June 01, 2005
The unravelling of Dean Logan
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?
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?
Logan: not that I'm aware of
Maguire: you were aware that it had happened though?
Maguire: people on the canvassing crew knew that, right
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?
Maguire: Mr. Huennekens told you?
Maguire: but you didn't know the number?
[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.
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?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 01, 2005
10:59 AM | Email This
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]
ahh, ummm, uhh.... I suppose it could maybe be um, uhhh.....
Dean logan is giving some impressive testimony
It will be fun to hear Goldy try to spin this as good news for the Democrats when he debates Stefan today on Carlson.
Democrats don't seem to realize how much this makes their party look like a joke.
Was watching the feed on NWCN...I noticed Dean Logan's eyes.
The guy is doing his best to lie.
Impressive testimony? Sure...if you just had a lobotomy in the last 48 hours.
4. When Logan went before the council for the 2nd time he was asked whether absentee ballots went into the accu-vote at the polls and he responded by saying no. Now he is saying yes... This is very curious especially since it was documented all the way back in November.
5. Isn't Dean Logan basically admitting he violated state laws by submitting this election for certification when he knew it was inaccurate?
6. Wouldn't that make it FRAUD?
7. Well let's see, I guess it would depend upon what your definition of is is.
"Democrats don't seem to realize how much this makes their party look like a joke."
Back 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.
scroll down to read all of the entries.
"It doesn't matter! Florida! Florida! Florida!"
10. Dog - Democrats focus all their effort on their base in KC. They know that the rest of the state despises them and they don't bother trying to win them over.
11. Seems like Rossi's team is getting more mileage out of the Dems witnesses than the Dems are. Not sure these witnesses were a good idea for them...
Definition of Fraud
"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.
mistakes were widespread and in all counties- so we should just accept that the last hand recount was the most accurate and live with the result, because doing it right is too hard.
Geez- who does hamilton work for?
14. I hate to say it, but I think the cross examination was weak.
It is clear that there was no problem with this election. Everything was above board and can be explained by acknowledging simple insignificant mistakes were made. But, suppose a dozen people wanted to influence a close election?
Is 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?
"An actual fraud requires that the act be motivated by the desire to deceive another to his harm, while a constructive fraud is a presumption of overreaching conduct that arises when a profit is made from a relation of trust."
Source: 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.
17. "What did the Director of Records and Elections know, and when did he know it?"
What is fraud?
Fraud 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.
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?!
19. The question that keeps coming to mind is; How long can this parade of poster-children for incompetence and naivety go on? Good gawd this is tragic. One thing that I can say for them though is that they really do a bang up job of putting a face on King County.
How many laps is Hamilton going to run on mistakes, bungling, human error, it's too hard?
He's making our point for us.
21. If this election was so "hard" why appoint an electon director with no experience of ever running an election? (Nixon Handy)
"Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement and damages."
I'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.
23. Plausible deniability
Fraud: the giving away of free vanilla ice cream when I specifically asked for chocolate.
Grey's book of silly definitions, 2005, 1st ed.
Sorry, couldn't help myself after seeing all the other fraud postings on here.
That applies when you pay for the ice cream.
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!
I hope that guy giving out the vanilla icecream fries! O the humanity!
Obviously 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!
28. Placing personnel in charge of ensuring the integrity elections who deliberately and systematically corrupt the election process in such a way as to ensure that those with a proclivity to cast extralegal votes are afforded every opportunity to do so while simultaneously encouraging the same by holding ‘voter registration drives’ among populations that are not likely to be lawful voters and fomenting a sense of entitlement among groups of self proclaimed ‘victims’ and providing a veil of ‘plausible deniability’ for those responsible to escape behind. Where Logan and crew screwed the pooch is in the setting up of plausible deniability. IMHO
29. These folks are not out of the ordinary for today's government workers -- city, county and state government they are (literally) the norm...
Andy: "mistakes were widespread and in all counties- so we should just accept that the last hand recount was the most accurate and live with the result, because doing it right is too hard"
No, 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.
