Today's proceedings opened at 9:30. The TVW feed is pretty good today.
Broke for 15min at 11:20am. Play-by-play of the morning session is in the extended entry.
* Kevin Hamilton objects to introducing into evidence additional double voters.
* Korrell responds that these are related to earlier claims where the details only became available late in discovery.
* Dan Brady takes the stand to testify to summary documents on illegal votes, compiled from comprehensive records in the basement.
* Judge Bridges says that Democrats' objections of timeliness are reasonable, but will allow the Republicans to introduce the evidence anyway, because of
King County's late responses to discovery requests.
* Jenny Durkan wants to exclude evidence that the Monaghans absentee ballots were voted by unknown parties who forged their signatures, on the grounds that ... it doesn't matter .. she always objects to any evidence of illegal votes.
* Ahearne objects only to certain post-it notes.
* Bridges admits all of the exhibits save for the post-it notes.
* Durkan objects to exhibits certified by Huennekens. "If petitioners stipulate that every document certified by Huennekens is accurate, I'll sit down". Overarching objection: public records are admissible only if facts, not opinions. The punchline: any work by King County Elections staff and canvassing crew is "opinion" not "fact". [Then shouldn't that apply to ballot enhancement? -- Ed
* Ahearne doesn't object.
* When they make a movie of this trial, Jane Curtin will play Jenny Durkan
* Bridges will read the case cited by Durkan as the basis for her objection. But he'll admit the exhibit, calling it "helpful".
* Durkan object to King County records on ballots that went into the Accuvote on the grounds that there's insufficient foundation for it. [Hey, there's not much of a foundation for Gregoire's victory either, is there? - Ed.]
* Durkan's other objection: it was not an ordinary business record prepared in the course of ordinary work, but only because of response to litigation. [Hey, if King County had prepared this sort of analysis in the course of business before certification the election might never have been falsely certified in the first place! - Ed]
* Bridges overrules Jenny No yet again!
* Jenny No objects to election workers' handwritten observations about problems at polling places.
* Bridges overrules Jenny No yet again! But observes that he'll weigh the handwritten notes appropriately.
* Maguire wants to admit a large stack of polling place Ballot Accountability Sheets [one example here]. These show massive discrepancies between ballots tabulated and voter signatures counted.
* Jenny No objects to including them!
* Ahearne wants them to be included.
* Judge can't understand Jenny No's objections. Insists that they should cover every precinct.
* Maguire says he asked for every precinct, so they include whatever King County produced. (which is probably not complete).
* Bridges admits the Ballot Accountability Sheets.
* Maguire wants to admit the Big Binder, which is required to be created by statute.
* Jenny No objects!
* Ahearne: admit it.
* Bridges admits it.
* Maguire wants to admit poll book covers
* Jenny No says No! (hearsay! clearly different handwriting appears! contains opinions and conclusions! Don't know who wrote the notes! Might help prove that unverified provisional ballots that were unlawfully shoved into the Accuvote!)
* Bridges admits the poll book covers but will make an effort to avoid making a decision on the basis of clear hearsay that is unsupported by anything.
* Clark Benson testifies to a CD of detailed manual recount data provided by King County.
* David Burman objects to it on the grounds that it might not be accurate data. [ All three of the parties received copies of the CD. The Democrats have copies of it too]
* Bridges admits the CD
[ A reader just posted a "thank you" comment signed "Van in Baghdad". The IP address is from U.S. military in Iraq... Thank you for your service, Van. Your comment made my day! To answer your question, the Judge seems pretty unflappable.]
* Korrell admitting depositions from: Vicki Moore, Lisa Moore, Carlos Webb, Pierce County Auditor (in addition to Logan, Huennekens, Way, Fell, Kwan, Reed that have been posted online earlier)
* recess.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 27, 2005 09:27 AM | Email ThisDurken objects to the admission to document 228... blah blah blah... Korrell countering... feed dead! I repeat - FEED DEAD!
Posted by: Editor on May 27, 2005 09:57 AMI’m here. I normally don’t have time to post because I need to actually accomplish something to earn money, but today is slow because of the holiday.
This trial needs to be about getting to the bottom of things once and for all. I'm not very happy with my part right now.
Posted by: who'dathunk! on May 27, 2005 10:14 AMI don't get it...but then again, I try to use logic in my life and that doesn't seem to apply to most Dems (not all...but most).
Posted by: megs on May 27, 2005 10:16 AMThe donkey party doesn't like facts, and that's their only ability to throw off this case. Facts only work against them, particularly on the basis of the totality of the facts brought into evidence.
They FEEL that CG was elected.
And, I am adding to the GDP as well today. Though I will admit that it's a slower pace with everyone else being off.
