April 27, 2005
Statement from U.S. Attorney's Office RE: Election

The U.S Attorney's office in Seattle issued this statement in response to public calls for an investigation into King County Elections:

Under the long-standing Department of Justice Election Day program, federal law enforcement officials receive and evaluate any complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses. As the Governor's race is a state election, concerned citizens who have information they believe is important to the electoral process should provide that information to state officials. At the same time, federal authorities will continue to evaluate any complaints regarding possible violations of federal law.

Those with information about the election should contact the FBI at (206) 622-0460 and explain that the information relates to the 2004 election.

Spokeswoman Emily Langlie added that it's DOJ policy to neither confirm nor deny whether any investigation is taking place. But she also said that they're looking at all of the court filings in the election contest. I suspect if that any active investigation would only commence after the election contest is settled.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 27, 2005 10:45 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Let's see, do they expect us to complain to the Governor? ... No, I guess not. How 'bout the state Attorney General? ... No, he takes his marching orders from the Governor. How about Norm Maleng, the District Attorney? ... Well, that might implicate Dan Satterburg, and he is a loyal Maleng henchman.

I guess we just might as well accept the fact that election theft is acceptable in state elections, since no one seems to want to get involved.

Posted by: MIMike on April 27, 2005 11:39 PM
2. Right, MIMike--maybe our research biotech labs here will crank out some political testosterone vaccines; apathy flu is spreading; the doctors are on the golf course;...all those salaries..must be all that value being added...

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 27, 2005 11:56 PM
3. that's kinda silly..... I am sure lots of those magical ballots had votes for Kerry on them.....

Posted by: sgmmac on April 27, 2005 11:56 PM
4. "At the same time, federal authorities will continue to evaluate any complaints regarding possible violations of federal law."

What I take this to mean is that the Feds are staying out of this until the state has it out in court. If anything goofy happens at that point, I would assume the Feds would move. You have to remember, the Federal government is not someone you invite in your backyard - politically speaking - lightly, because they do and will start pulling rank on everybody.

Besides, it would look bad on a national scale to not let the state attempt to sort it out first, and you know that the Democrats would spin it into another case of REPUBLICAN IMPERIAL DOMINANCE...

Basically, the Fed is waiting. Just like it says in the release. Keep sending them all the information you have - see, the Federal government DOES have rules about not deleting your e-mail, apparently unlike King County.

Posted by: Aaron on April 28, 2005 01:41 AM
5. After writing to SoS Sam Reed and AG Rob Mckenna I got letters from both of their spokes people telling me that they have no authority and I should write the DOJ.

There will be no accountability in this matter. If Logan can't get out from under the charges, Sims will just declare him incompetent and he will be promoted to a national role for the Clinton '08 campaign where he will instruct elections officials across the country.

Posted by: Baynative on April 28, 2005 05:58 AM
6. Baynative;

Why don't you send copies of those letters (or emails) to the DOJ.

Then pointed ask which state agency you should send a letter to, to protect you federal right to vote, since the problems in the election impacted both federal, state, and local election ballot totals.

When dealing with a federal agency I have often found it helpful to "cc" a sympathetic Congressman or Senator. In this case considering our Senators, I would "cc" Reichert or Doc H. in eastern Washington

Posted by: Bob on April 28, 2005 07:07 AM
7. I am a states right guy. While it may be convenient, why do we need more government? Why do we needs to have big daddy come in and help us? Why can't we do it ourselves? Seems like there is a process. Even if it doesn't come out the correct way, or the honest way, there are steps that can be taken to fix it ourselves.

WE DON'T NEED BIG BROTHER!!!!!!!

Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2005 07:48 AM
8. "DOJ policy to neither confirm nor deny whether any investigation is taking place."

I think that they are watching this cluster f___ from the cheap seats and will wait to see waht the courts come up with.

I doubt whether Sam Reed has the backbone to persue this. So much for checks and balances between branches of the governement.

Posted by: Budster on April 28, 2005 07:53 AM
9. Washington's only near-term hope for checks and balances went out the window with the dems' stealing of the gov's race.

Posted by: MB on April 28, 2005 08:40 AM
10. Checks and Balances?
Good Idea, what this state needs is a little good old fashioned "Texas style" Gerrymandering.

Posted by: danw on April 28, 2005 08:45 AM
11. danw,

HEAR, HEAR!

Posted by: Editor on April 28, 2005 08:52 AM
12. Let me be a little more terse. I don't really care if Rossi overcomes Gregoire. And I dislike everything that female stands for.

But, if you believe in states' rights and want to limit big brother/big government, you have to take a conservative view. You have to take a long term view. You can't expect instant gratification in this case (and believe me, I want the election overturned and I want it NOW). It is the long term fix that I am hoping for. It may not be this election or the next, but it will happen.

If Reed and the existing power brokers can't get the job done, then good folks who can be part of the solution need to step up.

