Dan Satterberg was recently quoted as saying “This office should be nonpartisan,” and that he considers entering the world of partisan politics a necessary evil.
Apparently, Mr. Satterberg found it so necessary to partake of that evil that he is jointly headlining a Republican fund raising event…with Jane Hague!
Uh-huh. When “evil partisanship” calls, Satterberg steps up to the plate! He sees no problem associating his good name with Jane Hague, a candidate who is deeply flawed and neck deep in scandal.
Call me cynical, but it sure looks to me like Dan Satterberg has become a Republican fund raising asset. And he hasn’t even been elected to office yet! Democrats who are tempted to vote for Dan because “he is a nice guy, and is really kind-of, sort-of non-partisan” are simply fooling themselves—Dan is now an official tool in the Republican fund-raising arsenal.
But maybe I am misreading this whole thing. Maybe Dan is appearing at the fund raiser in a “non-partisan” role. Maybe Satterberg and Hague will actually be doing some sort of public service announcement. You know, like a Good Cop bad Drunk routine, where Jane tosses back a few, Dan tries arresting her and Jane unleashes a verbal volley. But this version of the tragedy ends differently: Jane takes full responsibility for her abuse and her drunk driving.
Or maybe Dan and Jane will make a joint announcement that, in lieu of a drawn-out investigation and prolonged prosecution, Jane has voluntarily decided to refund portions of her past King County salary—you know, from the job she obtained after lying on her resume about having a college degree. It could happen, I suppose.
Yeah…maybe Dan really is non-partisan, in which case, any day now, I expect to see him headlining a fund raiser for Venus Velazquez.
Yes, Jane has her issues. But look at her (voting) record and tell me how she represents what is wrong (on issues) with Republicans. I realize we all want Dems in office, but give me a break with the Horses Ass’s daily tirades that have nothing to do with (non-driving) performance in office. We all know what happened, or in the case of her academic record, didn’t happen. Please, please do not become a local, liberal Ann Coulter.
Republicans finally impressed upon us the importance of winning over the importance of being fair.
Losers are always begging for ‘fairness’, but you will get none until Republicans are totally routed out of this country.
Newt declared war on Democrats, but unless you guys can engineer a military coup (which I wouldn’t put past you for an instant), you are dying poitically.
Can you say ‘Whig’? I knew you could!
Zzzzz @ 1,
Yeah…we all do know about Jane Hague’s DUI arrest, her verbal abuse of the arresting officers, her faked educational credentials, her inability to legally manage campaign finances, and even her failure to license and control her dog.
But, if you actually read the post, it wasn’t really about Hague.
The post was about Dan Satterberg and how “non-partisan” he seems to be.
If it wasn’t about Jane, take her name out and tell me how it’s interesting.
Here’s a quote from an e-mail I just received. This is why America hates Republicans. Here’s spit in you eye, wingnutz:
“Make no mistake: Those who stood with the president and against our children and grandchildren took an extreme position far outside the mainstream values of both their colleagues in Congress and the American people.”
John Sweeney
President, AFL-CIO
Zzzz @ 4,
“If it wasn’t about Jane, take her name out and tell me how it’s interesting.”
Conversely, if we took Dan Satterberg out of the post, there really wouldn’t be any point in posting it, would there?
It’s about a man who says he wants to take politics out of the prosecutor’s office. But he’s lying about that.
His actions toward lawbreaking Republicans belie his words. If we took the name ‘Pussy Sotelo’ out of the post, it WOULD change the meaning.
Nope. But your need to tie Satterberg to Jane demonstrates the weakness of your post’s thesis. Just like Coulter and Teddy Kennedy. I’m just saying that the Hague issue is tired, and if you want to make a point about how partisan candidates do partisan fundraisers and at the same time talk about how much partisanship sucks, fine. If you need to rehash the Hague issue to make your far-less-than-novel point, so be it.
Zzzzz @ 8,
“But your need to tie Satterberg to Jane demonstrates the weakness of your post’s thesis. “
Nonsense! As you point out, the inclusion of Hague just makes it all the more interesting.
Who is “Hossein Khorram”? That name sounds un-American. Is he a terrorist?*
* Just kidding! These are Republican jokes. I posted them here to show how stupid GOP humor is.
Since Jane Hague is being prosecuted by Satterberg’s office, isn’t it a conflict of interest for him to co-chair a political fundraiser with her? It certainly compromises the appearance of impartiality.
Darryl, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that Jane Hague in a blog post at this point makes things interesting. You’ve hit the crux of our differences.
Roger Rabbit @ 11,
“Since Jane Hague is being prosecuted by Satterberg’s office, isn’t it a conflict of interest for him to co-chair a political fundraiser with her?”
Nope…the King County Prosecutor’s office turned the prosecution over to the City of Redmond in order to avoid any conflict of interest.
Although, when Redmond agreed to take on the case, I wonder if they knew that the King County prosecutor would be joining Ms. Hague in raising cash for the Republicans?
Can we finally put to rest the notion that Satterberg is nonpartisan?
His willingness to stand with Hauge two weeks before the election and raise money for the King County GOP is telling about his priorities.
Satterberg has always been willing to carry the water for the GOP. It does not appear that anything has changed…
@1 Excuse me, but getting a high-ranking public position by lying about your academic qualifications IS an issue — in fact, it should be a disqualification from ever holding a government job again.
What do you think Hague would have done to some flunky who lied on his resume to get an entry-level job in the Elections Department when she was running it?
Why should a politician like Hague get a free pass for doing what she, herself, would hang the little people for doing?
Dodger @ 14:
Yes! In case you didn’t notice (and hopefully it will be clear on your ballot) he’s running as a Republican. I suspect he wouldn’t if the office were nonpartisan. But you never know.
Roger Rabbit @ 15:
If the academic qualifications are an undergraduate degree, no, I honestly don’t care. I have no idea what she would do in your hypo, and neither do you. Why don’t you ask her instead of asking me.
In case no one has noticed, Hague is the best argument Republicans have for electing the elections director.
The argument goes like this. Hague got away with lying about a college degree when she was an appointed bureaucrat, but her lie became a big deal after she became an elected official.
Blogs and the media don’t pay much attention to the sins of hirelings, but they jump all over lying politicians.
Politicians get a level of scrutiny appointees don’t.
But I’m voting against the cockamamie idea of electing the elections director anyway, because I want a professional running our elections, not some drunken liar like Hague who doesn’t know a fucking thing about elections. And, if you don’t want Hague in that job, don’t vote for a GOP county executive. It’s as simple as that.
Roger Rabbit @ 18:
Dead on right on the first point, dead wrong on the second, unless you’re a blind partisan for either party. I’m amazed that positions like that have ever been appointed anywhere. That office has no business being partisan, otherwise candidates are free to participate in blatantly political fundraisers when running for an office that has no business taking political sides. Like a prosecutor.
Who is “Hossein Khorram”? That name sounds un-American. Is he a terrorist?*
* Just kidding! These are Republican jokes. I posted them here to show how stupid GOP humor is.
10/19/2007 at 9:06 pm
Actually the jokes are kinda funny. I know the pussies can’t handle them. heheehhe I mean roof roof.
On the other hand, Richard Pope would make a fine elections director. And he certainly can do Hague’s job better than hr. If he beats up a citizen now and then, the guy probably had it coming.
her
Man, these HA comment threads are merciless, aren’t they?
@19 “unless you’re a blind partisan for either party”
I’m a Democratic party hack and liberal propagandist. Who were you expecting, Mother Goose?
@13 “Nope…the King County Prosecutor’s office turned the prosecution over to the City of Redmond in order to avoid any conflict of interest.”
Did that happen before or after the PAO’s foot-dragging in the case hit the papers?
@16 So let’s say the office appeared on the ballot as “Nonpartisan.” Would Satterberg still be out there hustling dollars for the GOP? Or would he withdraw from party politics and be truly nonpartisan?
Since Satterberg is relying on money and support from the GOP, isn’t it reasonable to assume that his services for the party won’t necessarily stop with raising money for the party and its candidates?
Let’s say, for example, he has to make a decision whether to file charges against a GOP party official who has racked up 137 felony counts of perjury on voter challenge forms … will he administer justice impartially, or serve the party?
I don’t trust Satterberg any farther than I can piss into the wind with my rabbit dick.
@19 So explain to me how an elected “nonpartisan” politician is more qualified to run America’s second-largest mail ballot operation than a trained professional who has worked his way up to the position by demonstrating competence in a series of progressively more responsible management positions in the elections field?
@ 26:
1) I have no idea. Ethically, he’d be required to when it comes to his own campaign. Other than that, he’s free to do what his conscience tells him, I think.
2) No, in my unreal nonpartisan prosecutor world, where your “services” wouldn’t exist since he wouldn’t be running for GOP. You’re basing your hypo on facts that have occurred in the context of a partisan election. I hate it when Tony Kornheiser uses the “isn’t it reasonable to assume” line to make outlandish propositions, as well.
3) Yes. If it were true (which it may be). If you can actually prove that allegation, which survives only on blogs so far to my knowledge, go ahead and publicly and individually press the prosecutor to bring charges.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@ 27:
I am unable to speculate that your proposition would come true, or who would win your imaginary election.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@27…RR…
Because so-called “professionals” don’t work their way up, they’re political appointees.
Whoever does the best job of covering Ron Sims’ butt gets the job. Having the Elections Director appointed by the people and accountable only to them means no more Ron Sims shenanigans.
The Piper
Can’t get away from the fact that the lawyers who work with Bill Sherman in the PAO…are all voting for Satterberg! And they’re Democrats, for the most part.
You guys are such hacks, that if Richard Pope opposed Satterberg you’d pimp as hard for him, pathetic hack and, per the KC Bar Assn and Muni League, “unqualified” panderer that he is.
I’m convinced you really don’t care about the quality of justice in the PAO. If you did, at least there’d be some respect shown to the attorneys in that office who’ve posted here and who, to a person, support Satterberg as the head and shoulders above candidate.
But what do want form people who quote John Sweeny, the most pathetic labor leader in history, or who argue in favor of an elected Director of Elections then turn around and tow the party line in order not to irritate their masters.
A Bill Sherman victory will mean bad things for the citizens of King County, but as long as he’s got a hyphen-D at the end of his name, it doesn’t matter. Hell, you’d support Joe Stalin under those circumstances.
You guys will love Hillary as Prexy; she’ll sell you down the river quicker than you can scream Karl Rove…and you won’t have Karl Rove to blame!
And Bill Sherman, if he wins, will wait until his first cup of coffee is cold before lusting after his next office. From what I’ve seen and heard, he cares as much for the long term public safety and security of King County citizens as does the Man in the Moon.
BTW…increasingly the credibility of HA among the non-netroots community diminishes because of stunts like this. You all congratulate yourselves for your sophistication and superiority as others find you fairly weird…and those are the Democrats you’re offending.
But I do enjoy irritating the likes of Joe Pine, Facts, et al. Like a cat with a toy mouse, and no where near as difficult! Very reminiscent of the SDS’ers, Yippies, and Weather Underground types of the 60’s and 70’s…and headed toward the same inevitable oblivion.
You’re a class of Sherman supporters who think you’re revolutionary. Except the first victim of any revolution are the revolutionaries. Guillotine, anyone?
Per the lawyers in the PAO, King County will be less safe with Bill Sherman trying to find his way to the executive washroom. This ain’t no episode of Perry Mason, there, Bill!
The Piper
Roger Rabbit @10:
Hossein is a great guy; you should meet him sometime and talk to him about Iran and why he prefers it here. He’s vice chair of the King County Republican Party finance committee. There’s a brief bio of him on the USO web site: http://www.usopsa.org/index.ph.....#038;id=10.
“Having the Elections Director appointed by the people and accountable only to them means no more Ron Sims shenanigans.”
Piper. Could you be more specific. What shenanigans?
Would electing the President in the year 2000 have prevented all the ‘shenanigans’ we’ve been subjected to all these years? Like trying to kill Progressive legislators with anthrax?
