One of the most telling moments of the trial so far was when Judge Bridges read back to Dean Logan these of Logan's own words from the 2004 Elections Report Report [sic] to King County Executive Ron Sims
I am proud of our 2004 accomplishments. Without question, there were challenges and obstacles to overcome, but we did so without compromising the transparency and integrity of the elections.Bridges then asked [I paraphrase] "after reading over a thousand pages of depositions from you and your staff, you don't really expect me to believe this crap about transparency and integrity, do you?"
Okay, Bridges' exact words after reading the quote and making a confused/frustrated/disgusted face:
Bridges: Of course, I've read probably a couple thousand pages of depositions testimony and I've been setting here a week and a half, reading and listening to what many of the employees of your department have had to say, to include Miss Way, and I assume you're familiar with her testimony.Bridges is clearly a no-nonsense kind of guy. I would not wager that Logan's bureaucratic non-answer helped him with this judge. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 01, 2005 01:48 PM | Email ThisLogan: I am.
Bridges: When I was in the army, I think the phrase was "taking names" and I guess for your benefit "kicking tush". I mean is there any sense of urgency in King County about fixing some of these problems?
Logan: I think there's been a sense of urgency about fixing, or I guess I don't like using the word fixing in terms of the elections process, in terms of addressing the issues in King County Elections for a long time and I think a lot has been done to address those issues. There's certainly have been issues that have been identified each step of the way as we've prepared and responded to this court case and I can assure you that there are steps being taken right now to address those issues.
I think the election will be vacated.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on June 1, 2005 01:51 PMLooks like Bridges isn't happy with vanilla!
Grey
Posted by: Grey on June 1, 2005 01:51 PMHoly smokes!
Posted by: Editor on June 1, 2005 01:54 PMI knew I shouldn't have answered the phone. It looked like it was going to be delicious.
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 1, 2005 01:58 PMYou did see that Marx Bros. photo on SP a couple weeks ago, didn't you?
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 02:02 PMWouldn't that be the battle of the incompetents?
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 1, 2005 02:03 PMListening to Dean; I feel like I'm in an alternate universe! He talks of openness, etc. and all the laws and rules in place to prevent fraud and ballot-box stuffing. Then we see evidence of such and he just expects us to think that his words alone (above) suffice. We're never supposed to assume the obvious and they never are able to explain what the discrepancies are about. We're just supposed to ASSUME the garbage isn't garbage.
Fuh-get about it!
Not much else tho....
Posted by: Michele on June 1, 2005 02:06 PMBridges read to Logan a quote from the county's post-election report that said while problems had occurred they were addressed "without compromising the transparency and integrity of the election."
Bridges was clearly skeptical about the claim.Posted by: Editor on June 1, 2005 02:09 PM"I've read maybe a couple thousand pages of deposition testimony and have been here a week and a half, reading and listening to what many of the employees of your department have had to say, including Ms. Way, and I assume you are familiar with her testimony," Bridges said to Logan.
Logan said he was familiar with the testimony of Nicole Way, the county's mail-ballot supervisor. Way testified that she and her boss, Garth Fell, had falsified a mail-ballot report when the numbers did not reconcile properly.
Bridges said that when he was in the Army there was an expression which, for the purposes of addressing Logan, he would call "taking names and kicking tush."
"Is there any sense of urgency in King County about fixing some of these problems?" he asked.
Logan: "I can assure you there are steps being taken right now to address those issues."
I like Judge Bridges. How nice to see him respond like a human being to such smarmy tripe.
A very, very nice moment.
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 1, 2005 02:17 PM
Maybe there's been no smoking gun as yet, but Bridges would have to be comatose not to see all the spent shell casings scattered around KC.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 1, 2005 02:19 PMAnd if you want to see Judge Bridges with wearied expressions on his face, play back last Friday's and Thursday's testimony where he had to put up with the GOP's faux experts and the whining of their attorney's. Now that was a sight to see.
Posted by: JDB on June 1, 2005 02:34 PMOkay, Bridges' exact words after reading the quote and making a confused/frustrated/disgusted face:
Bridges: Of course, I've read probably a couple thousand pages of depositions testimony and I've been setting here a week and a half, reading and listening to what many of the employees of your department have had to say, to include Miss Way, and I assume you're familiar with her testimony.
Logan: I am.
Bridges: When I was in the army, I think the phrase was "taking names" and I guess for your benefit "kicking tush". I mean is there any sense of urgency in King County about fixing some of these problems?
Logan: I think there's been a sense of urgency about fixing, or I guess I don't like using the word fixing in terms of the elections process, in terms of addressing the issues in King County Elections for a long time and I think a lot has been done to address those issues. There's certainly have been issues that have been identified each step of the way as we've prepared and responded to this court case and I can assure you that there are steps being taken right now to address those issues.
Posted by: Jim L on June 1, 2005 03:13 PMI have never heard of a judge questioning witnesses not that is may not be common. But clearly Judge Bridges is not at all amused by the conduct of KC election officials. You know, you do not have to see a rotting corpse to smell one.
What should he have said? (Assuming he does want to fix the problems?) Something like this: We discovered problems in this election and we are working urgently to correct them.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 1, 2005 03:28 PMFirst, it has been my hope from the beginning that the judge would read the riot act to King County over their handling of the election.
