie zowie...
Posted by: scott158 on June 3, 2005 03:30 PMThis WILL be funny.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 03:30 PMJust like Gregoire- blame everyone in your office for the failures.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 03:33 PM
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along....
Posted by: Skeptical on June 3, 2005 03:39 PMNow she wants to get legal on us, how could she possibly undertsand the "concept"?
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 3, 2005 03:41 PMNext time bring your 'A' game.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 03:42 PMAudio or video is to much bandwidth to use, and I don't have a radio.
Guess I'll have to catch highlights later.
Posted by: Steve B on June 3, 2005 03:43 PMAs usual, Dems accuse you of what they are guilty of: they have no facts.
Posted by: Rick D on June 3, 2005 03:46 PMAs usual, Dems accuse you of what they are guilty of: they have no facts.
Posted by: Rick D on June 3, 2005 03:46 PM
puff- don't cough Jenny!!!
You do not have to see a rotting corpse to smell a rotting corpse.
And what do you call the falsification of the MBR, just another "error"?
Posted by: JC Boa on June 3, 2005 03:53 PMIt's really sad when their best hope to keep the mansion is that this is the first time we are calling them on this garbage.
OOOO now she's telling the judge it's not his job, but the democrat majority in the legislature...I've got a Dale Carnegie book for her.
Now, she's going on and on about how the LEGISLATURE is where they need to make changes to the elections system, not a judge. And that sometimes it's good to let the public see the internal workings of government, but not in this case!! The legislature this....the legislature that....gee, I wonder if the legislature had a Republican majority if she would be so adamant about having the legislature do everything.
ROTFLMAO - She was just pondering out loud why the GOP didn't "get the envelopes" themselves, and said they made NO attempt to do so (which I don't think is accurate). She then said that she imagines that Maguire would stand up and say "But there's 600,000 of them! That's too hard!". (and here's the punchline) - Jenny "Overruled" Durkan then said "Sorry, but that's not an excuse!"
Now wait just a minute! That's the dems WHOLE defense! It was too hard to do their jobs right. Too many ballots for those poor workers to deal with...etc....another own goal?
Posted by: Scott on June 3, 2005 03:59 PMYeah- WE KNOW ABOUT THE SECRET DV BALLOTS...now stop saying they weren't counted for....
Were they asleep that hour or what?
Now watch...she'll say there is no math...and then try and use math to say it's not valid. It's like a court challenge with a juvenile. I'm waiting for the part where she covers her ears and screams "I can't hear you...na na na"
Now she's trying to tell Bridges what the WAC is.
Did I miss-hear her?
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 3, 2005 04:06 PMCommandant Chrissy is not going to be happy...
Posted by: Skeptical on June 3, 2005 04:07 PMHow can she say that with a straight face???
I can't wait to see them make that argument again in front of the Supreme court.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:09 PMI think this is where Korrell's closing arguments comes in handy (I don't like to use that word anymore). Proportionately ballots were "found" in Gregoire precincts and "lost" in Rossi precincts.
Provisionals going through the accuvote - this ought to be interesting.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 3, 2005 04:10 PMI truly beleive that this election was unfairly given to Gregoire, but I can't see that we will find remedy in the courts for that based on the laws as they exist. It's a sad day for Washington when that can happen. The election was a mess, it may be that our only remedy would be to systematically vote out the people who made this mess happen, but unfortunately we have short memories, and I don't think it will happen.
Posted by: Eyago on June 3, 2005 04:10 PM/sarc off
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 04:12 PMSeriously, I think it was a mistake for the Democrats to use Ms. Jenny for closing arguments. She is rambling way too much.
Nah - not with that acid tone. I'll go for the first one: even she doenst believe it, and suspects that she's standing there in her underwear while everyone else is seeing through the lies too. Not a good legacy for Daddy.
All she has are nasty comments and disdain for the facts. I am amazed by her arrogant nasty tone, combined with her stumbles and gaps. Totally unravelling.