Now THAT’S shenanigans!
@ 27, Rabbit:
Your point about preferring the “trained professional who has worked his way up to the position by demonstrating competence in a series of progressively more responsible management positions” to the “elected politician” is a good one. Apply that logic to the Sherman / Satterberg race and you end up voting for Satterberg. Like all the Democrats in the office will do.
@35:
Because that’s supported by facts. Don’t forget to replace the tin foil in your helmet every 48 hours.
@36…T…
Don’t bother trying…In the Sherman/Satterberg race, the HA apparatchiks will vote as they’re told without regard to the consequences. Clueless they were born, and clueless they remain.
@35…JP…
No wonder you support Sherman given how loose you are with implied accusations of attempted murder.
As to Ron Sims shenanigans? Would you like them alphabetical, categorical, or chronological?
The Piper
Someone not only attempted murder. Someone committed murder. That stuff didn’t mail itself. And there are only a handfull of people who have access to that strain of anthrax. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that someone high in government did that as a warning to Democrats in high position.
Sen. Leahy himself has asked some of those people who have access to the anthrax who authorized that operation.
And, once again, you have failed to mention any specific ‘shenanigans’ committed by Ron Sims. As far as implied accusations go, I would say yours are more vague than mine.
If Ron Sims has done something illegal, you’d think your uber-competent prosecutor would have done something about it.
So, Piper, list out your accusations. Or, go gargle with razor blades!
A few points, Piper, et al:
(1) If you’re going to quoting the Muni League’s candidate ratings to criticize Pope, you might want to note that they rated Sherman “outstanding,” the same as Satterberg.
(2) What evidence do you have that Sherman views the prosecuting attorney job as a stepping stone to another office? That he ran for state legislature last year? If you didn’t know, that’s a part time job that would have allowed him to continue working as a prosecutor even if he had won.
(3) And what’s wrong with using the job as a stepping stone? Norm Maleng only tried THREE TIMES to use the job as a stepping stone. He ran for governor twice and AG once. Why was it okay for Norm to have clear political ambitions beyond the prosecuting attorney job if you want us to vote against Sherman on the grounds that he might run for something else at some point?
(4) As to your many, many comments about who most deputy PAs are voting for, I’ve talked to former deputies and friends of current deputies, and I acknowledge that there’s a high level of support of the current boss in that office. As a threshold matter, that’s to be expected, but it’s an elected office, and the employees don’t get to choose their boss, the voters do. Beyond that, however, I should note that, of the DPAs I’ve spoken with, one told me that Sherman had run for “like, seven offices,” and the other told me that he was a fourth year lawyer. Neither of those is true. So I’m going to take anything I hear from deputy prosecutors with a grain of salt given that misinformation is apparently being spread within the office.
(5) Satterberg’s appearance at a GOP fundraiser strips him of all credibility as a “nonpartisan.” His willingness to appear with Hague right before the election quite frankly demonstrates bad judgment. Not that I was going to vote for him anyway, but now…
Piper
I don’t have much experience with the criminal division of the King County Prosecutor’s Office. But, I have a considerable amount of experience with its civil division. Experience counts, right? I have never dealt with an attorney in the KCPO civil division who I thought could make it in private practice. Guess what? The civil division is pretty goddamned important when it comes to being a county prosecutor. How come Satterberg never helped Norm Maleng hire competent attorneys in the civil division? Tell you what–I think Norm Maleng was a helluva guy. Tell you something else–change would be really helpful in his old office.
@41…PL…
Sounds like you didn’t get the result you liked, so you’re blaming the lawyers, instead of acknowledging the facts.
The Piper
@40…ST…
Point by point…
(1) HA and its regulars have no problem pimping Pope irrespective of the Muni League, et al, ratings on him. All that matters is that he’s a D. That’s it. Only at HA is he accorded credence as a candidate, and then only because he runs as a D.
So it is that Sherman, running as a D, is a HA equivalent to Pope. Equally competent, equally qualified, equally worthy of support.
(2) The evidence is that this isn’t Sherman’s first attempt for office, and it’s hard on the heals of a prior run. Some of the inside-the-PAO posters have commented that, to paraphrase them, he’s an abyss of ambition, which, to me, says he’s in this for Sherman, not for the people of King County.
His actually limited tenure at the PAO includes his LOA where he unsuccessfully ran for the legislature.
Come to think of it…if he fails in this run for office, he will have more and more in common with Richard Pope.
(3) As a politician, Norm Maleng was an excellent prosecuting attorney. That’s probably why the people decided he should continue to be their prosecutor, both by re-electing him and by not electing him to other offices.
Yet before Norm made an higher-office-run, he created an outstanding PAO office.
(4) No, it’s not to be expected as a threshold matter that Satterberg should have the vigorous support of the mostly Democratic corps of attorneys in the PAO.
If you read the comments many of them have made here and at Postman, you’ll see that it’s not just “good ol’ boy club” stuff that motivates them to not just support Satterberg, but also OPPOSE Sherman; they have legitimate concerns as to the quality of justice that will emanate from the PAO should Sherman be elected.
While many have said they like him as a person, as a professional and a boss he’s not up to the job.
Remember, these are Democrats committing what HA regulars consider to be the ultimate in unforgiveable sins: not slavishly toeing the party line like good little toadies.
(5) So Satterberg appeared at a fundraiser? Big deal. He is running as the candidate of the Republican Party, and that’s not, yet, a crime in King County, HA regulars wishes and earnest desires to the contrary notwithstanding.
I’ll tell you that there are some, middle-of-the-road Democrats among them, who consider Sherman’s acceptance of support from HA evidence of his unwillingness to be a non-partisan prosecutor.
Trust me on this, HA isn’t as beloved, respected, feared, or well regarded as many of its regulars think it is. Stench is a word I’ve heard used to characterize it. I hang here because I enjoy the paroxysms of angst caused by saying stuff that drives you birds nuts.
Sherman may win…it is a tight race. If he does and even half the things happen that insiders fear or predict, will you be satisfied? When the quality of the PAO declines and it’s competence begins to come under increasing scrutiny and questioning? When a close-call criminal case that, in the hands of a skilled attorney, would result in a conviction goes, instead, the other way with a guilty criminal allowed to go free?
You think this is a good result? You’re willing to brush aside with the sweep of your very left arm the real and legitimate issues and consequences at stake? Typically HA, of course, and I expect nothing less.
The Piper
#39…JP…
Why I dignify our banality with a response is a mystery…Maybe it’s because your such an easy target, and I like not just hitting softballs, but obliterating them.
Here’s a clue: you’re supposed to sleep on your bed, not under it looking for all sorts of make believe hoo-ha upon which to concoct conspiracy theories.
I’m sure high government officials mailed the anthrax strains from a grassy knoll in Dallas.
To contend with a shred of evidence that, “Any reasonable person, etc.” is to accord yourself the appellation “reasonable,” which, based upon your bizarre and mendacious rantings, would be disputed by competent mental health professionals, most of whom would have a field day applying any number of syndromes and disorders listed in the DSM-IV to you.
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job, too?
What partisan hack, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said this past summer had to do with information, not accusation. Your “progressive” legislators accusation also, by definitional extension, would have to encompass those who actually died or were injured by the mailings: tabloid journalists. Some “progressives” they were!
As to Ron Sims, his record is replete with Oopses. I never accused him of illegality, simply repeated acts of incompetence and administerial negligence, to wit: The Boeing Field swap, the TC4 screw up involving the Brickyard Road Park and Ride, boffing efforts to float a new King County Administration Building (aka, Ron Sims’ pleasure palace) at a price tag of some $300 million plus, plus, plus all the while pleading poverty and the inability to fund other necessary programs.
Let’s not forget that he’s the elected official at whose feat accountability and respoinsibility for the misfeasance and malfeasance of KC Elections is, until I-25 passes, is to be laid. Instead of competent professionals, he continues to appoint political whatevers.
And he hired in some capacity the grossly incompetent Carolyn Edmonds after the DEMOCRATIC
Yet a more fundamental point is this: what has any of this to do with the Satterberg/Sherman race? All you ever do is drag in extraneous goofball junk having nothing to do with it in order to justify your off-the-edge-of-your-flat-earth thinking.
Get down to the effective and efficient running of the PAO and excellence in the administration of justice on behalf of ALL the citizens of King County, not just on behalf of you and your friends…strike that…I should not presume the existence of what your rhetoric makes singularly improbable bordering on the impossible.
One also doubts the possibility that your mother even loved you, but that’s between the two of you.
#39…JP…
Why I dignify our banality with a response is a mystery…Maybe it’s because your such an easy target, and I like not just hitting softballs, but obliterating them.
Here’s a clue: you’re supposed to sleep on your bed, not under it looking for all sorts of make believe hoo-ha upon which to concoct conspiracy theories.
I’m sure high government officials mailed the anthrax strains from a grassy knoll in Dallas.
To contend with a shred of evidence that, “Any reasonable person, etc.” is to accord yourself the appellation “reasonable,” which, based upon your bizarre and mendacious rantings, would be disputed by competent mental health professionals, most of whom would have a field day applying any number of syndromes and disorders listed in the DSM-IV to you.
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job, too?
What partisan hack, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said this past summer had to do with information, not accusation. Your “progressive” legislators accusation also, by definitional extension, would have to encompass those who actually died or were injured by the mailings: tabloid journalists. Some “progressives” they were!
As to Ron Sims, his record is replete with Oopses. I never accused him of illegality, simply repeated acts of incompetence and administerial negligence, to wit: The Boeing Field swap, the TC4 screw up involving the Brickyard Road Park and Ride, boffing efforts to float a new King County Administration Building (aka, Ron Sims’ pleasure palace) at a price tag of some $300 million plus, plus, plus all the while pleading poverty and the inability to fund other necessary programs.
Let’s not forget that he’s the elected official at whose feat accountability and respoinsibility for the misfeasance and malfeasance of KC Elections is, until I-25 passes, is to be laid. Instead of competent professionals, he continues to appoint political whatevers.
And he hired in some capacity the grossly incompetent Carolyn Edmonds after the DEMOCRATIC primary voters in the 1st Councilmanic District unceremoniously booted her out of office.
Yet a more fundamental point is this: what has any of this to do with the Satterberg/Sherman race? All you ever do is drag in extraneous goofball junk having nothing to do with it in order to justify your off-the-edge-of-your-flat-earth thinking.
Get down to the effective and efficient running of the PAO and excellence in the administration of justice on behalf of ALL the citizens of King County, not just on behalf of you and your friends…strike that…I should not presume the existence of what your rhetoric makes singularly improbable bordering on the impossible.
One also doubts the possibility that your mother even loved you, but that’s between the two of you.
The 2007 race for Prosecuting Attorney isn’t a replay of the 2000 or 2004 presidential races; Karl Rove has nothing to do with the race at issue today. Typical hold-onto-your-bitter-grudges fanatic that you are, you’ll go to your grave shaking your fist in anger.
Even if every Democrat on the planet endorsed Dan Satterberg, you’d still cast him as George W. Bush and light into him with a vengeance. It must be tough to be so blinded by such hate.
If every attorney in the PAO came out publicly and by name for Dan Satterberg and threatened to quit en masse if Sherman were to be elected, you would still be unswayed. As the ashes of your terribly sad life heatedly accumulate around you, whatever victories occur in your life must be Pyrrhic, indeed.
Data, evidence, and reason in the Satterberg/Sherman race have no meaning for you; what is for most people a purely local race is, for you, an opportunity to project the torture existing within your soul and denial of reality that causes you to delusionally rehash ancient grievances all over again. I’d hate to hear what you think of the Battle of the Boyne.
Satterberg is the better candidate…
The Piper
@44 & 45…
Apologies for the partial dublicate post. I’m not sure how that happened.
The Piper
Yeah Dan is such a partisan hack, it’s no wonder Gregoire’s lawyer from the 2004 re-count is among his strongest supporters.
You people are completely pathetic. Has anyone here even served in a prosecutor’s office?
