[NWPT48]It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Well… actually, it was pretty boring most of the time… but then that’s what one should expect from a typical trial of the non-TV variety.
But I do have one major observation from today’s proceedings, and that is that there are actually two different trials going on in Wenatchee: one is in a court of law, and the other is in the court of public opinion. And while the Republicans may have scored some points in the latter with their dramatic accusations of “sinister”, “fraudulent” efforts by Democratic officials to “steal the election”, I don’t think these charges will carry much weight in the former.
As Judge Bridges stated, fraud has never been a “causation element” in this case; the Republicans may be permitted to present evidence, and call it “fraud” if they want, but they will not likely be allowed to argue fraud as a basis for setting aside this election. I’m pretty sure the Republican attorneys understood this when they wrote their opening statement and proposed this dramatic new theory. But they pursued this strategy anyway, because, well… it plays well in the media, and quite frankly, what other choice did they have?
Unable to win their case on the strength of illegal felon votes, the Republicans chose to open the trial with spectacle, flinging unfounded allegations of fraud and corruption, in the hopes of grabbing the day’s headlines. This may have worked with the media, but it won’t get them very far with the Judge.
Republicans can use all the dramatic adjectives they want to describe the absentee ballot report, but it simply is not evidence of stuffed ballots on its own. What Rossi lacks is direct evidence of actual illegal ballots, and a plausible theory for how they might have been stuffed. These reconciliation discrepancies occurred across hundreds of different precincts, mostly one or two at a time, and each of these precincts had its own distinct ballot. To stuff ballots in this fashion would have required one or more individuals to covertly acquire hundreds of ballots, from hundreds of different precincts, hand mark them, and then deposit them back in their appropriate batches. The physical nature of this chore is enormous, and for this to occur undetected amidst the unprecedented scrutiny of this election, would have required a conspiracy at the highest level of King County Elections.
To accuse KC of stuffing ballots under these circumstances is akin to accusing somebody of murder, based on possible motive and lack of alibi… when there is no body, no murder weapon, and no evidence connecting the person to a crime. Given the very real problems KC had in reconciling their absentee ballots, could ballots have been stuffed? Absolutely. But “could’ve” is not going to win this lawsuit. To prevail in court, a petitioner can’t merely raise questions… they have to answer them.
The Democrats, for their part, had no such dramatic “revelations” to make… but then legally, they didn’t need them. The burden of proof rests firmly on the Republicans, and it’s proving to be a very heavy burden indeed. Thus both sides are playing to their strengths; while the Republicans pursue the easy PR victories, the Democrats continue to tediously and methodically deconstruct the Republicans’ case in court. It might not make for scintillating courtroom drama, but it does make for a winning case… at least, in a court of law.
And so I expect that as this trial unfolds — and Rossi’s case unravels — the Republicans will increasingly play to the cameras, while the Democrats ploddingly play to Court. In this fashion, both sides might eventually come out winners. And losers.
But I do have one major observation from today’s proceedings, and that is that there are actually two different trials going on in Wenatchee: one is in a court of law, and the other is in the court of public opinion.
With the accusations of fraud existing only in the blog world and Rossi’s case on the brink of going out in a wimper, anticipate the next Rossi/SP/Carlson spin:
1) “There was all kinds of evidence of fraud but the earring wearing judge wouldn’t hear it. Rossi would have won if he would have been able to present all of the fraudulent actions of KC.”
2) “The democrats got out on a technicality with their tricky lawyers. Rossi lost because he didn’t lie at trial.”
3) “Reed sold out and made us lose.”
4) “The trial doesn’t matter. The polls say that most people want a re-vote.”
5) “Everyone deep down knows Rossi won.”
6) “This just shows how out of control the judiciary is.”
Erik–
1) WRONG
2) WRONG
3) WRONG
4) WRONG
5) ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
6) WRONG
Most American do not want a revote according to the media reporting yesterday in Wenatchee. But who knows when it comes to polls, they skim the surface and are unreliable at best.
Most normal people just get on with their lives, even if they supported Rossi. They might not feel the election results were fair, but they realize that is because the election was absurdly close — not because of foolish conspiracy theories. It is really not the end of the world if your candidate didn’t prevail. Take a deep breath. Think about what really matters in your life and just chill out. And if you really can’t do that, maybe you whould move out of the state to some place more Republican.