Posted by: rick D on June 3, 2005 04:14 PM
SHE MUST BE TALKING ABOUT MILITARY BALLOTS...
and even if the ballot box was stuffed...they did it to beat bush- MOVEON.ORG didn't bother to vote for Governor in most of the ballots...
oops did I say that out loud??
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:15 PMWell under the impossible circumstances of selling this stinky pig of an election to the judge as a princess, no one could do it better...but in the end its a filthy rutting pig.
On the other hand, this is probably the one tax they wouldn't want to raise.
Then she says the mistakes elsewhere are the same as in king county...
Then she says you can't use proportional analysis, then she says using proportional analysis still has the Queen of Fraud winning.
---de ja vu
(Oh Great! Durkin complaining of Rs fuzzy math. Better check her powerpoint slides agian before she accuses others!)
Posted by: Rick D on June 3, 2005 04:25 PMYeah, the Dems are all about telling stories.
Posted by: JRR on June 3, 2005 04:25 PM
stop- I'm going to bust a seam here.
~dumb braod~
Posted by: kim in vancouver on June 3, 2005 04:32 PM"Scores own goal." She shoots the basketball into the basket that she's supposed to be defending.
Posted by: JRR on June 3, 2005 04:34 PMScores own goal is an analogy to a sports game, i.e. soccer, when a player scores a goal, but in their own teams net, not the opponents.
Does that help?
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 3, 2005 04:35 PMGive me a break.
RM
This is a rambling, WAY too long closing. Get out the hook...
Posted by: Tucker on June 3, 2005 04:36 PMAnd if the Republicans weren't so mean, they wouldn't have had to do it....
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 04:37 PMHey Kim, I'm in the Couve too. I'm the one wearing the Re-elect Rossi shirt. Should see the looks I get in Freddy's.
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 04:37 PMOh, so now you're a comedian, Ms. Durkan.
Posted by: Editor on June 3, 2005 04:37 PMThe Demolishers want to claim nothing is knowable. We do know that this election was screwed up. Like the grassy knoll: Kennedy was shot! It's not rocket science: but the space shuttle did explode (twice).
Posted by: oskosbgosh on June 3, 2005 04:38 PMIt'll be 1:00 am tonight and she'll be reciting Mary had a little lamb" in a dark court room.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:40 PMI hope Rossi likes the new carpet..
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 3, 2005 04:42 PMJenny argued that the mail ballot report shows that "ballots counted plus ballots rejected should equal ballots received" and Nicole Way simply filled in the numbers that should have been on the report, so everything is fine, right?
But as any accountant would know, the numbers first have to be correct. Then the numbers can be reconciled.
Accountants for Rossi!
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 3, 2005 04:44 PMIf I talk long enough on absolutely nothing in particular relating to facts in an angry tone will you just throw up your arms and say that I win?
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:45 PMWhere's my violin?
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 04:46 PMThis all has taken a HUGE TOLL on election workers in this state.
Just as Chrissy's taxes have taken a HUGE TOLL on our wallets.
Posted by: Skeptical on June 3, 2005 04:47 PMto be continued monday morning.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:48 PMIf not for the brilliant intellect of my wife, i would call it mushy female thinking. But women are smart. It's liberals that are just plain irrational and led by their emotions.
Posted by: rick D on June 3, 2005 04:50 PMIt's reBUTTal time. Sorry couldn't resist.
Posted by: otto on June 3, 2005 04:55 PMAlthough all the election officials worked hard, only the union ones will get raises. Gotta keep the contributers happy.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 04:57 PMWhich will generate methane for his pet fuel cell project.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 05:04 PMdude- WHY WAS A LAWSUIT THREATENED FOR NOT MAILING MILITARY BALLOTS OUT!!!!
talk about ignoring a giant elephant.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 05:08 PMHave a spine or just be a democrat in the fraud cover up.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 05:10 PMI think his 10 minutes is up
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 3, 2005 05:12 PMWas that Ahearn a while ago - the first one after recess?