Anyone that would think “ANY” Republiconvict could fairly administer the law, after what I have seen in the last few years belongs in a straight jacket.
From Gonzo, to Alabama. Iglesias to McKay. From Florida to Ohio. Any time you have a Republiconvict Prosecutor, practically all crimes committed by Republiconvict operatives will be ignored. Voter intimidation, election fraud, voter challenges and so on.
The Republiconvicts operate as a crime family operates, at every level, and their dominant ownership of the airwaves, and press helps them get away with it.
Republiconvicts are a cancer on our democracy. They need to be stripped of all power, and as soon as possible. They don’t believe in the rule of law one bit, and support every criminal in their party, as if their fellow Republiconvict’s crimes are “good for America” or something. From Rove’s crimes, to Libby’s crimes. From Bush, and Chney’s crimes, and lies, to death threats at 12 year olds. Don’t even mention the constitution.
Republiconvicts, and their bloodthirsty, greedy friends, are America’s greatest enemy. When is the last time you heard a Republiconvict mention “Peace, and Prosperity” folks?
From caging lists, to voter intimidation. From political prosecutions, to ignoring crimes.
The person that testified on Alabama in Siegelman’s corruption trial claimed he had given cash to the former Democratic Governor, and other influential Republiconvicts in Alabama. The Democrat was convicted, and the Republiconvicts were not even investigated.
Republiconvicts = Not Investigated
Get it?
Not Investigated, after sworn testimony at trial, used to convict a Democrat.
The testimony was good enough to convict the former Governor, but not “credible” enough to launch investigations.
This is why voting for a Republiconvict for a Prosecutor is the same thing as urinating on our flag.
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes......onnection/
http://www.nytimes.com/package.....mpson1.pdf
The links above are in your face undeniable evidence backing up every comment I have stated as to the Republiconvicts acting as one criminal enterprise. I have more links…..
Supporting any Republiconvict at this time in history makes you an accomplice. The evidence is overwhelming.
is it wrong for…
Darcy to get help from (civil suit guilty) Jim McDermott?
Maria to get help from (disbarred, guilty, disgraced) Bill Clinton
Patty to get help from (magical papers, stolen WH goods) Hillary?
Members of the same party appearing together is just how the system works.
McDermott, civil suit guilty? Not a crime. Should not have been prosecuted for telling the American People what they liars were up to anyway. It is his job to tell us what “they” are doing to “us” isn’t it? All those newspapers seemed to think so, and filed all those amicus briefs.
Clinton, disgraced? With Ken Starr threatening people to lie about him to avoid prosecution? $60,000,000 spent investigating him, with not one single charge brought by a partisan water carrier? Impeachment, purely a political attack? Tell me right on, who has more respect? Bill, or Bush Mr. 24%? (laughing)
Compared to the criminals currently in the White House you want to mention Clinton. Get some meds. No, I mean really. Get some meds.
And what did Hillary do? Oh, yes, that’s right. She got in the sights of the right wing hate/slander machine. Hillary flushes more class down the toilet every morning than anyone running for president in the Republicon Gang.
That is what happens when you let the likes of Murdoch own too much media…… You get newsspeak….. America suffers. 1984…… Newsspeak.
@49…Facts…
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from soon-to-be-imprisoned Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat, who, upon hearing that the Feds were going to freeze his assets, beat them to the punch by sticking in his deep freeze $90K out of a $100K bribe he was videotaped receiving? The same William Jefferson who manipulated the National Guard to give preferential treatment to his property in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from Pennsylvania Congressman William Murtha who escaped indictment in the ABSCAM scandel of the 1980’s only because he didn’t accept an offered bribe right then and there, insisting, rather, that he would accept it “later?” How about from the other ABSCAM defendants, some six Democrats (fair disclosure: one Republican Congressman was also caught up in the scandel and imprisoned), including a prominent U.S. Senator from New Jersey, who were convicted and imprisoned?
Would Bill Sherman have accepted an endorsement from the late U.S. Senator Brock Adams, known far and wide for his Russian hands and Roman fingers? The same Brock Adamas who allegedly (no charges were ever filed despite D.C. police insistence that they be) raped the daughter of erstwhile good friends of his? See http://www.congressionalbadboys.com/Adams.htm
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from W. VA. Democratic Congressman Alan Mollohan who was forced to step down from his seat on the House Ethics Committee amidst allegations that he improperly funneled non-profit foundation $$$ in such a way as to benefit himself? See http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01376.html
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings who, before being inexplicably elected to Congress by his clueless constituents, was a federal district court judge until he was impeached by the then Democratically controlled House and subsequently convicted by the then Democratically controlled Senate of corruption and perjury charges resulting in him being only the sixth federal judge in the history of the U.S. to be thus removed from office? This same Alcee Hastings that Nancy Pelosi stupidly sought to have chair the House Intelligence Committee until Steny Hoyer slapped some sense into her?
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from former National Security Advisor Sandy “Socks” Berger who pled guilty to illegally pirating classified documents out of a federal office in his underwear, and who was ordered to pay a $50K fine in addition to being stripped of his security clearance? This same “Socks” Berger who now whispers into the ear of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the putative Demo prexy nominee?
Will Bill Sherman accept the endorsement of and boodle-bags of campaign contributions from noted Democratic fundraiser, Norman Hsu, who stayed one step ahead of the law even as he funneled beaucoup bucks into Hillary Clinton’s campaign until the embarrassment become too much even for her? And how about contributions from the coterie of Chinese busboys and dishwashers who seem to be flush with cusomers’ tips such that they can make huge contributions to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign? See http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....ome-center
Will Bill Sherman accept an endorsement from ACORN, the outfit that pled guilty to unlawfully submitting false voter registrations in King County and otherwise known as a partisian, Democratic supporting activist group? Will he accept the support of “voters” newly registered by ACORN such as NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and such local luminaries as Fruto Boy and Stormi Bays?
As an aside…it’s been a while since I’ve asided…I’ll bet you just pissed that it was Dan Satterberg who prosecuted ACORN. Would Bill Sherman, partisan Democrat that he is, looked the other way and vigorously defend the right of Mr. or Ms. Stormi Bays (exact gender unknown), resident at any one of several area homeless shelters, to vote? Read http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010400
I could go on…but storm debris cleanup demands otherwise. Suffice to say that your and Bill Sherman’s Democratic Party’s imagined purity is but a devoutly to be wished wet dream fantasy fosterd in the fertile compost that is your mildewed imagination, such are the nature of your so-called “Facts.
The Piper
Piper-
You nicely ignored Sherman’s outstanding rating by the Muni League. Just because many Ds are supporting both Sherman (outstanding) and Pope (er, somewhat less than outstanding) doesn’t negate Sherman’s “outstanding” rating.
As to your comments plastered all over this blog and Postman’s, yes, I’ve seen them, and it’s basically you and a couple of other people repeating the same assertions over and over. Just because you say it a bunch of times doesn’t make it true. I have no idea who these people are making statements about the prosecutor’s office. They’re anonymous comments on a blog. How do I know it’s not just you posting under a few different names? Don’t worry, I’m not accusing you, but understand that I have no way of knowing who those comments actually come from.
-Scott
Thanks for all your input, WingNutz(tm). I just MAILED my ballot. All your arguments were shrill and unconvincing.
Go gargle with razor blades!
“WingNutz™” I’ve trademarked this. It’s my intelecrual property now.
correction: ‘intellectual’
Piper @ 46 above, and above, and above…….
Geez man, get some sleep. Up until nearly 2 AM posting rightwingnut rants on a liberal blog on a Friday night? You must be out of your fucking mind.
But maybe this activity keeps you off the streets. I suspect then that Goldy’s blog does, in some strange and weird way, act to optimize social stability.
The marketplace of ideas can indeed be a strange place.
@57…PTBAA…
As one of the few HA posters who routinely displays a modicum of wit and insight, I tip my hat to you for your riposte.
I was awake last night simply because I lose sleep at the thought of Bill Sherman’s possible election. On the order of worrying about a nuclear holocaust during the cold war or whether Ellen DeGeneres will be able to recover that pooch for her hairdresser’s children, Bill Sherman and his nefarious plots stress me out!
Here’s what I want to know: Would Bill Sherman have gotten a conviction against Phil Spector, Robert Blake, or O.J.? Could he this time against O.J.? And what is his position vis. David Copperfield?
When Bill Sherman goes to court to fulfill his campaign promise of personally trying one case per year, will he have to take an evidence cheat-sheet card to refresh his recollection as to the rules? Remembering, of course, that the old Hamilton Burger objection of, “Your honor, once again Mr. Mason has raised an issue that is both incompetent, irrelevent, and immaterial” won’t cut it before any save a Judge Richard Pope, who, thankfully, was not accorded that distinction by Eastside voters.
Will he remember to establish chain of custody for exhibits? Prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Not try to prove a case based upon “evidence” produced by moonbats on HA?
What’s interesting, is what will happen when the competent, qualified, and experienced attorneys in the PAO leave to enter private practice and then come up against the nervous-Nelly, pimple-faced, hard core Democratic activists (Goldy will insist he vet every PAO job applicant for ideological purity) hired to replace them.
There’s a an AMC mini-series in that scenario with Fred Willard playing the part of Bill Sherman and Jack Nicholson as Dan Satterberg.
A courtroom face-off between Sherman and Satterberg…Wouldn’t that be an honorable way to settle this whole affair? Much the same way as medieval antagonists settled affairs of honor? Individual adversarial combat, winner take all!
I’d pay money to see that contest!
The Piper
@53…ST…
I’ll cut you slack since we share a first name, and, in choral groups, I sing the tenor part.
My Sherman – Pope comparison is based upon the only thing they have in common: party label. The only discernable qualification for holding political office that is a given among HA regulars is membership in, though not necessarily the endorsement of (Pope), the Democratic Party.
If Sherman had been rated by the Muni League as “Disaster on the Order of the Bubonic Plague Waiting to Happen,” Goldy and the HA gang would still orgasmicly pimp for him based upon his party label.
And it’s not “me and a couple others…” It’s me asking some questions and probably six or more at Postman and here combined who answer them all in favor of Satterberg and against Sherman.
Your snide little non-accusation accusation that I may/may not be the voice of those posters borders on a push poll slime. How are things in the sewer?
Try as you might, trying to make a silk political purse out of the sow’s ear of HA doesn’t cut it…Stick a fork in it, it’s so done!
The Piper
Scott (If, that is, you’re not really FSMP under a different name) @ 53:
Congratulations. You have just set a new bar for HA paranoia.
I assure you, Piper is Piper, T is T, Tdog is Tdog, etc., and there are MANY more of us like-minded PA’s who kindof like Bill (though less and less every time we hear him make a claim we “insiders” know to be puffery at best and outright falsehood at worst) but who also have enough actual knowledge about the position to be certain, politics aside, that he is not evenh close to qualified for the position.
@60…TDOG…
Whew! Thought you’d been kidnapped by Goldy’s goons, Facts and Joe Pine being the Sam Brown-belted leaders of the pack, taken to their hideout in Kazakhstan, and made to mate with Borat’s sister.
Curious…Should Sherman win, how many PA’s in the office who leave to enter private practice will then relish the prospect of waxing his ass in court?
Still not to late to go public…The more you describe stuff, the more it looks as though Sherman is manipulating to his benefit the neutrality pledge you all took. Remember…even when FDR was ostensibly “neutral,” Winston was on the receiving end of gaggles of destroyers, intelligence, and depth-charged U-boats. There are ways to be “neutral” without having to stand by and witness the defeat of what you know is in the best interests of KC voters and citizens.
The Piper
Dog, how qualified was Lincoln?
When the Republiconvicts clean house, and start assisting in investigations of their corrupt members, instead of supporting them, I will at that time stop calling them all criminals. As long as they stick together, and stick with Bush, they are to be viewed as organized crime. Satterburg included.
Voting for -ANY- Republicon amounts to urinating on our constitution, and assisting them in their crimes.
Even the cons that get caught (Libby), and convicted, get pardoned, or their sentences commuted.
