Today is the last day of our netroots fund drive for Bill Sherman, Democrat running for King County Prosecuting Attorney, and as of the last update, 85 people have given $4835… just $165 shy of our $5,000 target! You could be the one to put us over the top.
Of course we’re way shy of our target of 200 new contributors, and I’d like to at least get above 100… that would be more than the number of contributions to Dan Satterberg during his previous reporting period. So if you haven’t already given, just $5 or $10 bucks is enough to make a difference.
Satterberg and his surrogates are working hard to paint Sherman as unqualified for the office, but as Joel Connelly pointed out yesterday, that’s simply not the case:
It’s an oft-frustrated hope that democracy will give us a choice between the greater of goods, rather than the lesser of two evils. The Sherman-Satterberg contest offers two top-notch individuals with different approaches to the job.
All Sherman needs to win this race is the money to get his message out and refute Satterberg’s attacks. Please give to Bill Sherman today.
I will take the word of Democrat prosecuting attorneys in the office who have worked with both candidates over the word of Joel Connelly.
I still haven’t seen an explanation as to why EVERY endorsement from a Democrat involved in criminal justice goes to Satterberg.
Anyone?
T, it is a good old boy system, with no bid contracts up the ying yang. The same palms Satterburg has been greasing, hope to continue getting the grease. To these animals money comes before party.
Has anyone asked Satterturd why there were not charges brought in the case of the illegal voter challenges by the Republiconvicts?
Illegally contesting voters is legal, if it is a partisan prosecutor from what I understand.
Remember the person who’s testimony convicted the governor of Alabama claimed he also bribed Republiconvicts too, but they were never even investigated. Not even investigated. Rove’s operatives are only interested in convicting Democrats.
It is time to get every single Republiconvict out of office. Their whole party is nothing but a criminal enterprise that ignores their fellow Republiconvicts crimes.
Anyone that thinks Satterturd is non partisan belongs in a straight jacket.
Republicons hate government. They don’t belong in any part of it. Period.
By the way, I just donated another $100 to Sherman. In today’s world, the “D” is all that matters. This coming from a former Republicon. (Me)
You should have heard the dude that called the Ed Schultz Show yesterday. He said he was a Republicon, but had to listen to Rush trash the troops, and watch McConnell trash a 12 year old child. He just “couldn’t stomach” being a Republicon any more. Those were his words. Check the podcast…..
You know why, T, but maybe someone out there with an open mind will get this: To anyone who knows anything about what the office does, it’s a no-brainer. Dan’s qualifications for THIS position are simply well beyond Bill’s. It’s not even close.
@2,3 Perhaps you can give an example? The Democrat prosecuting attorneys in Pierce and Snohomish Counties are on the take? Sue Rahr as well? The current deputy prosecutors (who will keep their jobs either way) are being promised some sort of financial award?
Perhaps someone else can make the case? “Facts” has no facts, at least in response to my question.
TDOG the “R” behind his name matters a billion times as much as his qualifications these days. Calling yourself a Republican today, means you support the slime that party uses, and endorses, and the crimes it commits. The lies they espouse. The fear they create. The terror they use. Torture, spying, wiretapping, and the list goes on for miles.
To call yourself a Republicon these days, you have to be one sick puppy.
Sorry, if he (Satterburg) calls himself a Republicon, he belongs in a prison cell as an accomplice.
The Republicon Party is only good at two things. Helping the rich get richer, and creating corpses. Period. I Fuc*ing Mean It. The corpse should be their party symbol, not the elephant.
The Republicon Party is diseased, and America needs them fumigated. If you don’t believe me, start counting corpses….. Start in Iraq, and then go to Walter Reed Hospital, and then New Orleans. If you need more proof, I got more. Lots more.
By the way, practically every single problem plaguing America these days is caused by “Conservative Economic Policies” (Or Reganomics) that only benefit the “haves” and no one else.
The rich continue to make more, and the poor, and middle class continue to decline. If you think this is good for America you belong in a straight jacket. Every single economic indicator shows the last 6 years of Bushonomics has been a disaster, including the doubling of the national debt.
Vote for Republicons only if you HATE AMERICA!!!!
T & TBOG,
So, that’s three Democrats who have endorsed Satterburg. Out of a possible number of how many?
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
T, I will never say any politician is not corrupt in some way. I doubt there are many that are completely clean. What I am doing is explaining why people with their hands out will endorse people that grease their palms, regardless of party.
As long as our campaign financing system doesn’t change, you can expect government that mainly serves people that can afford to bribe politicians in a thousand different ways.
I could have used that $100 I gave Sherman, but I love my country, and want to see the Republicon Reign of Terror to end.
The guy is a REPUBLICON PROSECUTOR!!!
Think Gonzales. Sorry I had to make you sick….
For me, the failure to prosecute Lori Sotelo makes a vote for Satterberg completely out of the question.
Decisions have consequences!
@7 That’s three public officials. Add Jenny Durkan and John Wolfe as private criminal defense attorneys. All professed Democrats, all support Satterberg publicly. We’ve got plenty of evidence (anecdotal but unrefuted) that the vast majority of those in the office are Democrats yet privately support Satterberg. John McKay has been very vocal about his opposition to the Republican abuse of political power in criminal justice. Yet he enthusiastically endorses Satterberg.
The point is that Sherman has NO public support from anyone in criminal justice. That should tell a thinking person something.
Money Talks , Bullshit walks. Add another new contributor.
I am a lifelong Goldwater Republican, but I can’t stand these crooked bastards who’ve ruined my party!!
They should all gargle with razor blades!!!!
@9, 10 My question is not “why are you voting for Sherman?” You have your reasons. My question is “why does Sherman have no support from the criminal justice community?”
T @ 11,
You must be a lawyer, because you still haven’t answered my question. How many are possible?
re13: It’s my understanding that Bill Sherman has plenty of support in the criminal justice community.
When Satterberg’s supporters see his poll numbers slipping, they’ll jump ship like the money-grubbing rat-bastards they are.
#13 — And you know I’m Right. Because your kind really only talk about ‘core principles’. They don’t have any. They are just self interested money-grubbers. They’re as easy to manipulate as the credulous Christian Right. All you need to do to get their support is convince them that your guy will not have access to the green stuff.
Maybe someone should ask Satterburg if he knows why Ted Stevens has not been indicted yet.
I have read a lot of testimony pointing to Stevens’ guilt. Is it a direct quid pro quo to have an oil service company send their employees over to remodel a Senator’s house, when they are getting federal contracts at the same time?
The Republicons only cover for other Republicons.
As a “real” American, I want all corrupt politicians prosecuted. Not just the ones in the other party…..
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@14 I really have no idea how many people are involved in criminal justice, but I imagine it is a lot. I never made the claim that they all publicly support Satterberg. But ALL of those who have made an endorsement have gone for Satterberg.
@15 “It’s my understanding that Bill Sherman has plenty of support in the criminal justice community.” Really? Like who? Find me ONE endorsement on Sherman’s website from a person whose job is in criminal justice. From what do you get that understanding? In another thread several days ago, Angela told us the people she talked to in the prosecutors office were split about evenly. When I asked her how many that was, she disappeared.
@7 Also, just to be clear, I’m talking about just criminal justice. Overall, Satterberg’s got twenty-three public endorsements from Democrats.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
13 pro-Sherman responses so far and still no effort to answer my question. The question has nothing to do with whether Republicans are evil.
Come on now, why doesn’t Sherman have any public support from the criminal justice community?
Hmmm … I notice on Satterberg’s endorsement page that he’s endorsed by both the Seattle and King County police guilds (and also is endorsed by Anne Bremner, an attorney who frequently defends police officers against lawsuits). That relationship is a little too cozy to suit me. The prosecutor should keep the police at professional arms-length so that he can make impartial decisions about police actions.
Meanwhile, Sherman’s web site says,
“The Committee to Elect Bill Sherman does not solicit or accept endorsements or contributions from employees of the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.”
This may explain why Sherman is endorsed by attorneys doing prosecutor work in King County …
erratum
“is” should be “isn’t”
@22 Because he has enough integrity to not solicit or accept campaign contributions or endorsements from people whose work he will pass judgment on as a prosecutor.
T @ 20
“Satterberg’s got twenty-three public endorsements from Democrats.”
Such is the power of incumbency. Still, everything that keeps coming up suggests they are both outstanding candidates for the position.