Posted by: Rick D on June 3, 2005 05:15 PMHow about asking Kerry and Moveon to spring for it? They were they funded the fraud to start with.
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 05:17 PMI don't think Durkins recital of War and Peace is going to weigh in her favor.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 05:20 PMYes. The soon to be retired SoS's lawyer.
Posted by: otto on June 3, 2005 05:20 PMI'll have to hand it to him for not wasting the courts time.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 05:22 PMHow many times have the Dems done this about admitting more exhibits? It seems rather sloppy to me. Maybe KC helped them...
Posted by: Jack on June 3, 2005 05:24 PMI liked how the demon lawyer motioned his clerk (and her sister) down to the front.
Rs will celebrate tonight, while Ds run for the downers at the Rx store
Posted by: oskosbgosh on June 3, 2005 05:25 PMTypical Democrat organization.
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 05:26 PMI think it was only "Crime and Punishment," which isn't as long.
Or maybe it was "Gone With the Wind."
Ok, I'll stop now. Finally.
Durkan: Says nothing meaningful in 20 or 30 sentences. Continually brings up total irrelevancies such as election worker "feelings". Wastes time lecturing the judge on what the court can and can't do. Can't get the math right on here own slides.
Posted by: SLC on June 3, 2005 05:29 PMKC "did" help them organize their records.
Posted by: Jack on June 3, 2005 05:31 PMAnd then criticizes the R's for "fuzzy math".
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 05:32 PMI'll bet he goes fishing with the prof.
Posted by: Terry CLark C on June 3, 2005 05:33 PMI hope the trolls come to play: headless, nelson, the_gent, Erik (or is it Eric), John Barelli, JDB... am I missing anyone?
See you guys later.
Posted by: JRR on June 3, 2005 05:36 PMI recall the Christmas present WA received from KC, Queen Gregoire. Hopefully we are given the chance to her in for someone we really wanted.
RE-ELECT ROSSI!
It could be Christmas in June...
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 05:38 PMJust for the record, Barelli is not a troll. He is that rarest of breeds (unless you include who'da thunk)...a relatively intellectually honest liberal. He also hasn't been seen around these parts in a while. At least I haven't seen him. Other than JBarelli, your list was quite sufficient.
Posted by: Danny on June 3, 2005 05:43 PMThis has been better than any Perry Mason episode, or any hour of law and order. Some final observations:
1. Lawyers representing losers are going to have to say some embarrassing things to collect their fee.
2. Short and to the point is better than wordy and not well organized. Bullshit stinks, and the more you pile it up, the bigger stink you have. Law is like golf. Take the fewest strokes possible to get it in the hole (I will refrain from mentioning that this also applies to a more private activity). Like my speech prof said: If you can't strike oil in 20 minutes, stop boring.
3. Elected officials will use any platform to be relected. Sam Reed and Ahern should be ashamed of themselves for his little expose at the end. I certainly will not be voting for this bunch again, and I will be calling the SoS office to mention that Mr. Handy should be put out to pasture.
4. The Snohomish lawyer needs to understand that the Judge cannot set aside money for the revote. Each government entity implicitly and explicitly takes the risk that unanticipated expenditures will occur. Just ask the City of Tacoma who will spend over $20 million because their top cop used his service revolver to kill his wife and himself in a fit of rage.
5. Sound politics is KING! I did not vote for Rossi, and will not vote for him in a revote. But this blog is a great source of cogent information, and the comments sections are a hoot.
Posted by: oskoshbgosh on June 3, 2005 05:45 PMWay to go! I was about to clarify, but you were quicker.
Posted by: marks on June 3, 2005 05:46 PMI was watching on TVW, fell asleep at the 5 min break and just now woke up to Chrissy's voice addressing Union Workerbees for Bad Education (UWBBE).
What a nightmare...
I really won't sleep tonite.
How was the rubuttal and how was Ahearn?
Even though both sides have promised to appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose.... who says the Supremes will even take the case?
Can't they decline to hear it?
What happens if they do?
Please tell me it's not the 9th Circuit...
