This item illustrates the dishonesty in the loonie liberals' manufactured outrage over the errors in the GOP's challenges of nearly 2,000 illegally registered voters.
The front page of yesterday's P-I had this photograph depicting residents of 320 Cedar St in Seattle whose registrations were challenged in error
The accompanying caption:
From left, Steve Lacey, Teresa Selfe, Nick Fox, Jennifer Saulmann, Demene Hall, Brian Tesek and Margaret Bauer stand at the Watermarke Building on Cedar Street in downtown Seattle on Friday. All hold letters stating their voting registrations were challenged. Every resident in the building got a letter. (November 05, 2005)Two of the depicted "voters" are not what they claim to be.
The woman holding the letter is identified as Jennifer Saulmann. Only problem is -- there is no Jennifer Saulmann on the list of challenged voters. There is nobody on the list of challenged voters with a 320 Cedar St address and the first name of Jennifer. As of June 2005 ( my most recent copy of the voter database) there was nobody registered in King County with the last name of Saulmann or Saulman. Perhaps this woman's hand is covering the To: address on the letter in the photograph because the letter is not addressed to Jennifer Saulmann.
The African American woman in the photo is identified as Demene Hall. Hall is quoted in the article:
Hall, who said she is "too African American" not to be a regular voter, said Friday she came of age in the civil rights era and watched her parents hand out political fliers outside polling places they were not allowed to enter.The crazy implication here is that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise black voters as Democrats once did to black voters in the South. Hall has in fact been disenfranchised, but not by the GOP, but by her own inaction. According to county records, Hall has only been registered to vote here since 1994 and has not voted in any election since. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 06, 2005 11:06 AM | Email This"We just buried Rosa Parks on Wednesday, I got the letter on Thursday and today is my 57th birthday," she said. "And they're challenging my validity?"
The KingCo Circus all comes down to one key word that captures the essence of the LEFTIST PINHEADS:
clown--(n)
*** a dude ill-bred person
***a fool, jester or comedian in a play OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT (elections are entertainment for these goofballs)
***a grotesquely dressed comedy performer in a circus.
***One who habitually plays the buffoon.
The last definition applies perfectly to the buffoon, David CLOWNstein.
The buffoons in this picture, especially the one who hasn't voted in 10 years!!! and the other CLOWN who isn't even on the list!!!
They are CLOWNS who enjoy acting perpetually offended and being the center of attention.
I believe the term LEFTIST PINHEAD is certainly appropo....
However, the word that truly captures the essence of their foolishness is CLOWN!!
Remember Republicans are allowed not one single human error or the whole document is a fraud. But democrats only one sentence can be true and the document is genuine. Or take a part of a statement to show someone is a racist. We should do the same to make a point. Put together complete sayings of Democrats to make our point for us. Because we can take things as a whole to show what they really are we do not have to take a few words. Like the 16 words of the presidents speech for the reason to go to war is why we should never have gone to war. What about the rest of the speech. Always attack on a tiny bit and ignore the reality of the whole. This is what we have to live with and all those rich lefists will amplify all the mistakes a thousand fold. Remember it is the rich and powerful verus the people on I912. Rich say no the people say Yes if they were not blinded by the facts by the lies told by the rich and powerful. Posted by: David Anfinrud on November 6, 2005 12:20 PM
So here we are, doing exactly what they told us to do.
The Times and PI stories didn't have one bit of balance. I personally have looked up some of the addresses on Sharkansky's questionable provisional ballots that he found. Several of the addresses don't exist. Why didn't the Times do their research and report the whole truth?
Sure, the GOP is going to make some mistakes...that doesn't mean something fishy isn't going on. Remember, the GOP had some errors on the felon voters, but that didn't mean all the found felon votes were mistakes. Shark is working virtually alone on this trying to dig through hundreds of thousands of documents...like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Keep up the pressure Shark. I think you have more people behind you that you even know.
Posted by: Susie on November 6, 2005 12:38 PMWhat a bunch of pu*****! I swear. I've never seen such a collection of crybabies in my life. Between the trolls, TASS, Pravda, donkey rear. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real crisis. Emotionally and intellectually, they remain mere infants, stuck on their mommies' chests.
Ah, Puget Sound, "Bring me your lame, your pathetic, your emotionally retarded, your morally directionless...yearning to live in a fantasy world. We'll pay for it."