These animals think they are above the law, the the citizens of this country have little say in who gets prosecuted, and which crimes are ignored.
In this case, King County’s voters have a say. Do they want more slimy Republiconvicts, who have proven they care little, or nothing for our nations laws, or perhaps a Prosecutor from the other party.
Kinda easy choice if you ask me.
Want me to vote for a Republiconvict? How about turning over all of Rove’s emails, and communications to the proper authorities. If he wasn’t running the Justice Department, and influencing prosecutions, then “all” of the emails would exonerate him right? He should be falling all over himself to prove his innocence right?
Yeah right. Executive privilege my ass.
GUILTY IS MORE LIKE IT!!!!
Wow,”Facts,” you’re way off base here. It doesn’t move you at all that nearly every prosecutor that works for King County, most of whom are card-carrying liberals, is cringing at the thought of Sherman winning? We know him, we know this office, and we know he shouldn’t be running it. I don’t know any DPA who likes the current state of the republican party or who’s even likely to vote for any other Republican on the ballot. That being said, with two exceptions (both of whom are Sherman’s buddies and are going to make out real nice if he wins) I don’t know a prosecutor in the county who supports him or who will vote for him. If that doesn’t somehow effect your opinion of whether or not he should be our DA, then you are so blinded by party labels you can’t see your own hand in front of you.
Piper at 61:
For those of us that decide to leave, it is unlikely we will ever get the privilage of “waxing his ass in court.” Remember, Sherman says he’s going to “try one case a year.” This means he’s going to pick a slam-dunk homicide case with some nice DNA evidence, give defense counsel no incentive to plead and make a nice little media show to prepare him for his next political position.
But then again if Sherman does that, it will still be the first homicide case he ever tries, so maybe an ex-dpa will teach him a few things. Of course, I don’t see any DPA’s leaving to become defense counsel no matter what happens.
@62…Hallucinations Support My Paranoid Delusions…
You mean Lincoln the…Republican? That Lincoln? Under whose party label Dan Satterberg is currently running?
Like Joe Pine, you eat yourself up with ancient grievances and bitterness about which Bill Sherman is powerless to do anything save screw the PAO pooch.
BTW…I’ve studied Lincoln long and hard…My great-grandfather fought for Lincoln in the Civil War (20th Maine at Little Round Top)…I hail from a long line of mid-western and western Republicans…And I’m here to tell you in no uncertain terms: Bill Sherman is no Abraham Lincoln!!!
He’s more like Ambrose Burnside, Joe Hooker, or that failure to end all cowardly failures, Gen. George McClellan, who ran for the presidency in 1864 against Lincoln as a…Democrat.
Bill Sherman is a run-of-the-mill Seattle politician not terribly distinguishable from several score others. Of course and again, his perfect HA comparability to Richard Pope is all that matters to you guys.
Or will you now denounce Pope for the humbug he is in order to validate your adulation, adoration, and addict-like adherence to all things Sherman?
Choose this day whom you will serve: Pope or Sherman…
The Piper
@64…Prosecutor…
Understand that he’ll only pick softballs. But when you defeat those he sends into battle, don’t you defeat him? When the PAO win-lose record begins to resemble the St. Louis Rams, will not the public begin to ask why?
When clumsily presented cases are dismissed or acquittals rendered where guilty verdicts should be the norm, won’t the public be stirred to action?
Shall I store up supplies of tar, feathers, and a stout rail?
Stranger things have happened…
The Piper
Waxing Bill’s ass in court would be like taking candy from a baby- most of us could smack him around the courtroom like a rag doll. But the reality is most of us care too much about what we do to switch sides. I can count the number who’ve gone to criminal defense over the past 10 to 15 years on one hand- maybe two- and most of them have joined boutique DUI defense firms and make 2-5 hundred k a year getting the BAC thrown out in various district courts so that people who imperil the rest of us with their drunken driving can skate.
I’ll tell you what, though, the folks of King County better HOPE we don’t all run to the defense bar. This office has developed some pretty dang good trial lawyers (those who’ve actually been around long enough to legitimately make that claim, at least), and I suspect if we went en masse to defense firms, people wouldn’t have to worry so much about jail overcrowding!
Piper,
I hear you, but I can’t see most of the DPA’s I know ever defending a serious criminal, even to prove a point. In the end, if we’re willing to take less pay for harder work than other attorneys, it’s because we love the justice aspect of it more than anything else.
The truth is, I really, really like Bill. He is a good family man, is easy to hang out with, and and has a helluva sense of humor. As far as qualifications to lead this office, however, he just doesn’t compare. I am also perturbed by some of his recent statements along the campaign trail, where he has become somewhat dishonest. For example, his critique of Satterberg not filing the case against the KC deputy. Sherman has done our job for a little bit and in those three years (not four, as he touts) he has learned very well that we never, ever file case simply for political reasons – if there is not enough evidence after talking to the witness, the victims and the detectives, we don’t file a case. This evidenced-based approach is where the non-partisan aspect of our office is so sacred. By insisting, without even having seen the police reports or spoken with ONE witness on that case, that Satterberg should have okayed the filing of the case, Sherman has stopped talking and thinking like a lawyer, acted purely like a politician.
I wish I didn’t have to be so anti Republiconvict. I used to call myself a Republican.
For America to begin to recover from the Bush Crime Family’s actions, and Republiconvict control of congress, it appears that -ALL- Republiconvicts must be removed from -ALL- government. If a large number of prosecutors support the incumbent, and I said “if”, it means they are too busy working, doing their jobs to follow what is really happening in our country. They don’t see the big picture.
Remember, 30% of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11, thanks to the Faux Lies Channel, and the pathetic liars like Rush, and Hannity.
Not all Americans follow the news, and can sort out the spin, and the lies.
Many don’t understand the amount of damage Conservative Economic Policies, and the Republiconvict Party has done to our democracy. If they don’t want to hold The Bush Crime Family accountable, it doesn’t make them bad Americans, just uninformed Americans. Prosecutors included.
Can you provide me a link to Satterburg asking that a thorough investigation of the Justice Department, and the sacking of the 9 attorneys be done? Has he said anything about the sacking of McKay? The others? Political prosecutions by people besides himself? He is in a position to ask for “justice” isn’t he? Yeah right…..
As long as Satterburg is “going along” with what amounts to treason (starting with Libby), I will do all I can to replace him with someone that truly understands the amount of damage Republiconvicts are responsible for. Any Democrat. Even if Satterburg is not as bad as Bush, he is still a Republiconvict, and thus an accomplice to all of Bush’s crimes. Every single one.
If it wasn’t for Reaganomics, and Republiconvict economic policies that help the billionaires, and multi national corporations, instead of “us”, we wouldn’t have to fill our jails with dead enders. You know, the people that can’t get good jobs, afford an education, health care, mental health care, or help when they may need it. Both parents wouldn’t have to work, or live in fear of getting sick.
Mr. prosecutor. You ever wonder why we have so many people locked up? Wonder why so many people “need” locked up?
Republiconvicts have proven that they are a cancer in our government, and each and every one belongs out of government. Their upholding Bush’s veto, Thursday proves it. Prosecutors included.
They voted their hearts Thursday. They sent a strong message. If you are not rich, or lucky enough to not have your good job outsourced yet, your children don’t deserve medical insurance. If their kids get sick, you go bankrupt, no matter how hard you have worked to build a life.
Republican greed based ideology is a disease. They must be removed from our government at -EVERY- level.
Facts- I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you need professional help. I’m serious. Do you not that your sweeping approach to condemnation is no different from the approach taken by Hitler, or the KKK?
you are suffering from what the law, and the DSM IV calls “an insane delusion”.
“Facts,” careful, you are starting to sound like the people you despise.
missed a word: “do you not SEE that your sweeping approach….
Dog, and Prosecutor. Why don’t you go to Iraq, and start counting corpses? Might take a while. Oh, they’re Iraqis, and their lives don’t count right? There are billions of people on this planet who may not agree.
What have you to say about the lies Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld told leading up to the invasion? Their lies should be ignored? Blame it on “faulty” intelligence? More excuses? Blame it on the media for pounding the drums of war 24/7? Sacking every single voice that was against the invasion?
By the way, why did we invade, and occupy Iraq? Bush never did give us a straight answer. What was the “Noble Cause” as Cindy asked? He was told that there was proof that Saddam had destroyed -ALL- his wmd’s and the CIA agent (Drumheller) was told “It was about regime change, not intelligence” was his exact words. Of course Bush neglected telling us…..
What did those hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis do to deserve a violent death directly caused by us? We didn’t drop the ball providing for their security, which was our responsibility. We didn’t even bring a ball. It appears the children in charge of the reconstruction didn’t have a clue….. But they were pro-life!!!
What has the slaughter of all those innocent Muslims in Iraq, Abu Gharib, Haditha, and now Blackwater’s senseless slaughter done to our efforts to make young angry arabs not want to join Al Queda, and come here and kill us?
Yeah, I thought so. (crickets chirping)
Who is gonna pay off the 5 TRILLION in new debt Bush piled on our children, while the top 1% is raking in the dough at a rate not seen since the 20’s?
I can see the big picture. Can you two? We have to change our country. One office at a time.
All Republiconvicts must go. Straight to fuc*ing hell.
If you “trust” Satterburg to not be a reicht wing tool, then I feel sorry for you. You would have to be an idiot to trust anyone calling themselves a Republicon.
As long as Satterburg calls himself a Republicon, he is my enemy, for I a an American. I love my country. I won’t let those bloodthirsty greedy lying traitor bastards destroy my country. There are tens of millions, just like me. Angry. Wanting justice. We will never rest. Never let up.
How about you two? Do you care? Should Bush, and Cheney be made to pay for their crimes, and lies, or not?
What say you?
I still have yet to hear anyone explain why the Democratic prosecutors in Pierce and Snohomish Counties are endorsing Satterberg as well as Gregoire’s lawyer in the 2004 recount fight? If the governor’s own lawyer observed his conduct first hand on the canvassing board and is leading the charge for him why should liberals listen to this crowd of jackasses and not her?
Dog, since I am deluded, what is it that I am wrong about?
It isn’t a delusion if it is true.
Especially if it can EASILY BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE!!!
I am waiting for you to tell me why I am deluded. What have I said that I can’t provide proof to back up.
Now let’s see how foolish I can make you look when you try to “point out” my delusions. Google works real well.
Click on this link before you answer.
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes......onnection/
@32 “Because so-called “professionals” don’t work their way up, they’re political appointees.”
In that case, I like our hacks better than your hacks.
@33 “Can’t get away from the fact that the lawyers who work with Bill Sherman in the PAO…are all voting for Satterberg!”
Really? How do you know who they’re voting for? We have a secret ballot in this country (at least, we used to …). Sure, people who work for Satterberg may SAY they’re gonna vote for Satterberg, because that’s what they want Satterberg to think … and if Sherman wins, why, of course, they’ll all say they voted for Sherman …
@34 Hey, glad to hear that, Toby! There’s a guy whose middle name is “Hussein” who is a great guy, too, but that doesn’t stop the Republican sleaze-slingers I’m parodying from calling HIM a terrorist … and unlike me, they’re not doing it in jest …
@36 Satterberg is a partisan hack.
@33 “Piper Scott says: Can’t get away from the fact that the lawyers who work with Bill Sherman in the PAO…are all voting for Satterberg! And they’re Democrats, for the most part.”
Fact is, you don’t know who they’re voting for, because you don’t have access to their ballots.
@33 (continued) Of course I pimp for Pope. He’s a Democrat, and I’m a party hack — what were you expecting, Paris Hilton in a cheerleader outfit?
@43 Piper must be reading the polls (which show Sherman ahead) if he’s desperate enough to try to paint Sherman as a Richard Pope. Not that there’s anything wrong with Pope as a lawyer. Pope was 2nd in his U.W. law school class, knows his legal stuff, is a helluva a researcher … aside from a few personal eccentricities and a Mike The Mover style of seeking public office … there’s nothing wrong with Pope.
