1. Yeee Haaa!

Back to the fun.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 09:25 AM

2. The cross of Logan could prove entertaining. Handy is likely to be a study in fence sitting.

Posted by: scott158 on May 31, 2005 09:31 AM

3. Fun? This is like sitting through Wagners ring.

Without knowing German.

Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 09:32 AM

4. Handy's wife is Thurston County Superior Court judge, Paula Casey.

Posted by: Louie Louie on May 31, 2005 09:33 AM

5. Oh. And I expect the reps to object less often than the dems. They have an interest in getting the full scope of lunacy out there...give 'em plenty of rope to hang themselves on.

Another possibility...dem objections during the cross...the rep will say "we can talk about it now, since you brought it up."

"Overruled."

"Now, Mr. Logan, about this directive from SOS Reed regarding the permanent enhancement of ballots..."

Not really, but I can dream.

Posted by: scott158 on May 31, 2005 09:36 AM

6. Dogbert...you may indeed be correct...but it sure beats reading the daily body count from the dem spending fest in Oly this past session.

At least this holds out hope for a day of judgment.

Posted by: scott158 on May 31, 2005 09:38 AM

7. Here come da Judge ...

Nixon Handy on the stand being questioned by angry Durkan.

He's complaining about how busy his office was with the new primaries, complaints, etc. After the primaries, people were "tired and exhausted."

(See an excuse for the mess coming up).

20 law suites filed against SoS office.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 09:44 AM

8. I am having trouble getting the video feed from TVW and can only get the audio... was wondering if anyone else was having this problem.. All the TVW Video say's is "TVW will resume wevcasting of this event as soon as the court reconvenes" At least I can hear it with the other area for the Audio feed... So I guess for now Me_b_listening

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 09:46 AM

9. What is he saying, he had to give all these government workers October off because they had to work during the primaries? Actually doing their job was too much for them? What an insult to the people who are trying to do their best with poor (being polite here) management? This goes beyond the reputation of government employees.

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 09:48 AM

10. Me_b,

You're not the only one. I've a sneaking suspicion it might be because I'm using Firefox instead of IE.

Posted by: Nathan Azinger on May 31, 2005 09:51 AM

11. go no www.nwcn.com they have a good feed!!

Posted by: eric from atlanta on May 31, 2005 09:53 AM

12. Thank Nathan , at least I don't feel along in this now.. I am not using Firefox though.. They must be having technical difficulties..

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 09:54 AM

13. Why totals change from machine count to manual recount:

Because come voters do not fill in the oval.

So, they discern voter intent, with a "clear pattern."

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 09:54 AM

14. Durkan is angry? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Durkan today if she's in the courtroom... her father passed yesterday.

Posted by: Editor on May 31, 2005 09:55 AM

15. Ok Everyone,

If someone could keep the play by play going that would be great. This glorified Comodor 64 they gave me to work with here at work will not handle the feed.
Appreciate it.

Posted by: Jarhead on May 31, 2005 09:59 AM

16. Really? Her father passed yesterday?

Man, that takes a certian coldness to be able to show up in court the day after your father passes.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:00 AM

17. Iguana,

As the Shark says, It's in the P-I

Posted by: Editor on May 31, 2005 10:02 AM

18. I feel sorry for her, this can't be easy. Would the case stop because of her father dying? I doubt it, and her father may have told her to go win. We are not in a position to judge her in this hard time for her. We should leave her private life out of this. This case needs to be decided on the facts of the case only. Give her a break on her life out of this trial. She has enough problems with the issues at hand.

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 10:05 AM

19. Fred, you definitely have a point. I'm not meaning to make any judgments on Jenny regarding her showing up - just that it's got to take a toll on her and everyone around her today. It certainly does not make today's preceedings any easier - that's all.

Posted by: Editor on May 31, 2005 10:08 AM

20. We are a 'voter intent' state.

Ummm... ok.

Two R objections sustained. That's good, at least

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 31, 2005 10:11 AM

21. Forgive my ignorance.

Handy's discussing the three person canvassing board. Upon approval of the board, the 'found' votes can be counted, voter intent can be ascribed, and a few other things.

Is it a requirement that the canvassing board be unanimous amongst the three, or will 2/3 of the members voting qualify? If so, did any of the board members in the state come out and protest the ramrodding of votes anywhere?

