At the risk of Postman calling me a meanie, I just want to point out that if Dan Satterberg plans to run on his experience as Norm Maleng’s longtime chief of staff, it is only fair that he take credit for some of the not-so-good things that transpired in the Prosecutor’s Office under his administration.
A former King County Prosecutor’s Office employee who is already serving two years in prison for trying to lure teenage girls on the Internet must now serve three more months for embezzling money from his boss’ re-election campaign.
Larry Corrigan was charged with first-degree theft last week. He quickly pleaded guilty and was given the low end of the standard three- to nine-month sentence, his attorney, John Wolfe, said Wednesday.
Soon after he was arrested in an unrelated Internet sex sting in December, Corrigan, 54, admitted to stealing more than $72,000 from the campaign of Prosecutor Norm Maleng.
I fully expect that if I’m ever caught embezzling money from the King County Prosecutor, I’ll get the low end of the standard sentence too.
Corrigan was Maleng’s budget officer, working in his office from 1979 until 2005.
Hmm. A convicted embezzler/sex offender was also Maleng’s budget officer, huh? I wonder if any of those “professional” journalists have bothered to examine the Prosecutor’s Office’s books from those many years during which Corrigan worked under Satterberg?
I’m just sayin’…
Goldy,
The guy stole from Maleng, not for Maleng.
He worked for Maleng long before Satterberg came around. The guy was in charge of Maleng’s books and stole from him. Guess what, there are freaking thieves in the world. I guarantee you that someone you consider a friend or a good acquaintance is either a thief or worse, you just don’t know it. So I guess if that turns out to be the case that makes you corrupt by association.
Maleng trusted a guy who turned out to be a criminal. I guess that makes him human, unlike you who apparently is above reproach. Once again Goldy, unable to respond to the thoughtful intelligent analysis of Postman, you attempt to tarnish Satterberg by making unsubstantiated claims that somehow he is responsible for a guy that turned out to have committed the ultimate betrayal against the man he worked for, Maleng. In the end all you really do is end up kicking dirt at a man who can’t defend himself because he has passed away. Keep trying though, when of all people Neil Modie and David Postman run stories on how you, Pelz and/or the Stranger get it wrong, it only helps.
How about Norm Maleng’s campaign finance reporting violations? Mike McKay was Maleng’s campaign treasurer (and is serving in the same capacity for Dan Satterberg) and Larry Corrigan was his deputy campaign treasurer:
1. Norm Maleng’s campaign fund made an illegal donation of $1,000.00 to the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign on August 18, 2003. This was not Maleng’s personal money (which would have been perfectly okay), but his campaign money. RCW 42.17.095(8) specifically prohibits a candidate from giving campaign funds to another candidate. This may also be against federal law, since Maleng’s campaign fund included corporate contributions, and corporate funds cannot be given, directly or indirectly, to federal candidates. By the way, Norm Maleng was the only candidate of either party in the entire state to have unlawfully given his campaign funds to either George Bush or John Kerry during the 2003 & 2004 time frame.
2. During April 2006, Maleng’s campaign raised $81,015.31 and spent $42,280.26. Maleng and McKay should have filed their monthly PDC report by May 10, 2006. They didn’t file this report until June 13, 2006, or 34 days late.
3. Maleng and McKay filed several other periodic campaign finance reports for the 2006 campaign late with the PDC, with one report being 90 days late — the activity for December 2006, due on January 10, 2007, was not reported until April 10, 2007.
4. Every single pre-election report in 2002 (21 day and 7 day pre-primary, and 21 day and 7 day pre-general) was filed late by Maleng and McKay. The information required to be reported 21 days and 7 days prior to the November 5, 2002 general election was not reported until November 12, 2002, or 7 days after the general election.
5. Let’s don’t forget that Corrigan apparently stole over $70,000 from Maleng’s campaign sometime during 2005 or 2006 (or whenever). $10,000 was supposedly returned in early 2006, and the remainder in late November or early December 2006. None of Maleng’s campaign finance reports reflect either the theft of this money, or the return of this money. It is not clear how long Maleng and McKay knew about this theft before publicly reporting it. Had they known about it in early 2006 (when the first $10,000 of stolen funds were returned) and reported it timely to the PDC, this could have inspired competition against Maleng in the 2006 election.