Its the liberal way... claim you are a victim, pass the buck, and don't take any responsibilty. In this case the positions of Dem attorneys seem to be:
"whaaahhhh, it's too hard to do an election in King County!"
"It's too big It's sooo complex."
The 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.
32. What if we lose the war? What if the judge decides there is insufficient evidence to throw out the election? Is that the end? Do the KC election buffoons now have a standard operating procedure for stealing an election? What about all the election laws that have been broken? Is there any follow-up criminal prosecution?
Democrats' defense: Since there's no way to tell who actually received more votes in this election, we have to accept the fact that Christine Gregoire won the election.
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.
If you accidentally hand me the wrong bill, that's one thing.
If you "accidentally" hand me the wrong bill a lot of times, I start to think you're not honest.
Do you see the difference?
To 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?
Saya-nara, Dean. I heard parts of his "day in the sun" on the radio. I sat next to my young peers in the principal's office who gave much better responses & more creative defenses.
Ronin & 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.
37. I thought I would give Tom Daschle a call and get his take; seems that Tom is deeply concerned that Right Wing Crazies with assistance from talk radio and bloggers will infer that.... .. .. .and yada, yada, yada and bla, bla, bla and it's all a vast right wing conspiracy.
says JDB: "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."
If 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.
KC 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.
40. And any bank would envy KC's processes! They run such a PERFECT operation!!!!
Wow, after watching the entire testimony this morning, I fully expect a re-submitted motion to dismiss the case. Any remnants of a case were removed as we heard the truth for once.
Time to pack up, call it a day and pray for 2008.
42. Putting unverified provisional votes through the accuvote machine may or may not have been the result of fraud. Not discolsing this mistake, and certifying the election with knowledge of this mistake is fraud.
43. "I hate to say it, but I think the cross examination was weak."
Iguana...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.
While we are debating whether or not a fraud occurred, it strikes me that it is pretty much irrelevant in this trial.
The 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.
The cross was weak because there is no evidence! You have bought into the PR campaign here, on R-radio, from the R-press releases to believing the untrue! In a court of law, different standards exist (like TRUTH!
Accusations all over the place...evidence nowhere. Perhaps now folks will do their own fact checking...instead of relying upon those with bigger objectives...
Hi Jim Mantelly,
Welcome 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.
47. Jim - Regardless of your opinion on whether Rossi has "proven" that the illegal votes cost him the election, I am not satisfied with a +/- 2,000 vote discrpency in elections passing as acceptable. And this is the judge's conundrum. Sure, maybe the case doesn't prove for sure whether Rossi would have won, but does the judge want to allow future elections to be run in this manner? Or for that matter, do you? I think we could do a little bit better if we tried. The sad thing is, KC has no intention of trying ...
48. Jim M,
KC has already admitted (under oath) to some of this evidence that you claim doesn't exist.
JDB, years ago I worked as a cashier and people would sometimes try to pull a switch with a 20 instead of a 5 or 10 dollar bill. When I caught them at it, their reaction was always wide-eyed innocence. "Oops! Just made a mistake!"
It's still fraud even if you PRETEND it's an accident.
50. Jim, you are right. As cross has to keep within the scope of original evidence, and as there wasn't any coherant evidence, there was nothing to cross!
Good 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.
Jim, KC has admitted to breaking the law.
If 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?
53. Jim - As the law is written, it is virtually impossible to implement in real life. As ballots are cast in secrecy, there will never be any way to determine if the illegal ballots cast in this election gave it to Gregoire. I think the judge is contemplating whether or not its in the public interest to have an election contest law that does not allow for an election contest so to speak. I just don't see how the judge can essentially "condone" the actions of KC elections dept - and my guess is he won't. He might say something like "ok, Gregoire, you get to stay just because the way the law is written there is no way to throw you out, but based on the evidence presented, it is highly questionable whether or not you were duly elected." My guess is he will hold KC feet to the fire. They won't be able to pull this crap in the future.
