March 13, 2007
No evidence of election crimes?

Today's Seattle Times reports that John McKay insists that there was no evidence of election crimes in Washington's November 2004 election. Granted, he appears to have relied solely on what the Republican legal team presented in the contest trial. And we now know that King County sandbagged discovery requests and stonewalled public records requests, and the schedule simply didn't permit the litigants to force King County to produce all of the evidence in time for the trial. Here is a summary of what I've found in the 21 months after the trial ended:

Category of suspected illegal vote Expected
Documented More Info Sample
Provisional ballots counted from unregistered "fatal pend" voter
here photo
Provisional ballots counted from other unregistered voters
here photo
Federal write-in ballot counted from unregistered voter who had not requested a ballot by the deadline
here PDF
Two absentee ballots counted from the same voter
here photo
Absentee ballot and provisional ballot counted from the same voter
here photo
In-state absentee ballots postmarked after election day (Nov. 2)
Total suspected illegal votes
Notes: These are all cases of ballots that were unlawfully accepted for tabulation by elections officials. Therefore it's only a partial list of what could reasonably be considered fraud. (I've excluded other varieties of illegal votes that could not have been prevented as easily by the elections staff during the canvassing period, e.g. felons, deceased, the provisional ballots that were shoved into polling place Accuvotes, people who voted both at the polls and by mail and votes cast by voters who were registered more than once. And I'm not even exploring whether all of the ballots were lawfully handled and counted after they were separated from their envelopes). The "expected" column indicates the number of such ballots that data records and other documents indicate one should expect to find if one were to perform an exhaustive search of the ballot envelopes and other physical records. The "documented" column indicates the number that have been corroborated by other King County records and/or by physical records that have been found and photographed after a partial search of the physical evidence.

Again, none of this specific evidence was presented or even known during the trial. But we were all tippped off that something wasn't right when King County counted more votes than voters and admitted to fabricating the reconciliation reports. I would like to ask McKay the following: has he looked for and/or seen any of the funny votes listed above? Does he consider them to be sufficient evidence of unlawful vote counting to at least prompt a more comprehensive investigation? Has he conducted an investigation and concluded that all of these unlawful votes were caused solely by innocent human error? On what basis? If the answers to the first 3 questions are NO, YES and NO, would he be willing to assist in drafting a formal complaint that could lead to an investigation?

If anybody reading this knows how to reach John McKay, please help me get in touch with him.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 13, 2007 11:43 AM | Email This

1. If you need to get ahold of John McKay may I suggest:
(that is the phone number to the unemployment department)

Posted by: Cliff on March 13, 2007 12:22 PM
2. Stefan,
I'm amazed at your great research, but very confused about this whole issue. The way I see it, voter fraud should be investigated if there is any evidence at all that voters were intentionally disinfranchised or ballots were intentionlly tampered with, etc. What I see here is typical human error that we would see some level of if we investigated any county election with such scrutiny.

Would this election's errors be sujected to a federal grand jury investigation, then, simply because the stakes of the election are so much higher (in other words, the vote margin was in the neighborhood of 110 votes)? Some would say yes, but I don't think so.

Partisan viewpoints have to be put aside in this discussion. What makes this particular case voter fraud that is worthy of a grand jury investigation?

Posted by: Gabby on March 13, 2007 12:29 PM
3. Had McKay gone to the "Patrick Fitzgerald School of US Attorney Investigation Practices", he would have at least initiated an investigation and if nothing else, we should have had a few King County officials indicted for obstruction and "lying to the FBI". Patrick Fitzgerald proved that a crime didn't necessarily have to exist in order to run a lengthy investigation.

By McKay's inaction and non-attention to this as possible voter fraud, he basically told KC that they were free to do "business as usual".

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 13, 2007 12:30 PM
4. gabby,

"King County counted more votes than voters and admittedly fabricated the reconciliation reports."

If any other county or state did this, then it, too, needs to be part of an investigation. And, that is a vote margin of 10 or 1,000,000, IMO.

The whole idea of our government system starts with valid voter rolls and one vote per person.

Posted by: swatter on March 13, 2007 12:37 PM
5. You're leaving out the whole categories of issues inside the elections department itself.