If the Shark runs and gets in, could he staff the place with the soundpolitics gang?
I thought it was priceless when Durkin kept insisting that the petitioners had no case for illegal votes because they had not identified even one illegal voter....then she holds up certified statements from Felon Voters showing that they voted in the election!...ummmm....thanks! Jen!
If the Ds prevail King Co will continue to thumb their noses at the voters and just do as they please. Oh sure, Ron "tax to the max" Sims will come through with his blue-ribbon whitewash committee report... and he'll make some changes, like spending more money, but I bet that none of the guilty parties even loses their job over this 'cause "they worked so hard" and "elections are hard" and it was just a bunch of "mistakes."
No matter what happens, Ms. Gregoire is toast. She will never recover and will always be viewed as illegitimate.
I won't have any hard feelings one way or the other if Judge Bridges does not rule for Rossi because I think he's been fair and is taking this serious. I think Dino will react the same if it comes to that. He will be gratious, as always.
Gregoire, on the other hand, will be her usual b!tchy self, no matter what the verdict. If she wins, she will gloat, if she loses, she will whine. It will be a long 3-1/2 years.
God help us. A prayer or two for guidance for the judge wouldn't hurt :-)
Posted by: Tucker on June 3, 2005 07:06 PMMy God! Wasn't he disgusting???? ACK!
Earlier today, during Ms. Wymans testimony, I was laughing! I couldn't decide if Braden -( sitting in the seat next to the booger-eater )- was nodding off to sleep or if he was sending covert signals to Ms. Wyman during cross-examination!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 07:14 PMI don't think anyone who followed the vote, re-vote and re-re-vote can be surprised. What we must guard against is being JADED!
That said, I think are wrong. Why?
Read Foulkes music (to my ears) by Timothy Goddard.
http://www.timothygoddard.com/blog/
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 07:26 PMI too am awaiting the "Christmas package" on Monday. In any case, thanks to Stefan et. al. and talk radio for keeping us informed. The MSM would have kept us in the dark with "...but mere shadows of things that are..."
If the Republicans lose, I will fly an upside-down Washington state flag (indicating distress) until the next election. Hopefully there is no law against that, or the current regime will haul me off to a "retraining & diversity" camp.
They were NOT dropped because they could not be substantiated - as the few trolls here - (with many usernames)- liked to speculate...The enhanced ballots were so corrupted by King Counties methods of enhancment -it was decided by the Republicans that it would take a huge chunk of their time and resources to pursue an investigation of them! And Korrel reminded the court, that in the case of the delayed mailing of military ballots - there was a formal letter of complaint sent to the State and King County - from the Department of Justice - demanding that the military absentee ballots be mailed by a certain date due to late mailings in the past - and recent complaints from military personnel that they had not received ballots!
So these were NOT unsubstantiated rumors and ploys to hype up the Republicans case as Sam Reeds attorney alleged! These were true and important facts that the Republicans had to back off of due to time and money constraints in the contest!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 07:43 PMWhat will irritate me most is there will be absolutely no incentive for King County to fix their mess- in fact it will be a message that sloppy and unaccountable is A-OK and no one will enforce otherwise. There will be an open invitation for willful neglect [fraud] in any county controlled by democrats or republicans with the scruples to cheat (yes cheaters exist on both sides of the fence) and a basic message that accuracy in our elections just doesn't matter- so youngsters- don't bother to show up at the polls, the election will be decided by the biggest cheater and your vote really doesn't matter that much afterall.
The Democrat controlled legislature has demonstrated they are not motivated to fix a wrong that weighs in their favor- and will likely help them stay in control for at least another cycle. They have shown us they will do anything they can to stay in power [hey there's a star wars analogy for you] even if it means destroying what this country was built on- free elections.
Quite frankly I will be cheesed off about America if this isn't overturned- because in spite of all else, America is about the right to vote and to have your vote count the same as everyone elses.