I’ll vote for Sherman because (1) he can obviously handle the job, and (2) the King County Republicans are a fucking joke.
Why would Satterberg even bother to associate himself with the King County GOP? He should have run under the Lieberman for Connecticut party instead.
@26 Why is Satterberg riding Maleng’s coattails? When you go to S’s web site, the first thing you see is a photo of S posing with Maleng. If S is so good, why doesn’t he run on his own merits? Why does he need to use Maleng’s name and image to give himself credibility?
T @nauseum,
I’ve already written about why Satterberg gets support from many in the legal establishment… he’s the establishment candidate. Those with a stake in the status quo don’t particularly wish to see the status quo change. Also, when it comes to folks like Jenny Durkan, it’s because they are close personal friends. Nothing more complicated than that.
Bill Sherman’s experience really isn’t all that different from Norm Maleng’s experience when he was first elected Prosecutor. Nobody of any credibility would argue that Bill is unqualified, just like I wouldn’t argue that Dan is unqualified. They’re both qualified, if in different ways.
That said, I think Bill has two very strong arguments in his favor: he better reflects the values of King County voters, and he is in a better position to implement the type of reforms necessary after decades of the same administration. He brings new perspective, and I think the office would benefit from that.
@22 “The question has nothing to do with whether Republicans are evil.”
Yes, it does. As Maleng’s aide, spokesman, and representative on the King County canvassing board, Satterberg shilled for the GOP propaganda machine that spread lies about the 2004 election, and voted the Republican Party’s interests on every issue that came before the board.
And it isn’t just a matter of being a toady for his party … by so doing, Satterberg promoted and made himself a participant in a corrupt and evil power grab by a group that CAN’T GET ELECTED BY CAMPAIGNING ON THE ISSUES.
This election is about far more than managerial ability or criminal justice administration (even if you overlook the devil’s bargain made with Gary Ridgeway). The prosecutor’s office is a key position to determine whether we have fair or dishonest elections — and that’s why Republicans want Satterberg so badly.
They want a prosecutor who will look the other way at the crimes of Lori Sotelo and Jane Balogh — while persecuting Democrats at every opportunity. When GOP operatives get down and dirty, Satterberg can be counted on to be a loyal party hack.
And that’s why I’m voting for Bill Sherman.
I don’t want a prosecutor who will decline to bring charges against some Free Republic crazy who beats up a 12-year-old kid for needing medical care from a government program.
I don’t want a prosecutor who will offer lenient plea bargains to rightwing thugs who beat up antiwar demonstrators or vandalize cars with Democratic bumper stickers.
I don’t want a prosecutor who will refuse to bring charges against Republican operatives who challenge the voting rights of soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t want a prosecutor who will protect Republican politicans arrested for drunk driving or domestic violence.
I’m not saying Satterberg has done this stuff. I’m only saying I’m worried he might if such situations come up. I don’t have confidence in him. He is too partisan.
T, another thing is the fact that many people don’t pay enough attention to politics to understand what is really going on inside America. Their job has not been outsourced yet. They have not had to claim bankruptcy yet. Their medical insurer has not denied their claim yet. Their child has not chewed enough lead paint off their Chinese toys yet. They have not been Enroned, or WorldCommed yet. Their child has not been drafted, or killed in a war based on lies, greed, and lust for power yet. Their pension hasn’t been halved yet.
There are even people that still think Republiconvicts, and their “Values” (sic) are good for America.
These are not necessarily bad people, they just don’t pay attention.
These people remind me of what were once called “Good Germans” a while back…..
Calling yourself a Republiconvict these days, means you support what they do, and this makes you enemies of The United States of America. Plain and simple. If you don’t like Democrats, you can always call yourself an independent.
@25 Neither candidate has any endorsements from employees of the prosecutors office. That still doesn’t explain why Sherman doesn’t have any public support from those in criminal justice outside the office. IF Sherman is ahead in the polls as Goldy says, why on earth would any Democrat take the political risk of publicly supporting Satterberg?
@26 I don’t think a fair minded person can say that EVERYTHING suggests they’re both outstanding candidates. People have made the case that because Satterberg is a Republican, he is NOT an outstanding candidate. Likewise the lack of any criminal justice support for Sherman has to suggest something.
In answer to your last question, the law required the interim prosecutor to be a Republican because that’s what Norm was. I guess Satterberg felt the odds were better running as an incumbent with an R than as a challenger with a D.
Whoever gets elected, I hope they do as Satterberg has promised and make an effort to get this changed to a nonpartisan position. Bush’s disaster in Iraq and the concerns about the canvassing board should not be driving the criminal justice system in our local community.
You can gauge how lousy Republican candidates are from the fact GOPers brag about a sheriff who took 20 years to catch Gary Ridgeway and a prosecutor who plea-bargained away the death penalty in the Green River case.
They brag about these guys because they’re all they’ve got. The rest of the GOP’s ponies never made it out of the stable onto the track.
@36 My reference to “people whose work he will pass judgment on as a prosecutor” isn’t limited to attorneys working in the PAO’s office. In fact, I explicitly took issue with Satterberg cozying up to the police unions and the cops’ attorney. I see that as a conflict of interest, or at minimum, an impediment against exercising independent judgment about whether the police have done their job properly. For example, the prosecutor has a lot of influence over the disposition of alleged cases of police use of excessive force or police brutality. How can you make an impartial decision to prosecute — or not prosecute — police officers accused of illegal violence when you’ve been elected with the help of endorsements from the police unions?
@36 “I guess Satterberg felt the odds were better running as an incumbent with an R than as a challenger with a D.”
You guessed wrong. Satterberg is running as a Republican because HE IS A REPUBLICAN!
You seem to believe a person is whatever he calls himself. That’s a common wingnut theme these days. There’s a hell of a lot of wingnut trolls running around calling themselves “Democrats” but they’re still RepubliCONs!
Being a “Republican” or a “Democrat” isn’t simply a matter of what label you choose for yourself. Satterberg, as the Republican candidate, will support the Republican Party and its objectives — especially when it comes to elections. Satterberg will NOT prosecute Republican operatives who wrongly deprive King County citizens of their right to vote or interfere with the voting process! He will give cover to his party’s illegal election-rigging activities.
It DOES matter whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat to the PAO. And, of course, in a county that votes 60% Democratic, Satterberg and his Republican handlers understand perfectly well that his only chance is to pretend to be “nonpartisan” or to convince people that party labels don’t matter.
Well, it DOES matter — and he knows it. And he doesn’t want you to figure that out.
@36 (continued) Satterberg may well be an “outstanding” candidate (according to the criteria used by civic organizations in rating candidates). I’m not saying differently. All I’m saying is he’s a PARTISAN candidate.
Couldn’t afford, but you all have convinced me. Donated what I could.
BTW, has HA stopped giving “Open Threads”, or did the trolls all chase them away?
Back to the mess of my Moldy Oldie House, shoveling belongings just ahead of the contractors. My kitchen is moved into the living room. Jeepers, will it ever end?
@36 (continued) “Whoever gets elected, I hope they do as Satterberg has promised and make an effort to get this changed to a nonpartisan position.”
And I hope they don’t; and I won’t vote for such a change. I want to know what I’m getting. All this would do is make it easier for Republicans to slip stealth candidates and hidden agendas past voters.
T, @36. The disaster in Iraq, and Gonzo Gate is exactly what should be driving the criminal justice system in our local community.
The Republiconvicts have shown (PROVEN) they care more about their party, than the rule of law. The few honorable Republicons that stood up to the criminals in the White House (like McKay) were sacked, to make a point.
There are two words that can never be used in the same sentence. They are Republican. And justice.
Anyone who trusts any Republiconvict to fairly administer the law, instead of using their office for political games, has been living in a cave for the last year.
It has not just been the Federal Prosecutors that have been actively playing Rovian Politics, but their allies across the land. For Republiconvicts, the law (as administered by party hack prosecutors) is just another tool the GOP has to vainly try to hold onto power while almost all of America disagrees with every one of their positions.
I talked to an aide to Doc Hastings the other day, and had to explain to her that the positions held by MoveOn.org are not “far left” but actually are main stream America. They don’t even know how bad they are doing….
Just watch “ol Doc try to uphold Bush’s SCHIPS veto, against almost 70% of Americans.
The Republiconvicts Reign of Terror is almost over. They may actually hold ZERO seats in congress in a couple more cycles. Poor buncha lying corrupt crybaby traitor loving hypocrites.
