A certain lunatic-fringe blogger, whose name we conveniently forget, reassures us that nothing went wrong in the King County vote count, and informs us that everything is explained by a "big binder", which he has never seen, but nevertheless claims to know for a fact that "this binder and the poll books are sitting down there at KC Elections for anybody to inspect."
The following e-mail exchange transpired this PM
2:24PM S.Sharkansky => King County Elections Office
The "big binder" of polling place reconciliation reports that David Goldstein quoted you on. I believe that should be encompassed by my public records request letter of 2/22. When is the earliest that I can see that binder? Can I just go into the Elections office and ask at the front desk to see it?7:11PM King County Elections Office => S. Sharkansky
We will gladly provide you this information as soon as it is available.So "the earliest that I can see it" is "as soon as it is available", which isn't exactly the same thing as "sitting down there at KC elections for anybody to inspect", is it.
A member of the King County Council has been asking unsuccessfully to see the damn binder for an entire month.
"As soon as it is available" must be the Seattle way of saying "real soon now"
UPDATE: Armen Yousoufian happened to hear me on the Mike Siegel Show this morning talking about the binder. He was downtown anyway, so he dropped by the King County Elections Offfice and asked the person at the counter if he could see the binder. Not make any copies, mind you, just see it. The counter person seemed to know which documents Armen was talking about but was not able to show them to him. Armen was on his cell phone to me while he made the request and I could hear the whole thing.
UPDATE 2: The blogger who revealed the existence of the binder also reported King County's claim that "a single Seattle reporter" had "asked to see the binder". Implication being, naturally, that the reporter also saw the binder. Well I did speak to a Seattle reporter just now who confirms that he/she did ask to see the binder. But he/she also told me that they have not yet been shown the binder. Just thought you'd all want to know.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 24, 2005 11:12 PM | Email ThisWhat a joke. If this is a transparent and open process, I'd hate to see their idea of a closed process.
Posted by: Jason on February 24, 2005 11:36 PMAhhh the Big Binder...
The Big Binder that explains everything we ever worried about in this election, solves the DB Cooper skyjack case, and most of all makes Goldstein appear to be a credible blogger.
Don't be too hard on them....
I think that's their email *Auto-reply* Stefan...
I sent an email requesting their *Bogus Big Binder - showing proof of election fraud*...and I got the same message back!
"As soon as it is available"
Snicker......(just kidding...:) )
On the other hand, how would you like to be a loyal dem, whose longest suit in this contest is Dem. incompetance? Think about that for a minute or two. The Dems claim what is essentially a mandate, and the public sees the Dem stance as one of smoke and mirrors. And CG as an interloper. She presumes the crown. A pretender. Usurper.
The net result could provide as big a backlash and tidal change as the '94 election, and if it does, it will be much more fundamental in nature. '92 was much more about differences on issues. The wake of 2004 is much more about a real sense of true values, and the Dem response lacks depth, integrity, and character.
If the Dems were uncomfortable in '04, they're likely need to learn the upside of being road kill in '06. They might, *shock*, even have to learn examine their fundamental understandings and beliefs.
I doubt it, but it could happen.
Posted by: scott158 on February 25, 2005 12:03 AMOr maybe it's on the shelf next to the king's new clothes. I guess we'd have to be enlightened Democrats in order to see it.
Posted by: JB on February 25, 2005 12:13 AMBut what's been happening at the KC elections office is pretty close. You cast your ballot and then try and get assurance that it was counted. Or was it eliminated (lost?) by a careless precinct worker? Or cancelled by an illegal ballot? Or...? Who knows? The time it's taking to produce this "big binder" is hardly a source of reassurance that we'll ever have any confidence that someone's vote wasn't massaged right out of existence.
What did Chris Vance say, that he didn't know whether to laugh or cry because the election process was becoming a "circus"? Whatever he said, his description becomes more and more apt.
Posted by: RLG on February 25, 2005 12:13 AMI think I will wait for the fact finding in court. The fir will fly and the obfuscation will then really begin.
Posted by: TomasM on February 25, 2005 01:16 AMBut then the information in question was required from the precincts the night of the counts, from the county BEFORE certification, by the Secretary of State BEFORE certification, by the legislature BEFORE certification.
Posted by: TomasM on February 25, 2005 01:56 AMThe "binder" talk on Goldy's post kind of got my interest up as it sounded mysterious.
Seeing that Stefan was going to refer to it, I was sure that he was going to say he went down and found no such binder or that the binder contained comic strips or the sort.
However, after reading his post, he has added even added more mystery to the ##@!$@# binder.
Now it seems the golden binder contains all of the answers to the election.
