[NWPT48]The Republican’s attorney just finished his opening statement, in which he describes King County Elections as “sinister”, “fraudulent”, and “outrageous”, and of course, claim that the election was “stolen.” Knowing that they don’t have enough felon, dead and double-voters (the only classes of contested ballots that are indisputably illegal) to reverse the election under their proportional deduction methodology, the GOP strategy is clear from the start. They intend to expand the definition of illegal votes, and attempt to prove fraud, or at least gross misconduct on the part of KC officials.
The Republicans will argue that all the provisional ballots improperly scanned at the polling place should be ruled as illegal, regardless of the number of provisional voters that were later verified by their signatures in the back of the poll books. They also will argue that the 875-vote discrepancy between the number of absentee ballots counted and the number of absentee voters credited, constitutes evidence of illegal votes. Indeed much of the focus thus far has been on the absentee ballot reconciliation process, claiming that it proves that ballots were “stuffed.”
Here’s a question: if the mail ballot reconciliation process is as inaccurate as the Republican attorneys claim it to be, how can it possibly be accepted as evidence of more ballots than voters? It’s kind of a curious dilemma… on the one hand they are claiming that the system was totally incapable of accurately tracking the receipt of absentee ballots, and on the other hand they are asking the court to except the number recorded as fact.
Hmm. I’ve got a solution.
The great thing about absentee ballots is that they produce a paper trail. We still have all the ballots. And we still have all the envelopes. Why not recount them, huh? Or are Rossi’s attorney’s suggesting that we’re better off using a statistical analysis to set aside an election based on speculation about questionable circumstantial evidence?
I’ve always been bothered by the allegation of ballot stuffing, because nobody has ever proposed a mechanism by which it might have occurred. Remember, each precinct has its own distinct ballot, and these so-called “voter-less ballots” are distributed throughout the majority of the county’s 2600 precincts. How exactly does one strategically stuff a ballot here and a ballot there without being caught? This differs very much from the Foulkes case where it was clear that ballots were actually fraudulently altered.
If the GOP can convince the court to include all of the disputed provisionals and the absentee discrepancy as illegal votes, and submit those with the felon votes to a proportional analysis, then they have a chance of prevailing… but they face huge hurdles. Judge Bridges has already ruled that he would not accept voter crediting records as evidence, and it appears that applies to absentee as well as polling place ballots.
As to the issue of fraud, well, neither Sec. of State Sam Reed nor KC Prosecutor Norm Maleng (both Republicans) believe KC officials committed fraud, and so I sincerely doubt the Court will either. And despite their protestations to the contrary, proving fraud is now a huge portion of their case. The Judge has made it clear that in the absence of fraud, they most prove Rossi actually one the election, not simply that the result is in doubt.
So it boils down to this: what is an illegal vote, and what is fraud?
Hey, where’s Mr. Cynical?
I’m right here!
I didn’t realize Sam Reed was the Judge and Jury on FRAUD.
When did he formally make that determination Goldy??
NEVER!
In fact, Reed has consistently said he has NO ONVERSIGHT, ZERO, ZIP over the County Election Officials. Reed’s position has been all he did was compile exactly what the County’s reported to him and report the total.
In fact, many of the recent revelations have caused Reed to be quite focally outraged at what KingCo has done.
As for Maleng…same thing. Just like the Feds, Maleng is going to jump into the middle of this Election Contest with some FRAUD investigation. There will be time AFTER the trial.
As for opening statements by both Parties…nothing new here.
You folks are going to drive yourselves crazy reacting to the ebbs and flows. In the end, it’s the hard evidence. I have always said the R’s have a very high standard to meet. Bridges is wisely setting the bar high and allowing both sides to make their case with as little interference from him as possible. Should be some rulings to help slowly but surely narrow the issues.
As far as reacting to opening statements….a waste of time!
But what did Stefan say? Aren’t you supposed to check with Stefan and react immediately?
BTW – still waiting for the sources. data and methods for the gas tax graphic….