Don’t @1,
I’ve never criticized Satterberg. Not once. Likewise, I never implied that Corrigan stole for Maleng. Never. Only an idiot could read that from this post.
All I’m suggesting is that the conduct and competency of employees reflects on the judgment of those who managed them. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t lay Corrigan at Maleng’s feet, and then claim Satterberg deserves credit for running the office. He either ran it or he didn’t.
If in fact one goes back and audits the books and finds them in tip-top shape, then Satterberg deserves some of the credit. If one finds the books in disarray, then he deserves some of the blame.
If you want to know what kind of prosecutor Satterberg would be, just look at his voting record on the King County canvassing board during the ’04 recounts. Most of those votes were 2-1. Satterberg was the -1. In other words, he’s partisan, not principled.
King County needs a Democratic prosecutor so we can enforce our election laws. I’m disgusted by the antics of Republican Party officials who try to keep eligible American voters from voting in their own country.
Lori Sotello should have done 5 to 10. Five to ten minutes in a locked room with the 138 angry voters she tried to challenge, that is.*
* Just kidding! I’m merely mocking Ann Coulter’s humor.
First off Postman is a piece of shit and a punk. In his piece he shows his own opinion. You can’t call what he’s doing reporting. He’s spewing his opinion.
The Publicans would have done worse if the tables were turned. They’d have run off to the east side of the state looking for a sympathetic judge or prosecutor and made a court appearance alleging SOMETHING or ANYTHING that might get them press.
Postman is a hypocrite. He’s also jealous of Goldy and in fact like most old – line, mainstream press, very worried about his job. This hack is worried about putting food on his table. He doesn’t give a good golly fuck about reporting or ethics or Norm or any of the parties mentioned in his pathetic blog. He’s trying to protect his turff.
Postwoman you are as transparent as you are weak.
All I’m suggesting is that the conduct and competency of employees reflects on the judgment of those who managed them. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t lay Logan at Sims’s feet, and then claim Huff deserves credit for running the office.
RR@4 I am both principled and partisan. However, given the enormously long list of partisan offenses, ethical and legal, by Republicans, I have no choice but to vote for Democrats.Obviously close calls ALL go to Democrats to help redress the multitudinous infractions already commited by the CONVICTICON RIGHT.
Goldy:
is it fair to imply there is wrongdoing in the prosecutor’s office without any evidence & all you’ve got is a mere possibility?
you say “it is only fair that he [Satterburg] take credit for some of the not-so-good things that transpired in the Prosecutor’s Office under his administration” but none of the wrongdoing was _in_ the Prosecutor’s office.
true, that office better go check out everything the embezzler dude did in that office — and if they didn’t the leaders of that office are negligent (whether the embezzler dude stole any public funds or not). Journalists should ask what those leaders have done.
But to say Satterburg must take heat for “not-so-ggod things that transpired in the Prosecutor’s Office” WHEN SO FAR THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH THINGS TRANSPIRING IN THAT OFFICE is to presume guilt.
It’s dirty pool. Like Joe McCarthy.
Kind of like Bush saying Hussein had WMD.
When they do it, we and you say it is a lie.
Presumption of guilt: right or wrong?
Jame @8,
That’s bullshit. I wrote what I wrote, and that speaks for itself in context.
How can you argue with that statement?
Satterberg’s supporters can’t run him as the continuation of Norm Maleng, and then argue that it is unfair or in poor taste to examine the administration of Maleng’s office so soon after his death. As much as I admired Maleng, his administration wasn’t perfect, and it is absolutely fair and appropriate to examine it in the context of this race, as a reflection on Satterberg’s performance as chief of staff.
A sex offender and embezzler served for years as their budget officer. That is a “not-so-good thing” that is fair to discuss.
Goldy, How does it feel to be used and part of the Democrat smear machine? Congratulations on that. I’m sure the KIRO folks will appreciate your fine work.
Rodent “Most of those votes were 2-1. Satterberg was the -1. In other words, he’s partisan, not principled.”
Or the other side of that statement is that the two D’s were voting pure partisan line and Satterbuerg voted the truth….My statement is every bit as valid as yours, becuase we don’t know.
