Sound Politics: Dan Brady is testifying

May 23, 2005

Dan Brady is testifying

The Sam Reed deposition skit is over. Dan Brady, who was also a lead GOP election observer, is being sworn in as a witness to testify on documentation of illegal votes.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 04:06 PM | Email This

Comments

1. PI is reporting on its internet site that the GOP is screwed and cannot use a case for fraud in the trial....they probably have something on Bridges--

Posted by: Lew on May 23, 2005 04:36 PM

2. The P-I likes to indulge in wishful thinking.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 23, 2005 04:47 PM

3. Ditto. Heard it thru the brand-X-radio grapevine: Fraud is dead. Alert Governor Carlson, who said last hour that the 'Crat rebuttal to Dale Foreman was apparently written & delivered without regard to Foreman's argument.

That's not how I heard it. Foreman's Fraud argument was indeed raised after Bridges enunciated the parameters of challenge to Gregoire, & the 'Crats were indeed not notified that a new argument was being pushed forward & were indeed denied discovery. The reason, of course, is that Bridges had laid down his markers before the Nicole deposition about her falsified absentee report.

Dale, I fear, is left with little but the dead air he generated while getting his visuals in (dis)order.

Posted by: sandalista on May 23, 2005 04:50 PM

4. Thanks to the Canadian leftist Sandalista to pronounce an end to the GOP case to bring in fraud. All of these matters were well-known in the case. It is clear Washington law to allow amendments of pleadings to conform to proof in the interests of justices. The D's can claim no surprise. It comes in.

Sorry about the socialist NDP loss in BC last week. But congrats on bringing Belinda Stronach over to sell out so the Lib-NDP can hang on by a 152-152 vote. And congrats that Kim Il Sung hangs on North Korea.

Posted by: b2 on May 23, 2005 04:57 PM

5. It's interesting the the Times has reported it differently. According the the Times, Judge Bridges has postponed a ruling on the issue of fraud until tomorrow. It's nice to get differing reports on what should be simple facts.

Posted by: Darrell on May 23, 2005 05:05 PM

6. Neither Canadian nor socialist; just a starry-eyed pessimist, a trait I share with David Bose. (In the early AM he said what I believe: Bridges is going to break us.)

Hope I'm wrong, & that you're right, about the clarity of WA law re amendments to pleadings. But that's probably the triumph of hope over experience. Bridges probably did or probably will kill the fraud gambit. (If WA were clearly clear, we wouldn't be in his court & we wouldn't be in this mess.)

Posted by: sandalista on May 23, 2005 05:13 PM

7. Sandalista--

I apologize. I'm getting numbed by trolls. But the ca in your address threw me off. Keep the faith...I think it's going OK.

Posted by: b2 on May 23, 2005 05:28 PM

8. That skit was one of the silliest things I've seen, and I've seen so much silliness that I even call my blog Silly Seattle.

I didn't know that was allowed in a court. Why the hell didn't Sir Reed drag his butt into the court?

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 05:39 PM

9. Many thanks, b2, & forgive me for misspelling the judge's name: he's singular, very, not plural.

Just checked Stefan's commentary on the P-I/Times dichotomy. Like Stefan, I trust Dave Postman. I hope that you & he are right, & that Judge B will let us live, but I fear the worst. That way I'm seldom disappointed.

Fraud is today's smoking gun. Yesterday we could hardly whisper its name. Tomorrow, if Bridge takes it away, we're left with a hard case.

(Forgive the .ca server & the sandals. I'm a cowboy redneck from Cheney Country. Did debate at NCHS, Cheney's home on the range.)

Posted by: sandalista on May 23, 2005 06:40 PM