What Reed didn't do in his "reforms" can be done after he is history. What can McKenna do? There is a court case going on already. He and the AG's office is following it closely. Let's let him change the mindset at the AGs office. That is what we need him for, not some instant gratification and headlines.

Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2005 09:09 AM
13. Aaron said about all there is to say about this.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 28, 2005 09:21 AM
14. But, Deborah promised us a federal investigation. Of course, she promised it in March, and like most things on this board, it has proved inaccurate....,

And now you tell me that the Republican AG and DA of King Co. are part of the conspiracy. Is everyone here memebers of Skull and Bones?

Thank goodness for the ten to fifteen people on this board that will long be writing about their favorite theories long into Govenor Gregoire's second term.

Posted by: JDB on April 28, 2005 09:23 AM
15. From a legal standpoint, the Feds could get involved now.

From a political standpoint, I'm glad they are patiently waiting until they have all the depositions and see the Court Case unfold. These Election Depts. still have jobs to do. Having to respond to multiple investigations at the same time renders them even more useless than they are now (if that's possible in KingCo).

Bottom-line: Patience my friends who are RIGHT!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 28, 2005 09:30 AM
16. JDB ...will long be writing about their favorite theories long into Govenor (sic) Gregoire's second term.

This is pretty good wry (i.e. twisted ) humor, considering greg-o-ire hasn't been elected to her first term, yet.

And they say leftists have no sense of humor!

Posted by: otto on April 28, 2005 10:09 AM
17. You guys! I just don't understand why you want the feds interfering with us locals. It wasn't the presidential election that was in question.

I agreed with the Supremes getting involved in Florida because it was a Presidential election at stake, but here, it is a lousy governor election.

Come on, give me some good conservative reasons we want the Feds involved. I am not a Republican nor Democrat, BTW.

Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2005 10:20 AM
18. swatter,

I agree it is rather tenuous whether the feds should come in to this. My guess would be that if you feel the system here is corrupt, how can you expect them to resolve it fairly? Whether that is a good enough reason, I don't know.

A valid reason (maybe) is that the ballots were also involved in a federal election. If illegal ballots were interjected with votes for federal candidates then the feds have a right/obligation to investigate those, but possible only in the context of the votes cast for federal office. How do you show that all illegal votes only had local issues marked?

Posted by: Fred on April 28, 2005 10:30 AM
19. Do I want the feds to come in? Yes. In spades.

I do believe, however, that there are serious jurisdiction issues involved.

It is very likely more a matter of tumblers falling into place in order to open a lock, than it is anything to do with a fed will to act or the appropriateness of such an action.

Personally, I'm enjoying having visions of KCEs...the feds pulling up in black SWAT-like vans and helicopters…causing a lock-down of the joint, and confiscating records and hard drives and lap tops. With Logan, Sims, et al scurrying about as if it was a sans-green card bust by INS.

I’m willing to wait if they’ll do it right.

Logan better be glad Reno isn’t still in charge as USAG…

Heck, remember what happened with E. Gonzalez down in Fl?????

Posted by: scott158 on April 28, 2005 10:51 AM
20. swatter:

My problem is just that there're no Scoop Jacksons left in Washington. Back in the 50's when serious corruption was also a problem, no one wanted to attack it until Scoop was elected AG. He did some good.

It appears that everyone in state government wants to "go along to get along," which is a recipe for more of the same.

If this election is not set aside, given the clearly documented problems, then it will likely be decades before we have a clean election in this state.

That's too long, so I'm willing to let the feds help to avoid it.

Posted by: MIMike on April 28, 2005 10:55 AM
21. “As the Governor's race is a state election, concerned citizens who have information they believe is important to the electoral process should provide that information to state officials.”

This is a gross non sequitur. The election in November was for Federal as well as state offices. Also, there were violations of Federal law that occurred that were not violations of State law. In one instance that I’m familiar with the violation was reported to the FBI as she suggests. The FBI is not investigating – in fact, the agent said that the U.S. Attorney would decide whether or not to prosecute. But the U.S. Attorney doesn’t have the complaint because we have been told to give evidence the FBI.

I have no confidence that any investigation or other action will occur after the election contest is over.

Posted by: BJ Gadfly on April 28, 2005 11:04 AM
22. Fred's got it right. I've no confidence in this state government's ability to administer justice - be it the legislature, administration, or the judiciary. I'm no fan of federal but-insky, but I think ultimately that is what it will take to get justice in this matter.

By the way, wouldn't this case raise reasonable doubts about the Cantwell election? Not that they could necessarily do anything about that one at this stage, but to assert that there is no federal interest here is weak to say the least.

Posted by: Seattle Republican on April 28, 2005 11:10 AM
23. None of you have any information. You're just disgruntled, poor loser Republicans.

Posted by: headless lucy on April 28, 2005 11:42 AM
24. Lucy, you would back that up with specific evidence of "right-doing" just how, exactly?

Posted by: Seattle Republican on April 28, 2005 11:56 AM
25. Otto:

Hate to tell you this, we had an election, and Christine Gregoire won. That election was certified and ratified by the legislature. So we know who won: Govenor Gregoire.