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 31, 2005 10:17 AM

22. I'm not able to watch - what on earth does "We are a voter intent state" mean, and what legislation did her refer to (Ha Ha) to make this kind of statement? Or is that just his opinion to rationalize the corrupt goings on?

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 10:17 AM

23. From what I've heard, Durkan is not the sort of person that cuts anyone any slack.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:17 AM

24. From what I've heard, Durkan is not the sort of person that cuts anyone any slack.

So, you thinking you should work from her playbook? Take the high road, you'll be better off for it.

Posted by: Eyago on May 31, 2005 10:20 AM

25. I am listening and watching but can't figure out what is going on. Jenny seems to be doing outstanding today- my hat is off to her.

Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2005 10:20 AM

26. "Voter intent" means they take blank ballots and decide that the intent was to vote for Gregoire.

At least, based on one of the ballots that Shark posted that showed a little tiny errant pen market that just happened to be closer to Gregoire's oval than Rossi's, and that ballot was devined to be a vote for Gregoire ... you'd have to conclude that is how they did it.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:23 AM

27. Iguana,
It takes a certain coldness to say what you said about Durkin. Having lost two parents I can tell you many circumstances play into what happens in the grieving child's life. You will win more friends and Democrats with kindness.

Posted by: Larry T on May 31, 2005 10:23 AM

28. we are a voter intent state means that if the voter screws up the ballot, i.e. circles the candidates name instead of filling the circle like the instruction's clearly say, it is up to the canvassing board to discern their intent.

Posted by: Mike H on May 31, 2005 10:26 AM

29. Gee whiz, banana...for whom should a vote be counted if there is an inkmark next to somebody's name?

Stop whining, move on.

Posted by: The_Gent on May 31, 2005 10:31 AM

30. "for whom should a vote be counted if there is an inkmark next to somebody's name?"

Nobody.

Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 10:32 AM

31. The Gent,

How about no one, just like the ballot was marked! If someone uses their pen to focus their attention on an area and it makes a mark that should NOT count as a vote. What is wrong with people following instructions?

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 10:33 AM

32. I don't know where Durkan is coming from...But my county (Ferry) was mentioned having some accounting problems that were resolved before Paul ? (missed his last name) showed up to our Auditor's office. Well I just called our Auditor ( I know her personally... There was no accounting or any other problem with our counts or accounting... I also didn't think so since I was observing all the counts in our County..
This just shows some of the bogas information that the Dems are trying to use in their defence...

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 10:36 AM

33. I don't know where Durkan is coming from...But my county (Ferry) was mentioned having some accounting problems that were resolved before Paul ? (missed his last name) showed up to our Auditor's office. Well I just called our Auditor ( I know her personally... There was no accounting or any other problem with our counts or accounting... I also didn't think so since I was observing all the counts in our County..
This just shows some of the bogas information that the Dems are trying to use in their defence...

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 10:37 AM

34. Uh oh ... I think that Handy just said that reconciling ballots received with ballots counted is "no indication of the accuracy of an election."

That is the most ridiculous statement I've heard in this trial yet!

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:38 AM

35. If working in this election was so difficult and stressful, I imagine the claims for PTSD will be on the rise.

I think that the best suggestion that has come out of this mess is that if King County has too many ballots to count accurately, then it is time to divide the county. Make Seattle proper a county (i.e. the city-county of Seattle).
The rest of King County could become Freedom County.

Nick Handy translated: everything about this election was fine, fine, fine.
We have the honor system in Washington State.
In other words, "This election was a model..."

Gregoire "It's time to get out of the mud."
(Primordial ooze???)

Posted by: otto on May 31, 2005 10:41 AM

36. Larry T,
It takes a certain coldness to show up for work the day after your father dies. I too have lost both of my parents recently. My brother is an attorney and had cases to try during this difficult time. He turned them over to a partner.

Posted by: cc on May 31, 2005 10:41 AM

37. He said " 5-7 thousand voter registrations are recieved days prior to election. Isnt there a 30 day cutoff prior to an election that you must be registered???

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 10:42 AM

38. It was actually Jenny's grandfather (Martin Sr.), not her father (Martin Jr.)that passed away.

Interestingly enough, the PI says that her father is a Rossi supporter.