Posted by: Danny on November 6, 2005 12:56 PMIt is a class B felony.
Posted by: If you do the crime, you should do the time. on November 6, 2005 01:26 PMWhat is the response from KCE? " We hired a temp placement agency to clean up the KCE culture". Yep this could be fun, bring it on lefty. Posted by: If you do the crime D, Democrats will Ignore it. on November 6, 2005 02:00 PM
It is a class B felony."
Bulls**t ! Another troll parading misinformation. No further comment necessary. You may get some mileage over on CLOWNSTEIN's website.. but it gets shot down quickly on SP.
Posted by: KS on November 6, 2005 02:04 PMI guess I'm "too white" to not vote, as I haven't missed voting in a single election since 1981 - even the piddly ones they hoped nobody would notice because they held them at funny times of the year........
Posted by: H Moul on November 6, 2005 02:24 PMIt is people like "Ms. Hall" who do a disservice to this Country. In a time where people in other parts of the world are fighting and dying for the right to vote, we have someone who has that right but doesn't care to exercise it. Shame on Ms. Hall and all like her for lying to garner some cheap publicity on the pages of the lame P.I.
Posted by: mimi on November 6, 2005 02:32 PMRCW 9A.72.020
Perjury in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he makes a materially false statement which he knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor's mistaken belief that his statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.020.]
--------------------------------------------------
RCW 9.92.010
Punishment of felony when not fixed by statute.
Every person convicted of a felony for which no maximum punishment is specially prescribed by any statutory provision in force at the time of conviction and sentence, shall be punished by confinement or fine which shall not exceed confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine and the offense shall be classified as a class B felony.
[1996 c 44 § 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 5; 1909 c 249 § 13; RRS § 2265.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 47: See note following RCW 9.41.190.
Classification of crimes: Chapter 9A.20 RCW.
--------------------------------------------------
RCW 9A.72.080
Statement of what one does not know to be true.
Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he knows to be false.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.080.]
Cheers,
Posted by: If you do the crime, you should do the time on November 6, 2005 02:38 PMThat doesn't change the fact that the registrations were challenged. Try as you might, you can't rewrite the past. The "boneheaded" error happened, and that in itself is a big deal. If it was just an error that would be one thing, but this was a "boneheaded" (or bonheaded) error, which is newsworthy.
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans. When that right is challenged that is a big deal. When that right is erroneously challenged that is a bigger deal.
Posted by: Daniel K on November 6, 2005 02:44 PM(In response to Sharkansky noting that he has to hire a lawyer and litigate to get any information out of the elections office.)
Take a look at the detailed properties of the spreadsheet Goldy obtained. The author (or at very least, last significant editor) was Anne Brusklind, an unpopular operative from the Office Of Executive Services who has been parachuted into the Election Office this season to -- well, no one is really certain what she is supposed to be doing because all she is actually doing is irritating people all over the office who are trying to do their jobs...
She's a Ron Sims crony currently working at the election office who had access to, and may have authored, the spreadsheet. Whether she sent it to Goldy from her king county e-mail (although her official king county e-mail is embedded in the sheet properties), or whether she sent it home or to another of Sims' operatives to leak it from off site, the fact of the matter remains:
The Ron Sims campaign can get public and insider information immediately when they ask, and average, honest voters are stonewalled and given the run around for months.
This is probably the same way that Ron Sims "didn't leak" the lies about David Irons' family - he set it up and sent a political operative off to do the dirty work for him.
The fact of the matter is, RON SIMS is the ultimate puppetmaster. All of these corrupt actions happen becasue he gives the go ahead.
If you want you county government cleaned up, don't vote for the corrupt Ron Sims on Tuesday.
Posted by: Insider on November 6, 2005 02:45 PMBy your exact same logic, the very same statutes you so nicely cut and pasted, wouldn't the very same people who certified last years election, claiming certain untruths about the numbers of ballots (and many others in KC Elections who said that they did their jobs) also be guilty?
I can't exactly see how you would hold one group guilty and one group innocent, unless it were to be something like, oh, say, bald partisanship?
Posted by: pseudotsuga on November 6, 2005 02:46 PM
I'm glad you're all about policing up potential felonies. Perhaps you could get Norm Maleng to prosecute (as soon as he's done prosecuting all the double-voters).
Could you do me a favor and look up the definition of "official proceeding"? It's likely not what you think it is in this case.