@38 That’s a legitimate concern, but I don’t think that’s why Sherman doesn’t have the support. Sherman’s not afraid to list the (shared) endorsement from the King County Corrections Guild, and there are have been plenty of problems with jail guards abusing their positions (which Satterberg’s office has diligently prosecuted). I would be amazed if Sherman were to turn down any endorsement beyond prosecutor’s office staff.
@41 No. Remodeling never ends. Relatives of mine who have gone through remodeling tell me:
1) It will cost more than you were told, or can afford;
2) Your contractor will go bankrupt at least twice;
3) The job will never be completed, because the contractor will find ways to perpetuate his employment;
4) You are better off letting the contractor hold your kids for ransom than you are letting him hold your kitchen for ransom.
If your abode absolutely, positively, MUST be renovated, the best thing to do is go outside and walk a safe distance away, look skyward, and ask God to hit it with a lightning bolt that will burn it to the ground.
@44 I’m sure you would be amazed by a lot of things. I could list example, but I consider that unnecessary. Everyone knows what they are.
T @ 36,
Likewise the lack of any criminal justice support for Sherman has to suggest something.
But what? That’s why I was asking you what the potential number of endorsements is. It’s a little difficult to guage just how important it is unless we have some handle on what the possibilities are. Perhaps it simply suggests that most people in the justice system simply prefer not to given endoresements for reasons Roger Rabbit described.
Your argument has all the hallmarks of a smear campaign. You ask a question as if the question is fundamentally important, but utterly fail to articulate why that question is so important for you to hammer on it over and over again. Obviously the question is important to you, but why should the question be important to anyone else?
T @ 36
“I don’t think a fair minded person can say that EVERYTHING suggests they’re both outstanding candidates.”
When specifics are not mentioned, it usually implies that the person/organization making the suggestion is averaging over may attributes. No doubt, they each have relative weaknesses, but overall they are both are rated outstanding.
People have made the case that because Satterberg is a Republican, he is NOT an outstanding candidate.”
Indeed…this is where individuals like me use a different criteria and weighting. Running as a Republican in King County, unfortunately, taints the person through association with the King County Republicans. To me it suggests bad judgment!
“Likewise the lack of any criminal justice support for Sherman has to suggest something.”
An endorsement doesn’t constitute a qualification per se. Degrees, type of experience, other types of jobs held, community service, incumbency, etc. all go into the “qualifications” mix. Endorsements are just endorsements, which some voters may place much weight on and others very little. Me? Not so much.
@19, et al,…T…
You’re trying to reason with rabid animals.
Most of these guys aren’t interested in the best candidate for the job; they’re only interested in THEIR candidate for the job. Witness how they shamelessly pimp the pathetically incompetent Richard Pope.
They have neither shame nor respect for any opinion save their own. Because you question their pronouncement and deviate from their orthodoxy, you become the target of scorn, derision, and enmity; unless you march lockstep (goosestep???) with them, they rip into you like so many savage pit bulls ferociously going for the throat of whatever innocent happens to be in their path.
All they while they preach their erudition, sophistication, and superior intellect, which hides their intolerance, hatred, and bigotry. Why, some even have advanced degrees!
Tossing the baby out with the bath water suits them just fine. Rather than sweep the kitchen floor, they’d just as soon burn down the house in order to revel in a paroxysm of ideological ecstasy…all to the accompaniment of “Ride of the Valkyries.”
As a caveat, not all of the regulars at HA absolutely fall into this category, but enough do and others do enough of the time to call into question anything else they might say. A small amount of vinegar is enough to sour a large amount of milk.
I’m sure you and I probably disagree on any number of issues and support any number of different candidates in different elections – that’s what makes a horse race. You are absolutely entitled to your POV on candidates and issues, and, as a responsible citizen, your right to your opinion should be accorded respect, and, as a human being, you are entitled to respect. You won’t get that here; neither what you believe nor your dignity as a person are worth anything to those who would just as soon grind you into the dirt as look at you.
Many in the PA race prefer Satterberg, many Sherman, yet most do so with dignity. Not here – getting your hopes up for anything remotely resembling civilized behavior is an exercise in futility. State your beliefs, anticipate a voluminous and poisonous response (I am for this post), hold your ground, and keep smiling.
And remember that at the end of the political day, win, lose or draw, they will be marginalized because, while they may serve a purpose to those whom they support, they’re also regarded as the temporarily useful fools they are. Take their money then run lest associational embarrassment be your lot in life.
As noted above, when I say things like this, I get lambasted and told it’s their sandbox and if I wish to enter in and play then I have to get used to cheating and smash-mouthed rhetoric as a way of life. Whatever…I needn’t stoop to their level in order to have fun with them, which I most certainly do. That they’re content to alienate those who don’t kowtow to them rather than seek to reason and persuade them tells me they’re either content to be permanently a minor pimple upon the left buttock of the body politic or they lack the confidence of their own convictions and/or the social skills to articulate them. Either way, they fated to asterisk status, not real influence and respect.
I have no doubt that most in the PAO as well as a great many attorneys throughout King County support Dan Satterberg. Unlike the people here, not everyone views all of life through a narrow lens of ideology. Good lawyers respect good lawyers no matter how they vote. Again, however, that’s not relevant here; Richard Pope is their idea of a good lawyer.
So, welcome to the club! I encourage you to continue to speak your mind and convictions, and don’t be deterred by the abuse hurled in your direction. Be of good cheer, and take heart in the fact that their innate nature prevents them from a like sentiment.
The Piper
@47 Fair question. Here’s why it is important to me and why I think it should get at least SOME consideration from everyone.
The primary function of the prosecutors office is criminal justice. Yes, they provide civil advice to the county as well, but the vast majority of the office is dedicated to fighting crime. There is great morale in that office notwithstanding very long hours and very mediocre pay–people line up for that job. Norm created an environment where there was constant innovation, excellent training, and a passion for seeking justice, not just winning cases.
My concern is that the morale will suffer tremendously if Sherman is elected because the staff will not trust or respect their leader. Trial lawyers are type-A personalities who do not like to be told what to do. The people who have made a career out of putting murderers, rapists, and gang-bangers in prison don’t care that Dan Satterberg hasn’t tried a case recently, because they know he’s tried hundreds of very tough cases in his career. He’s had the view of a “front-line prosecutor” and he’s had the view of an administrator. He’s seen innovations succeed and fail and has learned from that. They trust him.
On the other hand, they don’t respect Bill Sherman. They laugh at his repeated discussion of his domestic violence work–they’ve all done it and much more. They think his “try one case a year” promise is a total joke. It may work in a smaller county with a half dozen prosecutors, but here the prosecutor has responsibility for 260 lawyers that he can’t just put on hold while in trial. They also know that trial skills must be constantly maintained and trying one case a year means the odds of success are much lower.
I think they also fear that Bill is far more concerned about politics than criminal justice and that the decisions he will make–like his promise to try one case a year–will be made for his political gain rather than the public good. His willingness to leave the office to run for political office twice reinforces that belief. They see what happens when criminal justice gets too political.
I believe you will see a lot of very experienced trial lawyers leave the office if Sherman gets elected and you will see more consistent turnover on an ongoing basis. I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am. To me, that’s a legitimate public safety issue.
@49 I’m trusting that enough people here DO think that I’m not wasting my time. They may thoughtfully come to the conclusion that Sherman’s their man. So be it.
The beauty of it is that the rabid folks who don’t think are definitely hurting their cause and that of their candidate. It cracks me up.
@51…T…
Sound thinking, and my take on it as well. The more the pot is stirred, the more the fetid nature of the stew with its tell tale aroma is made known.
The Piper
@47 Police and other law enforcement are another aspect of the public safety issue. The city can’t get enough qualified candidates to be cops. How is that going to improve when you elect a candidate who’s beholden to the interests that say cops are all evil and racist?
I can tell you the existing administration in the prosecutors office does NOT enjoy a cozy relationship with the police. From the top down, they frequently butt heads. There will always be people who will say it is nevertheless too close, and that tension between cooperation and accountability will always be there. But I submit to you that the police morale problem will get worse if Sherman is elected. Not because Bill is unethical, or corrupt, or incompetent (he’s none of these things), but simply because the interests that will have gotten him elected and will help propel him on to the next office are generally very critical of the police.