On the good news side, I have more bandwidth at the office to catch more of the stream.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 10:22 AM- in Little Rock, AR
Posted by: Timothy on May 27, 2005 10:38 AMMcGuire says, "Uh, we thought it would be more efficient to admit report instead of calling 5000 poll workers."
283 ADMITTED
Still, and admittedly she doesn't have a leg to stand on...
...but if a major league baseball player had a batting average of .000, there would be a quick trip to the minors.
Gotta admit though, it's rather fun to watch her sweat. Look at her body language and facial expressions, shuffeling papers around like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic...her face is weary and shaky.
Posted by: scott158 on May 27, 2005 10:45 AMYou'd think she'd learn to shut her pie-hole...
Posted by: Brent on May 27, 2005 10:51 AMI'm not so sure, although I guess it depends on how you define a "nice person." One things I am sure of is that she does not like men and is on a personal mission to fight what she thinks is "the patriarchy."
Do a search on "Jenny Durkan" + "Dana Garvey"
What you will find is very interesting.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 10:56 AMThat's why I don't watch the news anymore...even FOX is getting pathetic and tabloid-ish. Sheesh!
Posted by: megs on May 27, 2005 10:57 AMDurkan is more than a puppet. Mistress might be right. Check this:
Durkan and her partner
I see a trend of
objection-overruled-objection-overruled-objection->shutyourpieholejenny
Posted by: Andy on May 27, 2005 11:03 AMDurkan is Gregoire's henchwoman
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 11:06 AMYou'd think that by making all the objections, their side risks upsetting Judge Bridges. What's his demeanor like with regards to the objections?
Posted by: Van in Baghdad on May 27, 2005 11:09 AMCould it be all those "Over ruled" and "Admitted into evidence" rulings are getting her down?
Posted by: Cheryl on May 27, 2005 11:19 AMAside, I'll bet his court recorders get really nice Christmas presents and/or bonuses!!!
Posted by: HalHusky on May 27, 2005 11:21 AM;-)
Posted by: dano on May 27, 2005 11:21 AMI think this should be noted as the Dems scoring another "own goal". I love it; "King County's canvassing board didn't rely on any factual documents to certify it's election results your honor, it was all just straight opinion and conjecture!"
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 27, 2005 11:21 AMBy the way, Dana in this case is a woman.
I don't know if this is an issue about confusion, but it certianly gives you a strong idea of her perspective.
She is also a leader in the UW Center for Women and Democracy, which is a far left organization coming out of UW (and thus supported by tax dollars indirectly, since money is fungible) and very active in what they consider to be a war on this nebulas thing they call "the patriarchy."
Of course, "alternative lifestyles" are one of the big things UW Women Studies promotes.
See this (Durkan and "friend" listed as donors) while Gregoire is on the board:
Seattle PI has a poignant column
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 11:27 AM
"Jenny, you ignorant slut."
That's a cute little strategy that would be good in grade school, I mean without evidence, it would not be much of a trial.
In the real world, one would expect a lot more professional behavior from a lawyer of her stature, then again, maybe she's just a lawyer that has always kissed the right butts in the reigning political party and that's why when it comes to a real trial, all she can do is object to absolutely everything.
This is going to hurt the Dems as its all part of the cumulative record that Judge Bridges will weigh upon.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 27, 2005 11:47 AMI think you are all a little too hard on jenny Durken. I'm not talking about her particular orientaion or ideologies, I'm talking about her court performance. You might actually consider cutting her a little slack. After all, she was probably assigned this rather daunting task without much option to back out.
Democratic machine: "Jenny, your job is to stop that republican steam roller trundling on down the road. Use any means you have at your disposal. Here are a stack of vaguely applical laws and some papers to shuffle. No other tools will be available."
Jenny "Uhhhh..."
DM: "Go get em Jenny. Were all right behind you!"
(boot) (slam) (click)
Posted by: Eyago on May 27, 2005 11:51 AMJust my two cents worth.
Posted by: tc on May 27, 2005 11:57 AMSee Board of Directors, which has Durkan and Gregoire
Then, see that Durkan gave $10,000 usd to this group in 2004. That is major money to be giving as charity.
To see Durkan making a $ contribution with her partner (Dana), go here:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation
.... and see page 11
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 12:10 PMSteven,
Early on in the trial...I was concerned about how and why the Judge was handling the Dems objections to the evidence...
However, Judge Bridges has made it crystal clear over the past 2 days - in his explanations of why he is allowing the Republicans evidence to be admitted - that he believes the evidence is *relevant*, *important*, etc....
This pretty much establishes that the Judge
has confidence in the Republican case.....