I also doubt that those challenging the voters' registrations knew that their signed statement was false. But, if it was prosecuted, I'm sure we'd find out, right?
I'm all for getting to the bottom of this (just as you seem to be). As Stefan stated earlier, this is a game of "presumptions." If you're going around slinging felony statutes at people, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The voters who were challenged are presumed legit voters until shown otherwise.
Meantime, the many "voters" not on the front page of Pravda.. what's their story?
Cheers,
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on November 6, 2005 02:48 PM
RCW 9A.72.060
Perjury and false swearing -- Retraction.
No person shall be convicted of perjury or false swearing if he retracts his false statement in the course of the same proceeding in which it was made, if in fact he does so before it becomes manifest that the falsification is or will be exposed and before the falsification substantially affects the proceeding. Statements made in separate hearings at separate stages of the same trial, administrative, or other official proceeding shall be treated as if made in the course of the same proceeding.
[1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 16; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.060.]
NOTES:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.
Posted by: RG on November 6, 2005 02:49 PMBut Buck Up, when she gets out of the slam, she can restore her voting capability....
2) The right to vote may be restored by, for each felony conviction, one of the following:
(a) A certificate of discharge issued by the sentencing court, as provided in RCW 9.94A.637;
(b) A court order restoring the right, as provided in RCW 9.92.066;
(c) A final order of discharge issued by the indeterminate sentence review board, as provided in RCW 9.96.050; or
(d) A certificate of restoration issued by the governor, as provided in RCW 9.96.020.
[2005 c 246 § 15; 2004 c 267 § 126; 2003 c 111 § 233. Prior: 1994 c 57 § 42. Formerly RCW 29.10.097.]
You make a good point when you mention that the right to vote is a fundamental right. However, are you suggesting that such right ought to never be challenged?
You see, the Supreme Court has held that illegal votes are actually an infringement on the fundamental right to vote of all those who cast legal votes.
Since each challenged voter registration is presumed legit until it is clearly shown that the voter doesn't exist or is double-registered, I think you should be pleased that some citizens are actually doing what government has failed to do - scrutinize and fix our voter registration.
If your registration is good-to-go, no problem, you never lost your right to vote. If you're double-registered, we need to fix that so that there's only one registration.
By all means vote, but only if you're allowed to, and only once, please. The "honor system" simply hasn't been cutting it (to put it mildly).
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on November 6, 2005 02:56 PMIt will happen if Irons wins....Don't lose focus here - another potential bombshell tried by the Sims Machine in collaboration with MSM that was defused by SP and a few other local sharpies. Posted by: KS on November 6, 2005 02:57 PM
You said, "Anne Brusklind, an unpopular operative from the Office Of Executive Services who has been parachuted into the Election Office this season to -- well, no one is really certain what she is supposed to be doing because all she is actually doing is irritating people all over the office who are trying to do their jobs..."
Is this common during elections, that Rons Sims staff goes and works in the elections department?
How is this NOT considered a conflict of interest????
This African American woman Demene Hall is also a CLOWN!!! CLOWNS know no color or race!!
She registered to vote 11 years ago AND SHE HASN'T VOTED SINCE!!!! Yet she whines about the GOP and plays the race card????!!
Hall is a CLOWN!!!!!!!!!
She disenfranchised herself.
I believe the rule is that if you miss 2 consecutive Presidential Elections (which for CLOWNstress Hall would be 1996 & 2000....oh and 2004 too!!) your registration is removed.
Let's see Logan explain why CLOWN Hall is still on the active voter registration list!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 6, 2005 03:37 PM
You don't want to go down that road, if you did then you wouldn't have a problem with thousand felons who committed perjury, the several hundred double voters who committed perjury, the spouses voting for their dead partners committed perjury, and of course we can't forget the several hundred non registered voters....... they committed perjury...... I would also bet the Dean Logan and the whole canvassing board also signed oaths in previous elections where they committed perjury.....
Posted by: sgmmac on November 6, 2005 04:06 PMGo ahead and file your charges against all those folks. I bet there are a few Republican attorneys that lurk about here that will take your case.
Lori better make sure that she has "PERSONAL KNOWLEGE" of each and every one of those voters she challenged, or she's going to be convicted of the statutes posted above.
Cheers...
Posted by: If you do the crime, you should do the time on November 6, 2005 04:17 PMYour complete mis-apprehension of the legal situtation here is humorous.