Mr. Cynical is full of b.s., as usual. Wait and see, after Rossi is blown out of court, the wingnut wackos will blame the judge and even their own lawyers. These people are incapable of admitting they’re wrong or taking responsibility for their stupid mistakes.
Goldy,
However you slice it and dice it, King County still has 216 more poll ballots than poll voters, and 875 more absentee ballots than absentee voters.
This 216 surplus for poll ballots is AFTER taking into account all of the people who were issued provisional ballots and deposited them directly into the Accuvote (nearly 800 people) and accounting for every single signature anywhere in the poll books (whether in the listing of voters or in the provisional section).
This happens to be 1,091 more ballots than voters — more than eight times the winning margin of the election. Since it is not possible to determine who these extra ballots were cast for, and nothing could have been done by Rossi to prevent these extra ballots from being added in, shouldn’t the election simply be nullified?
Or does is Rossi precluded from challenging the stuffing of 1,091 ballots because the judge ends up accepting the Dems ridiculous arguments that the GOP failed to produce a list of exactly which “illegal voters” stuffed these 1,091 extra ballots and provide this list to the court and the Dems at least three days before trial?
If the election isn’t simply nullified because of more than 129 stuffed ballots, then at least proportional analysis should be used. There is no other way to determine who these stuffed ballots were cast for. Unlike felon voters, you can’t subpoena the person who stuffed the ballot to testify, nor can you look at the demographic factors of the person stuffing the ballot.
I am sure that, if you do either a county-wide or precinct-level analysis of the 1,091 King County stuffed ballots, that you will have a net reduction in the Gregoire margin far exceeding the 129 vote apparent margin of victory.
All of this is before considering the IDENTIFIED illegal voters from King County. It seems like there are around 800 illegal felons, 200 or so provisional voters who weren’t registered or had already voted, plus a few more deceased or double voters.
The GOP will win the battle in the court of public opinion mainly due to the 1,091 surplus of ballots counted over identifiable voters. This is ballot stuffing and fraud in the eyes of most people, and any detailed analysis to the contrary simply smacks of crafty lawyer double talk.
The GOP spend $2 million to hire top-notch lawyers from Davis Wright Tremaine, one of the state’s biggest and most corporate law firms. They also fly in Mark Braden, a pricey D.C. lawyer and nationally recognized elections law expert. Then what do they do?
They have Dale Foreman, not one of their high-priced fancy-pants lawyers, deliver their opening argument. Yah, Foreman is a lawyer. So is Ann Coulter. Ted Bundy wasn’t a lawyer, but he had a couple years of law school. Any asshole can be a lawyer, and nowadays just about every asshole IS a lawyer. Even I’m a lawyer!
So what does it mean that Foreman gave their opening argument, instead of a real lawyer? I’ll tell you what it means. It means they know they’re going to lose. Foreman is the Hail Mary pass from their own end zone.
Like I said, Foreman IS a lawyer, but he’s not an experienced lawyer. Not experienced in practicing law, anyway. You see, Foreman is a professional politician. And that’s the tipoff. This wasn’t an opening argument, it was a stump speech. It wasn’t addressed to the judge, but to the GOP’s base — the core of True Believers who desperately want to believe Rossi won the election and isn’t in office because he was robbed.
Bullshit. Rossi lost. They know it. He wasn’t robbed, and they know that, too. That’s why Foreman, not Braden or one of the D-W-T lawyers, delivered the opening speech of the 2008 governor’s campaign.
Since the allegation of fraud plays so well in the media, I suggest that every time a Dem. refers to the Rep. lawsuit, they refer to it as the “fraudulent” Republican lawsuit. Since it’s not flying in court the lawsuit is, in any objective sense you look at it, entirely fraudulent. So, as long as they persist in this lawsuit, we should just as persistently call it a fraudulent lawsuit . That way the public will remember this: “Oh, yeah!.The Reps.! They’re the ones who pushed their fraudulent lawsuit.”
Do you think that’ll work or am I giving people too much credit to actully understand this issue.
Goldy,
Tell me you didn’t lift the idea for this post straight from Sound Politics yesterday at http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004475.html.
