King County's Superintendent of Elections Bill Huennekens could probably use a beer or two right now. It looks like Huennekens is the fall guy even more than Fell is the fall guy.
Today's Seattle Times headline: "Manager aware of flawed ballot report"
Garth Fell, assistant superintendent of ballot processing and delivery, said in a newly released legal deposition that Huennekens was aware of the flaws before the canvassing board certified the results.It's in the deposition transcript I posted yesterday, p. 240.
Also, the Petitioners' Trial Brief mentions Huennekens in a few places along these lines:
Mr. Huennekens did not report these significant discrepancies to the King County canvassing board so that the canvassing board could investigate and resolve them. Thus, King County certified returns that included large numbers of illegally cast ballots -- and Mr. Huennekens stayed silent.One or two Heinekens might help Huennekens calm down -- as long as he enjoys Heineken responsibly. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 21, 2005 08:56 AM | Email This
Well, they put a false number in the report which indicated that they had followed the law, when in fact they hadn't, and they failed to inform the canvassing board that the numbr was false.
Sounds like falsification to me.
Posted by: ScottM on May 21, 2005 09:07 AMLet's look at the facts.....
Dino Rossi won the first count. He won the machine recount. He didn't win the final "hand recount" that the Dem's paid $2million to do and would only get back if Chris G. won.
When did the big cover-up occur? Was it this cover up and intentional not wanting to reconcile errors an attempt to not "rock the boat" on Chris G.'s magical victory? If the canvasing board had investigated what would the logical outcome have been?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Bob on May 21, 2005 09:11 AMBased on the facts we do have, the logical outcome would have been that Rossi would have won by a small but respectable margin.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 21, 2005 09:22 AMWell, grab a seat everybody. You are looking live at the impending implosion of the KC machine. At least that's what the Vegas oddsmakers have down.
Posted by: Danny on May 21, 2005 09:31 AMPlenty more 'rats where they came from. The individuals involved may get spanked, but the machine will continue; maybe a little more cautious, but just as corrupt. And what are willing to be that 1. no jail time is served by anyone involved, and 2. anyone loosing their job will be hired by the 'rat party, or some moonbat law firm (or maybe microsoft)?
Posted by: Dogbert on May 21, 2005 09:38 AMWhy in the hell didn't he fix it?
I remember the elation I felt the night George Bush was re-elected. That elation quickly turned to dismay when our Governors race returns started coming in. As soon as I heard King County was still counting/committing fraud, I knew Rossi wasn't going to win no matter what. I don't think anyone was surprised it came down to the manual recount. I don't think anyone is surprised there are definate problems within the King County elections office.
I do know, this was the right thing for Dino Rossi to do. Some repubs I talked to about this lawsuit didn't agree with me in January. They do now. The dems I work with think I am obsessed and crazy! Even they are appalled that provisional ballots went through the machine.
No matter what the outcome of this trial, we have been able to have healthy, usually civil, debate on this subject. The dems in this state now know we are not going to lay down and let them run over us anymore.
Posted by: cc on May 21, 2005 09:39 AMHandy said a county prosecutor could file criminal charges if criminal behavior were suspected, but he said he saw no indication of criminal conduct."
Handy's view of criminal conduct is skewed a bit. Sure, they are not Gang Bangers, and dont Appear like Criminals, but the ACT they "didnt" perform per the WAC laws, makes it criminal. They were aware of their duties, and failed to perform, and went on to conceal it, that is criminal.
If you robbed a bank, and got away with it, and no one ever questioned you about it for 6 months, does it become Non Criminal because the questions weren't asked immediately? I dont think so, the whole KC elections dept should be investigated and then fired. That is what happens in the rest of the working world. Accountability, as voters we must demand it from now on.
I am glad Handy doesn't have any enforcement powers, cause he is a weinie......I feel much better after that lil rant.
This is one of the cultural problems at King County Elections that Logan talked about earlier.
A culture of crime.
Appears? What a perceptive bureaucrat.
It is apparent that Washingtonians are being screwed a second time.
Thanks Sam Reed, for hiring Mr. Handy/Same as Reed. Is he your clone?
Consipiracy to comitt fraud. All the way to the top. The fabric of lies is unraveling than a loose knit sweater.
Posted by: JCM on May 21, 2005 10:33 AMBTW I think the Dem machine will throw Gregoire overboard and do a substitute for the revote. They know they have a badly tainted loser in the chair now. Hey they did it in New Jersey. Watch it happen here... Dems petitioning to change canidates otherwise it wouldn't be "fair".
Posted by: Victor on May 21, 2005 10:54 AMSims?
Posted by: Dogbert on May 21, 2005 10:57 AMOh no! Not Smith!
Posted by: Dogbert on May 21, 2005 11:14 AMWhat I want to know is were Way and Fell under any pressure to produce a "clean" report? Information like that changes the whole tone of the issue. It's one thing to present a report with the only "availbale data you have". It's quite another thing to have pressure from above to "avoid any hint of discrepency or error" in the report.
Maybe this isn't the appropraite trial to be investigating it, but it seems very germaine to me to be asking Nicole Way whether she felt any pressure to hide discrepencies. That will have a much greater impact on the conspiracy charge than the lesser sin of "just putting down what we could count".
Posted by: Eyago on May 21, 2005 11:35 AMOh yes! Ron Sims is definitely in this!
I *borrowed* this from Micajah's Blog. (great blog - by the way! Wonderful *legalize* layed out in layman's terms..) It is an excerpt from Sam Reed's deposition.....(VERY TELLING!)
Q. And Ms. Durkan asked you about the sentence in which you wrote, “I disagree with some of his decisions and actions this year, but I know he is now reporting to Ron Sims, not Ralph or me.” Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the person you were talking about was Dean Logan?
A. Correct.
Q. What did you mean by the reference to Mr. Logan “reporting to Ron Sims, not Ralph or me”?
A. The example I gave to Ms. Durkan was how he handled the canvassing board that I was at in terms of whether to let the prosecutor’s office have more time to look at this – they voted no by a two-to-one vote – whether to just say, “Since these ballots have been sitting out at schools and churches unsecured, we just shouldn’t consider them.” Instead they did the opposite. And, you know, again, if he were reporting to me, I wouldn’t have accepted that at all. But obviously, he doesn’t report to me. He reports to Ron Sims. And I’m kind of assuming that that must have been, you know, the way he was supposed to be doing his job there.
Posted by: Deborah on May 21, 2005 11:50 AMAny bets on where the buck will finally stop? Let's offer some immunity deals and find out.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on May 21, 2005 12:15 PMTo use a favorite word of the ever outraged Nancy Pelosi: this election fraud is "unconscionable."
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 21, 2005 01:21 PM1. Not supposed to have that in the jail cell.
2. I'd be happy to buy Huennekens an entire case of Heineken to help him relax while being deposed. Or maybe pentathol.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 21, 2005 03:10 PM