Mr. Cynical @ 2
“As for opening statements by both Parties…nothing new here.
You folks are going to drive yourselves crazy reacting to the ebbs and flows.”
But, Mr. C, all of us Liberals were on pins and needles waiting for THE BIG SURPRISE. Please do tell! When will we get THE BIG SURPRISE.
It sounds like the GOP’s strategy is to throw up enough bullshit to where Bridges says, “okay, something wasn’t right here” and then order a revote with the same flawed system. If that’s the case, they’re doomed. They have to (1) show specific misconduct and (2) that the outcome would have been different.
Doesn’t sound like they’ve got the goods.
Dick Hertz@6
Only a blind man couldnt see the goods that are there
“nothing new?”
The allegation of fraud is completely new, and likely non-advanceable, since no complaints of fraud are in the contest petition. That was a pretty deranged opening statement by Foreman.
It’s Hail Mary time for the Repubs, with one play left on the clock and long yardage.
Reply to 2, in order to buy your argument one must believe that Reed knows nothing about the election except the numbers in the official reports in front of him, and has taken no interest in what transpired other than the bare minimum facts necessary to carry out his statutory duties. Hogwash!
Reed appeared at the press conference calling for a revote with the other GOP luminaries, remember? You can bet your sweet bippy if there was any evidence of fraud Reed would be crowing from the rooftops. Zip. None. Nada. You’re desperate, C.
You’re right about one thing, though. It boils down to hard evidence. That’s why Rossi will lose.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 7
You’re confusing “goods” with “Chuckie’s subjective interpretation.”
Considering all of the posturing on this board over the past 5 moths, I am really surprised at how silent you all are.
Personally, I have my fingers crossed that they will kick this shrew to the curb.
Foreman added a new element of “fraud” which had not been part of their contention before. Dems and Sec of State and Klick. were surprised and pissed at that. Foreman, who I generally call Foreskin, also kept referring to the Democrats as the “Democrat Party,” the “Democrat defense,” etc. What a smarmy asshole. Hard to take him seriously when he gets his verbiage from Gingrich or Rove or whoever started that stupid and incorrect modifier.
Mr. Calico, counsel for the Klickitat Co Auditor was terrific, as was the counsel for Sec of State. Both were succinct and brief, and neither boded well for RoveVance’s argument.
Lunch is over. Back to the court house…..
dj@5–
If I told you it wouldn’t be a BIG SURPRISE would it now?
I’m half tempted to give you a hint but…….naaaaaaaah!
I’m sure you’ll keep goading me.
I look forward to your cynicism dj!
The GOP trial brief mentions Fraud (see page 28, line 3). But, Judge Bridges just said that this case is not about election fraud (as in an attempt to throw the election). The pleadings and burden of proof (clear, cogent and convincing evidence) are not sufficient for a case based on fraud.
FYI, I’ve got a recap of the morning statements here:
http://alsoalso.typepad.com/al....._one_.html
@6, if it hertz, stop before you go blind.
I love it. the R’s have the D’s scrambling. Once again you’ve been Roved. you know how to play the game but you don’t know how to react when the other side beats you at your own game.
chard, did you hit your head on something? Rossi’s just put his entire case in grave danger, introducing as his main complaint the allegation of fraud–an allegation that his lawyers will have to scramble to write up tonight, as to why it shouldn’t be summarily rejected as TOO LATE TO BRING UP. And then even if they get it admitted, Foreman essentially admitted they had little in the way of evidence, but would try to prevail on circumstantial evidence–contrary to both obvious passages of the RCW, and Bridges’ own rulings.
Some of us think it IS “sinister”. This is going to be interesting to say the least, on both sides. Only time will tell, and it’s not over until it’s over. Go Dino! Thanks.
Comment on 12, wishful thinking always looms large in the osmotic cranial process (I won’t call it “thinking”) of wingos, as demonstrated again here.
What’s “sinister” is the lies, posturing, innuendo, and grandstanding — all void of factual substance — on the R side.