Thanks for exhibiting it to all of us.
Posted by: Amused by dumb liberals on November 6, 2005 04:21 PMNot according to the state law previously cited by RG (RCW 9A.72.060). If you retract it once you find out you're in error, state law fairly clearly states it's a mistake and nothing more.
The GOP made stupid mistakes, are taking responsibility for them, and retracted their voter challenges made in error. It's all perfectly legal... so get over it.
Posted by: Mike H on November 6, 2005 04:25 PMYou sure she took responsibility for ALL the challenges she made in error?
Posted by: If you do the crime, you should do the time on November 6, 2005 04:28 PMThe forumla of the day - very simple this time.
Iron's + Rove = Sims Wins!
Posted by: Claire on November 6, 2005 04:41 PMFirst, I don't give a s*** how she feels. How she feels isn't important.
Second, why don't you try to live as a man of integrity before you question others'?
(now we wait for the witty reparte and feigned feeeeeling of offense)
Posted by: Danny on November 6, 2005 05:38 PMSo...where does vote fraud fit into your outrage?
Posted by: South County on November 6, 2005 05:38 PMI DARE them to!!
They are already on record as *illegally* or *inactively* registered to vote......Another attempt at illegal voting will solidify the Republicans case against them and against Ron Sims. If Ron Sims happens to win on Tuesday (by fraud of course..) there will be ample cause on record with which to begin a recall process....
So vote already!....(but don't try to leave town...)
Posted by: Deborah on November 6, 2005 05:52 PM...is most illuminating.
Hilarious, if not so sad and serious for the state of Washington. Posted by: MrEdly on November 6, 2005 05:53 PM
I'll jump on the bandwagon too.
You sayeth:
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans. When that right is challenged that is a big deal. When that right is erroneously challenged that is a bigger deal.
Which is worse: Losing ballots so that they could not be counted in an election or challenging voters to check and see if they are properly registered?
Which is worse: Allowing illegal voters to cast votes or challenging voters to check and see if they are properly registered?
You see, in the first case in each of these questions there was REAL voter disenfrachchisement. In one case the votes were directly taken away. In the second, OTHER voters lost their votes because illegal voters cancelled out theirs.
The second part of each question does NOT result in the disenfranchisement of anyone.
Now, I ask YOU: Do you think it is ok to have illegally registered and double (or more) registered voters? If not, do you think the people who are most likely to know and address these problems be expected to do so or should it be left to an honor system? If you answer honor system, then do you think your most fundamental right is really a right if it can be so easily subverted by anyone who so desires? If you DON'T think the people most in a position to know and address registration but also do not agree to an honor system, how DO you think it should be challenged? Should you be peeking into your neighbor's mailbox to see if he is getting more than one ballot? Should you make nighttime raids into post office box businesses to see who is getting ballots? Maybe you have a different way of spying on your neighbors to see who is cheating and who is not.
That might seem like a lot to deal with, but maybe I can focus the question just a bit: If voting is the most fundamental right, how diligent would you be in guaranteeing that you have one vote for one person and that only those who HAVE the fundamental right to vote are the ones voting?
The deomcrats answer is "ke sera sera" as long as it seems to help them, and if anyone is tyring to actual bring integrity to the system, well, then they are REALLY jsut trying to prevent voters from voting.
What answer do YOU have?
Posted by: Eyago on November 6, 2005 06:03 PMNo voter has yet been disenfranchised in 2005 - many, many voters were disenfranchised in 2004 with a watered-down election (recipe: mix millions of legal votes with over 129 illegal votes). Oh, and then don't fix the problem for 2005.
Let every challenge be just what it is: A Challenge. If you're clear, you have nothing to fear.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on November 6, 2005 07:46 PMBoth are more often than not "red herrings" and usually those who play those cards are whining because they can't intelligently respond and are often guilty of that accusation - because the religion of liberalism strokes hypocrisy and defending the indefensive...
Posted by: KS on November 6, 2005 09:16 PMclown–(n)
*** a rude ill-bred person
***a fool, jester or comedian in a play OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT (elections are entertainment for these goofballs)
***a grotesquely dressed comedy performer in a circus.
***One who habitually plays the buffoon.
The last definition applies perfectly to the buffoon, David CLOWNstein.
