The most watched of the closing arguments was that by Secretary of State's attorney, Tom Ahearne. (On TVW audio, fast forward to 6:32:50. Duration is 14 min 30 sec). This was closely watched because those who know about such things will tell you that Judge Bridges trusts Ahearne more than he does the party lawyers and looks to him for guidance. Ahearne's most noticeable statement was his insistence on Sam Reed's neutrality and his defense of Nixon Handy, who was exposed to have organized a disinformation campaign in order to undermine the Republicans at the outset of the contest back in January. It was an appalling statement. Ahearned levelled false accusations at the Republicans while claiming that the Secretary of State was "neutral". On the other hand, Ahearne also said something else that might be interpreted as a shift in position favoring the Republicans --
First, the trash talk. (On TVW audio at 6:41:30) or from Postman:
Ahearne said that Republicans made false claims early this year about military ballots and ballot security around the state, and alleged that ballots that were enhanced for the counting process were done so improperly.The claims were not false and they were dropped from the case only because of time and resource constraints. [How else would they limit the trial to two weeks other than by cutting stuff out?]Ahearne said Republicans have dropped those claims, which he said shows Handy was right.
But in addition to that dishonest, self-serving attack, Ahearne also appeared to modify his earlier guidance to the judge such that, if followed, it could very well help the Republicans make the case. Here are Ahearne's exact words (6:39:51):
... Petitioner has to present clear and convincing evidence that the illegal votes identified and/or election official errors changed the outcome of the electionIn the Secretary of State's earlier trial brief, the corresponding statement read:
... Petitioners to present clear and convincing evidence that it appears illegal votes and/or election official misconduct changed the outcome ...Is the shift from "misconduct" to the lower burden of "errors" significant? I can't be sure, but these people seem very careful with their words, so I suspect it might be significant. And of course, if Reed wanted to shift his position to favor the Republicans, it would only make sense to give himself political cover by trashing the Republicans publicly with a statement that won't make any difference to the judge. If the Republicans win the contest, they will quickly forget Ahearne's insults, while that same trash talk innoculates him from charges of partisanship from the Democrats. It's also possible that I'm reading too much into this. But if the Republicans lose the contest, Reed won't have done himself any favors by having Ahearne make such an unnecessary and inflammatory statement. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 04, 2005 12:37 AM | Email This
Yes. The allegations would not have been dropped from the GOP case if they had any legal or factual validity. They had none.
Once the secretary of state office asked for evidence of the allegations, the GOP quickly dismissed this portion of the lawsuit.
Posted by: Erik on June 4, 2005 02:43 AMThey were dropped because the GOP knew they would be laughed out of court if they dared to mention them. Given the millions spent, it would not have cost that much more, and the GOP could have asked for a longer trial, they wanted this short and fast. I also note you have not one citation for your statements.
And do you really think the judge likes having his courtroom and the legal process being used simply for PR?
As for the rest, I guess any port in a storm. After the way the case fell apart on Friday for the GOP, if I was that depressed, over my sixth beer I would come up with something like that.
Posted by: JDB on June 4, 2005 04:59 AMI think, when all is said and done and the light of TRUTH shines forth, those who didn't want to 'dirty' themselves, will be exposed for WHO and WHAT they truly are.
God, watch over Judge Bridges!
Posted by: arky on June 4, 2005 05:03 AMThanks for going Stefan, hopefully you will make enough contacts to run for office someday! You have lots of supporters here and of course we went withdrawals yesterday without your insights!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 4, 2005 06:18 AMSorry Dems, but a ruling for you would be like a final torpedo in the starboard side of our USS Voter Confidence.
Posted by: MB on June 4, 2005 07:28 AMIf republicans in general forget three and a half years from now when Sam Reed is up for re-election, then they deserve minority party status here.
Posted by: jaybo on June 4, 2005 07:55 AMSame for the supposed "evidence" about people taking ballots home and not being properly required to account for them. That's explosive evidence of possible fraud, right? But, no "time" to take a few minutes to bring that out in court, and no "resources" to include it in the trial brief I guess. Much better use of time for the R lawyers to spend hours playing mathematical footsie with expert witnesses.....