Posted by: Darth Dogbert on May 31, 2005 10:43 AM

39. No, his latest tops that...

So many registrations come in just before the election that it's hard to sort through them all. You should see it.

Ummm.. isn't the registration deadline 30 days before the election?

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 31, 2005 10:43 AM

40. I'm going to puke!!! Handy actually said what Garth Fell and Nicole Way did was a big mistake!!!

Posted by: Teresa on May 31, 2005 10:43 AM

41. This Handy guy is amazing!

He does characterize the huge mistakes in KC as appalling, contradicting his boss Reed.

Biggest mistake: "Not fully representing to the canvassing board how they arrived" at the numbers in their report.

This guy is a bleeding heart. Everything is a "human mistake." Falsifying an election report is a human mistake, an error.

Durkan asked this question knowing what Handy's answer would be, otherwise it was too risky of a question. I wonder how she knew he would answer that way.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:44 AM

42. Chris, that is only for R counties. D counties can register anytime, unless it 'feels' better just to vote without registering.

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 10:45 AM

43. How long is the recess going to be for? (I missed that part)

Posted by: r on May 31, 2005 10:46 AM

44. Yeah Teresa - Handy shows us all just how low the entire state's election system has gone.

A deliberately false report is considered a "human error" and honest mistake by this guy.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 10:46 AM

45. Otto, that's exactly what I said early last week on one of the comment threads when the Dems were using the argument that unlike Chelan County, King county is just too big to have an accurate election.

If that's how the Dems feel, I would expect them to be strong proponents of Cascade county.

Mark

Posted by: Mark D on May 31, 2005 10:46 AM

46. 15 min recess "let's go Play"

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 10:47 AM

47. I would definately advocate for Seattle to be a county unto itself. I would also advocate for removing oversight for elections from the control of the KC Democrat Machine. I just don't see any evidence that they are any more competent to participate in honest and fair elections than Fidel Castro.

Posted by: JDH on May 31, 2005 10:48 AM

48. to continue, as we are a voter intent state, the voter intended to register, but never got around to it. As the voter intended to register that is good enough.

The reason that there are more ballots than voters is that the Ds realized that there are a lot of eligible voters that didn't register. The count added ballots for all these people as they intended to register, they intended to vote and they intended to select CG. That is fair and reasonable isn't it? That is a 'voter intent' state!

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 10:48 AM

49. Last One to the Slide is a Rotten Egg!!

Posted by: Mark D on May 31, 2005 10:49 AM

50. Handy was the clueless and lame director of the Port of Oly before he got this cushy elections job via his pal Reed last winter.

Posted by: starboardhelm on May 31, 2005 10:50 AM

51. Postman is reporting on his post that Handy is talking about the "difficulty" of operating the primary election as some sort of mitigating factor, I suppose for failing to perform effectively during the general election and afterwards. That is an incredible stretch, to say the least. Is Postman reporting this correctly?

Posted by: barchester on May 31, 2005 10:50 AM

52. I'm sure the Seattle MSM will spin this one just like we see with sporting events.

Color Commentator: Oh, you see the black armband she's wearing, that's becasue her father died, let's go now to Joe Blow who has a segment on the Durkan family.

Then the torturous piece about how the Durkans are all good people, and how her Dad's last words were to "win this one for me." Etc. etc.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 31, 2005 10:53 AM

53. If the R lawyers don't nail Handy for his characterization of the phony election report as a "human error", then we don't deserve to win.

Get him to define what a "human error" is.

If the report is "unimportant" and "not required by state law" then why did they need to falsify it and submit it? Why did they not just leave it blank?

Posted by: rb on May 31, 2005 10:54 AM

54. Nixon Handy testified that "some counties balance their absentee credits very closely as a part of the reconcilaition process and some do not." He want on to describe that other counties use other methodology to reconcile and credit after certification.

He then tried to portray that difference as a procedural difference, meaning that both are acceptable.

What he failed to say is that it is smaller counties who may use other methods to reconcile - when you have less than 10,000 voters, you can reconcile the entire election accurately on a piece of scratch paper - but that King County with their near-million ballots has a written procedure in which the absentee ballot crediting is performed during the canvass period, is an integral part of reconciliation, and is done in accordance with the accounting guidelines so well explained by Chelan County Auditor Evelyn Arnold last week.

