May 23, 2005
Democrats comical defense

I'm listening to Democrat lawyer Kevin Hamilton make some hilarious arguments. If this is their case, they should give up now and spare themselves the expense and embarrassment. Among the howlers:

1) because the Republicans can't prove which (living) person cast the ballots that were cast in the names of dead people, those ballots should not be presented as illegal votes

2) the clearly falsified Mail Ballot Report was not actually falsified, even though its authors already admitted that it was falsified.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 10:54 AM | Email This
Comments
1. You do have to admit one thing... Hamilton appears a lot more prepared than Foreman was. I likened Foreman's opening to a kid seeing a dead body. So much to say, so little time, nothing comes out.

bv

Posted by: bmvaughn on May 23, 2005 10:59 AM
2. The Democrats are struggling, after the strong opening statement by the Republicans.

If this is such a model election, God help us all.

Posted by: otto on May 23, 2005 11:03 AM
3. Alot did come out during Foreman's opening statement. Foreman is far more convincing than Hamilton...

The evidence will speak louder than words.

We'll just wait and see...

Posted by: Raylene on May 23, 2005 11:04 AM
4. I did hear B-rent say one intelligent thing this morning- The ballots that went home with poll workers were shrink wrapped.

If they all were in one giant sealed package, shame on the GOP for making more of that element than it really is (looks petty and childish).

On the other hand it were lots of packages of 500 and there was no audit trail that all of the packages arrived to the polling places-> then this stinks as bad as the rest of the dead bodies in this election.

anybody know the facts on this?

The lack of audit trail on print-on-demand ballots is thin so I'd have to err on the side of corruption given the context of KC elections.

Posted by: Andy on May 23, 2005 11:13 AM
5. So Mr. Hamilton just argued that these errors happened all over the state so they offset.

Wait a minute... Isn't that further evidence that the election is in question?

This election is like a computer that is full of spy-ware, viri and other malicious software. I'd give this advice to its owner: "Format the hard drive and start over!"

Posted by: Jeremy on May 23, 2005 11:14 AM
6. Is this dem guy a joke? Am I listening to the right audio stream?? What the heck? Have you guys heard his arguments for "offsetting errors"?

For anyone who's not listening, here's my brief, real-time synopsis:

...And now he's talking about how Stevens county doesn't verify signatures on provisional ballots, which is supposed to "offset" King County's provisional ballot nightmare??? Let's see, first off, I see that Stevens county had about 20,000 ballots. Total. King had almost 900,000. But they offset each other....yeah, right!

Oh, now here's the sob story about some lady who couldn't vote for Gregoire because the county "merged" her record with someone else's...

...now claiming 159 voters were disenfranchised due to mistakes at KC elections...he says Republicans are saying it's ridiculous to count those 159 votes NOW (which it is), but if I'm hearing him right, he's suggesting that they now count 159 additional (previously-uncounted) ballots! NOW!! And using signatures from people's driver's license, not the registered voter signature database! What is this guy smoking? Yep, he just said they're going to subpoena these uncounted ballots and bring them to the courtroom and get them added to the count!

That move REEKS of desperation if you ask me....

...people who moved and had problems with their registrations, so they were rejected...those need to be counted and added to the total too...etc....

Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 11:18 AM
7. Andy, Andy, Andy. Don't be fooled by B-Rent. When he was on KTTH with Vance, Vance was quite quick to correct him: Yes, the ballots were shrink-wrapped, BUT, they were not accounted for in any manner after they left KC Elections on Friday. THAT is the key point. There was no count of how many arrived at the polling places, no count of how many were used, no count of how many were left over, no accounting of what happened to any that were left over. All we have is that the Dem poll workers were told to destroy any leftovers, no way of knowing if they were.

B-Rent is spinning.....

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 23, 2005 11:19 AM
8. the Dem's have lost the rotation in their SPIN!!!
the are confirming our case.

this guy should have a few coctails like B-rented.

Posted by: Garret on May 23, 2005 11:19 AM
9. Yah, this is a joke. It's like he's almost trying to say "Just because A happened, doesn't mean that A happened. And even if you have proof A happened; it doesn't mean anything unless you can show the middle initial of the person who did it and what that person who did it had for breakfast two weeks ago. So OF COURSE the petitioner won't win!" and such drivel.