Goldy the useful smear agent – “Satterberg’s supporters can’t run him as the continuation of Norm Maleng, and then argue that it is unfair or in poor taste to examine the administration of Maleng’s office so soon after his death.”
I haven’t seen any official campaign material, ads or websites that prompt Satterberg as any “continuation” of Norm Malengs tenure. And yes, it is in poor taste to go after Norm Maleng with your sleazy political agenda. You got called out, rightly so. Examining Satterbergs work yes, trying to smear him like you have? Bad.
Bottom line is that the Libs are putting the cart way before the horse here. I don’t think he even has an official campaign started other than filing for office.
Wrong Stuff @11,
You can call it a smear all you want. That doesn’t make it so. All I’m doing is reporting facts. That said, you’re welcome to complain to KIRO about my unabashed partisanship — I’m sure they’ll be surprised considering I announce it at the top of every hour.
As for the 2004 canvassing board, I’m not sure Roger has the facts right on that one. They were mostly unanimous. Satterberg himself told me via email:
Goldy:
here’s an answer to your question:
what’s wrong with your original statement is you refer to the not so good stuff that transpired in the prosecutor’s office –IMPLYING THERE WAS SOME SUCH STUFF –when we don’t know of anything and the link you cited doesn’t mention anything in that office and you apparently don’t have any evidence that there was any such stuff in that office.
You are presuming guilt. Like McCarthy. It’s wrong.
If what you are saying is your “if” at the beginning of the sentence permeates each subordinate clause, your grammer is wrong. if you had said “if he runs on Maleng’s record, and IF that includes some not so good stuff…” then you would be okay.
Goldy: when you referred to the not so good stuff going on in the prosecutor’s office — without any evidence, any specification, no evidence in the link you cited, and still no evidence in your repsonses — you stated or implied that there was some not so good stuff that Satterburg would have to take the blame for.
That’s presuming guilt. Like McCarthy.
Like the right wingers.
That’s what’s wrong with your original post. (If you had said “if Satterburg want to take credit then IF there is any bad stuff he must take the blame” that would have been different. But you dind’t include that second “IF”.
Or if you had said “knowing there was one bad apple in the budget office, it was negligent for the prosecutor’s office to never take a look and double check his work at that office” or something like that, that would be okay and informative. But you didn’t say that and in fact we don’t know whether or not in fact they did double check his work and records and it would be unfair to imply they haven’t, without checking.
Partisan? Goldy? Who would have thought it?
It is getting more than a bit absurd, with folks practically nominating Mr. Maleng for sainthood, and claiming that somehow anyone criticizing Mr. Satterberg is somehow maligning Mr. Maleng.
Mr. Maleng was respected by all sides for his apparent effort to keep political considerations out of prosecutorial decisions. While there is some question as to whether he was always completely successful, he is to be admired for that effort.
Criticizing the way his office was run is an entirely different matter.
Mr. Satterberg may run on his own accomplishments, and be held accountable for his failings by the voters. Criticizing the way the Prosecutor’s office was run does not demean Mr. Maleng’s memory, and is even more pertinent to the discussion, since Mr. Satterberg is running a campaign based on his experience as Mr. Maleng’s Chief of Staff.
Running on that experience, while claiming that everything connected with Mr. Maleng is somehow sacrosanct is in itself demeaning to the memory and accomplishments of Mr. Maleng.
Goldy @ 12
Didn’t Dan Satterberg vote against counting the 600 or so so-called “Larry Phillips” absentee ballots — the ones where there were supposedly no signatures on file for the voters, and therefore they weren’t counted (and King County Elections apparently didn’t follow their normal procedure of sending a letter for an updated signature)? There were a little over 700 ballots that were bypassed for this reason, and then this error was discovered during the manual recount. This matter went up to the Washington Supreme Court, which ruled that the ballots COULD be counted — the issue being whether it was too late to count them during a recount process. The determination was left up to the King County Canvassing Board. I recall that Satterberg voted at least once, if not twice, not to count these ballots. As it was, matching signatures were found for nearly 600 of these ballots, and they were counted. These ballots could have made the difference in the Governor’s race, although Christine Gregoire received something like 10 more votes than Dino Rossi in the final count, before these ballots were included in the count.