Obviously, Jim is a plant/troll whose sole purpose is to divert attention to the continuing implosion of KCE and Dean Logan.
Let him ramble, he's so delusional he's harmless.
55. Jim, Which laws - the ones that our employees (KC county officials) broke?
Jim Mantelly says "Time to pack up, call it a day and pray for 2008". I agree, the Dems should give it up and end it now--it is obvious that Gregoire had enormous help from King County in "winning" the election.
Rope a dope: I think that's what Logan and dims are doing to us. Sitting there taking punch after punch, looking stupid, but at some point they'll be left standing..
Several people have commented on "weak cross examination" of Logan. I think there are several reasons for that:
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?
"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."
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.
JDB - The Law requires many things with respect to elections, most of which were ignored or otherwise violated by the crew at KCE, thereby rendering the hand "recount" invalid.
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.
Let's assume these "mistakes" are not intentional fraud. Let's also assume this election's accuracy is one "...any bank would envy." (a la Sims)
Now 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.)
62. I think the S.T and P.I. should distribute their propaganda by hand counting each and every rag. After all, they want an accurate distribution process, don't they? Those darn counting machines are just so unreliable.
"....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?
64. Larry, I assume you mean by "other people" you mean republicans?
YES, The Judge asks Dean questions!!!
NOT GOOD FOR THE DEMS!
66. I think we can all see that the screw ups are to many and pervasive to keep track of, especially in the socialist republic of King County, but what really worries me is the distinct boundry between "the law" and "justice". They unfortunatly are not always equal and while I think it is going to be easy for the judge to rule that the law was at a minimum 'severly bent' in KC what I don't think he is going to be able to do is to provide the the residents and voters of Washington State with justice. Which ever side he comes down on in regards to giving declaring Rossi the victor - I think the only way justice can really be served is by declaring the election null and void and forcing a re-vote with special instructions to King county to fix their processes and he has already stated that he would not / could not force such a revote.
67. Well, that was short lived..
68. Hit him with the gavel!! make him talk
JDB, Jim Mantelly, et. al - Left wing wackos-
How 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.
"However, if you are going to insist that mistakes=fraud, almost every post on this board is fraudulent" --JDB
JDB - (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'.
Logan is best when he goes off the script..
"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?
72. Danny - your comments have me LOL.
Bananaland - I somewhat agree: we could be making a much more agressive case. But There MAY be a stragety here to let the Dems hang themselves in front of a sharp judge. Remember that he said that this was in part about what the citizens have a right to expect in an election, and I think there is plenty here to show that we have been let down. I have no idea how he will rule, but the Democrats are looking horrible whenever they speak. That's good, because it is revelation of truth.
Remember, Hillary-care missed instituting socialism in America by 1 vote, and gave us the Republican revolution of 94. Maybe the Dems will stink this up so bad we get some good leades in washington for a change. I have hope, regardless of the trial outcome.
73. Shouldn't the Dems have rested their case last Friday?
74. "....unfortunately, the law is the law. Gotta abide by it..."
This said by a lefty! That is too funny!!!
If your vocabulary were limited to about 300 words, you wouldn't use a lotta words either.
Let's hear it fer WA public edumacation!
76. JDB - According to Nick Handy intentionally handing you $1 instead of $5 is not fraud, its just a deliberate mistake.
77. Enron County.
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.
79. The little troll expends so much energy.
80. It is so hard to argue with an infantile who just says MINE MINE MINE without any regard for facts, evidence, logic and common sense. If you can't say anything that fits into the above categories (facts, evidence, logic, common sense) don't waste our time JDB.
Holding 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.
82. MINE MINE MINE
The troll sez: "but you have to admit"
a lot for something who hasn't gotten anything right yet (but don't let me stop ya!)
We wouldn't hate it, or begrudge you if you ever achieved "correct", we might even throw a party ;'}
JDB, You said...
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.
Do 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.
Wow! Look at the trolls tonight!
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..