@53…T…
By accepting support from the interests you referance, Sherman has made a Faustian pact that will come back to haunt him; when you get into bed with those who have political VD, don’t be surprise when you find yourself corrupted.
These very interests don’t lend support on any general principles of “good government.” The want something, and when they want it, they want it ALL! If they don’t get it, they’ll turn on him with a vengeance.
It’s in their nature, and they cannot help themselves.
The Piper
Piper, maybe some folks appear to be “rabid” because they don’t like watching the Republiconvicts destroying our constitutional (sic these days) democracy, and are doing something to stop it.
They don’t like watching attacks on 12 year olds that happened to benefit from a health care program, and are willing to say it.
Maybe we are rabid because there is a pile of corpses in Iraq that would fill Amazon.com’s warehouse…… Every one murdered by our failed government in one way or another.
Republiconvicts are not the only problem we have, but they are by far the worst problem we have.
As long as Satterburg has a -R after his name, I will consider him an enemy, and treat him like any other enemy of the United States. Democrats are far from perfect, but compared to the criminals in the GOP they are gods.
When the Republicons kick the corrupt lying troop hating corporation loving global warming denying zero investigation immoral value dirt bags out of their party, and join the real world, I may consider supporting their candidates once again. Till then, they are the enemy of my country.
Facts- your are an idiot. If you really believe the party affiliation of the prosecuting attorney for King County Washington has anything at all to do with how many soldiers have died and will die in Iraq, then you, my friend, are an even greater danger to the citizens of King County than crazy GW Jr. is to this country. Your inability to see beyond a letter or to distinguish local law enforcement from federal war-mongers is an embarassment to us reasonable D’s.
T, and Piper- nice to hear the sound of reason through this cacophony of the absurd…..
@55…FSMP…
How many votes did your most recent foaming-at-the-mouth rant cost Bill Sherman?
The Piper
Dog, Idiot? Republiconvicts act like the mafia. They are all joined at the hip. Democrats on the other hand are, shall we say, a little less organized…..
Republiconvict prosecutors ignoring the crimes of other Republiconvicts is a nationwide problem.
As was mentioned above, when the KCR’s illegally tried to kick voters off the voting rolls, and no one was prosecuted, I believe Satterburg was playing politics with the law.
Dog, as long as he has a -R after his name, he is an enemy of the people of King County, and to my country. If he was on “America’s” side, he would not be a Republicon.
All NAZIS were NAZIS. Whether they were Hitler, or the Hitler Youth grunts. Understand?
@58…FSMP…
I REPEAT…How many votes did your most recent rant cost Bill Sherman?
Keep it up and not even you’ll vote for him he’ll be so badly tarred with the goo of your support.
The Piper
T @ 11 — “(anecdotal but unrefuted)” On this blog, that translates to ‘(bullshit but nobody’s called me on it yet)’.
Facts- so Norm was an enemy of the people of King County? The man who ran that office for 28 years in a 2:1 D to R county? You must have been raving prior to those elections too. Keep it up, facts- I love you!!
@60…JP…
Careful…or you’ll join FSMP in costing Bill Sherman votes as your political cooties rub off on him.
And Barry Goldwater is waiting for you on the other side to dispense a little Arizona frontier justice for the quality of your “support.”
The Piper
T,
I understand the point you want to make, but it’s not at all clear to me that the endoresement question resolves it. The number of endorsements strikes me as just too few to be probative one way or another.
Is there a lack of respect among the rank and file in the PA’s office? I have no idea. I’m forced to take your word for it, and an anonymous poster in the comment thread of a blog just doesn’t have enough credibility to make something like that stick. Were it as serious an issue as you claim, however, I’d think it would come out in some other way.
And, I happen to agree with Darryl on the voter suppression issues. Republicans have blown a lot of smoke about fraudulent registrations, but the real fire was the Republicans’ ham-fisted attempts to knock legitimate voters off the rolls–scant weeks before the election, no less. That virtually nothing was done to the folks who perpetrated that fraud rather sticks in my craw.
I suppose the point where we agree is in the hope that you are, indeed, wrong about how Bill Sherman will run the office, because, at the moment, Bill Sherman still has my vote.
re 20: I repeat: When his poll numbers start seriously slipping, his support will erode quicker than a new neighborhood on a California hillside in Springtime.
Where does Satterberg stand on the R-67 issue? Yea or Nay?
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
Piper,
You know, your pleas for civility in this forum would likely carry much more weight had you not, over the past week, been an apologist for a smear campaign initiated by the staff of the Republican Senate Minority Leader, carried out by some of the most vociferous right-wing bloggers and radio personalities and directed at a 12 year-old boy and his family who did nothing but speak the truth.
I seem to recall some rather wise advice in the Bible about motes and eyes. Are you at all familiar with that advice?
re 61: Norm Maleng is running? That’s like the current batch of Republican orange-alert Presidential candidates trying to conjure up the image of the Gipper.
The only people who really loved Reagan were the WW II generation — and they are rapidly dieing or entering their dottage.
Most people remember the Iran/Contra scandal and Regan being on TV saying: “I know I lied, but it sure felt like the truth!”
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@64…JP…
Way to go! Raise an issue so unrelated to the PAO race that it adds further tarnish to your credibility.
Satterberg or Sherman…in re R-67 it makes no never mind! And since it has no bearing on the administration of the PAO, why not ask their respective opinion why can’t a celebrity get convicted of anything in Los Angeles?
The Piper
@68…JP…
That many less votes for Sherman…The anti-razorblade gargling vote just went over to Satterberg.
The Piper
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
TDOG @ 61,
“Norm was an enemy of the people of King County?”
Enemy is probably too strong a word. But he certainly was partisan at times. For example, during the Lori Sotelo voter challenge debacle, when the King County Canvassing Board rejected some 70 percent of the challenged votes:
Somehow, Norm and Dan felt it was okay that the forms did not provide addresses as required by state law. They also decided it was okay for Sotelo to modify the voter challenge form in a way that mislead public officials (contrary to RCW 9A.72.030), and perjure herself (or at least falsely swear RCW 9A.72.040) by claiming she had personal knowledge about some 1,900 voters (she supervised the work but did not have personal knowledge).
While I agreed with many of Maleng’s decisions over the years, his partisan behavior in the Sotelo fiasco disqualified him for any possible future vote. Satterberg is in the same category.
Piper: Your pleas for civility are ridiculous — considering the tactics your party — to this very moment — uses on a regular basis.
The nly time moderation and civility enter your vocabulary is when you are losing.
Of course not, Joe- but FSMP says any Republican is an enemy of the citizens of this county, and I’m just wondering if he thinks that of the man who created Drug Court, The Special Assault, the Domestic Violence Unit and the Most Dangerous Offenders Project (to name a few) and who is widely recognized as having developed one of the most successful, tough but even-handed, innovative prosecutors offices in the country.
Truth be told, I doubt FSMP actually “thinks” about much. I suspect coming up with the quippy little “Republiconvicts” thing is about as close to varsity brain work as he comes…
And Piper, losing is the best thing that can happen to you , your party, and the country.
I sure would hate for Dems. to get the country ship-shape in the next 8 years, only to have another incarnation of these greedy little shit-heads (Republicans) take over again, and throw the whole country in the dumper again.
That’s why the Republican party must be totally crushed. You guys are totalitarians who are working for a one-party state.
It’s not gonna happen. Go gargle with razor blades!
Newt Gingrich said that politics was total war and he was going to totally destroy the loyal opposition.
Well, ‘REPUBLICONVICTS’ — what happened to Libby and Gonzales is just the beginning.
I will not rest until the Republican party is no more.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@75…JP…
Well, now…you said something that makes sense and to which I can only say, “Amen!”
The Republican Party deserved to lose in 2006 because it lost sight of its core values and beliefs, took its base for granted, tolerated corruption within its ranks, and sought to siddle up to the trough with their Democratic counterparts and suckle at the public teat.
The public, given a choice between real Democrats and Democratic-wannabes, opted for the real deal.
I’m less afraid of losing elections than I am of losing my moral and ethical compass. The tide goes out, but it comes back in a gain…a salient fact of political life you should all keep in mind.
What was it said about victorious generals in ancient Rome? That before they received a baton of victory from the Caesar of the moment, it was whispered in their ear that both fame and victory are fleeting.
Don’t rest on your laurels or abuse your prerogatives – a lesson Congressional Republicans forgot – because you, too, can have your heads handed to you by the people.