@50 Darcy, Maria, and Patty aren’t going around telling people they’re running as “nonpartisans.” They also don’t appear at fundraisers with pals from their own party they failed to file DUI charges against when it was their responsibility to do so.
@52 “ACORN, the outfit that pled guilty to unlawfully submitting false voter registrations in King County and otherwise known as a partisian, Democratic supporting activist group”
Bullshit. ACORN didn’t plead guilty to anything, and wasn’t guilty of anything. ACORN was defrauded by the people who submitted false voter registrations. If ACORN has any fault here, it’s in paying its workers by-the-registration instead of hourly wages — but wait, that’s the same sytem Timmie Lieman uses, and it’s perfectly legal (but maybe it shouldn’t be). ACORN was the victim, not the perpetrator.
Get your facts straight before you shoot from the lip.
@52 No need to wade through all this wingnut pig manure. The whole post is irrelevant. But I’ll say two things about Democratic corruption:
1) Prosecute the bastards
2) For every corrupt Democrat, there’s 30 corrupt Republicans
@57 “Geez man, get some sleep. Up until nearly 2 AM posting rightwingnut rants on a liberal blog on a Friday night? You must be out of your fucking mind.”
Or maybe he’s a renegade rabbit. I’ve got several distant relatives who have gone missing. I assumed they were hit by cars, but maybe I should delve into this a little deeper.
@59 “The only discernable qualification for holding political office that is a given among HA regulars is membership in, though not necessarily the endorsement of (Pope), the Democratic Party.”
Are you implying this is exclusively Democratic behavior? Is this an attempt on your part to pretend Republican “regulars” don’t do the same thing, i.e., vote the party label?
Hey Piper, I can’t speak for the other “HA regulars” (as you call them), but just to clear up any confusion you may have about my intentions, I’m a party whore.
To the Reasonable Out There,
Will justice come to a screeching halt if Mr. Sherman wins this election? I doubt it. Mr. Sherman will probably run this office as well as other politically charged offices around the country, e.g. L.A. County and Durham County.
Will the best and brightest of the office all quit and go make money like everyone else…? I don’t know. My guess is that many will leave, but many will also wait and see, because as many have mentioned, its the only thing they can see themselves doing.
There are many questions that can’t be answered if Mr. Sherman wins, but there are many certainties as well.
Here is what I DO KNOW:
If Mr. Sherman wins, our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cousins, friends, etc. will not come home from that God forsaken war any sooner.
If Mr. Sherman wins, that liar and cheat in the White House won’t be brought to justice any sooner… if at all.
If Mr. Sherman wins, there will still be liars and cheats out there running our government all over the country… Democrats and Republicans alike.
Lastly, what I do know down to my core… if Mr. Sherman wins, then we will have elected the LESS qualified person to carry out justice in our community (by a lot…).
@59 If you’re a deep thinker — and that’s a mighty big “if” — you may be wondering how I got that way, especially considering I started out in political life as a Goldwater Republican.
Simple. Republicans have fucked so many citizens for so long they inevitably got around to fucking with me, too. I have many Democratic friends, but no Republican friends. Republicans don’t have friends, only victims.
@61 “Curious…Should Sherman win, how many PA’s in the office who leave to enter private practice will then relish the prospect of waxing his ass in court?”
So, this is what it’s about? We’re supposed to vote for Satterberg so some (presumably partisan) PA’s don’t lose their jobs?
@68 “make 2-5 hundred k a year getting the BAC thrown out in various district courts so that people who imperil the rest of us with their drunken driving can skate”
They don’t exactly skate. The DUI defense attorneys do the rest of us the favor of relieving their clients of everything they own. Under the circumstances, I don’t begrudge them their incomes.
Roger Rabbit,
Do you have some sort of program that allows you to post so quickly? Very impressive.
The only problem, I’ll admit, is that I just end up tuning you out… kind of like the annoying person at the cocktail party that won’t stop talking. Sorry.
The annoying person at the cocktail party that doesn’t realize the chilling parallel between their drunken rants and fascist rhetoric (e.g., “all ____ need to go straight to hell,” “all ___ are the same,” etc.) Franco himself would be chilled by this blind drivel..
The thing that is in Pope’s favor is the ‘D’ next to his name. Nobody in their right mind would vote for a Republican.
Why, you may ask, would nobody vote for a Republican?
Simple. Republicans suck and they are losers.
Funny how I am accused of being “deluded” (#71) but when it comes to pointing out what “Facts” I have wrong…..
(crickets chirping)
When it comes to Republiconvicts, the truth is always worse than you think.
Like Bush pushing for wiretaps “before” 9-11. Clear violation of the FISA laws. Juuuuuust another crime……
We can’t impeach the lying shrub because the Republiconvicts in the Senate would never to vote to impeach one of their own, no matter how numerous the crimes.
Republiconvicts are a disease. Democracy disease.
The voters of King County have a chance to send one more con to the sh*t pile where they all belong. When they work to clean up their party, I will withdraw my troops….. Till then, we are at war. The Democratic Party, and the American People -vs- the Republiconvice Criminal Enterprise.
I mean war baby. Do not ever, never, ever fail to strike a deadly blow to any slimebag calling themselves Republiconvicts. They have damaged our country long enough. They have killed enough innocent people. They have looted our treasury long enough. They have damaged our reputation around the world long enough.
Trying to reason with them is pointless. If reason mattered, they wouldn’t be Republiconvicts. Attack, attack and attack some more. Pour it on. This is war baby. Show no mercy. Ever. They deserve none.
If you don’t believe me, just start counting corpses. Start in New Orleans, or in the hospitals filled with Ground Zero Workers, or in Abu Gharib. The only thing the GOP is good for is creating corpses.
Every single one needs to be ran out of office on a rail, tarred and feathered. Start with Satterberg.
Oooohhhh buuuut heeeeze qwallified, wahhhhhh. Anyone that wants to let the GOP’s reign of terror continue is an enemy of The People of the United States.
Chelsea would make a better president than the lying shrub. (undoubtedly)
Sorry dumbasses.
Your delusion, Facts, is in believing that voting for a less qualified prosecuting attorney in King county will somehow end the war, bring back the lost lives and erase all the horrific lies and/or crimes admittedly committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whoever….
Your argument is a single tiered fallacy most people learn about in freshman logic class. It goes like this: Bush (or Rove or whoever else you’ve decided to plug in here) is a liar and a criminal; Bush (or whoever….) is an R; Dan is an R; therefore Dan must be a liar and a criminal.
The only FACTS you ever talk about have nothing to do with the quality of the candidates in THIS election or the effect the voters’ decision will make on THIS county- all you talk about is people OTHER than the candidates, places OTHER than King County and how you will hike up your little skirt and make your voting decision based on people in places remote ande unrelated to us or our issues.
And you STILL have not responded to my question of how your blind, sheepish and sophomoric approach is any different from that of the Nazis or the KKK.
You, above all others on this blog, make me ashamed me to be a democrat.
Well put, T-Dog. Sometimes people swing so far to the left they end up all the way on the right, like our paranoid little frind, “facts.” Hopefully, he or his family will never suffer from some horrible crime where the prosecutor’s office, led by by Dan and his legion of Republiconvicts will have to advocate on his behalf, regardless of his political stance…
@ 53, Scott — your question highlights one of my biggest frustrations. I challenge the press and anyone else out there who wants to spend the time to start talking to any DPA in the office they can find to see what those in the office think. My guess is that they run about 30 to 1 for Satterberg, but please, find out for yourself.
In an earlier thread, Goldy explained the insider and criminal-justice-community support for Satterberg as “establishment.” Bullshit. This isn’t Texas, it is a county that is majority Democrat. Several years ago Democratic challenger Janice Ellis took on two-term incumbent Republican Jim Krider in the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney race. Ellis (the challenger) had the endorsements from the law enforcement unions and had the support of those in the office. They knew the challenger was better. In this case, EVERYONE who has any connection to the criminal justice system is rooting for the incumbent Satterberg, regardless of party affiliation. It has nothing to do with establishment and has everything to do with being far more qualified.
@99 TDOG, I just got home and had to scan through 98 posts. It is a far easier read when you just skip what “Facts” has to say, because it never has anything to do with the Sherman/Satterberg race. Somebody else let me know if “Facts” actually says anything relevant enough to deserve a response, because I’m literally not reading his posts. And if the HA police come delete this post, I have to wonder why they’re not deleting his, because he’s totally off topic.
But T, he has FACTS, after all!!!!!
I just got home too. Can’t skip FSMP’s rants though, for the same reason I’ve never been able to drive past a car wreck without looking.
But you make a good point- why haven’t the HA police shut him down on this post as off topic? In fact, since his argument is the same in every blog, just shut him down in all but the one called: “irrelevant and unsupported blather unrelated to anything but the fact that Bush and his cronies suck”
@102…T…
Having been on the receiving end of Bro. Darryl’s, shall we say, “selective” deletion standards, all I can say is that “Facts” (are we sure? maybe it’s really “Farts” since the “c” and “r” keys are often confused – could he have started out as “Farts” and just got things bolloxed up? Let’s get Bill Sherman on that straight away).
Anyway…Facts/Farts won’t ever have his posts deleted even if they’re recitations of the drug-induced ramblings of Hunter S. Thompson since he’s within the blast zone of HA doctrine and orthodoxy.
You, on the other hand, will probably have your credit ruined. It’s the price prophets without honor must pay.
Lest I find this post deleted, let me simply say that I hope Bill Sherman, should he emerge victorious, staffs the civil committment courtroom at the Harborview Annex with highly qualified, mental-health-aware attorneys because they’ll be inundated with work stemming from the evidence here gathered as to the mental health problems and imminent risk of harm to either the person or property of themselves or others of the likes of Facts/Farts or Joe Pine.
It’s fascinating that Facts/Farts and Joe Pine, together with their brethren, both human and rodent, apply the same standard of evaluation to every race in the election: R bad, D good, end of discussion.
It makes absolutely no difference whether Bill Sherman is a good, bad, or indifferent candidate; all that’s relevant is that he’s a D candidate, ergo his peas in a pod similarity to Richard Pope.
Even if it could be proved not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond an doubt in the universe whatsoever, that Dan Satterberg was a latter day reincarnation of Clarence Darrow, with the prosecutorial abilities of Thomas E. Dewey (Oops…he was a Republican, too), and the innate ability to figure out whodunit and get that person to confess in a fit of guilt of Perry Mason, it wouldn’t make an anthill full of maggots bit of difference.
He still is running as an R, and that’s unforgivable sin. Reading the posts of Facts/Farts, Joe Pinewoodhead, et al, I legitimately fear the consequences of nimrods like them ever attaining power. Gulags and re-education camps would be the order of the day.
I wonder…would Bill Sherman endorse such an effort, given how beholden he’s becoming to them?
Also…a question…Since Bill Sherman spends, and has spent, so little time in the PAO, does he have to wear one of those name tags (Hello! My name is__________. Have a nice day!) so folks in the office will know who he is?
Still not too late for the professional staff in the PAO to make a few outgoing, off-the-record calls to selected journalists. Just thinking out loud, mind you.
The Piper
T-Dog and T,
Do you think the press would care? I’ve thought about it, although I’m not sure how the story would run – after all, they could dismiss the fact that none of us want sherman as “the status quo afraid of change” or simply job preservation.
Prosecutor
I don’t know if they’d care. Seems to me if they did they’d have made a call or two before choosing who to endorse. Even a single call would have revealed his lie about being a “frontline DV trial attorney”…
“Your delusion, Facts, is in believing that voting for a less qualified prosecuting attorney in King county will somehow end the war, bring back the lost lives and erase all the horrific lies and/or crimes admittedly committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whoever….”
What?
Is it delusion to claim 9 Prosecutors were fired for not towing the party line? For not prosecuting Democrats with thin evidence (McKay, Iglesius), and for prosecuting Republiconvicts with overwhelming evidence?(Lam) Is it delusion to claim the “Federal” Prosecutors were acting as “A voter suppression machine” as Howard Dean put it?