CLOWNstein's repeated weak attempts at SHI*SQUAD tactics have blwon up in his face.....the latest trying to use a former Irons worker to perpetuate the anger myth. CLOWNstein failed to disclose that this woman is living with a Sims Campaign Manager!!!!
CLOWNS, I tell you!!!!!
LEFTIST PINHEADS are CLOWNS!
Now the King County GOP makes a bunch of stupid errors and also appears to have committed fraud.
This obesssion with the elections office had gotten really boring. Now its just gotten stupid.
Posted by: thor on November 7, 2005 06:48 AM"BONEHEAD ERROR?" No, "PERJURY."
Either that or the "personal knowledge" standard means nothing and you idiots can expect HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of challenges all over the state.
"Pandora's Box" becomes "Sotelo's Box."
Posted by: D on November 7, 2005 07:45 AMThere are three basic types of posters here at SP
1. The serious, sincere guy (or gal) who is interested in information and only posts appropriate questions and comments. There have been two or three liberals that fit this description. I really like reading these guys because they are insightful and informative. And often funny.
2. Ideological debaters who come to spar with their political enemies. Lot's of trolls here - few with anything resembling true advocacy for their side, or even a real argument, just rhetoric and venom. The vast majority of liberals fit this category because they have nothing of intellectual value to offer, but they can still be entertaining because of their delivery (or sometimes in spite of it ;'}
3. Morons. Pay attention because this pertains to you smoke. Morons come here to show how completely insipid and degenerate they are. They have nothing of any value to say (but of course that doesn't stop them from spewing!). It is embarrassing to read their crap because you feel sorta sorry for them - it must suck to live in a world that offers such limitless horizons, and not be able to think beyond the end of your nose.
Of all the posters and all the comments that I've seen since I first came here, there is one common element - the first categories offer largely thoughtful posts that are relevant, and largely clever. Morons never do. The best they can do is idiotic parroting of someone else's work. They are the equivalent of the monkeys flinging excrement at one another.
So why don't you pull your head out, stop flinging sh!t, and stop being a moron!
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 08:49 AMbecause "I'm too white not to vote". PS, I voted
for the mom beater. Maybe she just doesn't listen. Posted by: mark on November 7, 2005 08:52 AM
Solution Provider: Wow! Look at all those errors, omissions and illegal certifications, validations, and other irregularities in the 2004 election. We need to do someting about this mess.
Political Obstructionist: What irregularities? There was nothing wrong with the election. We counted every vote. We had the accuracy any bank would envy.
SP: Balderdash. Here, let us show you. Here are missing ballots. Here are illegally registered voters. Here are examples of double votes. Here are problems with the reports that show a discrepency between votes idientified and votes counted. I'd say we have a lot of problems.
PO: That was just the standard human error. Everybody makes mistakes. Everything will be better next time. Besides, once the vote is cast, you can't change anything.
SP: What about the illegal registrations? The double registrations, the Post office box registrations?
PO: We can't fix those. It's not our problem. The voters need to do that.
PS: Here. we made a list of possible problems and would like to report them. We are doing it BEFORE the election like you said. Does that help?
PO: Help? Why yes! You are under arrest for providing false information because you did not know these people personally.
Now does it make it clear just how ridiculous your stand on the point of "need to know personally" is? You see, you seem to imply that you have no real interest in the actual integrity of the voting system nor that the laws are followed and that the voter rolls are accurate and complete. You only care whether you can score points against the political opposition. You make no effort to solve problems, you don't seem to want solutions. You are only interested in showing up a political opponent on trivial side issues and deflect from the main point.
I'll ask ALL trolls the same thing I asked Daniel K.
Do you WANT integrity in the voting system or do you think that as long as your candidate wins all is well? If you DO want integrity in the voting system what exactly would you do to acheive it? And if you WOULD do that, why aren't you trying to get it done or have you lied in your first answer? (Don't worry, this isn't a signed affidavit, so your lie on any of these questions would not constitute perjury, so go head and feel free...)
Posted by: Eyago on November 7, 2005 09:00 AMEyago,
You're a moron.
There is no excuse for perjury.
The "personal knowledge" standard exists exactly so party hacks will not sweep the voter rolls with challenges every election cycle.
Ms. Sotelo has, prima facia, violated that standard and, therefore, the law.