The lesson of this for the PAO race is that at the end of the electoral day, cases will remain to be tried, charges in new cases filed, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal law maintained. Will a Bill Sherman victory ensure these, or will there be, as T contended, an exodus of seasoned litigators from the PAO causing the people of King County harm?
That’s a legitimate campaign question to ask. Is there an answer? Or do you care?
The Piper
Piper at 78-
I don’t think there’s any doubt there would be departures- what remains to be seen is how many and how quickly. Only time will tell, but I’m quite sure there will be many valuable and experienced prosecutors tinkering with their resumes on Wednesday morning if Bill gets the nod. Fortunately, most of us really, really love our jobs and feel a deep obligation to the public. Maybe that sense of obligation would trump a lack of trust in Bill….
@79…TDOG…
That you and your colleagues find yourselves in such an ethical dilemma is genuinely regrettable.
Perhaps if you all banded to gether and stated your concerns to the general public by way of a press release, a media event, letters to the editors of The Times and P-I (If they’ll print mine, which they do a lot, you should have no problem), etc., then you might be able to render the issue moot.
If Sherman is elected, then tracking the departure of experienced professionals from the PAO ought to be something the local press covers.
Question? Any sense of what this would do to cases where the difference between convicting a legitimately guilty defendant and mucking up a prosection resulting in him going free, is the skill and experience of a criminal deputy versus an inexperienced newbie hired to replace that deputy who resigned in disgust?
I’m concerned, based upon what I hear you say, that this would be a reasonably foreseeable result of a Sherman victory. In other words, the physical safety of King County citizens and the security of their property will be at greater risk if Sherman is elected. Scary.
The Piper
Yeah, Piper, some of us have discussed that, but we really do want to honor the request of both candidates to not even informally “endorse” as a group.
It’s tough to say what this would do to the cases where the skill and experience of the prosecutor can make the difference. I happen to believe there are a fair number of those cases- more in units like the Special Assault Unit, for example- but I guess it would really depend on how many left and who they were. It’d be naive, though, to say no cases would suffer.
Another thing we worry about is that it seems likely this is just a stepping stone for Bill. What that means is that he won’t be around for long, and then the thing gets blown wide open. I know it’s easy to rail against “the status quo” and rally for change, but despite the voting thing (which I confess I know little about), this is an office that truly works, and stability is a big part of why. That, I believe, IS a public safety issue….
@81…TDOG…
Given your self-imposed constraints, have there been off-the-record inquiries from the press? Do you think the press have adequately explored this aspect of the race?
Sounds like Joel Connelly, the P-I, and HA care more about scoring political points than they do about locking up criminals. In fact, some are so fixated on phony issues, they let the real issues go unattended.
The Piper
I’m not aware of any inquiries from the press, and frankly I think their exploration of every aspect of this race has been superficial at best. One example is their acceptance at face value of Bill’s claim that he’s a seasoned, frontline DV prosecutor. I don’t want to bad talk Bill, because I happen to like him, but even a single phone call to the head of the DV unit would answer the question of what his true experience is.
That’s one of the problems with this race. Not to toot our horns or anything, but what we do on a daily basis and what it takes to do it, are so far beyond the ken of pretty much anyone who doesn’t actually do it, that it’s easy to throw out claims which may sound sexy, pertinent and true, and the only folks who really know they’re BS are the folks who work in and with the office. That’s why Durkan et al endorse Dan- not because he’s in bed with anyone, but because they know Bill just isn’t the right guy, at this time, for this position….
@83…TDOG…
Knowing a bit about attorneys and a bit more about politics, it was very eye-opening for me to see someone heretofore known as a hard-core Democrat like Jenny Durkan endorse a Republican. Maybe the inexperienced or unaware don’t think this is significant, but I’ll bet a lot of folks at the KC Courthouse or Regional Justice Center said, “Whoa!” when they read that news.
Sherman partisans may find any victory of his quite Pyrrhic if King County’s excellent record for prosecuting criminals suffers because of chaos and internal politicking in the office.
As an aside…Brian Sonntag gets Republican support, including mine, all the time because he does an excellent job of administering his office on behalf of the taxpayers, so this stuff doesn’t just cut one way.
The Piper
As a single woman, I want a prosecutor who is tough on criminals and runs a tough office. Sounds like the tough prosecutors who work there now will all quit if Sherman wins. That makes me feel less safe. Shouldn’t we keep the person who has the confidence of the other lawyers IN the prosecutor’s office?
Red Kat
—–Origi
#80, Piper, Piper, Piper. Claiming King County residents would be less safe if Sherman is elected reminds me of Cheney saying Americans would be less safe if Kerry was elected. Both statements are sickening. Anyone leaving the prosecutor’s office because Sherman may prosecute someone other than the poor probably should be a lobbyist anyway.
Dog, I never said one bad thing about Norm. Most of his time in office, I was a Republican. Back when the party did not resemble Atilla’s hordes. What I am talking about is “Today’s Republicon Party”. When they are not denying our troops body armor, and proper medical attention, they are sheltering pedophiles from florida, and attacking 12 year olds. Attacking gays, while having sex with men. Claiming to have “Superior Values” while paying prostitutes $300 per visit 3 times a week, and trolling bathrooms in Minnesota. The list goes on, and on, and on.
Today’s Republiconvicts are a cancer on America’s body politic. When an infestation becomes this bad the only cure is an operation. All the cancer must be removed. Sorry about your party, but you can’t say you don’t deserve it….
@86…Facts…
Instead of cliched political rhetoric and bringing in issues that are completely irrelevent to the PAO, why don’t you address the legitimate issues raised by TDOG, an insider in the PAO?
Again…you seem less interested in having a first-class PAO and more in scoring cheap political points.
The Piper
I doubt those partisans would know or care. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of our cases fly under the public’s radar, win or lose, and I think even a mass exodus would leave enough studs to handle the high profile and complex stuff (though that’s a big question, and a bigger danger). But we’d know, the victims would know, the criminals would know and the defense bar would know!
Awww…Piper Scott, TDOG, and Red Kat, your concern trolling is absolutely adorable.
Sorry, but you practically have to drown a city to really shut down a justice system.
Just ask New Orleans!
There is no evidence to suggest that Bill Sherman cannot be at least as effective as Dan Satterberg.
The difference is that Satterberg is a partisan Republican in [a county in] which the Republicans are goof-balls!
Did you hear the joke Satterberg made about dogs voting in King County the other day?
No thanks!
I will admit however not all Republiconvicts are the same. Some of them feel shame….. Probably…..
By the way, if you are really concerned about crime, put the blame where it belongs. Not on prosecutors, but on Conservative trickle up policies, and outsourcing. Substandard education, and crippling poverty, while the top 1% is raking it in like there was no tomorrow.
It is simple.
Conservatives want an economy that serves only the rich, and large corporations.
Liberals want all to prosper, even if some have to sacrifice a little more…..
all facts- my party is your party, my friend. I just happen to want the best person in this critical position despite his party.
You simply can not reasonably equate the power of Cheney to do harm with the role of the KCPA. You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.
@88…TDOG…
Which is all the more reason that the white-noise rhetoric of people like Facts is disturbing. Let’s just make King County a target rich environment for thugs, thieves, and their allies, Facts and his pals.
The Piper
Yes you are right. Cheney is worse….. Far worse.
I do believe there is hope for the Republiconvicts though.
Just ask Richard Vigory.
@89…Darryl…
You’re no better than Facts with his white-noise gibberish.
TDOG raises serious issues that deserve a serious response, not a sand-box gibe.
If you care as much as you claim to, then address TDOG’s central thesis…or shall I chalk you up as one who cares only about cheap political points, not about excellence in the administration of justice in King County?
The Piper
Republiconvicts: Rest assured, Life will go on without you.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
“Please get out of the new boat if you can’t lend a HAND,for the times they are a changin'” Bob Dylan
darryl at 89-
no one said the system would shut down. You’re beginning to sound like “facts”. You say there is no evidence Bill can’t be as effective as Sherman. Huh???? Dan has been doing it for 18 years. Does that mean nothing to you?
AFSMP at 90- you need professional help. I wouldn’t be surprised if your name hasn’t crossed the desk of a prosecutor or two.
This crap makes me thirsty- I’m goin’ drinkin’….
Piper, no one cares what you think. You can take your Thurston Howell III act and shove-it.