After watching Bridges for the past week or so I think he realizes that he is setting precedent not only for Washington, but the entire country. If elections are not on the up and up- they should be set aside- I don't care who the illegitimate winner is. That is the precedent he has to set.
This isn't about Rossi- it's about America.
Posted by: Andy on June 3, 2005 07:46 PMCould you possibly start a *Wenatchee 2* thread?
This one has over 400 comments in it and it takes soooooo long to refresh!
Thanks!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 07:51 PMThe legislator will have to wear a huge pointed dunce hat on the legislative floor in Olympia if he/she wants to speak to the Legislature. The hat will read "Naughty." The legislator will do community service by wearing a "kick me" sign while on Capitol property and making coffee/doughnut runs for legislative interns.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 3, 2005 07:54 PM
HaHaHa.....Very good! I'll run it by her, it'll make her laugh....actually the emergency law thing is not a bad angle.....I'll have her bring a dunce cap just in case she gets it passed!
Posted by: appalled on June 3, 2005 07:57 PMNo matter what happens though, we need to push HARD for the No New Gas Tax initiative I-912 starting Monday... unless another judge screws us over on that one too. Let's hope for a double win or it's going to go down as Black Monday for sure.
Posted by: Tucker on June 3, 2005 07:58 PMAppalled, how about a little bill that takes homeschool resource centers out from under the "alternative school" part of the RCWs and puts them in their own section. I have other homeschooling friends who use the homeschool resource center for a few of their children's classes and it's kind of galling to be legally pegged as a public school student when they - not the school district - are responsible for their kids' education and they take only 1 or 2 classes at the center. Anyway, that's my two-bit idea.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 3, 2005 08:00 PMJust like all DemoRats, Red has an excuse.
Red has Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) which is only be controlled by nose candy.
Then there are the hemorrhoids. It's hard to sit still when the rhoids are acting up.
Then there is the narcolepsy. Seems it is only brought on by GOP speakers.
Then the Turrets syndrome that causes frantic head nodding when the Democrats speak.
Give the poor guy a break!
(Oh, and BTW.. Yes girls.. I suspect he is single! Did you notice the wardrobe?)
Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 08:01 PMNot bad....thanks!
Posted by: appalled on June 3, 2005 08:01 PMWow! Verrry gooood! I knew this was a good place to ask! You should start an initiative on that one.....or does it not qualify?
Posted by: appalled on June 3, 2005 08:07 PMI agree wholeheartedly with your statement. I truly believe, like you, that Judge Bridges really wants to be able to toss the election out, but he must base it on law.
Andy - very good posts. I often enjoy reading what you have to say. I get the "feeling" that you don't buy the bologne that goes on in the court system in Thurston County. I bet you're glad to see Wickham out of family court. He is a bleeding heart for single mothers (whether or not they're anorexic, druggy looking women with records of mental disorders). I've observed what goes on due to the fact that over the last few years I've helped my husband obtain custody of his two daughter's whom both have special needs. I know, a little OT, but I do appreciate your perspective.
Great suggestion, Shannon K, re: the homeschooling being in it's own separate category. By the way, as I posted earlier this week on another thread, my ten year old is now playing "epublican and Democrats" with his cousins. Gone are the days of Cowboys and Indians.
And, lastly, whoever made the post about Stefan's family's support, Amen to that! Give your family a hug from us all. Without you, we'd be mostly in the dark. Thanks to you and the rest of SP contributors for keeping the light on.
And, yes, pray about this. I have all along and will continue to.
I'm listening to the replay of Jenny (because I slept through it live) and she is really attached to that "strains credulity" line.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 3, 2005 08:50 PM2 A revote does not occur BUT 5000 angry bloggers hit the political scene and aided by the democrat embarassment and public doubt about election fraud and there is a huge upheaval. Significant republican support occurs while democrat support erodes.
Its a no win situation for the democrats and a no lose situation for the moderates and conservatives as long as the republicans pay heed to the errors, public opinion, and take a stand to correct the election problems.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 3, 2005 08:51 PMOur supremes have to stand for re-election though, don't they? Wouldn't it be in their own best interest to not touch this with a 10' pole, especially given the closeness of the election and the ferver surrounding this contest?
