We're just back from lunch.
Durkan (I paraphrase): you only have a couple of weeks to process 600,000 ballots and you don't have enough staff. Of course we should expect you to make enough mistakes to change the outcome of an election and that's okay, isn't it?
[Sam Reed appears out of nowhere and says We need to make it easier to let counties go to all-mail balloting!]
Durkan spent several minutes fabricating an elaborate hypothetical scenario attempting to suggest how a valid ballot might not be credited due to computer error.
Way's response: "that could happen" [with the emphasis on could and a look on her face as if to say "and monkeys could fly out of my butt"]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 25, 2005 01:32 PM | Email ThisSome guy thinks it's capitalism driving up home prices. (and not GMA or CAO and the like) And then he concludes we need a commission to establish real-estate prices. If that wouldn't be the completely wrong solution.
I got a kick out of it anyways...
Posted by: JVG on May 25, 2005 01:58 PMTry telling that to the IRS.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 25, 2005 02:05 PMIt's a real laugh when people like David Goldstein attempt to argue that the election should stand because we don't know who each individual ballot of the many misplaced, and voterless ballots, felon, dead, etc. would have been cast for in the gubernatorial race.
It's only by obscuring obvious common sense that Democrats can justify themselves. And that's why Durkan has been shutdown on so many objections.
Lawyers get what they deserve when they take cases on behalf of obvious losers.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 25, 2005 02:17 PMThat's not what I call a good thing.
Posted by: Andy on May 25, 2005 02:18 PMPossible rewrite that might get the point across without turning people off or having "The Enemy" use the quote to tar all of us as "those bigots over at Sound Politics":
This Durkan woman is scary. Very gruff. Very "butch". I believe she's a lesbian that thinks she is fighting the "patriarchy" by fighting for a fraudulant election to keep her fellow lesbian in office.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 25, 2005 02:25 PMhow convenient.
Posted by: rolling eyes on May 25, 2005 02:30 PMWith regard to the V... Warrior, that is their own name for themselves. Check Eve Ensler's V-Day web site. I couldn't make that one up myself.
If you look at the gender feminist ideology Durkan and Gregoire buy into, you'll want to be pointing it out. Most people are not aware of the strange theories about the patriarchy and oppression of women that are taught in their circles. They try to keep it hidden as well and focus on things like "social justice."
Looking at the way family courts treat fathers, it's important to be aware of the underlying philosophy of people Durkan. That's what I am pointing out.
At any rate, I will happily stick to "V" for now.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 02:32 PMBut, Bridges isn't letting them. His decision will be bullet proof.
Posted by: swatter on May 25, 2005 02:34 PMWay: I don't want to be the Fall Guy for Dean Logan, Bill Hunnekens, Garth Fell, and Ron Sims! I don't want to go to jail.
Posted by: Larry in Renton on May 25, 2005 02:40 PMDid Nicole really answer in that manner?
Posted by: Editor on May 25, 2005 02:45 PMAppealing his decision based on a mistake would be the easiest route. So, she'd like to anger him and get him to overrule something that he shouldn't or vice versa.
Additionally, she is building their argument for the Supreme Banana Court in the case that she can't find a technical point to have Bridges over-ruled on. I would not be surprised if she hasn't communicated with judges on the Supreme Banana Court as to what that argument needs to be.
She is the Top Dog for the Democrats and the one that is closest to Gregoire, so Durkan is running the show. You'll want to watch her closely in order to see what her argument is likely to be on appeal.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 02:47 PMShe was probably used by Logan, Sims and Gregoire, because they knew how naive she was and knew they could easily get her to "count" things however they wanted.
She looks like she doesn't know what has hit her.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 25, 2005 02:50 PMAlso, I think the Plaintiff missed a chance to force Way to admit that she and her boss knew that the "ballots received" count on the report was supposed to be a separate count (to serve as a check against the other two numbers) - and that they knew the Canvassing Board would assume that was the case unless they were told otherwise.
Posted by: Patrick on May 25, 2005 02:53 PMTraditionally, attorneys are allowed to ask leading questions during cross examinations. Essentially, that is how they can paint responses in their own light and contradict the direct attorney in his/her portrait of events. It's not really that big of a deal.
Posted by: Marc on May 25, 2005 04:02 PMI suppose I understand your point. But it still sounds like the attorney is doing the testifying while the witness just nods and says "Uh-huh."
Guess I'm just naive enough to think that court proceedings are supposed to expose the truth rather than obfuscate it.
Posted by: Patrick on May 25, 2005 05:01 PMThis perception can all change once the Dems start presenting their direct case, however, so we shouldn't get too confident just yet. It will come down to how well the GOP lawyers can paint their own case using the Dems' evidence.
Posted by: Marc on May 26, 2005 08:25 AM