Posted by: Al on March 13, 2007 12:43 PM
6. Gabby, you might be right. It might be human error. I can certainly understand that you might wish to believe that. I don't know whether every one of these illegal votes was tabulated solely because of human error or what. But I'd rather have a careful investigation to tell us one way or another. And sadly, neither the trial nor any of the officially appointed commissions, nor the Council's $300,000 bogus "audit team" looked for, let alone found, any of these illegal votes.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 13, 2007 12:46 PM
7. Re: Gabby @ 2- Perhaps you are new to the area- King County has a long ugly past relative to political corruption and voting irregularities. It has been called on the carpet repeatedly by the Feds and even our RINO Sec of State for sloppy practices (which fall into fraud, misfeasance, malfeasance, incompetence and political shinanigan catagories).

This is a county that has 30% of the state's citizens and therefore has enormous imfluence. It is a county that has been run by an occasional liberal Republican but mostly leftist Democrats- tiny Jefferson and San Juan counties are the only ones that vote further left politically than King County. It is the only county that has an appointed, partisan elections chief- which the executives work diligently to keep from being elected.

All of this boiled up with the Senatorial election in 2000 where Slade Gorton led Maria Cantwell for three weeks after the election until all counties were counted except King. King counted and counted until they counted ( found, manufactured,etc) enough votes for Cantwell to win by about 2000 votes.

Then comes the governatorial election of 2004 where Rossi wins the election and first recount. Then all the counties finish up a manual recount ( Rossi is way ahead) except King. King counts and counts until they counted ( found,, manufactured, etc) enough votes for Gregoire to win by 129 votes. There were thousands of suspect votes, utterly preposterous decisions by the canvassing board and of course Shark's documented frauds above- more than enough to throw the election.

Judge Bridges decision at trail invalidated the states election challege law by asserting the only provable challege is to show exactly who voted and for whom they voted. This demands the complete compromise of the secret ballot- which the entire election system is theoretically set up to ensure.

So Gabby- what don't you understand about "the sewer of corruption" in King County ( and the lax oversight by the Sec of State and the unexplained failure of the US Attorney to investigate?

Posted by: AnacoObserver on March 13, 2007 01:01 PM
8. Fabulously, well-documented summary Stefan.
The bottom-line is that KingKounty did sandbag Records Requests & Discovery. The KLOWNS keep pointing to the "Trial" which unfortunately happened before all requests were complied with & there was time to review.
That said...I will always wonder why the Rossi-team did not interview & depose those illegal felon voters. We'll never know how that would have turned out will we.
However, it is convenient for McKay & the KLOWNS to focus on the "Trial"...however, McKay could have easily paid attention to & investigated those issues Stefan raised. Instead, McKay CHOSE to ignore them. Hence, he should have been fired.
Thanks Stefan.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 13, 2007 01:16 PM
9. Nice summary Stefan. It's too bad our public attorneys are unwilling to do their jobs, especially for something as visible and as important as elections integrity.

I don't understand why anyone is afraid of an honest investigation. It there were problems, then lets get them fixed. It was quite obvious in 2004 that elections officials such as Bill Huennekens and Dean Logan were in closed meetings in the days leading up to certification, scrambling to limp along with their unaccountable procedures and looking for every vote they could count. And it was not as they claimed, simply to make sure every legitimate vote got counted, it was to make sure that every piece of paper that looked like a ballot got counted. There's a difference. And does anyone doubt that they all had the same partisan interested in the outcome of the gubernatorial election? Then, King County waited until all other counties had reported, and used it's incompetence as a screen for the delays.

There should be a process in receiving ballots, tabulating, etc., whereby no one person has access to enough information of handling of ballots or otherwise to complete the puzzle. And all counties should be required to report at the exact same time.

We should start up a collection now for a large media campaign that will bring this information to the voters attention in fall of 2008.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 13, 2007 01:20 PM
10. Gabby, I beleive there is a documented quote from an election worker who said they were ordered to count the fatal pend votes. No human error was involved. It shuold also be noted that election workers also said they had never counted fatla pend votes before.

Posted by: RJK on March 13, 2007 01:21 PM
11. I see this current "fired Attorneys" drama as nothing more than a distraction...Orchestrated by both parties....
I mean...come on... We were all here during the 2004 election. We all saw the multiple evidences of fraud. We were all calling for an investigation. This was, after all, our votes at stake! Hello? Not a "minor" issue allowed to be waived away by a disinterested US Attorney.

The Republicans ran the House and Senate and the Whitehouse during the 2004 elections. If ANYONE in Washington DC REALLY wanted our elections investigated - it would have been done! It wouldn't have been a matter of Mackay simply shrugging his shoulders or blocking inquiries as he now claims he had to do. Get real! Gonzales would have had him for breakfast at the time if he wanted to...Not wait 3 years - then quietly let him go... What purpose did that serve?