Posted by: Erik on February 25, 2005 02:00 AMDo you REALLY think THEY can just 'release' it?
Hilly is busy 're-inventing' herself for a reason. (Hilly would LOVE to get into office on just such a snafu!)
Mulitple pages of illegal acts, filed for future use, HMM, sounds much like Saddam (or his co-hearts) are still in charge!!
Posted by: Arky on February 25, 2005 04:41 AMXiaoding
Posted by: Xiaoding on February 25, 2005 05:09 AMThe Snarkt one demeans himself (and his minions) by pretending to not understand the message, acting confused about how the public records request process works and expressing a snarky false outrage. What a manipulator - the favorite of the manipulated.
Posted by: dpk on February 25, 2005 06:51 AMStefan,
I think you should make a request to the "partial binder", ie, the incomplete current state. By saying its not available, they admit existance. By not producing, they defy the FOI act, unless they can claim it is incomplete. In that case, you just ask for today's snapshot, not the final product.
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 25, 2005 07:10 AMThey dont have to copy anything, if you just want to INSPECT it. To see if It EXIST's, one not needs a "copy".
DPK, Just who are you trying to Convince here?
Posted by: Chris on February 25, 2005 07:12 AMI will gladly provide you these funds as soon as they are available.
I'm guessing it wouldn't go over so well. But when it's concerning something as important as our free, fair, and open elections (the very basis of our representative democracy), King Sims and co. expect us to accept this - and other government officials too (like Sideshow Bob Terwilliger's stonewalling, for example).
Does anyone else's blood just BOIL whenever you see Gregoire on TV pretending to be Governor?? Or is it just me?
Posted by: Scott on February 25, 2005 07:16 AMOnce again you obfuscate and cloud what Shark actually said...
1) "A certain lunatic-fringe blogger...claims to know for a fact that "this binder and the poll books are sitting down there at KC Elections for anybody to inspect."
2) Shark requests from the KC Elections Office "The "big binder" of polling place reconciliation reports that David Goldstein quoted you on. I believe that should be encompassed by my public records request letter of 2/22. When is the earliest that I can see that binder? Can I just go into the Elections office and ask at the front desk to see it?"
3) The KC Elections Office replies "We will gladly provide you this information as soon as it is available."
What part of the plain email language don't you understand? It either exists for public viewing (as Goldstein stated) or it still doesn't exist for whatever reason that KC Elections Office did not disclose. You're only guessing that it still needs to be copied - KC never stated that in their response back to Shark, so don't add that in your criticism of Shark. Either way it isn't available months after the election. I suspect it either doesn't exist or it needs to be massaged, manipulated, altered, revised, added to, deleted from, etc., before it will be available. Geez, don't you guys ever get tired of defending fraud and incompetence? The rabid Dems motivation isn't for a fair equitable election....it's only to hold onto power by any and all means possible.
Posted by: RalphR on February 25, 2005 07:28 AMWhere did I say something in support of your position? Please don't put words in my mouth.
However, you are correct that some of it may not be discloseable, but that is NOT what KC replied. "We will gladly provide you this information as soon as it is available." doesn't say anything about KC needing to pull parts out to make it available.
I think Stefan's frustration is over the fact that they are making it appear (to those that can't see through BS) that KC is following FOI by saying "gladly provide" but then they are not providing it by saying its not available.
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 25, 2005 07:57 AM"the information you requested is here (oe they would have said the record does not exist) and as soon as WE copy it (which they have to do) and the copy is available WE will provide it"
It is probably just poor grammar resulting from a public education, but the intermixing of “they” and “we” could be construed to indicate that dpk is an employee of King Co.
If in fact the said record does exist and is just awaiting copying: why has it taken over a month to respond to a council member?? Why is the information not public and in the papers?? Why is Gregarious suffering under the pall of illegitimacy when she could trot out the all-telling binder?? Why has the binder not found its way into the court records in Chelan????? Sorry dpk – it is clearly you who is the misled minion.
In my experience, when I have wanted to look at County records I have had to go to the appropriate records office, check out the information, review it, tag the pages I wanted, pay the copy fee and wait for my copies. If I were told that I could see the information ‘as soon as it was available’ the plain meaning (to me) would be that it was under construction (or reconstruction, or re-reconstruction as would appear to be the KingCo practice).
Question. How long does it take KC elections staff to Copy a "Binder". 3 Months????? 3 Weeks???? 3 Days?????
Let's use some reasoning here, Xerox is much more advanced today, and I think DPK you are grasping at straws. If the Binder Exists, why hasnt anyone "Seen" it. The attitudes, and secrecy that KC Elections has displayed over this "Binder" is what makes "us" think that they are hiding something. Public record is Public record, you should be able to view it Immediately, and not wait for the newest version of Xerox.