If anyone actually believes that the R's avoided presenting proof of things that (if actually true) would have been powerful, persuasive evidence just because they didn't have the "time" or money, I've got a nice bridge to sell ya. It runs right over the river of denial.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 4, 2005 07:59 AMIf they KNEW hte military ballot mailing issue was false, they could have addressed that SPECIFICALLY. If you want to be neutral, come before the public and say something like: "We understand that the Republican party is concerned about a nubmer issues regarding this election, one of which is the possible late mailings of the military absentee ballots. here is our documentaion of the mailings of the ballots. Now, reagrding the specific complaints of soldiers in the field, we take that seriously and will investigate if something can be done to address what happend in those specific cases."
THAT is a neutral approach. compare that with communication with outside parties saying effectively, "we need to undermine the Rebublican party's claims."
If the Rebublican party was in error in their claims, the neutral appraoch would be to set he record straight, not conspire with others to undermine everything. No, the SoS was in CYA mode and were willing to sacrifice the integrity of the elction process and the Republican party in their efforts.
Posted by: Eyago on June 4, 2005 08:44 AMOh look, its JDB, the liar. Hand count from everyone here on how many times we have had to correct his inaccurate facts. 1.2.3.....Oh, every one of them. Geez dude, get your facts straight.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 4, 2005 08:49 AMMark, the idea that the R's are holding back evidence so that they can pull it out of the hat at the Supreme Court is pure fantasy. You can't bring up anything at the Supreme Court that you didn't raise in Bridges' court. That was your one shot. If the R lawyers didn't present anything there, it's only because they didn't think it would help them.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 4, 2005 09:03 AMThat is the ONLY thing birdbeard is correct about.
Posted by: Danny on June 4, 2005 09:16 AMI can forgive you for grasping at this straw, but I do not see anything in Ahearn's closing arguments that helps the Republicans case. I think the prejudicial of his comments far outweighs the beneficial.
As for the other closing comments. I was greatly impressed by Korrel's arguments and greatly saddened by Democrats' theme that "no matter how screwed up it was it doesn't matter". We as taxpayers and voters deserve a whole lot better than that.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 4, 2005 09:17 AMDoesn't matter.
Bridges has seen sufficient evidence to rule in our favor without the additional allegations.
WSSC will hear from the dems, but will not overrule Bridges. How could they? On what grounds?
I'm putting together the marinate for the BBQ at the "Send Fraudoire packing" party!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 09:20 AMBah.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 4, 2005 09:28 AMIn King County, lost ballots were in Rossi favored precincts and all but one case, and found ballots were in Gregoire precincts in all but one case. This is simply statistically impossible and neither the SOS or Democrats could explain it.
Posted by: Marc on June 4, 2005 09:34 AMIt appears to me that Judge Bridges is a lot smarter than the Dems give him credit for and sees it as a simple exercise that shows what it shows.
Posted by: Jack on June 4, 2005 09:44 AMSometimes what seems out of character is only so until we know more about someone.
Posted by: 4woodenboats on June 4, 2005 09:55 AMLooking at the longer run, Bridges has the evidence and the discretion to overturn the election. As the trier-of-fact, he holds the cards. Unless they can find a substantial technical reason related specifically to his findings of fact, the Supreme Court cannot overturn Bridges, because he has given the SC nothing to overturn him with. If they did anyway [liberal judges have no shame] that will further pi$$ off and marginalize the democrats and call the whole system into more question.
Anyone who is incapable of finding that the election was not irretrievably invalidated by fraud is simply a democrat apologist engaged in wishful thinking, and they are in for a lot of surprises.
Ultimately the question will be one of political will and staying power. WHICH IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL, A BASIS OF DECEIT OR THE TRUTH The democrats cannot sustain their power base now because they have allowed themselves to become so thoroughly corrupted. Liberals are incapable of surrendering blind partisanship – even for the sake of THEIR OWN National Security. Gregoire and the democrats that are in charge of Washington State are attempting to apply “solutions” that will utterly fail because their approach is false. They ignore the fact one can NEVER remedy market problems with anti-market solutions. That raising taxes ALWAYS has a negative effect on markets, and intrusive regulations that burden small business bite the hand that feeds their dim-witted socialist pre-occupations.
CORRUPTION BEGETS CORRUPTION. Gregoire surrendered any integrity she may have ever possessed long ago, and it would be a huge surprise if she isn’t caught defrauding, extorting, or conspiring to get away with whatever she finds useful to her consolidation of power. Because her administration is tenuous and corrupt, her minions are all forced to hold together a mass of lies and deceit. Eventually one or more will unravel and prideful Gregoire will deny it as she does everything and use the power and wealth of the State’s citizens to pay off the problem. It won’t be the scandal that gets her – but the cover up.