Well - it allowed this current political drama to take center stage right before another election...Just in time to confused the American public.
Just another contrived slap in the face of the ever impotent Republicans... sigh...This game is so obvious and both parties are such a fraud.

I used to think I was a "Republican" - They sold me on their promises to clean up this liberal mess in our state and in the country - but instead I saw them bend like a wet blade of grass with every liberal socialist attack on our values year after year. I realize that I am a conservative - but the Republican party - like the Democrats are nothing more than an illusion - a fraud perpetrated on the American people..

Let this drama play out. It means nothing. Mackay knows there was fraud. The President knows there was fraud.. No one did anything.

Posted by: Deborah on March 13, 2007 01:22 PM
12. Shark,

I'd like to ask you whether you have presented any of this information/evidence to the FBI, U.S. Attorney, or any other law enforcement agency?

If not, why not? And if not, how can you fault the US Attorney for not following up. Any investigation arising out of the recount controversey had ended. It was up to you to bring it to his attention.

And what federal criminal law might have been violated?

As far as I can tell even if votes were counted improperly this would be incompetence or negligence, not a crime.

Posted by: chew2 on March 13, 2007 01:25 PM
13. As stated on the other thread, if McKay had bothered to REASEARCH and look at all of these ballots AND launch an investigation where all of the communications of the elections department were made public and people were deposed, he might have found out that they knowlingly counted illegal ballots. But how could we possibly know if that occurred without said investigation?

Good riddance to a bad prosecutor.

Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2007 01:31 PM
14. Well, the real test will come when the new U.S. Attorney picks up all this and either runs with it or doesn't.

Evidence of error or of irregularity is not evidence of crime or fraud. And mere repetition that what we see here constitutes crime or fraud does not make it so.

But Stefan's BIAW and EFF puppetmasters pay him to keep flogging this dead horse, and to keep whipping the gomers into a froth of indignation, so that's what he does.

Posted by: ivan on March 13, 2007 01:40 PM
15. I agree with chew2's question about whether or not a FEDERAL crime was committed. That is what the USAO had to determine, not an "election crime" (not sure what jurisdiction that falls into)...

Posted by: Mike on March 13, 2007 01:43 PM
16. Ivan, there's not an iota of truth to your claim that the BIAW or the EFF has ever compensated me. I challenge you to either prove or retract that remark. And do not post another comment here until you do.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 13, 2007 01:46 PM
17. Keep the pressure on Stefan
John Mckay is no Rudy Giuliani or Chris Christie, the Federal Prosecutors for NYC and NJ, resp
McKay had a chance to make a difference, but chose not to

Posted by: Not Amused on March 13, 2007 01:53 PM
18. Mike -- I'm more familiar with Washington state election laws than I am with federal laws. These all seem to be probable violations of state law. I'm willing to admit the possibility that these aren't necessarily violations of federal law. But there's enough smell there that I'd like to hear an expert's considered opinion, not just some Kool-aid drinking liberals bleating that they believe it was all just a mistake.

The thing that appears to be closest to a federal violation is the counting of the Federal write-ins from ineligible voters.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 13, 2007 01:57 PM
19. McKay, in his testimony, has stated that he looked into the matter, and upon being advised by BIAW that there was evidence of voter fraud, asked the FBI to look into it. FBI agent told him he investigated, told McKay there was no evidence. If Stefan, as a concerned citizen, was able to produce the hard, documented evidence we have seen time and again, what kind of investigation were the FBI and McKay doing? Sounds like it's CYA time. And for all the liberals who are making such a stink about the firing, please cast back in your memories, please. Remember when Clinton's AG, Janet Reno fired ALL NINETY-THREE AG's? There was no outrage then, and there should not have been, as these positions are expected to be appointed by the President, serving at the President's pleasure. As it should be. They're now calling for resignations all over the place, which is all part of the hyena-like campaign to cripple the administration for the rest of its mandate. If crippled government is what they want, they are certainly achieving their goal! My only solace is they're going to be sorry they ever heard the name Pelosi.

