Noon recess until 1:30pm.
The first morning session ended with this cross-examination [exact words] --
The second morning session will pick up where this left off:
Maguire: you weren't aware of the number of provisonal ballots that had been counted without first being verified until after certification. Isn't that right?[And he certified the election without trying to determine and disclose to the public the magnitude of the issue, let alone attempt to correct for it] We'll see how Maguire follows up from here.
Logan: the specific number, no.
Maguire: was King County aware or anybody on your staff aware, prior to certification of the initial count that provisional ballots had been counted without first being verified?
Logan: of the specific number?
Maguire: yes
Logan: not that I'm aware of
Maguire: you were aware that it had happened though?
Logan: correct
Maguire: people on the canvassing crew knew that, right
Logan: correct
Maguire: Did Mr. Huennekens report to you that there had been a significant number of provisional ballots cast directly into the Accuvote machines?
Logan: I was certainly aware, I was aware that that was an issue that had been identified during the canvassing period, yes.
Maguire: you were aware prior to certification of that issue?
Logan: yes
Maguire: Mr. Huennekens told you?
Logan: yes
Maguire: but you didn't know the number?
Logan: no
Hamilton: Do you appreciate the contributions of the retired persons who work at polling places?
Logan: I do, they do an amazing job.
[who cares if some of them are too senile to do the job correctly!]
...
Hamilton: Do you think it will be easier to recruit people to work in polling places after this kind of election contest?
Logan: no I do not.
[let's hope its harder to recruit senile Democrats. But I think it will be easier to recruit competent Republicans. An urgent need exists. Today is the deadline. Read this post for details]
Hamilton: So for a voter whose name doesn't appear in the pollbook, or whose name appears but there's an indication that they've been issued an absentee ballot, will they be allowed to vote a regular ballot, or will they be required to vote a provisional?
Logan: Those individuals should be issued a provisional ballot.
[ I find evidence that some 900 absentee voters in King County voted regular ballots instead of provisional ballots, just like this one. It's against the law]
Dean logan is giving some impressive testimony
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 1, 2005 11:02 AMDemocrats don't seem to realize how much this makes their party look like a joke.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 1, 2005 11:04 AMThe guy is doing his best to lie.
Impressive testimony? Sure...if you just had a lobotomy in the last 48 hours.
Posted by: Big M on June 1, 2005 11:05 AMBack to the "two trials" notion. The donx are throwing all of their political capital overboard to try to score some weak points in court. It doesen't matter in Seattle/KC, but statewide, this is going to hurt.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 11:22 AMenter: fraud
scroll down to read all of the entries.
"It doesn't matter! Florida! Florida! Florida!"
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 1, 2005 11:23 AM"All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual **to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth.**"
Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
Sounds like Logan, Handy, and Huennekins to me.
Posted by: Rick D on June 1, 2005 11:40 AMGeez- who does hamilton work for?
Posted by: Andy on June 1, 2005 11:40 AMIs it possible for a determined group to vote twice, three times, four times?
Is it possible for a precinct worker to pull out votes for the "other" candidate?
Would anything happen if people were caught?
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 1, 2005 11:46 AMSource: Columbia University Press
Overreaching conduct (exceptional incompetence?) resulting in profit (election won) made by encouraging trust is falsities (the smoking memo to undermine R claims)? This is Nick Handy all over.
Posted by: Rick D on June 1, 2005 11:46 AMFraud is defined to be "an intentional perversion of truth" or a "false misrepresentation of a matter of fact" which induces another person to "part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right".
In addition to the traditional criminal definition of fraud, there are many regulatory laws that have very specific rules that must be complied with. If you do not follow these rules to the letter, you could be charged with and convicted of fraud.
Source: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/fraud.htm
It's like the legal dictionaries were written AFTER the November election! At its heart, fraud is an attempt to get people to believe something untrue so that you can benefit from it. KC democrats have admitted fraud dozens of times in these proceedings: they just wont admit benefit. I have to agree, it's hard to paint having Gregoire for Governor as a benefit, but presumably it is for KC demos.