Nicole Way in her testimony explained last week that in the past, with the other computer system, she ws able to pull accurate numbers from, guess what folks, the CREDITING module. She used those absentee ballot crediting numbers to create the accurate Mail Ballot Reports of the past.

Once again, apples are being compared to oranges in an attempt to obfuscate the gross negligence and outright falsification of documents undertaken by King County.

Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on May 31, 2005 10:55 AM

55. Tell me again why I want another County? Tell me what advantage I would have since I live outside King County and moving further out? I see two monsters screaming for my tax dollars instead of one.

Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2005 10:58 AM

56. Fred - I think you have found the source of all those mystery ballots!!!

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:04 AM

57. So, you mean to tell me that voter hesitation marks on a ballot count? Holy Crap Batman! That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (read)! ROTFLMAO!

Posted by: now i get it on May 31, 2005 11:04 AM

58. RB:"If the report is "unimportant" and "not required by state law" then why did they need to falsify it and submit it? Why did they not just leave it blank?"

As an interested observer in the south, I certainly hope an R lawyer has a laptop int the courtroom and is reading this blog.

Chuck
Lookout Mountain

Posted by: Chuck on May 31, 2005 11:06 AM

59. Iguana: "I wonder how she knew he would answer that way."

Ummm - because he's been called as a witness for the Defense. That means they've gone over every question multiple times in advance. It's the cross that will be interesting.

Posted by: Patrick on May 31, 2005 11:06 AM

60. This guy is useless. Typical bureaucrat. Cover your butt, cover the butts of everyone else, get your butt covered, ride the fence, measure your words, etc ...

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:07 AM

61. Oh, now he is finally admitting that deliberately falsifying a report is not "inadvertant" ...

Coming from a guy that doesn't know what "crediting" means. I wonder if he knows what "fraud" means.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:08 AM

62. "Serious but inadvertant" mistakes.

Great. Take a position, Nick...

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 31, 2005 11:09 AM

63. Every "mistake" is "inadvertent" in the opinion of Mr. Handy. In my opinion, this guy is an idiot.

Posted by: Tucker on May 31, 2005 11:11 AM

64. Yeah, you're right Patrick.

But, he said that he is neutral in this trial, so I was thinking that he would be straightforward with both sides.

He clearly was a witness on the "side" of the Democrats.

He shows disdain for the rep side.

And, this guy works for the Rep SoS?

Now I see why many people here complain about Reed.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:12 AM

65. Did the witness just ask if the defense wanted to object to the question before he answered it?

Posted by: Brent from Vancouver on May 31, 2005 11:12 AM

66. But officer ... I inadvertantly opened this can of beer while I was driving .... I didn't intend to ....

Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 11:13 AM

67. Sweet, R's asking about provisionals. D's object, but are overruled.

Handy already told us how much time they had to spend making sure provisionals were correct and valid. Now he says it is not significant in this election that over a thousand went in. Says that it did not have a serious impact on the election.

What a maroon.

Posted by: rb on May 31, 2005 11:14 AM

68. "But my county (Ferry) was mentioned having some accounting problems that were resolved before Paul ? (missed his last name) showed up to our Auditor's office. Well I just called our Auditor ( I know her personally... There was no accounting or any other problem with our counts or accounting... I also didn't think so since I was observing all the counts in our County..
This just shows some of the bogas information that the Dems are trying to use in their defence..."

me_b_watching,
That's very interesting... I hope this bit of bogus info isn't allowed to go unchallenged!

Posted by: rolling eyes on May 31, 2005 11:14 AM

69. Yes Brent...this is a new one, when a witness asks for an objection....cracks me up!!

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 11:16 AM

70. Good Question "What side are you on?"

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:17 AM

71. Yes, Brent - this is exactly what happened!

And, this guy calls himself fair and impartial!

He clearly has a side he is supporting.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:17 AM

72. Next, this guy will be raising his own objections.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:18 AM

73. Admits that an illegal vote is illegal.

But, once in the ballot box, they are "in" until they are "out."

No sh*t sherlock.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:20 AM

74. "no really, I'm neutral! I'm neutral!"

"do you want to object Ms. Durkan, before I keep going?"