If Republicans were serious about electoral reform (a laughable contention) they would respect the law. They don't. That's why Dino Rossi's "case" was thrown out. That's why the King County GOP withdrew hundreds of these challenges, that's why hundreds more will be thrown out and that is why Ms. Sotelo should rightly be charged for abusing the legal system for politcal purposes and signing documents to which she cannot truthfully attest before the law.
Posted by: D on November 7, 2005 09:34 AMYOU ARE THE MORON Posted by: OH on November 7, 2005 09:48 AM
If the people whose job it is would correct the rolls, like they should, none of this would have happened.
If those of you who think this was a true case of perjury would also attack those people who swore an oath to correct the rolls BUT ARE NOT DOING SO, then you would give your accusations a lot more credibility. Instead of applying the law fairly, you are biased. Find the root of the problem, then start the fix there.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 7, 2005 10:21 AMany of my supporters talking about would be perjury.
Posted by: Pagar56 on November 7, 2005 10:34 AM
Eyago,
You're a moron.
Oooh. Your rapier wit, your ability to cut right to the core of the issue, your stellar reason and your impeachable logic are just so beyond me. No wonder I feel so, so, so, moronic when compared to you. But of course, being a moron I can't actually KNOW this.
If Republicans were serious about electoral reform (a laughable contention) they would respect the law. They don't. That's why Dino Rossi's "case" was thrown out. That's why the King County GOP withdrew hundreds of these challenges, that's why hundreds more will be thrown out and that is why Ms. Sotelo should rightly be charged for abusing the legal system for politcal purposes and signing documents to which she cannot truthfully attest before the law.
I'd be more inclined to look upon your accusation with favor if you were willing to say the same thing about Huennekins, Logan, and other election officials that perjured themselves last election and since. Your moral authority is lacking here.
As usual, you persist in deflecting the actual argument. You make it clear that you have no interest in reform. you would rather take pot shots at those who are making attempts. Usually the quote goes: "If you aren't part of the soplution, you are part of the problem", but in your case, you ARE te problem. Until you come clean with fair standards for both sides and a true willingness to look at the problem and aswer the questions I posed, you are revealing yourself to be nothing more than a partisan dupe. Can you do more than grade-school level posturing or do you have something constructive to add to the solution?
And you call me a moron. My dictionary must be out of date.
How can voters of this state feel "assured" that their vote will count, and not be cancelled out by an unauthorized vote.
When you register to vote, you attest under oath that what you filled out is true and correct, so how many of the so-called PO BOX DWELLERS are guilty of PERJURY??????
140 of 1900+ have been forgiven, how about the remaining 1800 or so??? Are they all Jail Bound, and can I sue them????
Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 11:13 AMAnd that's exactly why KCE should respect the election laws and not "sweep" the voter rolls with illegally registered voters before every election cycle. Posted by: katomar on November 7, 2005 11:19 AM
"The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."
Critical words here--
1) deliberate, willful
AND
2) False, misleading, or incomplete
AND
3) TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
Without all THREE of these components, there is not perjury. I will reiterate. To commit perjury, one must "deliberately, willfully give false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."
This isn't even about party politics. This is about flushing out corruption, wherever it may be, and whoever is engaged in it. There just happens to be a strong correlation.
Posted by: Tahan on November 7, 2005 03:17 PMIt has often been cited that making an unqualified statement without knowing it to be true is to be regarded the same as making a statement known to be false. The tricky part is what constitutes "knowing".
It is quite common, after all, for people to "know" things that are in fact not true. Sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. IANAL, but the operative question in trying someone for perjury on a matter like that should be "Could a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew, have believed with some level of confidence that the statement in question was true?"
I really doubt that the Republicans simply picked some address at random for their challenges. They most likely had some reason for challenging the particular addresses they did. Perhaps Mail Boxes Etc. (or some other such outfit) mis-printed one of the addresses on a list of franchise locations. Perhaps a Republican drove to an address, found two adjacent buildings with addresses above and below the address in question and concluded it didn't exist even though there is an alley somewhere leading to that other building (I had a friend whose house was like that).
If the Republican's care in determining that the voters in question were illegitimate was such that a reasonable person doing likewise would have also believed them to be so, there is no perjury.
Posted by: supercat on November 7, 2005 04:07 PMYou see, he's had a chip on his shoulder ever since that terrible dodgeball accident in his groinal region that left him with the cruel nickname "Squeaky, the nutless neocon".
Posted by: Smoking in the Boys' Room on November 7, 2005 04:24 PM