Hey, maybe they can plead insanity?!
Posted by: Rick D on June 1, 2005 11:53 AMHe's making our point for us.
Posted by: Andy on June 1, 2005 11:57 AMI'm not sure that the Rs made a mistake claiming fraud at the outset. False statements were made, the legislature certified the election based on those statements, and Rossi was denied office because of it.
The last one is weakest, because there is not necessarily a connection between the false Heunnekens report and Rossi losing the manual recount. Even if they prove statistically that Rossi had more legal votes, that doesn't mean the '95' did it.
Hope the judge can smell fraud as easily in E WA as we can out here. There certainly appears to be a consistent attempt in KC to -at the least- 'help' Gregoire, and at the worst, allow plausible deniability as they enable fraudulent votes to be counted.
And don't forget all our military that the Democrats blocked from voting by either inept or malicious delay of sending ballots.
Posted by: Rick D on June 1, 2005 12:00 PMGrey's book of silly definitions, 2005, 1st ed.
_______________
Sorry, couldn't help myself after seeing all the other fraud postings on here.
When it is given away, which I'm sure KC wouuld like to do this summer as part of some program or another, you take what you get!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 1, 2005 12:04 PMSource: Me.
Posted by: rick D on June 1, 2005 12:08 PMObviously it is those *(*^ Rs and their Old Boy Network. They always exclude everyone else to give their friends a job, and are totally intolerant of any criticism. It doesn't matter that they have no experience!
Wait a minute - something doesn't sound quite right. Everyone knows it is the Rs that exclude people to keep the OBN going, but....
Maybe it is yet another false accusation that if you repeat it often enough there is a chance it sticks!
Posted by: Fred on June 1, 2005 12:12 PMNo, we do that because that is what the law requires.
It is interesting how all those who are posting definitions of fraud keep forgetting the intent requirement. If I accidentally give someone a $1 bill instead of a $5, that is a mistake, not fraud. If I give them a $1 and do that hoping they will think it is a $5, that is fraud.
There were mistakes. Hopefully when passions cool and the GOP is done with their PR campaign, we can concentrate on fixing those mistakes. Maybe something good can come of this farce.
However, if you are going to insist that mistakes=fraud, almost every post on this board is fraudulent. And, heck, let's face it, the minnow is trying to deceive, and twists everythign to fit his PR needs.
However, it is most interesting that after all of the hopes on this board that Logan would fall apart on the stand, so far absolutely nothing.
Oh well, I guess we can start to claim that space aliens interferred with the election, you all have just as much proof of that as anything.
Posted by: JDB on June 1, 2005 12:26 PMThe only thing the Dems proved to me today:
1. We really don't know who won
2. Dean Logan can't handle his post
3. King County is too big and needs to be split into two counties.
4. The proposal for all mail ballot elections can't be implemented because of major concerns.
This might as well be called the 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead' defense.
In the absence of reality, we cannot know what is real and what is not. Therefore, we must accept the absence of reality as reality.
Too bad Franz Kafka is dead. He'd be my choice the author a book on this election.
Posted by: Larry on June 1, 2005 12:31 PMIf you "accidentally" hand me the wrong bill a lot of times, I start to think you're not honest.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 12:33 PMTo follow on Bostonian's comment - If you ignore procedures that will allow your employer to balance the cash drawer and figure out how many customers you have shorted by giving them $1 instead of $5 - what do you call that?
Posted by: Larry on June 1, 2005 12:41 PMRonin & Larry have it--let's see some heads roll, loss of bene's and pensions. "My dog ate it" is still not good enough.
I'm still amazed at how people of this caliber get hired, make decent bucks, keep their jobs and flutter along in life assuming they are adding value.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 1, 2005 12:42 PMIf you passed a $1 bill thinking it was a $5 bill, realized it after the fact, then made a CONCERTED EFFORT TO COVER IT UP, that still constitutes fraud. Doesn't have to be the initial intent. You still have the opportunity, and the DUTY, to make it right. If you don't, you're still guilty of fraud.