Roger @ 4
You hit the nail on the head. While on the canvasing board in 04, Satterberg cast the lone vote over and over to disqualify ballots where the voter checked Gregoire and placed no more than a dod at Rossi while at the same time voting for the vote to count when the marks were the other way around. And he did so with a bitter tone. Unlike Norm, this guy is happy to play the party hack.
A fact for those who did not live in King County or more to the point in the 8th CD at that time, is that Dave Ross was a candidate one race up on the ballot from Dino Rossi and thus, in the 8th, the dot’s resulted from the similarity in their names.
@8 “It’s dirty pool.”
So what? Why should Republicans have a monopoly on dirty pool? Why can’t Dems play dirty pool too? I say, if you’re gonna play pool, get naked and dirty!!! Republicans want a monopoly on every fucking thing.
@10 “Democrat smear machine”
So what? Why should only Republicons have a smear machine? Why can’t we have a smear machine too? Republicons want a monopoly on every fucking thing!
@11 So we’re not supposed to criticize Republicon pols after they’re dead? Tell you what, I’ll make you a deal … if all Republicans drop dead, I’ll stop criticizing them.
@12 To clarify, during the manual recount the political parties designated people to be hired as ballot counters, and counters could pull any ballot they wanted to — no reason required, no questions asked — for convassing board review. As a result, a large number of ballots went to the canvassing board that weren’t questionable and were no-brainers for the board. These should be disregarded when considering how board members voted. And if you disregard them, and focus on the contested ballots, few if any of the board votes were “unanimous.” It was in these votes — the only votes that mattered — that Satterberg displayed his partisan stripes.
@12 (continued) But if there were only 20 contested ballots before the King County canvassing board, then the KCCB couldn’t have thrown the election to Gregoire, could it? Her margin was 133. Take away those 20 ballots (I don’t know how many of them were Gregoire votes, but probably not all of them) and Gregoire still wins by at least 113. So, GOP claims that King County Democrats “stole” the election for Gregoire are BULLSHIT. But then, we (and they) have known that all along.
@15 “It is getting more than a bit absurd, with folks practically nominating Mr. Maleng for sainthood, and claiming that somehow anyone criticizing Mr. Satterberg is somehow maligning Mr. Maleng.”
What do you expect from the folks who nominated Reagan for sainthood?
@16 “Christine Gregoire received something like 10 more votes than Dino Rossi in the final count, before these ballots were included in the count.”
You’re close, Richard. It was 8.
@16 Let’s also clarify that voters with missing or non-matching signatures were faultless. In all of those cases, county election workers checked ballot signatures against copies instead of original voter registration cards on file, as they were supposed to do. Why should legitimate voters have their votes thrown out because of the county’s screw-up?
Roger Rabbit @ 24 & 25
Another major problem was that King County Elections wasn’t notifying provisional voters with signature matching problems that their ballots were being rejected, or allowing public inspection of the list of rejected provisional ballots.
Don’t blame this on Dean Logan. He was operating based on the legal advice received from Norm Maleng’s office. The Washington State Democrats sued Logan’s office over this, and won. Maleng’s office defended their flawed legal advice to Logan’s office, representing Logan’s office in court. Logan certainly wasn’t opposed to following the law, but he thought he was doing things rights before the court said otherwise, based on Maleng’s improper legal advice.
So there were probably a lot of net votes for Gregoire that came out of these provisional ballots when signature matching was corrected. Keep in mind that there was only about three or four days from the time of the court order until certification to contact these votes and get their corrected signatures. And that King County Elections had not previously contacted them either, believing (based on Maleng’s erroneous legal advice) that they only had to contact absentee voters with signature problems, and not provisional voters.
So, what I gather from all this, is that today’s Republicans think Sen. Joseph McCarthy was unfair and pre judged people with less than amp;e evidence.
I agree.
Also, I think that Roger Rabbit is Goldy, Richard Pope, and Ann Coulter.
Sorry! Just that old Joseph McCarthy Humor. It just keeps “a pokin’ at ya, pokin’ at ya.”