I'm not impressed at all.

Posted by: Michele on May 23, 2005 11:26 AM
10. "Yah, this is a joke. It's like he's almost trying to say "Just because A happened, doesn't mean that A happened. And even if you have proof A happened; it doesn't mean anything unless you can show the middle initial of the person who did it and what that person who did it had for breakfast two weeks ago. So OF COURSE the petitioner won't win!" and such drivel."

Kind like "You can't prove that that tree made a noise when it fell!" or "You can't prove that bears $%^& in the woods" or "You can't prove that there isn't going to be a global-warming caused famine in 2016", or... you get the idea.....

Posted by: Dogbert on May 23, 2005 11:33 AM
11. Now there's some guy representing the state auditors, blabbing about how they ALL did an "exceptional" job, and how human errors happen (and the auditors might not have noticed "other people's errors"), and basically how the very existence of this trial is an affront to the auditors, who are unfallible in every way...and how it's an insult, and they do their jobs well, and it would be a shame if the court further "entangles" the current mess by removing Fraudoire, etc....blah blah blah

Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 11:35 AM
12. The counsel for the Klickitat County Auditor, is a joke, as well. To summarize what he said

"people make mistakes, but election officials all over the state tried their best" blah-blah

Posted by: Orange Robyn on May 23, 2005 11:37 AM
13. Hamilton is neither coherent nor realistic.

Posted by: Michele on May 23, 2005 11:38 AM
14. Thanks for stating my synopsis more succinctly, Robyn!! But I think that the final sentence of BOTH our posts sums up the dolt representing the Klickitat County Auditor the MOST accurately and succinctly:

Blah blah blah

Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 11:39 AM
15. Scott-

The lack of discipline for the accounting is a valid point- but it won't hold water in trying to glue together the chain of fraud, especially if each worker left with a giant shrink wrap brick and arrived at the polling places with a giant shrink wrap brick.

Was it one shrink wrap brick or many small bricks? An audit on the former is really brain dead, while the latter requires more peeling of the onion ie an audit trail.

The danger is that something that might be purely hype can taint the validity of 20 other things which are purely fraud.

Posted by: Andy on May 23, 2005 11:42 AM
16. besides- the trolls seem to be running for cover today and someone needs to step up and fill the void :-)

Y-A-W-N


Could someone please blame Bush or Tom Delay for something?

Posted by: Andy on May 23, 2005 11:45 AM
17. The main Democrat argument was that you can only challenge an illegal ballot s if we don't have secret ballots. Since we have the right to secret ballots, there can never be any challenged ballots. Whoo-hoo!

The only way you can challenge a ballot is if the fraudulent voter drives down to the election office and spontaneously confesses to fraud. Of course... he could be lying and there is no way to coroborate the story (remember? secret anonymous ballots?). Therefore, no challenged ballots ever! It's a Democrat paradise.

Posted by: knate on May 23, 2005 11:47 AM
18. Yeah... it's BUSH'S FAULT the Antarctic glaciers are growing in size.

Posted by: Editor on May 23, 2005 11:48 AM
19. Andy,
If ballots were sent home with inspectors,(plural) on the friday before the election, that would immediately tell you that there were multiple packages of ballots. The main problem is that you probably have just as good an idea as KC does regarding the total number of ballots sent home with the inspectors. They (KC) have already admitted they don't have an accurate count on the total number of ballots sent home, I believe.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. How can you accurately account for all the ballots and determine if there are missing ballots, if you don't know how many you started off with?

Posted by: dragon on May 23, 2005 11:51 AM
20. Andy, I don't think they are saying that because bricks of ballots were distributed to partisans days before the election that there conclusively was fraud. I think they are merely giving this as an example of how the system was set up such that it would be very easy for fraud to have occurred. There is no way they can prove conclusively that it did in fact occur due to this.

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 23, 2005 11:51 AM
21. Oh, and yes, it was Bush's fault!

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 23, 2005 11:52 AM
22. Ok, so if "people make mistakes" and "human errors happen" then why don't we just throw-out that hand-recount and use the machine counts. Either one will suffice.