Claiming ignorance or "I didn't MEAN to do it" doesn't absolve one of their duty to set things straight when they KNOW the result is bogus, as Logan has testified under oath.
Posted by: Brian C on June 1, 2005 12:44 PMKC knowingly reported false numbers for certification. No effort was made at the time to inform of the false numbers, they were represented as guinune. Thats not mistakenly handing me a $1 when you actually owe me a $5. Thats seeing that its a $1 and knowingly handing it to me hoping I won't notice and just shove it in my pocket. That my friend is FRAUD and not a mistake.
Posted by: Daryl on June 1, 2005 12:46 PMTime to pack up, call it a day and pray for 2008.
Posted by: Jim Mantelly on June 1, 2005 12:51 PMIguana...I'm going to agree with you.
There were many "A HA!" moments in Logan's tesitmony that I expected Maguire to pounce on - but he just let them slide.... I was like "huh?"
I'm hoping the Republicans are fixing to tie it all together during their rebuttle.
Posted by: Deborah on June 1, 2005 12:55 PMThe issue does not appear to be whether or not a fraud occurred, but whether or not either mistakes or fraud affected the outcome of the election.
I'm sorry to say that I don't think a convincing case has been made.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 1, 2005 12:57 PMAccusations all over the place...evidence nowhere. Perhaps now folks will do their own fact checking...instead of relying upon those with bigger objectives...
Posted by: Jim Mantelly on June 1, 2005 01:00 PMWelcome aboard! We love new visitors. Let me speak for everyone on SP when I encourage you to post a cogent thought next time. Absent that... later.
Posted by: Danny on June 1, 2005 01:03 PMIt's still fraud even if you PRETEND it's an accident.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 1, 2005 01:06 PMGood point about the 2,000 vote swing....unfortunately, the law is the law. Gotta abide by it...
Should it be that close elections don't count and re-do's or do-overs are automatic? Perhaps. But that ain't the law of the land...
Bostonian (go Sox!):
Yes, but not evidence to overturn an election as provided by law. This is an easy case for a judge. Admit all the evidence and render the obvious opinion. Easiest case he's had, probably.
Posted by: Jim Mantelly on June 1, 2005 01:07 PMIf that does not render the election invalid (under WA state law), I would say that the citizens of WA have a federal case, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 01:09 PMLet him ramble, he's so delusional he's harmless.
Posted by: dad4 on June 1, 2005 01:15 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 1, 2005 01:21 PM??
Posted by: righton on June 1, 2005 01:22 PM
Logan's written deposition speaks for itself.
There is no need to hear Logan's "prepared" answers.
Why give Logan a chance to "correct" previous statements?
Dean's usefulness truthfulness and credibility has about run it's course. Why try the courts patience?
Posted by: Splatter on June 1, 2005 01:22 PMIf I give them a $1 and do that hoping they will think it is a $5, that is fraud."
And if the dems intentionally lie and deceive in order to cover up the errors that give Gregoire an undeserved victory, that also is fraud.
If Way, Fell, Huennekens, and Logan had done their jobs honestly, the election would never have been certified, which has been made abundantly clear by the last few days' testimony.
Your continued defense of such a fatally flawed result is casting doubt on your integrity.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 1, 2005 01:25 PMNow let this happen in any Vegas or WA tribal kasino. The counting room manager would say, "Let's just move on. You can't have perfection. There's no evidence of stealing." (Badda-bing.)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 1, 2005 01:27 PM"....unfortunately, the law is the law. Gotta abide by it..."
So Dean Logan, Bill Huennekens, Nicole Way, et al, have admitted in depositions and in court that they did not follow numerous Washington State election laws and statutes. Does this bother you?
If Rossi's team loses the election contest, can we count on you to demand the termination of all government employees that violated or ignored these laws? Or are laws only for OTHER people?
Posted by: Larry on June 1, 2005 01:37 PMNOT GOOD FOR THE DEMS!