Posted by: rb on May 31, 2005 11:20 AM

75. Yes rolling eyes, I understand, but at least our auditor is now aware of the bogus info getting into the case..and is ready now for any feedback necessary.

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 11:20 AM

76. Why are they distinguishing between legal position and policy position of the SoS?

Can the SoS have a policy position that is not based on law? Ridiculous.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:21 AM

77. My Goodness, this guy is a dolt!!!!

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:22 AM

78. Thanks. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but that sure sounded funny to me. Especially when the defense didn't object!

Posted by: Brent from Vancouver on May 31, 2005 11:23 AM

79. Yes, he is a dolt and apparently a Democrat.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:23 AM

80. Has it occured to this bunch that the more they circle their wagons, the more corrupt the entire elections establishment appears? It's doubtful that this testimony will have much impact in the trial, but in the bigger PR war, this can only hurt the donx, and their RINO allies in the SOS office.

Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 11:24 AM

81. cannot recall??? very convienent answer

Posted by: me_b_watching on May 31, 2005 11:28 AM

82. Handy a typical bureaucrat? No, just another "moderate" Republican (they call themselves "Mainstream Republicans") like Sam Reed. They place a premium on "fairness"; but fairness to Democrats means overlooking corruption and duplicity. In reality, they are more akin to and comfortable with Democrats than they are to most rank and file Republicans.

Posted by: Louie Louie on May 31, 2005 11:28 AM

83. me_b_watching
"Yes rolling eyes, I understand, but at least our auditor is now aware of the bogus info getting into the case..and is ready now for any feedback necessary."

Thanks me_b, That's good to know!

Posted by: rolling eyes on May 31, 2005 11:31 AM

84. Vern - "you are a scholar and a gentleman"

... don't worry about breaking the law ... in fact, don't pay attention to the law ... you are human and you just can't help it if you stuff ballots ...

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:33 AM

85. "What would you have done if KC told you that they could not reconcile the votes."

A: answer, "send a Dem party hack to help them falsify the report."

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:43 AM

86. Gosh I am dead, Can I Vote???? Is it against the Law??? Let's Jail the Dead Voters....

Handy's answer: I believe the dead votes are illegal.

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:46 AM

87. No, Chris, if you are dead you can not vote.

BUT, if you do vote, your vote counts!

That is the logic here. Amazing!!

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 11:48 AM

88. Is he about to perjure himself???

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:51 AM

89. I'm disappointed that the dead can't vote... they pay taxes don't they? (not to mention thier heirs pay max tax on any inheritance).

Don't fret when they circle the wagons... think of it as a congretating of targets as in "free fire zone."

Could the Dems be hoping that the Rep move for a mistrial out of pity?

Posted by: Victor on May 31, 2005 11:52 AM

90. Why the heck does he need a personal attorney??? Unless of course he changes his story/memo several times...

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:56 AM

91. Whoaaaaa Horsey.......Smoking Gun

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 11:58 AM

92.

Foreman is getting it on with Handy. Handy is obviously on the other team, and Foreman just called him on it. Beautiful!

Posted by: Mike on May 31, 2005 11:59 AM

93. SOS in cahoots with KC Elections....I doubt the MSM will make that a headline...

Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2005 12:01 PM

94. Are you neutral, "yes" even thow I hate the 'R's'
and think they are full of _ _ _ _ but of course I'm not bias in my position....

Posted by: Terry Clark C on May 31, 2005 12:13 PM

95. You're right Chris. The MSM has been so pitiful.

It's amazing to me that the idea that a dead person can not vote, but if they do, their vote is counted, is not being jumped all over by the press in WA/Seattle.

And I doubt they will cover the obvious fact that Handy was working directly with Logan and the rest of KC Dem election machine to undermine any criticism.

We are in Bananalandia, with a Bananor for governor, and papers made of banana skins.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 12:15 PM

96. Fresh from having not proven fraud, the Legal Information Achievers and Rossi Strategists are desperately hoping that they not have to prove how our state's felons voted either.

"If [Judge Bridges] says we have to show how individual voters voted, we lose," Virginia-based Republican lawyer Mark Braden said Friday afternoon.

Of course, Judge Bridges hasn't said that the "proportional reduction" method of vote elimination will be allowed by trial's end.