Posted by: Jeremy on May 23, 2005 11:55 AM
23. LOL, excellent point Jeremy!

Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 12:04 PM
24. When the Dems loose will they be required to pay the state back for their attempt the steal the election??

Posted by: steve on May 23, 2005 12:12 PM
25. and what aboput court costs?
should one expect a bill from the court sent to the loser?

Posted by: bob on May 23, 2005 12:14 PM
26. The Democrats seem to be arguing that KCE did not do a very good job in this election process. Very astute observation.

But they still want to count more votes to correct the problem.
Why not ReVote and count all and only the legitimate votes?

Posted by: otto on May 23, 2005 12:15 PM
27. Jeremy--
You have it. Charred, smoky debris in a house. Fire investigator does not need to prove a fire happened, just the cause. I heard a lot of focus on felons & bringing in 1000 to testify.

Your point is right. The whole thing was infected my mutiple causes. How then can we know for sure. Forget the 'oops factor.' Wrong is wrong. Do it right. Vote again. "It happens everywhere" does not cut it for me. Crime happens everywhere. Disease happens everywhere. Cancer happens everywhere. Should we sit by quietly & wait to be victims?

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 23, 2005 12:18 PM
28. Who pays?
It has long been my contention that ALL government employees should be required to cary professional malpractice insurance so as to indemnify their employers ( the tax paying citizens) in cases of gross negligence or criminality or in the case of school teachers hopping some 12 year old. If you cannot get the insurance then guess what? No job that puts the taxpayers at risk. Dean Logan and Sam Reed would no longer be insurable, and that would be a good thing.

Posted by: JDH on May 23, 2005 12:20 PM
29. From the Orwell dictionary:

Fraud -- human error
Intentional -- mistake
illegal -- okay for democrats
2 wrongs -- right
accurate -- wild a**ed guess
dead -- not as final as we previously thought
count -- random number
audit -- verifying a random number, ie yep thats a number

This should help explain the dems position.

Posted by: JCM on May 23, 2005 12:23 PM
30. I don't remember the answer to this: Has the state Dem party been reimbursed for the handcount? And what happened to that guy in N. Seattle who lodged his own contest of the election?

Posted by: Michele on May 23, 2005 12:31 PM
31. The Democrats may say some silly things, but I'm more concerned about the side that has the burden of proof -- the GOP.

The GOP's lawyers need a wake-up call. Does anyone know their number?

Posted by: Micajah on May 23, 2005 12:33 PM
32. After listening to the opening remarks by the Dem's lawyer I am now ready to believe the moon is made of cheese. I don't care what NASA brought home, it's cheese.

Posted by: Ron Gregory on May 23, 2005 12:38 PM
33. Excellent point Micajah. I missed the opening statement by the GOP. I sure hope they read your excellent "wake up call" post. And soon.

Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 12:41 PM
34. Motive, means and opportunity. Seems to me the KC election workers crowd had all three.

Posted by: starboardhelm on May 23, 2005 12:59 PM
35. What is the reasoning behind sending bricks of ballots home with poll workers four days PRIOR to the election?

KCE really set them selves up for this. Why cant they just get people to the office 3-4 hours early, have the number of ballots required by each precinct by the number of registered voters in that precinct packed in to bricks with a 10% overage of ballots to cover provisional and mismarked ballots, already set up to go to the various polling places by precinct number. Have one designated rep from that precinct pickup and sign for the EXACT amount of ballots. If during the day they find that they are running short of ballots send that rep to get more or have more sent out to them, and have them sign an addendum to the the original amount. After that polls close ALL ballots, even those that were never filled out, mistakenly marked...etc, along with the properly filled out ballots are brought to the counting station and the marred, unfilled out ballots are destroyed, witnessed and that destruction form is signed by the rep who signed for them, party reps (D and R), and a KCE official. That way you know just how many ballots were sent to each polling place, how many were used and how many were destroyed.

Sure it makes for a long day for the person who is designated, but I would do it.

Posted by: Frank on May 23, 2005 01:45 PM
36. Looks like the democrat's lawyer was just trying to confuse everyone inside the courtroom by uttering the world "falsied" as many times as he could

Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 23, 2005 07:15 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?