Posted by: Splatter on June 1, 2005 01:42 PMHow do you cover both your eyes and ears at the same time????
Oh Yeah! I remember seeing you bent over with your head stuffed well into your rectal cavity. That is why you cannot hear or see the truth that has been revealed in the last week in this trial. There is hope for you though. Just submit to the Democrat Conversion Program and we will be able to extricate your noggin from your posterior. Just wait for the loud POP before you try to breath or you will continue to consume the vast quantities of methane you have been living on.
Posted by: MikeFedUp on June 1, 2005 01:47 PMJDB - (Just Democrat Bulls--t?);
You'll notice in all the postings on defing fraud (which I put up) all stated specific instances where it was NOT just a mistake. Are you saying that Way and Heunnekens ACCIDENTALLY sent in that faked reconciliation report? That was intentional, with probably cause to believe that they wanted the election certified as is, or at the least that they didn't want people to know how extremely messed up the KC vote accounting was. Tried intentionally to deceive, resulted in damage to other party = fraud.
Get a grip on reality. Conservatives hate fraud by either party. We don't want to win by fraud either. That is because to us morality is an absolute for both sides to follow. It is liberalism that has no absolute morality, just convenient 'ethics'.
Posted by: rick D on June 1, 2005 01:49 PM"I don't like to use the word 'fix' when it comes to elections".
I bet you don't Dean0! The Judge didn't seem amused by this off-the-cuff remark.
Liberals don't like to use a lot of words..do they?
Posted by: Splatter on June 1, 2005 01:50 PMThis said by a lefty! That is too funny!!!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 1, 2005 02:08 PMLet's hear it fer WA public edumacation!
The problem for you is that the reconciliation report was not fake, as you state. Way stated it was the best that could be done with the information at hand.
And I love how many of you are saying that the certification should be thrown out. Shame that isn't what the GOP is arguing in court.
And for all of you who have tried to weasle out of my analogy, again, the point is that you have to show intent in fraud. So far not one person has shown a single instance of ballot stuffing or election fraud. You have shown mistakes. Let's hope that when this farce blows over that we can fix them, but you have shown no grounds for overturning this election.
I am sorry, I truly am, for all of you who have bought into the grand conspiracy theories and other propganda you have been fed by the minnow and his likes. It is a shame that for the past five months no one has been able to come up with anything other than over the top rhetoric on this site. I have to admit, I expected better. But just rocking back and forth in the corner wishing for something to be true does not make it true.
As of Friday, you will have your come to God moment, and you will have to accept that, while flawed, the election was held and a winner declared according to the laws of this state, and that person was Christine Gregoire. If you are smart, you will pat Rossi on his back and thank him for running, and realize that Gregoire is not the beast half of you think she is, and get on with your lives.
The other half will continue to spurt conspiracy theories and believe the blog fraud that they read here without question. Mostly pittiful, but you do provide me with a good laugh, and for that I thank you.
Posted by: JDB on June 1, 2005 02:51 PMHolding to that standard, there would be maybe 2 posts of this board in the last year.
Admittedly, you wouldn't have to worry about anyone disagreeing with you, but you have to admit, it would be a boring world.
But admit it, you just don't like my posts because you can't come up with any arguement against them. I do give you credit, at least you don't swear and name call like many here, but admit it, you hate that I'm correct.
Posted by: JDB on June 1, 2005 03:29 PMWe wouldn't hate it, or begrudge you if you ever achieved "correct", we might even throw a party ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 1, 2005 03:51 PMDo you also feel sorry for your brethren who think that Bush and Rove, manipulated numbers in Ohio? Or that somehow black people were not allowed to vote? Or that Kathryn Harris came up with the list of felons all by herself? (Not as ordered by the democratic legislature in Florida?)
Or etc, etc, etc.
The Republicans must have scored big today after all in the trial!
The trolls always feel a need to visit our blog when they are sweating and about to cry......Just ignore them and they will sulk away...in the corner..
Posted by: Deborah on June 1, 2005 07:14 PM