I now fully expect that he will lecture King County and possibly direct them to do some things or be held in contempt of Court. I would like to see that and I would like to see King County really fix things rather than tell us that they have fixed things then confess the next election that they will try harder once more.
Personally, if the Judge tosses out the election and the Dem's loose their $2million plus in money they had to put up for the hand recount, the Democratic Party may force King County to get their act together and fix the issues we all know haven't been fixed.
Second, I hope that when the dust settles Judge Bridges finds a compromise that will give the Democrats something to feel good about as well as a victory for Rossi. I would be surprised to have him kick Chris G out and instruct the Lt Gov to tak e over until such a time as the Democratically controlled legislature can hold another governors election. In such an event, I would expect the Dem's to drag their feet to keep a Dem in the Governor's mansion as long as possible.
If that happens, I think that the Dem's will earn a hell of a backlash from the public and find themselves in a minority position in the state senate.
Ultimately Chris G will get kicked out and Rossi will have a chance to run for Governor. If and when it happens, I will wager he wins by a landslide and that King County Electrions will be under the supervision or at least close watch of a state or federal judge.
Posted by: Bob on June 1, 2005 04:04 PMNot sure what the Democrats should feel good about, but IMHO the judge should instruct the King County election officials to either:
-1- Meet the legal auditing requirements, if they can somehow do so (recognizing that this is likely impossible).
-2- Publicly declare that they cannot meet their legal auditing requirements and thus the election count is void, necessitating a new election.
-3- If they fail to do #1 or #2 within some timeframe chosen to allow an uneventful November election for governor, pay a contempt fine and have option #2 pressed upon them by default.
Such a ruling could be regarded as quite fair and generous to the Democrats (bending over backwards to let them follow the law) but would end up necessitating a revote since it would almost certainly be impossible for the Democrats to resolve the election's problems in a manner consistent with the law.
Posted by: supercat on June 1, 2005 04:13 PMAnd Nixon Handy is even worse. His managing job is for the state and you can't manage an organization if you don't know the applicable laws that govern the organization.
Neither of these two knuckleheads are capable of living up to the expectations of the voters that they are responsible to. I am surprised that they can dress themselves in the morning, let alone accomplish anything useful at work.
Posted by: sgmmac on June 1, 2005 05:50 PMOne says: "give the Democrats something to feel good about"
No, supercat says: be "...quite fair and generous to the Democrats (bending over backwards to let them follow the law)..."
The Dems in KC have already been given numerous chances and warnings and haven't cleaned up election operations. In fact, they have gotten even more brazen.
Frankly, I'm sick of moderates giving away the store all the time. Why do they want to be liked? That makes them very vulnerable to the vultures on the left.
Okay, rant over.
Posted by: mac on June 1, 2005 05:59 PMI'll bet there is another phrase - used in the military - that comes to the Judge's mind when he's looking at the King County elections mess......"FUBAR" (F**ked Up Beyond All Recognition)..
I was amazed at how squirrely Logan was while being questioned by the Judge! Did anyone else notice how he avoided the word *corrected* - and instead used the term *addressed*? In fact - he made a joke about using the word *fix* in an election contest! That word would have implied *corrective action*...but instead he simply said he and they (KC) have addressed many issues!
Well - WE here at SP have ADDRESSED many issues and problems with the King County elections Department! I'm sure many citizens will be ADDRESSING King County elections problems in the future.....but who - if not Logan - is going to CORRECT the elections system in King County??
(And don't worry about missing it. I once missed a post that was just below the one I was writing.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 1, 2005 07:23 PMI agree that there's no reason the judge should give the Democrats anything of particular practical value. Given the state of the LSM, however, I think it would be desirable for the judge to craft his decision in such a way that even the LSM would have to admit that it was KC officials, not the judge, who forced the election to be thrown out.
If the judge simply throws out the election, the LSM will claim Rossi was "selected not elected" even if he wins a revote by a 90-10 margin. By contrast, if the judge rules that an election cannot stand if a county controlled by officials partial to the "winner" can't reconcile ballots to voters within the winning margin, then the onus would be on those party officials to reconcile things, and the blame would be on them if they couldn't.
BTW, I predict that if the election is tossed, Gregoire will decline to run again for "health" or other reasons. If Rossi wins a blowout against the new challenger, the Democrats will claim that his victory was a result of his running against an unknown, rather than being a repudiation of the Gre-lection.
Posted by: supercat on June 1, 2005 07:31 PM(redrum....redrum....redrum)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 1, 2005 08:11 PMJust thinking out loud as I don't know his exact options. I have a feeling Judge Bridges would really, really, really like to know how many absentee ballots were returned, and if KC could reconcile them within say 90-100 instead of ~900.
Posted by: Tucker on June 1, 2005 08:40 PMParty fraud is a scarey thing to postulate.... but should it be ignored?
Posted by: Susan on June 1, 2005 10:46 PMI guess I don't like using the word fixing in terms of the elections process
Does that count as a "scoring in own goal"?
I think it does.
Posted by: Troll on June 2, 2005 11:08 AM