Those are Dean’s words, not mine.
I am not putting words in your mouth, why must you put words in my mouth? As far as the topic is concerned, Satterburg is a Republiconvict. I will grant you we don’t know the magnitude of the miscarriages of justice the “Federal” Republiconvict Prosecutors have carried out. We can’t get to the evidence. More proof of guilt as far as I am concerned. If the White House was innocent of influencing prosecutions, and Prosecutors, they would gladly turn over the evidence to show it. When has a non fired Prosecutor stepped forward, and spilled the beans? They haven’t. Job security. Urinating on justice. The scandal is not the Prosecutors that were fired, but what the ones that stayed did to please Rove, so they could keep their jobs. Maybe someday we will find out.
Trusting “ANY” Republiconvict Prosecutor “ANYWHERE” to uphold the law, and not tow the party line, when push came to shove, would be insane as far as I am concerned.
Let me spell it out one more time. Read it reeeeel slow, so it may finally sink in.
The Republiconvict Party operates just like the mafia. They all cover for, lie for, and cover up for each other. They can not be trusted to do what’s right. Their party comes before their country. To a man. Always.
Satterburg can not be trusted. He is a Republiconvict. Game over. And you want to compare me to the KKK and the Nazis.
Some Nazis are worse than others. They were all bad. Some Republiconvicts are worse than others. They are all bad, unless of course they have denounced the slime, and corruption oozing from every facet of their party, at every level, and went on the record saying they want to change how they do business.
I haven’t heard Satterburg denouncing anything on the record, so as far as I am concerned, he is as guilty as the rest. Just another Republiconvict operative in a position of power. He knows what will happen to him if he says no…… He will be squished like a bug.
Believe me, I wish the GOP wasn’t so evil, and so bloodthirsty. Too many Democrats have been far too passive for too long. Time to call a spade a spade. Time to end their reign of terror, one candidate at a time.
Someone needs to draw “facts” a little chart of the distinctions between the federal gov, state govs, and county govs. Maybe do a little sock puppet show too.
I’m with T-Dog. T, tell me if he writes anything sane.
T-Dog and T, you guys have been in the office a lot longer than I have – you must know someone who’d be interested in a story like this?
Prosecutor
@103…TDOG…
A problem with being an attorney is that you think like one. You’re trying to analyze the cast of characters you find here as if they were rational human beings. Think more in terms of Franz Kafka, Eugene Ionesco, or Samuel Beckett.
What passes for reasoning among most is what passes for reasoning among the residents of Fairfax Hospital or Western State.
Several candidates for office in the area, together with a sitting office holder, have, of late, gotten crossways with breathalyzers, domestic violence arrest requirements, and other assorted lapses. Yet these aren’t absolute knockouts; they barely on the order of sending a wide-stance love note written on an entire roll of Charmin to Sen. Larry Craig (See…I can rip into my own…they can’t).
The ultimate political knockout, for a male politician or candidate, is the “live boy, dead girl” standard. Getting caught in flagrante delicto with one of them is an absolute kiss of death; hang it up, it’s over, and no, there won’t be a book deal!
You can take it to the bank and bet the kids’ college money that even if Bill Sherman ran afoul of “LB,DG,” Facts/Farts, Joe Pine, and the HA cast of characters who more closely approximate the demented souls portrayed in Salvador Dali paintings would still support him.
After all, he’s compliant with the prime HA directive: be a D or die!
Read some back issues of Mad Magazine, think on how Alfred E. Newman resembles Facts/Farts Joe Pinwoodhead, and the Hans und Franz goofalikes here at HA, consume copious amounts of your favorite beverage and, after your eighth or ninth – all in the comfort and safety of your home, of cours – what they say will begin to make sense…in a nursery school sort of way.
BTW…on behalf of citizens throughout King County, thank you for your service, committment to the people, and your professional dedication. And this comes from a pretty rock ribbed Republican…who still is begging you to be more proactive in communicating your concerns.
The Piper
PS: This word just in: Republican Bobby Jindal has won the race for governor of Louisiana. Against 11-opponents, he garnered 53% of the vote so, under Louisiana’s goofy, civil-law-based, quasi-Napoleonic code, he won’t face a run-off against the next highest vote getter.
Jindal, 37, will become the nation’s youngest governor, and the first non-white to hold the office in Louisiana since Reconstruction.
How will Facts/Farts, Joe Pineforbrains, et al, demonize him?
Wow, the righties are really going to the mat for Satterburg! and swamping this thread to the point of spam!
You’ve pretty well convinced me that you wouldn’t be so batshit FOR something if it wasn’t bad.
You call me “delusional”, but it is y’all that don’t get it. Newt Gingrich declared war on the Democratic Party, and America at the same time, and even forbid his Republiconvict Congressmen to even talk to Dems.
I didn’t start this war on America, but tens of millions of pissed off / on Americans will end it, once and for all. ’08.
As long as there is a -R after Satterburg’s name, he is my enemy. Period.
You just don’t get it do you?
Wait till it is your 12 year old child they attack for speaking the truth. It is your city that is flooded, that they completely ignore, even today. It is you that gets prosecuted for being a Democrat instead of being guilty. It is your children getting sick from a factory’s pollution that had been protected. The list goes on.
Get involved. Keep the Dems honest, and get rid of all the -R’s. There is still time….. America is worth it.
T-Dog,
Bet that’s the first time you’ve been called a “rightie?”
P
There you go again, FSMP- ignoring the question:
what is the difference between your sweeping approach to politics (ie all R’s are evil) and that of Adolph Hitler, the KKK or any organization dedicated to the eradication of another “group”.
You remain the village idiot….
Not sure, prosecutor- maybe an email to the editor or two??
Satterburg can pretend to be non partisan, just like Rossi pretended to be a moderate, and McGavic pretended to not be a Republicon, denouncing party line voting.
Bunch of fuc*ing frauds.
@113…TDOG, et al…
Not a blind LTE…
You guys all must know some reporters…There must be a few who are regularly assigned to the courthouse beat. Which ones do you trust to, first, listen, then see the story in what you’re saying, and then care enough to dig and report honestly.
If you don’t know anyone personally, call around to colleagues and friends around town and get a recommendation, then use whoever gives you the name to introduce you to the reporter.
Sounds like a lot of busy-work, but it’s not. Even if it was, isn’t what’s at stake worth it?
The Piper
Hey Mirror- catch up here: We are not righties. We are liberals who have the mental balls to vote for the qualified candidate, not for a letter….
good point, Pipes. I’ll follow up on that….
Dog, I didn’t call for their eradication. Just that they be removed from government, where they seem to do the most harm. You and I will keep them safe…. I will provide opportunities for them and their children, and you will lock up the ones that do crimes.
You compare me to Hitler, and call me an idiot, while saying we should put a Republiconvict prosecutor in office.
I don’t call you names. I don’t have to. By supporting a Republiconvict for a very powerful position, you have done far worse than any words that could come from my keyboard.
You trust a Republiconvict to uphold the law (sic) and you call me an idiot.
Go figure…..
TDOG:
If I made a mistake, I’m sorry I called you a rightie instead of a blue dog.
Right now anyone who comes out of the gate as a Republican has to be assumed to be willingly ready to be a foot soldier for Bush/Cheney Republicanism, unless they have a strong clear history showing otherwise. This is especially true for the office of county prosecutor. Satterburg has chosen his party. Right now that party has a vision for the future of this country I find pretty horrifying, I feel sorry for his soul that Satterburg wants to join them in their vision, but I can’t willingly help.
You guys work in a prosecutor’s office, but don’t seem to understand the concept of organized crime.
Scary…..
@117…TDOG…
Remember also to craft what you say into a story. Just as juries need to understand not raw facts and data, but what the story is of your case, so, too, reporters need to be aided in their work by giving them a hook in the form of what makes your otherwise dry facts “a living, working reality” (apologies to Atticus Finch). I say this as a late middle-aged budding journalist.
The Piper
yup….
@119…Mirror…
Go look in one to see how much you resemble Facts/Farts, Joe ridin’theintellectualPine, et al.
Instead of flights of theoretical MoveOn.org fancy, look at the facts in the PAO race. That Dan Satterberg seems to have more name Democrats supporting him than does Bill Sherman should tell you something.
And listen to the people closest to the situation. What are they saying? Or does that matter?
The Piper
Piper:
I guess they are saying they support strengthening the position of the party whose state and national objective is to make it so the child of lesbian parents can be taken away if the birth parent dies.
Or he’s their pal and they have no backbone for the big fight? Or their allegiance to the good old boy network trumps the good of the whole?
Nothing anyone has expressed about the differences between these two men indicates an outcome that makes it worth strengthening the Republican party in our county and state. The last time I voted for one of these “non-partisan” Republicans for a non-legislative position it came back to bite me, and Satterburg has a history more partisan than the person I voted for in that race.
That he would choose to be an elected official representing your general political philosophy, Piper, is very very disturbing to me.
You are as ignorant as Facts, Mirror. Just as not all D’s agree with affirmative action, not all R’s oppose gay rights. Do you have any FACTS to support your contention that Dan would support the removal of a child from lesbian parents if the birth parent dies, or are you, like Facts, simply content to have your research being and end with the letter D or R?
How very discerning and informed of you. Now I know who the mirror is facing…..
oops- I meant have your research “begin and end”….
You know, I just watched a Satterburg commercial on TV 10 minutes ago. The asshole forgot to mention he was a Republicon. Oops….
He is simply a fraud.
Can I join this party? It looks like fun.
Facts @ 107 – John McKay was screwed by the Republican party for, as you put it, “not towing the party line.” I couldn’t agree with you more. He got screwed! He’s even come out and spoken in public about how pissed he is at Bush and his bullshit regime. However, John McKay still endorses Dan Satterberg! That speaks volumes.
As others have pointed out, Jenny Durkan, Chris Gregoire’s attorney and a very prominent figure in the Democratic party has endorsed Satterberg.
Janice Ellis (Sno. Co. prosecutor) and Gerry Horne (Pierce Co. prosecutor) are both Democrats and have endorsed Satterberg.
And the list goes on and on…
This is not a “good ol’ boy” thing. People who know what this job really entails are voting for the most qualified candidate (Satterberg by a mile) and looking beyond party labels.
welcome to the party, DPA.
But don’t pay any attention to FSMP- he’s on crack. It won’t take you long to see he has the intellectual range and individuality of a sheep.
@129…TDOG…
The sheep are pissed! Watch it! They consider your comparison of Facts/Farts to them to be an actionable defamation bordering on a criminal libel.
Do you think Bill Sherman would prosecute the case? In the interests of enforcing the ciminal libel statutes? I’ll bet if asked his off-the-top of his head response would be that he would since all relevant laws must be enforced.
The Piper
Bill Sherman prosecute that case? First he should finish the cases he left festering on someone elses desk while he goes out and campaigns. He talks a big talk when it comes to working with dv victims, but he dropped those victims without blinking an eye.
DPA, And the cases Satterburg is avoiding? He also has to go out, make commercials, and campaign too?
I wonder how pretending to not be a Republicon will work out for Satterburg. It didn’t do so well for McGavick! What was his losing margin? 60 / 40 and most Dems don’t even like Maria….
DPA I understand your position. I just couldn’t make myself vote for any Republicon. If there is an -R after their name, it means they are part of the problem. Not part of the solution. America needs more Republicons in positions of power like a dog needs more fleas and ticks.
The GOP has declared war on America, and have a scorched earth game plan. I won’t concede one stick of kindling to them. Here in King County, in my backyard, or at the gates of hell.
When push comes to shove, Satterburg will tow the party line. Guaranteed. He is not stupid. If he doesn’t they will do to him what they did to McKay, and the rest. (Which is a crime by the way) What they do to everyone that won’t play along. That is how the mafia works.
So what if Satterburg is McKay’s friend. They are both Republicons, and they probably both despise Bush along with 76% of all Americans. If it wasn’t for Bush, we wouldn’t even be on this thread….