No matter what happens in the challange, Gregoire will remain the person elected govenor in the 2004 election. Don't believe all the blog fraud you have been reading here.

Now, in 2008, you will get a chance to change that. At that point, things should get interesting.

Posted by: JDB on April 28, 2005 01:16 PM
26. Thanks, guys. At least those are plausible reasons.

Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2005 01:23 PM
27. Gee, thanks JDB.. You've finally convinced me; I've seen the light!! The infallible Democrat-majority legislature certified and ratified those infallible results out of King County (let's just pretend Logan's deposition doesn't exist), and by your logic that means that Gregoire received more votes. There is simply no circumstance under which any of those certifications could have been made without knowing all of the facts at hand.

Either that, or your argument seems to be that it doesn't MATTER that we PHYSICALLY CANNOT know whether she really received more votes, because according to the rules she "won." Ignoring the irony of a member of the loony left suddenly being a fan of rules, here's a news flash for you: As has been exposed here over and over, the RULES weren't followed. It doesn't matter if there was "organized" fraud, or "willful" mistakes. Simple common sense tells reasonable people that we don't know, and CAN'T know, who received more votes.

Either way, you're wrong. Elections are the tool by which a democracy measures the will of the people. Anything less than a definitive answer is unacceptable. Speaking of definitive answers, I wonder what happened to all of that fiscal discipline that we heard out of Olympia when the pricetag of a re-vote started being thrown about.. what was that number again? $4 *gasp* million?

As for Gregoire's "second term," Dems in WA better be enjoying their moment in the sun. Because unless we live in the absolute stupidest state (or unless they succeed in making our elections more of a joke), they will be punished at the polls for their scorched earth approach to the Demonopoly legislative session. I bet the price of NOT having a re-vote seems pretty high now, at least to those who smoke or drink (legal products), what with that wonderfully PROGRESSIVE approach of taxing the hell out of an unpopular minority.

RR

Posted by: RookieRick on April 28, 2005 04:06 PM
28. "But, Deborah promised us a federal investigation. Of course, she promised it in March, and like most things on this board, it has proved inaccurate....,"

JDB....
As with the Feds....
I can neither confirm nor deny that an *active* investigation is taking place....

I can *promise* you however, that Federal investigations will not become public knowledge until after the Rossi contest.....

Oh...And JDB....have you noticed anything strange with your computer system lately? Or on your phone line? Have your coworkers given you odd looks?


snicker.....

Posted by: Deborah on April 28, 2005 04:36 PM
29. JDB
If you insinuate blog fraud, prove it!

Deborah
Play nice!

Swatter
Excellent posts. Good debate topics and presentation. I am convinced it is more a wait and see attitude of the feds. Maybe even a little of the current party in power's attempts to not appear as if they are "placing a republican" in power by intervening. Even if the election isn't annuled the Feds will be likely to step in and do their own investigation and prosecution without forcing the election to be overturned. By cleaning house the liberal emberassment will easily pave the way for a conservative majority next election. Therefore, I'm patient although highly amused and titlated by the findings so far.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 28, 2005 07:27 PM
30. If I were a Democrat, I would hope for a new election - because if there is a new election in November, Rossi will temper the damage and decrease the margin by the which Democrats get slaughtered by in 2006 election. However, i know that many of you leftists are saying - Nah ! Won't happen here - no way.

Go ahead, keep thinking that - alot of you on the left will be in a fit of depression and will need counseling in December 2006 after the unthinkable happens ! even if/when Rossi becomes governor.

Posted by: KS on April 28, 2005 09:55 PM
31. I have been watching the goings-on with a mix of awe (as in 'I can't believe what I'm seeing/reading') and disgust. I had made the off-hand comment to some colleagues that we 'weren't far from being a banana republic' but I didn't realize how true my would be! At first I tried to obtain my information from a lot of different sources (radio, internet), but I've narrowed my sources considerably. All I can say to those in power in KC and Olympia, if they feel the ground shakin' they'd better get out of the way of the stampede of popular opinion.

BTW, I've recently relocated here from Minn., and things were not much better there.

Posted by: recently relocated on April 28, 2005 10:58 PM
32. Sorry. Supposed to say 'my comment'.

Posted by: recently relocated on April 28, 2005 11:00 PM
33. Deborah, honey, put the tin foil back on, you need it. Me? You would be amazed what I know..., and what I know you don't.

Mr. Beyer. By customary usage on this board, the word "fraud" means anything you don't like, dislike, or think should be different. No proof is necessary, you just use the word. Like: "Distributed vote fraud." Using that word as it is always used here, this board is full of Blog Fraud. But if you want a real example, check out the thread on the anonymous post on indymedia. It would be like posting an entire thread based upon one of Deborah's rants, except at least know who Deborah is. And the only people who actually seem in support of the idea are wingnuts on this board. Now, there is real fraud, with more proof than anything on this board.

I, as they say, rest my case.

Posted by: JDB on April 29, 2005 10:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?