1.
Rock -n- roll. Now we're gettin' somewhere!

Posted by: Mike on May 24, 2005 09:27 AM

2. Even cited the Democrats in King County for helping the delay.

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 09:27 AM

3. score one for the good guys

Posted by: Jim L on May 24, 2005 09:27 AM

4. YES!!! How will they spin this one?

Stefan, you must've been typing simultaneously to me, (you must be a true typist, not a "hunt and peck" type), see my post under your post about David Postman. :)

Posted by: Orange Robyn on May 24, 2005 09:27 AM

5. Democrats: Obfuscate, suppress, delay, deny.

But not in Judge Bridges court.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 09:29 AM

6. How many uncounted ballots did they find? How many "mystery ballots" are there? Do you see a connection? If so, can you give me several reasonable explanations for the problem or is fraud the only one that comes to your mind? Perhaps this ACTIVIST, earring-wearing judge can.

Posted by: headless lucy on May 24, 2005 09:32 AM

7. Ahhh!!!! Troll Lucy lives! and true to form she immediately does a personal attack on the judge! Guess she believes that he won't rule the way she wants.

Posted by: Victor on May 24, 2005 09:34 AM

8. Gotta say that Foreman seems to be having difficulty onstage again today. The smarmy DEMOCRATics lawyer is playing cool and trying to use procedural gimmicks.

Good strategy to have an auditor with the same voting systems, software, and basic procedures on to put a context on how screwed up KC is.

The guy behind Foreman picking his fingernails needs to go though.

Posted by: patches pal on May 24, 2005 09:35 AM

9. Oh, headless one, you said, "perhaps the ACTIVIST, earring-wearing judge can".

Always amazes me when the libs choose to use the term "activist", he, he, or better yet like the little chef on Happy Days, "bah ha ha".

Posted by: Orange Robyn on May 24, 2005 09:37 AM

10. Counties are required to reconcile the number of ballots received with the number of ballots processed.

This is to ensure that ballots cannot be added or removed during the processing--that is, to prevent fraud.

King County cannot reconcile those numbers.

I'm not quite sure why it is so outlandish that we are taking about possible fraud (even if we define fraud as narrowly as possible).

Of course, given a broader and more commonsensical definition, KC officials have admitted to fraud.

Posted by: ScottM on May 24, 2005 09:45 AM

11. Bridges is a Booth appointee, and far from an "activist" or puppet. I'd say he can be trusted (like most judges) to rule on the law and leave his political leanings aside.

Posted by: starboardhelm on May 24, 2005 09:46 AM

12. HL...

In a normal county with upstanding servants of the people who conduct themselves with integrity, this wouldn't be a problem, for we would have complete, accurate, and certifiable results from which to note those numbers.

However, this ISN'T a normal county. It's King, and apparently 'whatever it takes' to make CG win was the order of the day. After all, no one would know, right? There wouldn't be any court case over it, right? Do things like they've always been done, and we'll be fine.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Didn't turn out that way, now did it? Despite every attempt to throw the PEOPLE off the trail, they are sitting in court having to defend the indefensible.

A special note of derision here. Seems that Sam 'Everybody's Right' Reed's representative was talking out of both sides of his mouth again. I am getting a read that SR's MO is to go into minutae to the point that nothing's a) actionable, b) done, and c) no discerable decision is forthcoming. I'd almost rather his office tell me I am wrong and then to defend the stance than to hear this continual nonsense that ends up saying nothing.

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 09:47 AM

13. Interesting to listen to this online -- seems that Chelan County had a plan in place to handle discrepancies. And that they wouldn't submit unverifiable numbers to the state.

Hmm. "Numbers need to reconcile."

What a quote.

Posted by: steve matlock on May 24, 2005 09:49 AM

14. "Running an election is a very humbling experience..."

good quote.

Posted by: steve matlock on May 24, 2005 09:50 AM

15. Are sardonic comments beyond your ken? (Look up "ken" in the dictionary. I'm not talking about Ken dolls or Ken Kesey.)