Posted by: Cheryl on June 3, 2005 09:14 PMBottom line is....I would bet that the majority of Washingtonians with a heart beat have been paying attention to the trial, and we all cared about it! Both my wife and I personally spent many hours watching TVW. (THANK YOU TVW) I followed the newspapers, talk radio, news reports, and of course, Sound Politics and others. And I have to agree with an earlier post that Bridges realizes that America is watching and this will set a precedent for future election challenges.
I'm personally convinced that there's reams of evidence that could have been added to the trial, and as Judge Bridges said, the trial could have taken much longer.
I'm confident the Republicans did a terrific job. The election was screwed up and full of fraud, and there's still many things to be fixed out there. Too many for too long have ignored the mistakes and problems. In their mind "a little mistake + or - 1" (or 20) votes per precinct was not that big of a deal. (It's only an election, after all.)
Let's hope for the best on Monday. Otherwise King County and the Democrats will be snubbing their noses at everyone even more than they do so now.
Posted by: Larry in Renton on June 3, 2005 09:23 PMAs a hardworking family man in this great State of Washington, it has been a wonderful week to become encouraged by their goodness, greatness and gifts.
Posted by: Hank on June 3, 2005 09:50 PM
That letter you are refering to regarding the military ballots that was sent out by the Feds; it was sent to SoS Reed and the sitting AG who is acting like the Gov of WA state today.
Posted by: kim in vancouver on June 3, 2005 10:01 PMThanks! I know it was sent out by the Feds (DoJ) to Sam Reed - I wasn't aware it was also sent to the former AG's office...
I know that King County's late military mailings were a major concern of the Feds! It was their absentee ballot blunders and the complaints by military members that caused the State to come into the Feds radar!
Posted by: Deborah on June 4, 2005 12:24 AM
Thanks for that great suggestion, too! I'm giving her these suggestions......the girls get "assigned" to a party when they arrive in Ellensburg.....she is axiously awaiting a red T-shirt, as opposed to a blue one....
Posted by: appalled on June 4, 2005 09:48 AM3. GOP loses, Gregoire remains governor, and we simply can't get ordinary people to care enough to do anything about it. Sam Reed and his cronies in the legislature pass a few cosmetic changes to the election laws, the media proclaim the problem solved while at the same time bashing Republicans for ever suggesting that there was a problem, and Gregoire wins re-election in 2008 with an increased Democratic majority in both houses.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2005 11:36 AMSorry, but I just can't buy it.
I'm not saying that my scenario is inevitable, either. But it is certainly plausible.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2005 11:48 AMPolitics is weird. PM isn't the only senator who doesn't make sense; throughout history states have sent all kinds of senators that don't make sense. A couple have run for president, failed to carry their home state, and then got reelected to the senate! I've come to the conclusion that there is no rhyme or reason to who gets elected to the senate, and it isn't a good indicator of anything.
Issues are another matter. Washingtonians (and just about everyone else, including Californians) tend to vote much more conservative when it comes to issues. And unless you are a complete die-hard MoveOn slug, you will want elections cleaned up. I think that you will find that a lot of habitual democrat voters are not pleased with this fiasco, if for no other reason than it has the apperance of impropriety. They want "good government".
What this will come down to is communication. And that is where the traditional demo/MSM monolith is loosing it. They are loosing it on two fronts: 1. they are losing their monopoly, and 2. the radicals inside of the demo party are making them look less than serious and trustworthy. As I said, they can buy time, but their problems are beyond the ability to fix with duct tape. And there is no mechanism for the grownups to regain control. Checkmate.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 4, 2005 12:31 PMIf you were at the Revote! rally in Oly last year, and talked to the same people I did, you would have spoken to retired couples, young families, democrats and conservatives alike. We were all of a single thought - the election was stolen and we are gonna get it back!
We're almost there. Don't lose sight of the endzone!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 04:47 PM