EITHER WAY – THEY LOSE The court may not find a reasonable certainty [the Republican’s burden] that there was reason to overturn the election. However, now that a majority of people in Washington State are reasonably certain that the election was stolen through fraud, the electorate’s court of opinion is going to react, and it will not be good for the democrats.
APPEARANCES MISLEAD As a matter of practice, conservatives seek out those things that actually work in the long run and the fun about being conservative is that no matter how many degenerate loser liberal morons crawl out from under the dark damp places – in the end – the thing that works is the one that prevails. When the people at large get sick and tired enough of real corruption, stupidity, bigotry, poverty, and hardship they will look for leadership and eventually the adults/conservatives will take over again.
GREGOIRE IS ONLY “SUCCEEDING” IN THE SHALLOWEST REACHES OF THE LIBERAL “MINDSET.” All anyone needs is to listen to the comments of the liberals to be certain. Liberals have no substance on their side – only invective – and that is part of what is so amusing about them. No matter what happens in this election contest, unless one ignores the interests of Washington State, Gregoire’s programs and her Governorship are doomed to failure and ill-repute. In effect the democrats have ENGAGED the COURT OF REALITY to prove they are wrong, and only those who care about the truth will recognize the verdict.
Politics – what a joke. The butt of the joke – liberals
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 4, 2005 09:55 AMAnyone else wanna get their RSVP's in?!!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 10:01 AMThat's my line.
/Dilbert reference.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 4, 2005 10:13 AMI thought it would also be interesting to see what the probability would be of just 363 of the 808 votes occurring in the highest Rossi precincts--this is the 234 plus the 129 vote "Gregoire mandate". Even this small of a distribution is highly improbable. The probability of only 363 is about 2 in a 1000 or .2%.
Or alternatively, you could say that had these votes been distributed randomly, the probability that more than 363 would be distributed to the Rossi precincts is 99.8%, which we all know is a percentage that any bank would envy.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2005 10:29 AMI was gonna say, "Yes you can bring the democrats, but only if they behave themselves" , but you went and ruined it!
Oh, and Bruce, thanks for providing the liberal antithesis to Amused's words.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 10:54 AMHey, Mr. Beyer, don't give up hope, maybe the GOP didn't present all the evidence so they could appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel? It would be there only grounds now.
I tend to agree that the Supremes will uphold the Judges decision. The GOP only grounds for appeal would be on the standard to prevail should they lose, but that would be denied (the Supremes are not going to make it that easy to cry to the courts every time an election is close, especially after the GOP makes this about PR).
Should the Democrats loose, they have a few evidentiary grounds for appeal, and would be able to appeal on the statistical evidence. Should the judge change his mind on the standard (apparently the only way the GOP could win), they could appeal that too. If the Supremes wish to punt, they could send it back down on evidentiary or on Fry.
I expect that Judge Bridges' decision will be based upon the failure of the GOP to show any fraud, and that they could not show any mistakes or errors that effected the outcome of the election. The one ground on which the Supremes could overrule Judge Bridges is if he changes his previous decision and rule that the fact that there were errors alone is enough to overturn the election. As stated above, the Supremes will not want the standard to be this low. Mistakes alone are a political question, not a legal question.
I think Judge Bridges says that the mistakes in King County were real and need to be corrected, but that mistakes alone are not enough to overturn an election. Without a showing of fraud (and lets face it, there was absolutely no showing of fraud), the election must be upheld.
Posted by: JDB on June 4, 2005 12:14 PMRepublicans: King County officials [bleep]ed up this election so badly that it's impossible to tell who won; therefore the election should be voided and a new election held.
Democrats: King County officials [bleep]ed up this election so badly that it's impossible to tell who won; therefore, we shouldn't do anything to jeopardize the established result.
What facts are in dispute?
Posted by: supercat on June 4, 2005 12:49 PMThe problem with that stance: _as defined_ you can commit a _single_ error that undeniably alters an election. Without anyone having committed 'election fraud' as defined.
What if a batch of 10,000 ballots _accidentally_ went through twice. That would certainly be easier than actually having a big conspiracy, and the so-called records wouldn't catch it. Precisely because the 'total ballots received' number was deliberately falsified.
Posted by: Al on June 4, 2005 12:59 PMI thought it would be appropriate to give you this URL - in anticipation of your upcoming loss in this contest.....
www.sorryeverybody.com/
Perhaps you can add a Washington State chapter!
snicker.....
Posted by: Deborah on June 4, 2005 04:20 PM