Bridges has to agree with the Republicans' statistical analysis of how illegal votes were cast (an analysis since weakened by the Seattle Times' investigation of individual felon voters) in order to agree that election errors gave the governorship to Gregoire.

If Bridges does not agree that Rossi's data is sound or that statistical vote reduction is an appropriate remedy...then Rossi will have only the state Supreme Court to rule on the matters of law in this waning case.

Posted by: The_Gent on May 31, 2005 12:15 PM

97. Gent - you make the case well that Democrats want to be elected with illegal votes.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 12:18 PM

98. The_Gent,
You've the idea: just keep repeating yourself. That will make it true?

Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 12:19 PM

99. "If [Judge Bridges] says we have to show how individual voters voted, we lose," Virginia-based Republican lawyer Mark Braden said Friday afternoon.

Now why would he say that?

Why is this such a devastating eventuality for the Rossi case?

Posted by: The_Gent on May 31, 2005 12:21 PM

100. The Gent Said:

"Now why would he say that?

Why is this such a devastating eventuality for the Rossi case?"

Because it's not possible to show how individual voters voted. We have a secret ballot. Also, with extra ballots, there wouldn't even be a voter to ask!!

Posted by: Mark D on May 31, 2005 12:25 PM

101. All right, Gent, I'll spell it out for you in nice easy words.

Let's take person A, who voted illegally. Let's go ask person A who he or she voted for. If person A wanted Gregoire to win, he voted for her in the first place.

But now because he still wants her to win, he *says* he voted for Rossi. Presto bingo, he just gave Gregoire *another* vote.

Or is that hard to understand?

Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 12:26 PM

102. I know it does fit in with stealing elections, but we are MEANT to have secret ballots. Therefore it is impossible to show how individual voters voted.

Don't try this "we can ask them in court" garbage either. If a felon is willing to testify how he broke the law, his testomony isn't worth much, as he could be breaking the law now by perjuring himself. Also you only have a certain type of person that is willing to give up his/her right of secret ballot. So the questionable testomony is skewed to a certain type. All of these have a vested interest in getting hehir candidate in, so they will say whatever it takes to do that, as you cannot trace their ballot and prove otherwise.

Posted by: Fred on May 31, 2005 12:28 PM

103. I have an alternate theory, Bostonian (it's real simple, too):

If Rossi had to show that individual felons voted for Gregoire, he couldn't do so. He would also have to defend against the Democrats' list of 1,000 invalid votes that were cast in Rossi-friendly counties that offset the King County errors.

Posted by: The_Gent on May 31, 2005 12:47 PM

104. The_Gent:
Rossi could not show how any individual felon voted, no matter what the stakes were. It is simply impossible. Try to understand that.

Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 01:05 PM

105. I hope that Bridges is sensitive to having smoke blown up his robe. The lameness of many of the 'Rat arguments should help to discredit them.

Posted by: Far Star on May 31, 2005 02:32 PM

106. The simpleton The_Goofus doesn't want to to understand, and further, he doesn't feeeeeeel that he has to.

Let's hope that future events compel him to alter his attitude.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 31, 2005 04:54 PM

107. swatter,

Tell me again why I want another County? ... I see two monsters screaming for my tax dollars instead of one.

Uh, dude, if you lived in the no-longer-King-County part, then King County wouldn't be able to tax you any more. Is that really so hard to understand? Posted by: cp on May 31, 2005 09:55 PM

108. One method the judge could use to abstain is to determine there is insufficient evidence without asking the felon voters. This would then push it to the SCOW who would then determine secret ballots preclude askign voter intent. Not a likely occurence for the Judge to do but possible. I can just imagine it.

Plaintiff attorney: And did you vote in the 2004 primary?
Felon/Illegal voter: Yes
Plaintiff attorney: Which party do you contribute to?
Felon/Illegal voter: The Democrats
Plaintiff attorney: And which governor candidate did you vote for?
Felon/Illegal voter: Rossi
Judge: Bailiff, please place this man in custody for violations of RCW, illegal voting, and violation of his probation. Schedule a lie detector test. Prepare paperwork for perjury based on the results.
Defense attorney: Your honor, the felon/illegal voter has been granted immunity in order to secure their testimony.
JUdge: Bailiff, please place the Defense attorney in custody for conspiracy to commit perjury, vote tampering, and contempt of court.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 1, 2005 01:01 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?