Republican values:
http://www.salon.com/news/feat...../cia_sere/
How the world sees Republican values:
http://www.truthdig.com/avboot.....ranian_tv/
Goldy! Why are you slandering Maleng’s widow? Why do you hate America? Why won’t you support the repeal of the “death tax?”
@27 “Roger Rabbit is Goldy, Richard Pope, and Ann Coulter.”
I’m omnipotent, omnipresent, and immortal; but not THAT omnipotent, omnipresent, or immortal.
#27 is, of course, satire … or, more precisely, mocking (of Xmasvapor’s Dingbat! theory that I’m Goldy, to be exact).
@30 It’s about time we had a Democrat pretending to be a Republican on this blog! Until now, it’s been one-sided the other way around.
The 2004 governor’s election really wasn’t all that close. There were thousands of questionable votes for Rossi in Snohomish County, where touch screen voting machine malfunctions were reported in 2/3rds of the county’s precincts and dozens of voters complained of the machines switching their Gregoire votes to Rossi. People who did post-election analyses of the Snohomish County vote found large statistical anomalies between poll votes and absentee votes, too. In general, Rossi got an unexplainable higher percentage at the polls than he did from absentee votes in the same precincts.
Most likely, what really happened in ’04 is the Republicans rigged the governor’s election here in Washington just as they rigged the national election in Florida and Ohio, but they either miscalculated how many votes they had to steal for Rossi or their plans went awry somehow. In any case, they went into Election Night feeling certain they had stolen it for Rossi, and were surprised as hell when it didn’t work out that way. At the national level, they underestimated how many votes they had to “create” for Bush in key states and nearly lost that one, too.
So, Republican insiders, certain that Rossi had “won” and dumbfounded when their election-stealing efforts fell short, were outraged because they figured the only way Gregoire could have pulled a chestnut out of the fire was if the Democrats had an election-stealing operation of their own in place. They didn’t. What happened is the GOP underestimated the anti-GOP turnout and miscalculated the number of votes they had to steal for Rossi.
It should also be pointed out that the only other county that used touch-screen machines in ’04, Yakima County, has never gotten any close scrutiny. However, Yakima County would have limited potential for vote-stealing because so many voters there would vote Republican anyway. Snohomish County, by contrast, is a swing county that marginally trends Democratic, so there are far more Democratic votes there to “switch” to the Republican candidate, and that’s the logical place for a GOP voting machine hacker to go, if he needs 5,000 to 10,000 phantom votes to put his candidate over the top.
I’ve never yet met a touch screen voting machine that didn’t love Republicans.
It needs to be emphasized that election thieves don’t want to get caught and try to cover their tracks, so they steal no more votes than necessary to change the result in favor of their candidate — and if they miscalculate how many votes they have to switch or create, their candidate loses. As Brad Blog has pointed out, these folks operate on thin margins … if a candidate got 95% of the vote, it would be pretty fucking obvious what was going on, wouldn’t it? What they aim for is their candidate “winning” with 51% or 52% of the vote. So, if the election thieves are off a little bit, they may wind up with less than 50%. So is it possible to “lose” an election targeted for theft? Sure. The best laid plans of mice and men … shit happens … etc.
Bush’s latest Newsweek poll numbers almost make me feel sorry for him (okay, not really):
“The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.”
“Bush’s latest Newsweek poll numbers almost make me feel sorry for him”
This is a sign of weakness. Report to liberal boot camp immediately. One of our trained drill instructors will adjust your attitude.
“Hi, I’m Roger Rabbit, and I’ll be your drill instructor …”
” … the first thing you do is, grab a Republican by the nose and kick him in the nuts …”
Goldy:
The premise behind your post is a pile of shiiiiiit camoflouged by letters. Corrigan stole from Maleng’s campaign. Satterberg worked for the prosecutor’s office. World of difference dude, and you know it. Smear, smear, smear. This is a dishonest, LAZY, post that you wrote and now defend.