How much easier would it be for the Satterburgs of this world, trying to appear to not be partisan, if it wasn’t for all of Bush’s crimes, and lies?
Go ahead. Cast your vote for a Republiconvict. You will regret it sooner, or later. Probably sooner…..
FSMP,
Bill literally dumped his cases on to other DPAs and is campaigning full-time. I know the people that are still cleaning up his mess.
Dan is still running one of the the most progessive prosecutor’s office in the country full-time and campaigning on the side.
None of us here are going to change your mind. You hate everyone with a R next to their name…I get it. You are entitled to that opinion. But please don’t jump on the bandwagon of uninformed people who claim that Bill Sherman is qualified to run this office. It’s an insult to all of us who have way more experience than he does.
Wow, roll in after a night at the bar and FSMP is still spewing something…not sure what it is…it might even be relevant, but I don’t know because I’m not going to read it. You have no idea how liberating it is to see his posts and just scroll down to the next one.
On the topic at hand: Piper, please, PLEASE get someone in the media to look into the issue of support / lack thereof in the office for Bill Sherman. Or the defense bar. Or the law enforcement unions. Or ANYONE in the criminal justice system. If these insiders try to reach out to Postman/Connelly/anyone, they’ll continue to be accused of being some vocal minority. But if the press initiates the inquiry, it might be worth something.
If Satterberg is right wing then he sure failed us when KC Dems stole the last election.
We like him only cuz he’s better than the alternative, but he’s no more one of us than that Sam Reed guy..
Facts/Farts has really done it now: Dan Satterberg is effectively responsible for the Reichstag fire in the 1930’s.
Yep…he actually said it in a post in this morning’s Open Thread that leads with further insane support of the Bill Sherman competency equivalent, Richard Pope.
Even those among you who avoid Facts/Farts like you avoid a crazed aunt who wears too much lilac water and covers her terribly bad breath by chewing cloves, it’s worth reading his post if for no other reason than to convince yourself that the mentally ill do have access to technology.
What’s next? Was Napoleon betrayed at Waterloo by Dan Satterberg’s great-great-great grandnephew’s failure to shine his boots properly? Was Wellington a Karl Rove plant?
How soon before Facts/Farts’ simploy explodes due to the build up of noxious gases?
The Piper
Piper. I can provide links. What have you got? Name calling?
By being a Republiconvict, Satterburg is not qualified.
Automatically.
By not claiming he is a Republiconvict in his ads, that makes him a fraud.
Easy as 1, 2, 3.
Vote for Democrats, or wish you had later.
@137…Facts/Farts…
Where did you get your links? Joe McCarthy’s briefcase?
You’re a crackpot and increasingly regarded as such. Give it up!
The Piper
Facts- “They” (the feds, I assume-those who you suggest will do the same thing to Dan as was done to McKay- have NOTHING to do with the office of the KCPAO).
Your ignorance begins and ends with this misconception.
And you are increasingly getting outnumbered and out debated here and everywhere. Time to cash in some duckets and go get some serious counseling….
FSMP @ 137 – “By being a Republiconvict, Satterburg is not qualified.”
That is brilliant. You must work for the Sherman campaign. That is exactly his platform:
“So what if Dan is far more experienced than I am? So what if Dan has been instrumental in the creation of progessive ideas (e.g. DV unit, Elder abuse unit, Car theft unit, etc., etc.)? So what if prominent Democrats in the legal community support Dan? I am a Democrat; therefore, I am the best!”
I am now convinced that if Jeb Bush stuck a D next to his name, you’d vote for him, too. Brilliant.
Let’s discuss the aftermath of the election… If Satterberg wins, the prosecutor’s office will continue to be one of the best in the country. Those with great institutional knowledge will continue to prosecute crimes against our vulnerable.
If Sherman wins, many of the great minds will leave. In additon, Sherman will put those with even less experience into management postions. Yes, that will be his right but is it the best for the citizens of King County?
Oh and by the way FSMP, I have several gay and lesbian prosecutor friends in the office and they also support Dan. But I’m sure you’ll compare them to nazi collaborators.
Any prosecutor that quits just because Bill Sherman got elected will just look like a sore loser, given that Sherman won’t have done anything substantive yet one way or another.
By your logic, George Bush is good for gays because the Log Cabin Republicans supported him. The logic is laughable.
All these words. Yet, still we have two simple observations:
Gee… a voter first has to figure out which Dan Satterberg to vote for!
My choice was easy…I voted for Bill Sherman.
Piper, DPA, T, et al:
Your argument is essentially that Satterberg is more qualified than Sherman and, although he’s technically a Republican, Satterberg isn’t really partisan, so we should all vote for him even though we’re Democrats. I just don’t buy it.
Let’s start with the partisan point. Dan says that he views partisan affiliation as a necessary evil, will run the office in a nonpartisan manner, etc. Some of his supporters have said that he “didn’t know he was a Republican until he was appointed acting PA.” If that’s true, why did he give money to Dino Rossi in 2004? And I think his appearance at a party fundraiser with Jane Hague is directly contradictory to his “nonpartisan” claims. If Satterberg wanted to run as a nonpartisan, he should have stayed away from all partisan events or groups other than his own campaign. He doesn’t need money from a fundraiser – he’s already outraised Sherman by a lot. And the fundraiser here is for the party not his campaign. So why go, unless he wants to help the KCGOP? I also think it’s inappropriate to appear with Jane Hague as a separate matter. She’s admitted lying on her resume, and she treated a police officer terribly when she was pulled over for a DUI. If Satterberg appeared at a fundraiser with, say, Reagan Dunn, who, while unquestionably a partisan Republican, has not done anything to come across as an unusually bad person, that would be one thing, but Jane Hague at the moment is a toxic personality in addition to being a partisan Republican. Satterberg can say whatever he wants about being nonpartisan, but that’s not how he’s run his campaign. (And don’t respond by saying that he’s being supported by lots of Democrats. The major Democrats supporting him all know him personally, and I totally understand crossing party lines to support a personal friend who is by all accounts a nice guy. The vast majority of Democratic elected officials have endorsed Sherman.)
As for the experience point, well, experience is subjective. Satterberg has certainly spent more time at the prosecutor’s office than Sherman, but he was only a trial attorney for 5 years, barely longer than Sherman. And it’s worth noting that this job is the only job Satterberg has ever had. Sherman has a much wider range of work experience, ranging from the Interior Departments to clerkships with well-respected federal judges to work at a well-regarded civil law firm in town. Satterberg has done none of that. Yes, we can argue about what kind of experience is more helpful, but it’s clear that each candidate can offer certain types of experience that the other can’t. Being a good #2 for 17 years is not necessarily the best training to be a good #1.
mirror:
“….given that Sherman won’t have done anything substantive yet one way or another…”
That’s the point, pinhead- Bill has not done anything one way or another, and yet you robotic sheep seem to think he’s even in the same stadium as a guy who’s done quite a bit to benefit this county for 22 years.
Dum dum girl….
TDOG @ 146,
Taking mirror’s statement completely out of context (as in changing the meaning of it entirely) doesn’t do anything positive for your credibility.
It also makes me SERIOUSLY doubt that you are who you say you are—or at least, I hope to hell you don’t display such dishonesty and lack of integrity in your position with the prosecutor’s office!
TDOG baby, these Sherman Toadies are no match for your intellect; their fallacious “arguments” speak to that. What makes me sad is that if they only knew you like I know you, or if they knew ANY of us who have dedicated our lives to the KCPAO and the citizens of this county, they would realize that when we speak out in favor of Dan, we’re not doing so to advance our careers, or to maintain the status quo. In fact, we’re potentially putting our livelihoods in jeopardy by speaking out against someone who may well win. Rather, we do so because we understand what the job entails, and we know that justice is served when a prosecutor is not beholden to the political powers that put him in office. And goddamn, if the people who have worked with Bill during the limited time he has spent in the office think he’s unqualified to run the show, then that should say something to the voting public. But these sheep aren’t going to get it. Let’s hope 51% of King County does.
Hey Darryl- leaving it in, or taking it out of context does not change the FACT (which supports my position) that Bill has done nothing of note in the KCPAO. Nothing, of course, other than twice leaving his DV victims high and dry to run for office.
On the other point- you’re kidding, right? We are all on an anonymous blog here, and somehow my anonymity means a lack of honesty and integrity? Is that the best you can do, my ignorant friend? You have no idea…..
I’d be happy to chat with you face to face, one on one, after hours and off site if I wasn’t quite sure I’d soon discover a lien on my house and car- maybe even my dog. You Posse Commitas are kinda scary.
Darryl @ 148
You may “SERIOUSLY doubt” that TDOG is who he says he is, but I can tell you that if, god forbid, you or one of your loved ones was the victim of a violent crime in King County, you’d be one lucky MF to have TDOG fighting for justice for your family. And you know what? No matter how much you questioned his motives, he’d still do it wholeheartedly.
Welcome aboard, Frontline. don’t know who you are, but gracias. Hopefully Darryl will just dance through the rest of his uninformed life never needing any of us….
TDOG, my spouse was reading this thread earlier this evening and told me about it, so I had to get on and see for myself. All I can say is that it’s amazing how uninformed some people insist on remaining. Check your email for who I am. I’m kinda scared of what these folks would do too, otherwise I’d just tell you here.
I think this quote sums up the tone the posters identifying themselves as deputy PAs are taking with respect to us non-deputy PAs daring to think we’re allowed to make our own decisions re who should be the prosecuting attorney:
“I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”
To all the PAO professionals…
I have an idea on how to get the word out about what’s going on in your office, but I’m not about to write it here and have Commissar Darryl, Facts/Farts, Tenorman (who really has a bone to pick with the concept of readable text…what has he got against paragraphs???), and other HA apparatchiks.
I can be found by the diligent Googler…
Seriously…
The Piper
Of course you’re allowed to make your own decision in this race, Observer. And instead of trying to keep the voting public in the dark about this election, we are speaking out about Bill Sherman and how he has portrayed himself in a false light in an effort to convince people that he is experienced enough for this job. We’re trying to enlighten those who don’t know him like we do, and who don’t know the job like we do. If you’d like to ask me what it is we do for a living and why Bill is not as qualified as Dan to do the job, I’d be happy to share that with you. And as much as I like A Few Good Men, it’s not really appropos to what we’re talking about.
@153…Observer…
Great…You’ve seen “A Few Good Men,” so now you’ve probably got the hots for Demi Moore. And your use of an extensive Jack Nicholsan quote only serves to illustrate that you, along with the rest of the HA fantasy land delusionists, think that this is all a movie or a less than steller episode of Boston Legal or C.S.I.-Seattle.
PAO insiders, at risk to themselves, are begging you to listen, but all you want to do is imagine the Sherman/Satterberg race is some sort of make-believe.
Well, I hope the make-believe doesn’t make someone in your family a victim someday because the quality of criminal prosecutions in King County have suffered such that consequences for breaking the law are no longer to be feared.
Enjoy your sandbox and collection of Fisher-Price toys…until they’re stolen.
The Piper
Darryl,
What if you were able to verify that TDOG, et al, are in fact dedicated DPAs of the PAO… then would you listen?
What if you were able to confirm that TDOG is in fact a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat… then would you listen?
I’m not so sure you would, but it would be fun to find out. Why don’t you pose a question that you think only an insider would know and give the posters a chance to respond…
I’m new to the thread but have been following the prosecutor comments since the netroots fundraiser for Sherman last week.
I just have a question that maybe one of you can answer. (Sorry if this is answered on one of the threads already, I haven’t read every comment that closely.)
If there is so much support inside the DA office for Satterburg, why don’t people just go public? Why post anonymously?
I also looked back on some of the comments from last week and saw that there is a prosecutor union that represents some portion of the people in the DA office (one post said it was 65% of the attorneys). Why don’t the pro-Satterburg folks just vote to endorse him through the union? I saw someone say that neither candidate wanted the union endorsement, but who cares? If one candidate has so much support, who cares what he says? Just endorse him anyway so the public knows where the people “in the know” stand.