Go gargle with razor blades!
Piper, white noise rhetoric? Try reality. If you don’t agree with me, check out what General Sanchez had to say about his bosses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10.....38;emc=rss
Dereliction of Duty stated by the man that held Betrayus’s job a short while ago.
All Facts Support My Positions.
I can always provide links!
Have a good one dog!
TDOG
“Dan has been doing it for 18 years. Does that mean nothing to you?”
Yeah…it means it is time for a change! Seriously, before 2004, if Dan were running I wouldn’t really be paying attention. But I wrote-in a name when Maleng came up for reelection last year because I was so pissed-off at the blatant partisan handling of the Sotelo fiasco. (And Dan was deeply a part of that. His more recent actions betray no change in that regard.)
That’s my issue. And it is, in my opinion, a very important issue. I am fucking tired of Republicans trying to steal elections (Clinton impeachment, Florida 2000, Texas redistricting, California gubernatorial recall, the fraudulent fraud claims in the WA gubernatorial election contest, fake sex-offender postcards, and Lori Sotelo).
If Republicans cannot learn how to win elections through LEADERSHIP, rather than through gaming and tricks then they need to be removed from office. Unlike you, I AM NOT a Democrat—I’ve never joined the party, even though it meant I couldn’t vote in primaries when I lived in other states. But, I am anti-Republican. They have lost my trust. Dan Satterberg has demonstrated enough partisanship to have lost my trust, too.
TDOG,
Apparently you missed the point I raised earlier about the credibility of anonymous posters in a comment thread on a blog. The only person lapping this stuff up is Piper, and he’d buy the Evergreen Point bridge if it would make a Democrat look bad.
You are making statements of fact that no one here can properly verify. That is, essentially, as good as making no statements of fact at all. What you’re offering us is no less “white noise rhetoric” than the responses have been.
You have almost a month. If there really is any substance to what you’re saying, then you’d better figure out a way to get it out in a way that makes it credible. Until that happens, I’m going to hold a pretty healthy skepticism about any statement of fact you make around here.
Piper Scott,
“You’re no better than Facts with his white-noise gibberish.”
As Joe Pine put it, take your phony Thurston Howell III act and shove-it up your ass with a rusty coat-hanger.
“TDOG raises serious issues that deserve a serious response, not a sand-box gibe.
If you care as much as you claim to, then address TDOG’s central thesis…”
Fair enough. I think the issue is complete bullshit for several reasons. (1) I suspect very few (if any) will quit, (2) even so, variability in latency of time-to-new-job means it is unlikely there will be multiple simultaneous vacancies. (3) there are MANY, MANY lawyers in the world–jobs would be filled quickly (IIRC, in 1990, there were more students in law school than there were lawyers!)
Finally, the issue is bullshit because it happens over and over and over and over again that the administration of prosecutor offices changes all over the country. If such changes were a problem then (a) we would hear about ’em, and (b) governments around the country would transition the office to non-elected professional job (you know, to protect the peeps).
And finally, finally, changes in elected office are an important and necessary part of our democracy. I am unwilling to let you assholes take away that part of our democracy by fear-mongering.
Fear-mongering has a really, really bad rap right now.
“or shall I chalk you up as one who cares only about cheap political points, not about excellence in the administration of justice in King County?”
I don’t give a rats ass what you do with your chalk, Piper Scott.
Don- before I go throw a few back, grab a dictionary, look up the two operative words here (c’mon, Donny- can you guess what they are??) then re-read my posts: Nothing I said about an exodus was stated as fact. I do happen to know for a FACT a number of prosecutors who would leave- but beyond that I have only expressed my OPINION (have you figured out the two words yet?) It is, I might point out, an opinion deserving of far more weight than you or any of your silly brethren might bring to bear, because I happen to work in the place whose future we’re discussing (and have for many years), and thus know of what I speak.
So if Piper is “buying” anything as you suggest, what he’s buying is that this is a legitimate issue to consider, as compared, for example, with the mentally masturbatory and vitriolic drivel that Facts and his ignorant brethren spew here. It’s refreshing to occassionally come across a cool breeze of reason in this maelstrom of nonsense. You, however, are clearly a tool. But thanks for the tip!
#99 — Checked out your blog. Looks interesting.
#103 — If you work in the prosecutor’s office and you are making partisan political points for one candidate over another on a popular local political blog, it only proves that your central thesis (that the prosecutor’s office should be apolitical) is contradicted by your own activities.
If you are so confident of what you know, then tell us who you are.
OR — You guessed it —–:
Gargle with razor blades!!!!
TDOG,
before I go throw a few back, grab a dictionary, look up the two operative words here
You are presenting yourself as an expert with access to inside information. These are representations of material fact, are they not?
You say that I’m just a tool. I happen to know that this is not at all true, but I have no way of proving that to you without identifying who I am, is that not correct?
So, if I’m just a tool, then why shouldn’t you be regarded as just a tool as well?
“mentally masturbatory and vitriolic drivel that Facts and his ignorant” blah, blah, blah….
And you complain about what I write?
Tell you what. If you think Republicans have been good for our country lately, you belong in a straight jacket, or you live in a cave.
Pointing out the fact that the GOP, for the love of power, has practically destroyed our military, our country, and our children’s future is masturwhat? Vitriolic?
Does the name Scooter Libby mean anything to you? The lying chimp? Mushroom cloud Condi? North South East West Rumsfeld? Yellowcake? Pretty much been established Cheney? When we’re talking about wiretaps? We don’t torture? A few bad apples?
You know, if it wasn’t for all the Chinese debt, and all the corpses, one could almost pretend these powermad bastards weren’t all that bad.
Your freaks eat lie, after lie, after lie like it just doesn’t matter…….
It does matter you pathetic traitors.
It matters to real Americans.
Satterburg is a Republicon, and should be treated like all traitors who still call themselves Republicons.
America’s real enemies.
I am not all that happy with Dems, but at least they are not actively trying to destroy my country at every turn.
Anyone stupid enough to trust ANY Republicon, whether it be Satterburg, or George Bush, to do anything “right” needs extensive therapy.
Calling yourself a Republicon these days is like calling yourself a NAZI after the concentration camps had been discovered.
If you call yourself a Republicon, you are part of the problem.
And I haven’t even scratched the surface……
hey facts- read my lips, dickweed: I am not a republican and I agree their politics have damaged this country. You with me so far? THIS race is not about national politics, and if you can’t see that, then there is nothing I can do for you except to suggest, again, that you need professional help. When you get better, I’d be happy to help you run all of the lying sack of shit R’s out of the federal government. But I want to sleep at night feeling like I have a top law enforcement official in my county who I can trust to do THAT job, and Bill just ain’t it, my friend….
Don @106: let me try this again: am I an expert in criminal law? You bet. But my statement that some people will leave the office is not an “expert” opinion, it is simply what I know because I work in the office. How many would leave and how quickly- only time will tell.
TDOG:
I think you are clearly full of it about attorneys leaving. Nothing Sherman has said or done suggests enough change or upset in the future that would lead to significant resignations. Basically, experienced prosecutors can go into criminal defense work or switch to civil litigation in either plaintiff or defense work. Or they can get out of litigation all together. The ones who want to stop being prosecutors usually leave in their own time.
Are you telling me they only stayed in public interest prosecution positions because of Maleng and now Satterburg? And that they will up and quit if Sherman is elected? I have a hard time believing they are so shallow or fickle.
I never said you were a Republicon Dog. I said Satterberg is one.
This is how it works.
Even though NAZI X is not as bad as Hitler, he is still a NAZI. NAZIS are bad. Every single one of them. To a man. No one is forcing Satterberg to remain a Republicon at gunpoint.
As long as he calls himself a Republicon, he is my, and America’s enemy. At some point he will have to choose between party, and country, and unless he has the class McKay has, we all know what will happen. Republicons always choose party before country. It is what makes them Republicons. It is part of their inbreeding.
The country loses (almost) every time.
Look at what they did to McKay for not prosecuting innocent people. They savaged him. The way they savage anyone that gets in their way. If Satterburg fails to prosecute the proper Democrat, he will be another one of their victims. Him or some innocent Democrat.
Your comment “I agree their politics have damaged this country” means you are halfway there.
Damaged is putting it waaaaaay too lightly. Try utterly destroyed.
Do you think any NAZI should hold office? Even one that may be more experienced?