As their supervisor, what would your instructions to the troglodytes be?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2005 08:16 AMTHAT my friends is the Big Binder that really counts!
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 25, 2005 08:29 AMAnd coming soon....OOPS... a small fire destroyed "THE BINDER"....Hey, we bought all the other ones didn"t we?
Posted by: Brad on February 25, 2005 09:19 AM
DPK you cannot convince anyone of anything! "Got to copy it, redact it, etc." Get real here. You seem to have the talking points down pretty well though.
Chis: How long does it take a small KC office to reply to the massive public records and discovery requests that they faced with. I know the Snarky one is the center of the Universe, but not everyone jumps at his command (however I will note that they responded to his e-m ail at 7:11PM – not bad for a public employee).
David Anfinrud: What a bunch of bunk - KC will provide all the information the Republicans request and are entitled to in their fishing expedition – because the discovery process in court takes care of that. As for foot dragging, go look at the non-responsive replies from the WSDC to the discovery requests made by the Dems. It is all posted on the SoS website. I don’t begrudge them the delays – that is what a good attorney will do – and everyone in this case is represented and everything gets reviewed by the each attorney before it is produced.
Chis: How long does it take a small KC office to reply to the massive public records and discovery requests that they faced with. I know the Snarky one is the center of the Universe, but not everyone jumps at his command (however I will note that they responded to his e-m ail at 7:11PM – not bad for a public employee).
David Anfinrud: What a bunch of bunk - KC will provide all the information the Republicans request and are entitled to in their fishing expedition – because the discovery process in court takes care of that. As for foot dragging, go look at the non-responsive replies from the WSRC to the discovery requests made by the Dems. It is all posted on the SoS website. I don’t begrudge them the delays – that is what a good attorney will do – and everyone in this case is represented and everything gets reviewed by the each attorney before it is produced.
It doesn't take a discovery process. That's all public information, and if a number of citizens request it, they can (must) make plenty of duplicates. This very late date of noncompliance is superb evidence of defensive foot-dragging by the KC staff, and they hadn't better even think of destroying anything. Word will get out.
They must be coordinating this delay with the Legislature, hoping to ram a few bills through for CG's signature before the bad evidence surfaces in public.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2005 09:40 AMIf he has it, and it's open to the public, how about a request to Sam?
Posted by: Susu on February 25, 2005 09:50 AMI have an observation and a question. We know that vote fraud is a felony. We also know that covering up same or obstructing and investigation is a felony. It seems through my eyes that the KC elections office may be actively aiding both offenses. If that is the case (I'm not a lawyer either)why have law enforcement officials requested and served a search warrant? It seems to me like there is probable cause here and intervention now may prevent further alteration of the critical records/evidence.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 25, 2005 10:50 AMGoldy, since you seem to be the only one who has access to the binder, why don't you show us some of your amazing journalistic skills and go down and have a look at the Big Binder?
They promised a friendly Democrat like you could just srop by and take a look at it while they fill it up with post-facto reconciliation information to make everything appear to have gone well.
And don't comment that you don't get over here to SP very often to read these comments, we know that you keep an eye on BalterWatch and Talk Radio, so why wouldn't you also be keeping an eye on SP?
C'mon coward, prove that your post had basis or have the guts to retract it.
I believe this tactic that King County Election is using is known as stonewalling, something which the US Justice Dept. under Janet Reno popularized during the reign of BJ Clinton.
Shame is a word that has dropped out of the vocabulary of the Demoncats...
Wow, I'm a minion!
Uh...what does that mean? Do I get medical coverage? Company car? T-shirts?
Posted by: South County on February 25, 2005 11:49 AMJust kidding.
Karl Rove
Just kidding.
Karl Rove"
And the cover page reads
"Rosebud"
Posted by: FlyingTigress on February 25, 2005 12:03 PMSince you two aren't apparently on speaking terms, I'll see if I can find out whether Goldy has sorted out the misunderstanding by now.
It's all so clear, now.
Posted by: Ken on February 25, 2005 10:27 PMYou wrote:
'Vince: In the parenthetical I was speaking in the first person referring to another entity as in "they", when I used the term "we" is was speaking in the third person as if that person or entity was the one addressing the reader. What school did you go to?"
One where 'is was' is considered bad grammar... and where they know that the psychological underpinnings of truth are frequently shown via the contorted use of parantheticals! I note with interest that you did not deny your association with the county that would make a King - nor have you addressed any of the other questions of substance posted on this blog.
Posted by: Vince on February 28, 2005 07:36 AM