Good suggestion, Harry. You nailed it! Let’s call it “the GOP’s fraudulent lawsuit” because that’s what it is.
After the Pukes get laughed out of court, Kevin Hamilton et al. should ask Judge Bridges to impose Rule 11 sanctions on the Pukes. Make ’em pay the Dems’ legal costs as well as their own for bringing a frivolous — excuse me, a fraudulent — lawsuit.
BIAW probably could raise $4 million from L & I taxes paid for injured workers in 3-4 months, but at least it would keep Mr. Cynical busy for 3-4 months, and shut him up for a little while.
Is someone impersonating Harry Poon, or has pbj turned into a Democrat when I wasn’t looking? Welcome aboard, Harry! More converts from the Grossly Obtuse Party are flooding into our ranks every day! A mother always has room in her heart for more children, and the Democratic Party is the mother of all — you guessed it — mothers. The DP is one great big Momma!
Richard @ 6
You make some awfully broad assumptions, often along the same lines as Rossi’s team. You make the leap from unreconcilable figures to ‘ballot stuffing’ without the slightest evidence or indication that this is so. What’s FAR more likely, is accounting error. It’s completely absurd to suggest that discrepancy = fraud, because there’s nothing to substantiate the claim. You continue to use the word “stuff” without the slightest basis to do so.
The answer to your question, “Shouldn’t the election simply be nullified?” would be another question: on what legal grounds? There are none in Washington law.
I’m sorry that you consider an explicit section of the RCW regarding how illegal votes must be presented to the court, as “ridiculous.” I completely disagree with your assessment (again unfounded) that the public automatically views it as fraud. I expect the presumption is more likely incompetence and human error, neither of which are necessarily palatable–but are much different from fraud.
Liking It @ 9 – Sharks posting was hardly unique. Anyone watching the trial has had to have considered how the case in court is different that the case made in public. Shit, if you want to nit pick, I wrote a blog entry along the same lines 4 hours before Shark did.
That Prick,
Nice moniker you picked up from Mr. Cynical. Perhaps we can return the favor. I propose that chardonnay be renamed: Phat Trick.
Bridges just denied the motion to claim fraud…but is his usually opaque self in doing it.
Goldy,
I noticed that Stefan created his thread about this being two trials on 5/23 whereas you came along on 5/24 with yours.
Shouldn’t you be crediting Stefan when you plagiarize him?
Richard Pope @ 6 has drunk the kool-aid:
You don’t need “detailed analysis” to debunk this myth. The reason there are 875 more absentee ballots than the original count showed is that the original count was admittedly inaccurate—they just added up the ballots they’d accepted and the ballots they’d rejected, instead of keeping track of all ballots received. OK, sloppy. But this is what has Republicans throwing a hissy fit and crying “fraud!” over. Lame. If you argue (correctly) that the Nicole Way report wasn’t a full, accurate count of all absentee ballots, it’s nonsensical to claim simultaneously that because there were more ballots than the report showed, the difference must be the result of ballot-box stuffing.
And as for the “216 surplus of poll ballots,” that just shows that in an election where hundreds of thousands of people voted in thousands of precincts, a couple hundred (spread out randomly) managed to fail to sign their name in the poll books. Whoop-de-doo. Fraud it ain’t. Ballot stuffing it ain’t.
Reply to 13, I like it. Fits her to a T.
Well, by now it’s pretty obvious, after listening to Don and others , that anyone has the foggiest idea how this is going to turn out. I find it hard to believe, after reading the contrast between Chelan and King County results, that some equitable relief isn’t at least plausible. Bill H. doesn’t seem to know which way is up.
Consider the lack of vote and voter accountability, the absence of internal controls, the unauditable voting record, the ability to print ballots at will without detection or oversight, the 94 ballots found only a month ago, the lack of ballot security, the 10 other times ballots were miraculously found, the erroneous reports submitted as valid which directly led to certification of the election, the lack of randomness in the Gregoire gains and Rossi vote losses, and so on. To blithely assume this won’t be considered reasonable cause to overturn this election is perhaps a bit presumptuous, especially considering the testimony taken to-date.
Makes you recall Franco Harris and the “Immaculate reception”….the suddenly appearing ballots…”hey Bill, i printed some more, lets go slip them in a desk drawer so the clerks find them in the morning”