Posted by: katomar on March 13, 2007 02:26 PM
20. im with D at 11--

WA native casino cash counting rooms do not have these counting irregularities. nor do Publishers Clearinghouse sweeps. someone looks very closely at both, like a Stefan. perhaps we are getting the shuck-n-jive from both parties. pretty sad. our own employees ignoring us.

public or private sector, i've observed those wielding the actual power stick get things changed--that is--IF they want it so.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 13, 2007 02:33 PM
21. It strains credulity to assume that the votes that were illegally cast were cast ONLY in State races that were on the same ballot as the Federal races. One would think that any Federal Prosecutor that walks upright and has opposable thumbs would realize that and investigate.

Posted by: Smokie on March 13, 2007 02:36 PM
22. Boy,

The republicans made their case in court IN A HEAVILY REPUBLICAN AREA BY DESIGN...and got THUMPED WITH PREJUDICE!

An upstanding US Attorney decides the LAW is above GOP PARTISAN politics.

And how does Stefan react? Does he say -- good to hear the LAW wins in a land of laws?

No, he trots out the old garbage that 1) was proven FALSE in court and 2) that Gonzalez (and probably Rove) have been pushing.

So, one can conclude one of the following:

1) Stefan is dumb and won't let history and facts and the law get in the way of the republican talking points he fawns over.
2) Stefan is ignorant and won't let history and facts and the law get in the way of the republican talking points he fawns over.

Either way, he has further marginalized himself into the extreme corner that less than 30% of Amercians now agree with....bye bye!

Posted by: StefanisWrong on March 13, 2007 02:43 PM
23. Palouse & Shark,

If you think there is smoke, why don't you present your so called "evidence" to the US atty and the County DA.

You seem to think they can do the Vulcan mind meld and evalaute the truthfulness of your evidence without actually talking to you or seeing the evidence.

The Seattle Times article makes it clear that McKay investigated what was brought to him by the BIA and the attorneys for Rossi regarding the forgery and fraud allegations. McKay was advised by the elections expert at the DOJ. They found no criminal law violations.

Could it possibly be because those fraud allegations were all bogus? Yah think?

Posted by: chew2 on March 13, 2007 03:30 PM
24. Even if some of the evidenced illegal votes were inadvertent, it still shows incompetence.

Clearly anyone that votes two absentees, or votes an absentee AND a provisional does not do so by accident. They should be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, none of these unknown or covered-up errors were part of the trial, but facts never got in the way of...

Posted by: ...the guy above named "StefanisWrong", because he is an idiot on March 13, 2007 03:34 PM
25. "Could it possibly be because those fraud allegations were all bogus? Yah think?"

I think...the fraud committed in the 2004 was blatent...Not bogus at all.

What was "bogus" was the way the attorneys who represented Rossi and private citizens (who challenged the election results and processing). It was bad enough when they suddenly pulled back their momentum at the beginning of the trial - but when they allowed the liberals to include illegal felon votes at the end - by failing to object to the obvious...It became shameful.

The fraud of the 2004 elections was blatent and "in your face". I don't think we've even completed the laundry list of charges to this day! The list of undeniable fraud accounts became so long and detailed and was embarrassing for our State!

The only way the Democrat election fraud of 2004 could have been missed was if it were intentionally ignored by Mckay and the Republicans!

Which leads me to only one conclusion.....

Posted by: Deborah on March 13, 2007 03:48 PM
26. chew2, there is no current proof of fraud - that's what investigations are for, and what McKay should have been doing. Maybe all of those illegal votes being counted were just mistakes, maybe they weren't. Hard to tell when there is no investigation into it.

Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2007 03:53 PM
27. Palouse,

"there is no current proof of fraud"

Well what is there then? Why should any law enforcement agency start an investigation?

And whatever you've got, you need to bring it to law enforcement, or stop your moaning.

It's pretty clear now that your complaints about election fraud are just unfounded republican activist sour grapes. And it's also becoming clearer that such partisan unsupported complaints were the improper political reason why McKay was fired. The US attorney can't be at the beck and call of some political operatives.

Posted by: chew2 on March 13, 2007 04:03 PM
28. Gabby@2-- I have repeatedly asked Stefan via this blog whether he has any information about how these discrepancies, and King County's procedures, compare with other counties in Washington state and elsewhere. Those seem like reasonable questions in trying to assess whether there was fraud and/or incompetence.

He's never answered.

Posted by: Bruce on March 13, 2007 04:08 PM
29. Well what is there then? Why should any law enforcement agency start an investigation?

There's alot of illegal votes that were counted. That's enough reason to start an investigation. That is, for any competent prosecutor. We don't know if he would have found evidence of fraud, because he never bothered to look. And don't give me that crap about how he "worked with the DOJ" and "monitored the case in Chelan". That's a joke of a CYA.

Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2007 04:20 PM
30. Deborah @ 25 sums up the wingnut story:

- King County's elections department and elected officials conspired to fix the 2004 election.

- Rossi's lawyers conspired with them to lose their appeal.

- The Republican Secretary of State conspired with them by accepting their numbers.

- The Republican judge in a Republican county conspired with them to rule for Gregoire.

- The Republican US attorney conspired with them by not indicting them.

- The mainstream media -- both daily newspapers and the local TV stations, among others -- conspired with them by treating the election as legitimate.

Need I say more?

Posted by: Bruce on March 13, 2007 04:26 PM
31. forget the fraud standard--this level of incompetence, insecure systems, staff mistakes and sloppiness is unacceptable in the year/period 2004-2007--especially when Mexico has a more secure voter i.d. card and tighter elections than we do.

most sectors--private & public fire incompetent workers or call bosses to the carpet to pay. why not here? forget the results, too--both sides deserve a secure, trustworthy system--not "finding" batches of votes here & there later and other irregularities.

when these 'irregularities' happen in a goodfella casino in Vegas, holes are dug in the desert. did you ever hear of a major sweepstakes being re-counted or challenged?! why not?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 13, 2007 05:45 PM
32. Bruce!

Get off that koolaid! Take off the tinfoil hat...

Some day - when you can look beyond the fake ying and yang of what makes up our 2 party may be able to see how completely impossible it was for anything that happened and didn't happen in the 2004 election fraud case!

1. Tens of thousands of ballots were found - and allowed to change the count and recount totals.
2. Double voting was insanely excessive and allowed.
3. Felons somehow decided to register and vote...collectively!
4. Ballots were left unsecured in high traffic areas and in purses.
5. Blank ballots were taken home by election staff with absolutely no accountability.
6. High numbers of military ballots were rejected or lost.
7. Over 50,000 ballots were "divined" by democrat election workers to determine voter intent.
8. Mckay shrugged it all off.
9. The President and Gonzalez also shrugged it all off.

One specific precinct in Seattle seemed to be the hub of much of the fraud. Just one basic audit of that precinct would have exposed a lot of the problem..but investigation wasn't ordered...

It's true however, the Republicans and Democrats did seem to share a disinterest in resolving the 2004 election fraud issue at the time..

Posted by: Deborah on March 13, 2007 05:47 PM
33. Why do the Democrats control this state ? In part, because of ineffectual Republicans like McKay.

Careful, Bruce the conspiracy theorist - your mindset suggest that you live in Seattle and you will be submerged by Puget Sound as it rises 10-20 feet higher in the next 15 years thanks to Global Warming coming at ya.

Posted by: KS on March 13, 2007 07:00 PM
34. Stephen -

Appreciate your research and find some of it interesting, but remember the trial in Wenatchee???? No wonder Diane was given her walking papers. It was more about theory than actual illicit votes. The only documented cases presented were the 4 by the Dems that moved the margin from 129 to 133. If they could find 4 why couldn't the R's find any???? In retrospect only 130 cases were needed and hundreds were alleged. One of the first things I learned in the legal field was the difference between a fact and an allegation.

Posted by: Rocketdog on March 13, 2007 07:12 PM
35. My take on the whole thing stems from the fact that Rossi won the election, then the Dems call for a recount (they also have mysteriously found MORE votes to count), Rossi wins the recount, the Dems call for a hand recount (they mysteriously find MORE votes to count), surprise, surprise, they win. THAT in and of itself is enough for me to suspect voter fraud. Why can't others see that too???

Posted by: Elliott on March 13, 2007 07:21 PM
36. Stefan,

McKenna turned a blind eye to the vote fraud, too.

Did you read the public records request I gave you? Surely you must find a number of things that indicate a large number of people within state government are trying to hide public corruption.

Posted by: Don on March 13, 2007 07:33 PM
37. Chew2,

In 2005 I sent extensive evidence to the FBI and McKay. Neither responded. The evidence was quite clear. I called Joe Quinn of the Seattle FBI office and was told in no uncertain terms that they would not investigate individual cases of voting fraud.

Last year I also sent evidence to county auditors and county prosecutors of numerous double votes by persons who were registered twice. Norm Melang's office confirmed most of the double votes in King County but decided not to prosecute. He did nor refer any of these cases to federal prosecutors.