You may think I am a little off the deep end. I don’t think so. I just understand evil far better than you. That’s all. Maybe I just pay a little closer attention to the news. To the facts. To reality.
As soon as Satterburg leaves the GOP, I will take a look at his credentials. Until then, he is my enemy. He is my country’s enemy.
Oops. I forgot to mention they even savaged a 12 year old boy who was brave enough to speak the truth. How dare he talk about a government program actually helping someone. The nerve!
Whether it was Mitch McConnell that trashed the kid, or Satterberg, they are all joined at the hip.
One big slimy criminal enterprise.
A crime syndicate.
Today’s mafia.
Every single one covering for, and covering up the crimes of the others. (see Alabama)
And you want criminals running our county’s prosecutor’s office? This makes you feel safer?
I can provide tens of thousands of links supporting this point of view. Why do you think they never had any investigations when the Cons controlled congress? Why do you think Bush refuses to turn over all the documents, and the emails.
Because it is one big slimy criminal enterprise. If they were innocent, they would gladly release all information, because it would prove their innocence right?
TDOG,
let me try this again: am I an expert in criminal law? You bet. But my statement that some people will leave the office is not an “expert” opinion, it is simply what I know because I work in the office.
Play semantic games if you’d like, though I should point out that I mentioned your, now repeated and unverifiable to any of us, claim to having access to inside information.
I think my point still stands. If you can so easily call me a tool, then why should anyone here not think you are also a tool? How does anyone here know that you’re not a Satterburg lackey playing partisan politics by hinting at some kind of exodus from the PA’s office should Sherman get elected?
Give me something solid that I can hang my hat on, not vague numbers or interpretations of endorsements or answers to debate questions that don’t satisfy you personally. Otherwise, Sherman gets my vote based on the voter suppression issues I’ve already mentioned.
I think I’m being fair, here. I’m not completely shutting you out, but I also cannot discount the possibility that you’re just here shilling for Satterburg.
Mirror- You can call me full of shit all you want, but unless you’ve been chatting with my co-workers and they’ve changed their minds without telling me, then you have no basis upon which to make that blind assertion.
Let me guess- you ain’t a prosectuor, right? We PA types generally do this work at least in part because we feel a moral imperative to represent victims of crime, not those who commit crime. So the number of us who’ve gone to the defense side is so small I think I could could them on one hand from the past 12 years. Sure, others leave on their own initiative to go do whatever else they want to do, but natural attrition is not the point here.
We trusted Norm and we trust Dan. You can say all you want about the voter scandal thing, but Bill has already made many misrepresentations which only those of us who work in the office could be expected to see as such. The result is that many of us have grown not to trust him, and trust is a critical part of our jobs. When you combine that with his glaring dearth of experience, many of us just don’t believe the office would be or stand for what it has been and stood for for as long as most of us have worked there if Bill were elected. That might not matter if you work at Burger King or even Microsoft, but it matters here, and there is nothing shallow or fickle about that.
Here’s what one buddy in the office wrote to me yesterday, and it is very representative:
“It’s funny, I used to really like Bill, but the more I hear him misrepresent and pander to partisan politics and badmouth our office, the less I like him as a person. I haven’t been able to separate his campaign from his character. Unlike most of our circle, I generally vote Republican (being a practicing Catholic, I usually vote for prolife candidates…), but I would have voted for Dan, as a dem, at the drop of a hat. It surprises me that so many people are so ready to blindly vote for their party, regardless of that person’s experience”
Don- I don’t know what to tell you. I’m not going to give you names of people in the office who say they might leave, if that’s what you want.
I don’t intend to suggest (and don’t believe I have) that their will be some “mass exodus” if Bill is elected. All I can tell you is that I am close to many people in the office, and a fair number of people are thinking very seriously about whether Bill is a man they want to work for in this office, and I think that is an issue worth putting into the mix when we think this through.
If you are going to vote based on the voter suppression issue- I can’t change that. But please don’t mistake my comments for an attempt to create some doomsday scenario- that’s not what I’m suggesting.
A few small observations to toss on the fire:While it is true that Jenny Durkan has endorsed her law school pal, she hasn’t contributed a dime to his campaign.Neither has John Wolfe made any contributions in the Prosecutor race.So how deep is their commitment? If they’re so sure that they’ve backed the right horse, why haven’t they shown it in the most important and most meaningful way to support a politician?
In Durkan’s case, she hopped on-board very early, at a time when it wasn’t apparent that there would be any competition for the position. Who knows, maybe she endorsed him to put an end to the speculation that she might run for the office (and there definitely was such talk). In any case, once she was publicly committed, how would it look if she were to reverse herself?
Mr. Dog. I would really like to know how the people in your office may feel about the sacking of McKay.
Any comments?
Not a political statement (hard to believe I know) but did they feel he had been treated unfairly? All I have to base my personal opinion on is the obvious things that have been in the press. There is a lot more to this story, and I am sure few people know the “rest” right?
TDOG,
I don’t know what to tell you.
I think “tell” is the wrong word. “Show,” would be a better word, though I get the sense that you’re just not in a position, or don’t want to be in a position, to do that.
Nevertheless, I gotta vote on the basis of what I know. For me to do anything less would be to abdicate my responsibility as a citizen.
Facts- on McKay:
I can’t speak for my office, but I think he was railroaded and those of my buddies with whom I’ve discussed the issue agree. My guess- and it is just a guess- is that most feel the same way.
Don Joe- I hear you, brother. All of us can only vote based on what we know.
Tell me what you need to know from me and if I can give it to you, I will….
TDOG, you’re my boy. Keep up the good work. But The Piper is correct. There is nothing you can say to change some of the minds around hear.
What is terribly sad is that even if you identified yourself and they learned of your triumphs and the HUNDREDS (and this isn’t “Bill Sherman” window dressing) of violent/sex/truly derranged offenders that you have kept off the streets… they still wouldn’t listen to you. Because when it is all said and done, they could care less about criminal justice and the people of King County.
In the end, all they care about is that there are more politicians out there with a ‘D’ next to their name than an ‘R’… as if this were a Fantasy Football League or Dungeons and Dragons.
TDOG,
If you go back up and read what I’ve said earlier, I don’t think there is much more you can say so long as you remain anonymous. There’s just too much of what you’re saying that’s tied to who you are. I hope you can appreciate that. I’m not even saying that you’re lying. I just have no way to give it a specific weight.
It might also help you to understand just how strongly I feel about the voter suppression issue, and it’s not just because we’re having to muck our way through the worst president in this country’s history.
As an attorney, you are no doubt aware of the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the XIVth Amendment. I presume you are also aware of the philosophical leanings of the current members of the US Supreme Court with respect to constitutional interpretation. To use Cass Sunstein’s terminology, we have four “fundamentalists” on the Supreme Court, and Stevens isn’t going to last through the end of another Presidential term.
I think you’re knowledgable enough to figure out the rest of what this means, but I don’t think it’s at all hyperbole to say that the very survival of the Republic is at stake in the outcome of the next election.
Ham-handed efforts that are very clearly designed to deny legitimate voters the right to vote cannot be tolerated.
The Seattle PI’s endorsement of Mr. Sherman is summed up in this statement:
“A clearer desire for change sets Sherman slightly but promisingly apart.”
This might be the dumbest thing I’ve read in a very long time (and I’ve been reading a lot of posts on this blog).
The simple desire for change makes one more appealing?? That’s like saying the current President was more appealing simply because he was more “change” from President Clinton than Mr. Gore.
Be careful when you advocate for change purely for the sake of it. You might just end up longing for what you already had. In this case… the finest metropolitan prosecutor’s office in the country.
Sorry, but “the finest metropolitan prosecutor’s office in the country” wouldn’t have given Lori Sotelo a free pass.
Unless, of course, you’re talking about the furnishings, at which point change for change’s sake wouldn’t be all that bad an idea.
Don Joe-
I’d love to grab a beer and have a chat with ya, but I don’t see that happening with nuts like Facts in the mix.
So let me say this: you may very well be right that the survival of the republic is at stake in this next election (though I do think that’s a bit melodramatic), but electing a D or an R as the KCPA will have no impact on the republic. It may very well, however, have a huge impact on those of us who live here.
I’m gonna do a little homework on the “voter suppression” issue. Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect it may be one of those things that seems obvious on the surface, but when you factor in our burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may be a bit more complicated.