Posted by: headless lucy on May 24, 2005 09:54 AM

16. I sure hope he sees the connection. Even if the blind followers of the WEA don't

Posted by: Jim L on May 24, 2005 10:04 AM

17. If a lucy is beheaded in a forest, and no one cares, ken it be sardonic?

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 24, 2005 10:04 AM

18. steve,
where are you listening to it online?
Shari

Posted by: shari on May 24, 2005 10:08 AM

19. Listen online at NWCN.com.

Posted by: steve matlock on May 24, 2005 10:54 AM

20. Try TVW.org It breaks up once in a while but it provides a way to watch at work.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on May 24, 2005 11:02 AM

21. Seems as though headless lucy is an outright commie-socialist. One of them Noam Chomskys at MIT.

Posted by: Howard on May 24, 2005 11:23 AM

22. If Lucy is truly headless--and it certainly APPEARS that she is, based on the drivel she posts--why does anyone pay any attention to her?

Posted by: Richard Easbey on May 24, 2005 11:51 AM

23. Richard...I suspect just a little mindless diversion. Sorta like noticing that the local loco walking, talking blond joke has reared her empty head in public. You can't take him/her seriously in any way when her only connection with reality is free association.

Posted by: scott158 on May 24, 2005 12:14 PM

24. Commie-Socialist? That's a hoot-- coming from a Fascist-Stalinist like you. Sorry about the offensive word, "hoot".It might give you nightmares about old-growth trees and owls free to roam the night and hunt their prey.

Posted by: headless lucy on May 24, 2005 12:19 PM

25. Headless Churchill,

Year 2005 Democrat, Definition: typical bird with it's head in the sand the ostrich, an old demo position with new feathers "if I don't see it it doesn't exist".

Hey loosly, ya think Deno will like the new carpet CG picked out for him?

REVOTE>>REVOTE>>>REVOTE!!!

Posted by: Terry, Clark C on May 24, 2005 12:27 PM

26. Thank goodness for Sound Politics. I've been in the car all morning in Vancouver, and I had no idea Bridges had ruled on this matter. The radio reports, even on a conservative station have all been a no-new-information variation on the theme that the Republicans are in court today to argue that the felon and dead people votes helped elect Gregoire.

Hello people, yes you reporters, could you try to do you job, and actually find out 1.what republicans are arguing, and 2. what has actually happened today? I mean if the judge issues a ruling at 9:25am on an issue you were all reporting yesterday as being such a big surprise, do you think you could possibly report it by the noon newsbreak?

My back-of-the-envelope estimate:
professional reporters 0,
Stephan 202

Posted by: California Dreamer on May 24, 2005 12:43 PM

27. Nonetheless, I'll take this little victory. It would be injustice NOT to allow it.

Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 01:00 PM

28. Ya' know Clark, I take your blind hatred of Ward Churchill as a sort of endorsement. Unlike you, I'm going to read some of his stuff IN CONTEXT and make up my own mind about Ward Churchill. You're too much of a hack/moron to do the same. You'll Google him and come up with a fake context to make it seem you know what you're talking about, but you really won't. I know how you guys operate.

Posted by: headless lucy on May 24, 2005 01:02 PM

29. The Dems attorney- *Hamilton*, has been popping up with bogus objections this morning like a rabbit out of a hat!
He is annoying everyone...and I think especially - the Judge....

Half the time - Hamiltons objections are not well constructed and he just blathers on in an effort to stop the republicans momentum....I think the Judge is going to tire of it before Huennekens is off the stand....

Posted by: Deborah on May 24, 2005 01:10 PM

30. NWCN has this report.

http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_052405WABelection_hearingLJ.2a686dcb9.html

Judge allows fraud claims to go forward in election challenge

Posted by: Jim Francis on May 24, 2005 01:17 PM

31. Have you noticed how headless lucy is getting more crazed
after being fingered as a commie-socialist.LOL
Checkout her name and go to chomsky.info. A real America hating site.

Posted by: Howard on May 24, 2005 02:11 PM

32. "At the same time, the Judge is not yet prepared to rule whether the evidence is proof of illegal votes. He'll wait to see all the evidence."

Bidges' approach is consistent, and surely his decisions are being made with the backdrop of a Supreme Court appeal process. By accepting to hear and see evidence he takes that off the table as grounds for an appeal at the next level.

Posted by: Daniel K on May 24, 2005 05:44 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?