1. Every time I think the Republicans are screwing this up, the dem lawyers keep calling witnesses like her. It's almost like they want to throw the election out too!

Posted by: Brent from Clark County on June 2, 2005 11:03 AM

2. Maguire: you didn't investigate one-vote discrepancies?
Sanchez: We would have gone back to them had we had time to do that.

Looks like the rattlesnakes are committing suicide!

Posted by: Jarhead on June 2, 2005 11:11 AM

3. The rush was not for the benefit of the law and any deadline, but for the benefit of stopping once a result that favored Gregoire had been reached.

Had they kept going, they ... gasp ... might have found that the additional absentee ballots actually tilted the election back to Rossi.

As for the fatigue, yeah they were tired alright. Tired of dealing with Republicans who were trying to be careful in examining a close election to verify the results.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 2, 2005 11:14 AM

4. I think this trial should go for another week. It would be entertaining to see what excuse the jackass party would pull out of their fourth point of contact next!

Posted by: Jarhead on June 2, 2005 11:17 AM

5. "Every time I think the Republicans are screwing this up, the dem lawyers keep calling witnesses like her. It's almost like they want to throw the election out too!"

And well they should IF they care about the will of the people AND not their power base.

A big fat IF. REVOTE.

Posted by: niceville on June 2, 2005 11:22 AM

6. Thanks, Shark, for bringing up RCW 29A.60.200 again. I have been too busy to look it up while monitoring the trial and trying to work, but I remembered its text from your earlier articles and have been wanting to comment on it.

I hope the republican's lawyers hit this hard at closing, and I wish the would have cornered Logan and Sanchez both when they repeatedly relied on a deadline to excuse all the sloppiness and omissions. Logan, as director, could have been asked if he knew and understood the text of that RCW (he'd have to say "yes"), and whether, therefore, he could say, under oath, that it was "impossible" to count absentee ballots prior to counting provisionals, in order to detect double voting, within the time allowed to certify the election.

At least the lawyers can still make the legal argument at closing.

Posted by: srogers on June 2, 2005 12:21 PM

7. I missed it - but heard that Ms. Sanchez said the Poll Inspectors took the Poll Books home with them after the election??

Can someone verify if this was stated?

That would be significant when combined with the revelation that the Poll Inspectors also had taken home blank ballots prior to the elections!

Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 06:37 PM

8. SECOND TAKE.. LINDA SANCHEZ IS AN ACCOMPLICE TO FRAUD

I want to retract my apology about Linda Sanchez's character. After watching her testimony for a second time I realize I was right the first time around. She is nothing more than a KCool-Aid Kid. Ignore the fact that she looks and sounds like a nice lady.. IT IS A BULLSH*T FACADE.

SANCHEZ IS A PARTISAN PAWN WHO COVERED UP AND PARTICIPATED IN ELECTION FRAUD!

It took a second look to see how she how she was playing ignorant victim. She is a great actor, had me fooled.

CRAP.. I said I was wrong, then realized I was wrong about being wrong! Hey, at least I can admit mistakes (unlike liberals). Look out..I'm on a roll!

She knew what she was doing,
why it was being done
and what the desired outcome should be.

Don't give me that timid little lady bullshit!

SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING AND WHY!

She is good...Real good.. But not good enough!

Posted by: Splatter on June 3, 2005 01:13 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?