Don Joe,
Let me try my best to explain the Lori Sotelo incident.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have NO inside knowledge as to the reasons why Norm chose not to charge her. I can only go by his public statement back in Nov. 2005 when he stated that, “There’s no criminal intent there.” Additionally, I have no intimate knowledge of the exact facts of the situation. I only have what the news reported.
My understanding of what happened was that Ms. Sotelo, a county GOP vice chairwoman, challenged the registrations of more than 1,900 voters Oct. 26, 2005, attesting “under penalty of perjury” that all were registered at non-residential addresses. The suspicion was that this was done in retaliation for what transpired during the Governor’s race between Ms. Gregoire and Mr. Rossi. Ms. Sotelo, however, later withdrew more than 170 challenges, admitting they were mistakes. The Democratic Party, particularly King County Executive Ron Sims, urged Norm to investigate Ms. Sotelo for “perjury” regarding those 170 challenges.
The crime most appropriate for this factual scenario is Perjury in the Second Degree, which states that:
“A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if… with INTENT TO MISLEAD a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.” RCW 9A.72.030.
As such, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statement was made with the specific intent to mislead… as opposed to it simply being a mistake.
Nevertheless, Norm could have also considered the crime of False Swearing, which states that:
“A person is guilty of false swearing if he makes a false statement, which he knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.” RCW 9A.72.040.
This crime does NOT require that the prosecution prove a specific intent to mislead. The PROBLEM, however, is that the law also states:
“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.” RCW 9A.72.060.
Consequently, she had a defense under the law when she withdrew the challenges she claimed were “mistakes”.
Now… I’m not going to sit here and say that Norm or Mr. Satterberg definitely made the correct call on this one, because I don’t know all the facts.
I do, however, believe that Mr. Sims was intimately aware of all the facts given that it was his election that was being messed with. The fact that Mr. Sims, a Democrat, has NOT come out and endorsed Mr. Sherman should speak volumes for whether or not Mr. Sims ultimately felt that Norm and Mr. Satterberg made the correct decision… or at least a decision that was not influenced by the GOP.
One more thing…
Even under the crime of False Swearing, the prosecution would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Ms. Sotelo had “knowledge” that she was making a false statement.
While we can sit here and speculate as to what she knew or did not know, the bottom line is that she admitted that she made a MISTAKE and retracted those she learned to be incorrect challenges.
I guarantee that any loser straight out of law school could defend that case to a jury. His or her opening statement would go a little like this…
“Ladies and gentlemen, we are all human beings and we all make MISTAKES. Ms. Sotelo made a mistake and admitted that she made a mistake, yet she sits here charged as a criminal by a prosecution out to make her a political scapegoat.”
How quickly can you say, “Not Guilty”?
TDOG,
If you think I’m being a bit melodramatic, you might want to read John Dean’s series of books. And, no, Dean isn’t my sole source. I’ve been watching the court ever since I studied Con Law in college. Dean just happens to do a pretty good job of analysis, and no one can reasonably question his bias.
For this election, it’s not just a case of electing a D or an R. The particular R in this case was a tad too close to the voter suppression case for my level of comfort.
As for this upcoming election, the fact that no one was prosecuted as a result of the Republican voter registration challenge–a challenge that was filed on October 26–leaves open the door for the same kind of thing to happen again. And, should the unthinkable happen, I don’t want someone like Darcy Burner to lose a close race because the Republicans in King County pulled another stunt like they did back in 2005.
So, you tell me, are we looking at a judgement call that’s could reasonably go one way or another? Are my concerns any more or less reasonable than the ones that you’ve raised?
Don Joe-
read blueorred’s post about Lori. His analysis references those pesky constitutional “presumption of innocence” and “burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt” ideas that I mentioned above. These are concepts that non-lawyers may give great lip service to and pretend to understand- but then completely ignore when they result in decisions that to conflict with what their viscera (or, in this case, political agenda) tells them should have happened. We may all despise a decision made by a prosecutor because for one reason or another it just doesn’t seem right. But when that decision is made because the available EVIDENCE is insufficient to overcome that Presumption beyond a resaonable doubt- then the decision is the right one regardless of who likes it or not.
It is presumptuous of you to assume Norm and Dan made that decision because of their party affiliation, rather than because the available evidence prevented the case from meeting our filing standards.
whocares…
Lori Sotelo signed a form, actually 1944 forms, that affirmed she had “personal knowledge and belief that this person is not qualified to vote, or does not reside at the address given”. The actual work of checking address, however, was carried out by Republican party workers, so Lori Sotelo had no “personal knowledge and belief.” I’m not sure how that can be characterised as a mistake. She signed 1944 of them, and she failed to read a single form?
TDOG,
I’m well aware of both the concepts of presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I’m also aware of the meaning of such phrases as “reasonable doubt,” “clear and convincing evidence,” and a “preponderance of the evidence”. Indeed, I can even expound upon the types of cases where those particular standards apply regarding the burden of proof.
Moreover, we’re not talking about a case of trying to proove that the KC GOP attempted to use fraud to impede legitimate voters from exercising their right to vote, though, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that’s what they were out to accomplish. Both the timing of the challenge and the areas where voters were challenged (low-income, largely Democratic precincts) might even rise to the level of “clear and convincing” evidence. Not enough to pursue criminal charges, but strong evidence nonetheless.
We are, admittedly, talking about something that could be regarded as a technicality (see my previous post), but given the preponderance of the evidence as to the intent of the KC GOP, there are times when prosecuting someone on what seems like a technicality is very much the right thing to do.
Lastly, I’m not suggesting that either Norm or Dan refused to prosecute a legitimate case for partisan political reasons. I am, however, suggesting that their decisions not to prosecute were influenced by their political philosophies, particularly with respect to the sanctity of the right to vote and what one ought to do when there is a preponderance of the evidence that one political party is attempting to impede individuals from exercising the right to vote in precincts largely dominated by the opposing political party.
Seems to me that this is something that’s done in prosecutor’s offices quite often. You cannot get a conviction on an eggregious charge, but you can geta conviction on a lesser charge and that’s the charge you pursue. Is that not correct?
Don Joe,
In this case, there were no “lesser” charges to pursue. If you could find me another charge that could have been pursued, I would be happy to take a look at it.
Don, you sound to me like you have some sort of legal background. As such, I’m sure you can appreciate that there is a vast difference betweeh “personal knowledge” and “personal belief”. You have pointed out another problem in this case that I was not aware of. If the standard is merely having a “personal belief” of something, I don’t see how in God’s green earth a charge of perjury or false swearing could EVER be pursued in this context. This is a statutory/legislative problem that should be fixed. If false accusations of voter fraud is such an important issue to you, you need to get your lawmakers to change this.
The problem is that “personal belief” is such a mushy term that anyone could defend this. For example… “I have a personal belief that X voter does not live at this address because Y Republican Party Worker told me so.”
The fact that Y Republican Party Worker was WRONG (or even lied to Ms. Sotelo) does not in turn make Ms. Sotelo a liar in this situation. It does make her at the very least careless and stupid. Now, it is true that she could be a liar and a cheat, but it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in this situation (in my opinion).
Even if we did not have this problem of proving that she falsely stated her personal belief, you do not address how the prosecution would overcome the statutory defense available to her when she retracted the challenges in question?
whocares…
I do appreciate the substantial difference between the two, but the form uses the conjunctive “and,” not the conjunctive “or”, which would mean that she needs to have both.
And, as I recall, not all of the challenges were retracted.
Let me reiterate, that a “no harm no foul” approach is entirely reasonable in this case, and I am not alleging that the refusal to prosecute was politically motivated. The point is philosophical.
As for the “lesser charge” point, I wasn’t so much trying to say that it applies in this case as I was trying to draw an analogy to illustrate the philophical point of view. My apologies of the analogy doesn’t work all that well.
Oh, and just to make it clear, the actual voter suppression charge is, I believe, a Federal issue, not a state issue (well, at least so long as the selective incorporation of the BIll of Rights into the XIVth Amendment doesn’t get torn to pieces by a cabal of fundamentalist justices :-)).
1) For the strangest thing you’ve seen in a while take 20-seconds and look at the link of Venus Valeszuez in the HateFree Zone telling immigrants to vote along racial lines:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzEGpzGMgss
2) Tell everyone you know not to vote for this racist idiot who calls herself a public relations consultant and should know better. I’m soooo glad she got caught! Yeah Youtube!