The problem is lack of law enforcement, not lack of evidence.

Posted by: Bob Edelman on March 13, 2007 08:16 PM
38. Elliot @ 35,

The very fact that King Co. "found" so-called "lost" or "overlooked" ballots, what, nine or ten separate times during the course of the "recount" (revote) is enough to make the whole thing stink to high heaven. For that reason alone, this was nothing more than a blatant, in-your-face ripoff. The King Co. 'Rats weren't about to walk away without Fraudoire safely coronated in Olympia. They were in a state of shock that Rossi pulled out the win and cranked up their fraud machine to assure their fraudulent queen got the "win".

This fraud of an election hasn't gone unnoticed elsewhere. It is clear that SayWA is nothing but the home of dirty, crooked, corrupt "government" (dictatorship). Of course, King Co. won't care about that. All they care about are 'Rats.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 14, 2007 06:27 AM
39. Seattle Times Today:

More evidence McKay fired due to partisan sour grapes:

"Republican activists were furious because they felt that you had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still they saw the governorship slipping away, and they were just angry," Vance said.

Posted by: chew2 on March 14, 2007 09:07 AM
40. That's not sour grapes, it's a case of someone not doing their job. It's probably not like this for you, but where I work, if you don't do your job, you get the gate. How is he not doing his job? Well, cripes, if someone like Stefan, a layman, a non-professional investigator, a private citizen working on his own time for no compensation, can turn up the things he has that make the last governor's election at least questionable, at least worthy of a look by a professional prosecutor, then surely someone whose job it is to check these things out could do as well.

Why didn't he? Well, the answer, of course, is that he could have, but either he chose not to, which means he is complicit in the fraud, or he is lazy. Either way, he deserves to be fired for not doing what he was appointed to do.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 14, 2007 09:31 AM
41. Katomar, I had to google to confirm your allegation about Janet Reno firing 93 attorneys, because I sure didn't remember that. All I could find were a couple of articles on rightwing sites, but there did seem to be a difference in circumstances. For one thing, there was a new administration coming into power and, like you said, a new administration is allowed and expected to replace holdovers from the former administration.
But the important difference here is that the Bush administration snuck a provision into the "Patriot Act" giving them the power to replace attorneys without senate confirmation as a way of dealing with some sort of terrorist emergency in which presumably the US attorneys have been killed or something. There was certainly no emergency here, and all the attorneys in place were Republicans. There was instead a simple scam designed to circumvent the approval power of the U.S. Senate for the purpose of putting in their own lackeys.

Posted by: David Tatelman on March 14, 2007 03:34 PM
42. Tatelman: I believe it was in 1993 that Janet Reno got rid of all 93 AG's in one fell swoop. I have read in several "newspaper" articles that although Bush was advised to do the same, which was considered a perfectly normal procedure, he did not because the consensus was it would be too politically disruptive. It appears that, according to liberals, Bush does not have the right to select his AG's? There is no time limit on when changes are to be made. And as far as your snarky remark about lackeys, if I were the big boss, so to speak, I would certainly hire folks who had the same view of law enforcement as I did. It's just common sense, not a scam.

Posted by: katomar on March 14, 2007 04:02 PM
43. In summation of the 04 governors race it appears that Rossi was a "victim of circumstances". A rino
Sec of state, a state party chair that was not real swift, vote fraud in King county (again)
No help from the national GOP, In reality Rossi probably won by a lot more votes than on the first 2 counts! The sec of state should have certified Rossi
as Governor and made queen crissy greeGORE be the one to go to court. If the U.S. Attorney had been an "with it" he could have, based on evidence, started an inquest, grand jury etc etc. So queen crissy and the d's would have been the ones on the "outside" looking in. but oh no it don't work thata way! The real fact of the matter is that both the democrats and party rinos would not allow
Rossi to win and take office. 1,200 + - appointed hacks would have been gone and the state would have had its first new direction in over 25 years.
I hate to say it but Rossi probably won't be elected in 08, gonna be a bad year for R's, this state will be very difficult as it will go democrat. Like the country probably. The state wide GOP ticket in 04 had some real losers running that also pulled votes from Rossi. In 04 the green party candidate helped Rossi as it pulled votes from queen crissy. Taking a long hard look at the
situation at this point Rossi might not be able to win in 08 except by a miracle! In WA state elections can be "stolen" and there aint gonna be anything done about it!!

Posted by: St Claire on March 14, 2007 08:32 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?