On a more general note: Satterberg is a professional. He has no higher political aspirations. The main opponent is a politician. Clear as day. You fools don’t realize how dangerous it is to have a politician in the prosecutor’s job. (hello — can you say Nifong? One more time: Ni-FONG)
How long do you think Scullly or the other guy willl be content to stay put? And how does that itch for higher office affect decisions they will make, say, with respect to the death penalty? But if he’s got a “D” next to his name, its good enough for you, Goldy, and the rest of the wads who cannot think without their partisan-colored glasses and their tin foil hats.
There are moments (many) when I hate the unthinking, hypocritical, self-important, homogenous political culture that dominates King County — and has its flames fanned by vapid blogs (and bloggers) such as those that lie here. Don’t think I’ll be back.
One more thing, before I head for the hills: you said “I fully expect that if I’m ever caught embezzling money from the King County Prosecutor, I’ll get the low end of the standard sentence too.”
Yet another smear. As you know, but omit from your post, the King County Prosecutor’s office did not handle this case. Snohomish County did. To properly avoid any conflict…and lazy, bullshit, insuations like this.
Roger @ 38
You are correct. I momentarily lost my head. Having empathy for Bush is like having empathy for an ax murderer. It is unforgivable and I will do appropriate penance.
re 33: Dennis Miller’s made a lifestyle of it.
I’ll bet he’s sorry he jumped on that bandwagon.
re 42: We’re really gettin’ the hang of it, huh?
re41: That was not really a brilliant poitical move on Nifong’s part: Coming down on the side of a black hooooer over a gaggle of rich, white “La Crosse” players.
(“Hey, pass the Sun Chips, Brad!”
“Not a chance, Brae! Not ’til we get to the picnic!”)
Nifong, like most Democrats, is politically retarded. Also, obviously, the La Crosse players were totally innocent.
The Bushistas feel that honest elections are just “politically motivated” and they are working their tails off to make sure it never again happens in America.
Conservatives never see the flaws and inconsistencies in ther ideology because they have brains like a card catalogue. They can only deal with one card at a time, then they put that one away and drag out another.
Thick as a brick!
RightEqualsStupid says: First off Postman is a piece of shit and a punk.
– Wow such judgmentalism from a member of the Progressive NEW Democrat Party!
Seems you know them all don’t you Stupidman?
@41 “You fools don’t realize how dangerous it is to have a politician in the prosecutor’s job. (hello — can you say Nifong? One more time: Ni-FONG)”
Bad example. Nifong was a career prosecutor who spent 30 years with that office and rose through the ranks from unpaid volunteer attorney to appointed (and then elected) prosecutor. His work must have been satisfactory because he was repeatedly promoted and eventually was the chief criminal deputy in that office. Not sure what happened but something snapped. In any case, Nifong was NOT a politician; he only became one to keep his job. Maybe that’s where everything broke down: He couldn’t handle the transition from staff attorney to elected official.
We are not fools, and we understand perfectly well how dangerous it is to have party hacks in U.S. attorney jobs.
That’s why Gonzo should be impeached if he refuses to resign.
@46 Nifong is not really a Democrat. He has no Democratic Party credentials. He called himself a “Democrat” because to stay employed he had to run for election in a county that votes 90% Democratic. So he would hardly call himself a “Republican,” would he? The truth is, Nifong was apolitical and merely adopted the “D” as a ballot label. The local Democratic party disavowed him, and ran a primary opponent against him. The local Democrats refused to have anything to do with him. Nifong is a “Democrat” in the same sense that Fred Phelps is a “Democrat”: calling yourself a “Democrat” doesn’t make you a Democrat.
@43 OK, you’re off the hook this time, but don’t do it again.
RR @ 49:
Maybe you are smart enough to understand the dangers of an ambitious, partisan elected prosecutor. Unfortunately, you do not comprise the majority of the voting public. It is a scary and sad fact that a lot of otherwise smart people will vote for Sherman, who is clearly an aspiring politician, just because he sounds like a good guy and just because he’s a Dem. However, the same aspirations that led him to run for an office for which he is unqualified, in the face of a complete lack of support of those who would work under him, will undoubtedly lead to problematic partisan decision making.
King County doesn’t need a “front-line” prosecutor running the show. King County certainly doesn’t need a prosecutor who has been on those front lines for a ridiculously short period of time. The county needs someone who possesses the requisite experience to understand the extreme power of the position, and who can command the respect of those who work under him.