Again, sorry to clog up the thread if these questions have already been answered.
Piper- I read your posts and they make me think both of the great alfredo and the ada. E-mail is tough, but always worth checking
Come out of the closet.
I’ll do it if you do it…
Scott @ 145 – experience is NOT subjective.
Sherman has clerked for a judge. That means he spent a lot of time in the library doing legal research. Sherman was an entry level associate at Davis Wright. That means he, again, did research and wrote memos for more senior associates. Sherman was an intern for Babbitt. That means he got a lot of coffee and donuts.
While in the KCPAO, Bill has been in the District Court Unit, Juvenile Court, Filing, and DV. That means that he has tried a handful of DUI trials, a handful of juvenile bench (no jury) trials, reviewed a lot of police reports, and had only one real felony trial rotation (which he left early to campaign).
Bill Sherman does not have the experience necessary to run this office. Most of us have way more experience than Bill. (Note: when I say experience, I mean: trial experience, experience with a myriad of cases/crimes, leadership experience, management experience, mentoring experience, etc., etc.) And even with all of the experience we have, none of us come close to Dan’s experience.
What’s Bill going to do should he win this race? Is he going to be able to discuss an aggravated murder case with a DPA with 10 more years of experience than him? What’s he going to do when he meets with the head of the Special Assault Unit to discuss current issues in the field of sexual assault investigations/prosecutions? Is he going to write a memo and bring coffee and donuts?
@158…Newbie…
The DPA’s are under a self-enforced pledge to keep silent. The difficulty, according them, is that this silence is increasingly becoming untenable such that they’re reaching out, albeit anonymously, to implore all who would listen that, not only is there something rotten in the state of Denmark, there’s something rotten in the County of King over at the PAO…
If you read every thread dealing with the Sherman/Satterberg race at HA and Postman’s blog at the Seattle Times website, you’ll read plenty…certainly enough to make a reasonable person sit up and take notice.
The Piper
Hey Newbie- welcome aboard the crazy train…
Your questions are good ones. They were asked and answered in a different string a couple weeks ago, but I can’t find them to paste, so I’ll give you the short version:
Both Bill and Dan have asked us not to publicly take a position in this election. And since Norm always took that stance too, we all want to honor it (honor is a big part our office- a concept knucklheads like Darryl, Facts Joey Pine and the like don’t get)
Weeks ago, two or three “leaders” in the Association were trying to get the association to publicly endorse Bill. That movement was shut down like a naughty child because a) see above, and b) most of the association- were they to endorse anyone- would have endorsed Dan. But here’s the crazy thing:
The association only represents “non-seniors”. Senior deputies comprise the majority of the office. Some of us seniors were hoping these three self-appointed speakers for the Association would actually come out and endorse Bill, because then the gloves would have come off and the rest of us (the majority of the office, both Senior and non-senior) could have gone public with the truth about Bill’s lies and the fact that the office overwhelmingly supports Dan. In fact some of us suggested we “bait” the crazy three into doing just that. But we decided that sortof political game is not what we are about, not what the public would want the office to be about and definitely not what Dan would want us to be about. We are public servants- from the very bottom to the top- not politicians.
But who knows, maybe it’s time….
@163…TDOG…
The great alfredo (love his sauce, though) and ada??? Despite the brickbats tossed at me here on a daily basis as a compendium of useless knowledge yours was a referance that escaped me.
Seriously…My website is relatively easy to find (I’ve been outed at HA before), and that will guide you to contacting me. Let me toss my idea out to you, then consider it among your colleagues.
The Piper
Hmmm, another try…
TDOG
Dissention among the ranks? I thought that everyone in the prosecutor’s office stood behind Dan. Could it be that you do not speak for everyone?
Your quote “Some of us seniors” speaks volumes. Do you and your friends have the most to lose if Bill wins?
I anticipate that you will respond something to the effect “It is the victims that will lose…” If that is the case, why did the municipal league rate Bill as Outstanding?
TDOG @ 149
“Hey Darryl- leaving it in, or taking it out of context does not change the FACT (which supports my position)…”
What it does do, is call your credibility into question—big time. Also…from your usage, you don’t seem to have a grasp on what the word “fact” means….
You cited an opinion, not a “fact” (or even a “FACT”).
Prosecutor, my ass.
TDOGg @ 149
“On the other point- you’re kidding, right? We are all on an anonymous blog here, and somehow my anonymity means a lack of honesty and integrity?”
I am not anonymous. But anonymity isn’t what is important. Intellectual honesty IS. Remember that before twisting people’s words. It doesn’t lend you credibility when you make other statements….
“I’d be happy to chat with you face to face, one on one, after hours and off site if I wasn’t quite sure I’d soon discover a lien on my house and car- maybe even my dog.”
Hey…you are always free to show up at Drinking Liberally on Tuesday night. I’m almost always there…..
” You Posse Commitas are kinda scary.”
Oops…my mistake…I though you were being forthright….
dodger- if you call 3 people presuming to speak for over 200 lawyers most of whom disagree with the three- dissention- then I guess you actually got something right!
But everything else you said is ridiculous. Neither I nor any of us have ever suggested we speak for everyone, though we are all quite certain we speak for the vast majority. And my friends and I don’t have anything more or less to lose than anyone else in the office. Even though over 200 of the roughly 240 lawyers in the office have more experience than Bill- he may be dishonest, but he ain’t stupid. He wouldn’t come in and “clean house” if he’s elected, because how would he fare in his next race if the office fell apart under his tenure?
And why did the Municipal league rate him as outstanding? I have no frickin’ idea. But I assure you neither they, nor the PI, did any due diligence- at least not with respect to the people who work in the KCPAO. Not ONE phone call, Dodger. Fancy that!!
If asked to publicly rank a candidate, I suspect even YOU might call at leastof couple of that candidate’s co-workers, doncha think??? Or maybe not- maybe you’d need look no further than the letter following his name.
BRILLIANT!
—
Really, Darryl? You’re not anon? I guess I missed the post where you announce yourself as an associate anthropology professor.
All of us DPA’s reveal ourselves more than you: we work for the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Darryl. Get it? Come on down and visit- it’s a public forum, and you don’t even have to be pedantic.
I have no idea what drinking liberally is or where it meets. But if the folks who show up there are you myopic idiots who can’t see beyond a party affiliation, then forget about it- I get a more open mind from my dog, and she’s asleep.
My invitation was one on one, Darryl, not to join your little circle jerk….
whocaresaboutblueorred,
“What if you were able to verify that TDOG, et al, are in fact dedicated DPAs of the PAO… then would you listen?”
No. My criticism of TDOG in this thread was about his disingenuous twisting of another commenter’s words into an entirely different meaning. That led me to question TDOG’s credibility. My opinion on the prosecutor’s race wasn’t affected.
“What if you were able to confirm that TDOG is in fact a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat… then would you listen?”
Nope. I’m not a Democrat myself, really. (I.e. I’ve never joined the party, even when I lived in states where it meant I couldn’t vote in primaries.) You might call me anti-Republican, at this point in my life, though.
Overall, I find myself completely unpersuaded by Satterberg supporters here. This is an elected office and both candidates have been rated as outstanding by various organizations. I find Satterberg’s faux non-partisan claim to be disingenuous. I find Satterberg’s record on the canvassing board disappointingly partisan. I strongly disagree with Maleng’s decisions to not prosecute Lori Sotelo. (I wrote-in someone against Maleng when he ran for prosecutor last.) And that Satterberg is now fundraising for the KCGOP has caused me to redouble my efforts at getting Bill Sherman elected.
Finally, I find the attempt at using FEAR (of the office falling appart) to try to persuade voters to vote for Satterberg just too Republican for my taste (and not very credible either).
Dodger, Darryl, et al…
Instead of just taking personal shots at the people who claim to be DPAs, why don’t you go find a prosecutor / defense lawyer / cop / probation officer / drug treatment provider / etc. to come post on here about why Sherman is the better candidate. You are entitled to your opinions, but I challenge you to find someone close to the criminal justice system and get them to come out and support Sherman, even anonymously.
At the end of the day, I’m trusting people here not to outright lie about who they are, and I’m doing the same. I know the people you are attacking and I know they’re telling the truth. I work in downtown Seattle, and I’m happy to meet you at a Starbucks somewhere to show you that we know what we’re talking about.
Darryl @ 167 “Hey Darryl- leaving it in, or taking it out of context does not change the FACT (which supports my position)…”
What it does do, is call your credibility into question—big time. Also…from your usage, you don’t seem to have a grasp on what the word “fact” means….
You cited an opinion, not a “fact” (or even a “FACT”).
Good point- Darryl (2 tonight- you’re on a roll)- that could be seen as an opinion. But it also happens to be a fact. Why don’t you start randomly calling prosecutors and ask their opinions on the issue? How many will it take for you to see it’s also a fact? However many- it shouldn’t take you long….
@ 171, Darryl I may have misunderstood your attack on TDOG. Sounds like you don’t doubt he is who he says he is. Good.
I don’t like making the “fear” argument because it does sound a bit like Dick Cheney, but it is at least a debatable issue that you attack it as lacking credibility without offering any support for your position. Those close to the office support Satterberg, and some of those in the know have raised the issue of losing experienced trial lawyers if Sherman is elected. What is your SUBSTANTIVE response to that? “Prosecutor my ass” isn’t particularly persuasive.
TDOG @ 163
The “association?” Is that the union?
OK, so there was some thought back then that a few in the union wanted to endorse Sherman but most didn’t. I still don’t understand why you (or whoever is in the union) didn’t just take a vote and do an endorsement, just made it Satterburg. Majority rules and all that.
I have been in unions and that is how it works, you have an endorsement committee or board, they meet with the candidates, ask questions of them and recommend who to endorse to the members and they vote. You hash everything out in a meeting. Some agree, some disagree but after everyone speaks their peace, there is a public statement for one candidate or the other. That is how unions work, the beliefs or opinions of a few often get voted down by the many.
But it seems like that is water under the bridge. If almost the whole union, and most (if not all) non-union attorneys in the office want to endorse Satterburg now, why not just do it? Just take a vote, make an endorsement and you don’t have to be secret any more.
I guess I just don’t understand all of the smoky back room stuff, “baiting” people, etc. It just seems way more complicated than it needs to be. 1) There is a union. 2) Most of the people in the union apparently want to endorse Satterburg. 3) You take a vote and if 50.1% of the union members agree, you endorse Satterburg. Public statement made, problem solved and the voters decide.
Finally, who cares if Satterburg wants the endorsement or not? If this issue is important enough to spend countless hours anonymously blogging to get the word out, isn’t it important enough to just come out and endorse? How is “insider” anonymous blogging all that different from just coming out publicly with a position?
TDOG @ 170,
“Really, Darryl? You’re not anon? I guess I missed the post where you announce yourself as an associate anthropology professor.”
I guess you did! And you missed biographical sketches on this blog and Hominid Views.
“All of us DPA’s reveal ourselves more than you: we work for the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Darryl. Get it? Come on down and visit- it’s a public forum, and you don’t even have to be pedantic.”
I’m afraid I’m not following you here.
“I have no idea what drinking liberally is or where it meets.”
Ummm…keep your eyes peeled for the weekly announcements on this blog.
“But if the folks who show up there are you myopic idiots who can’t see beyond a party affiliation, then forget about it- I get a more open mind from my dog, and she’s asleep.”
Some of them are! But even the Republicans who show up seem to enjoy themselves.
“My invitation was one on one, Darryl, not to join your little circle jerk….”
Ummm…I presume this is a genuine offer and not a bullshit threat, right? If so, I’d be happy to meet up with you to discuss politics over a beer sometime. I’m easy to get a hold of.
Darryl @171,
“I find the attempt at using FEAR (of the office falling appart) to try to persuade voters to vote for Satterberg just too Republican for my taste.”
This is not a “Republican” or “Democrat” thing… it is a reality thing. As I have said before, the office will not fall apart if Mr. Sherman wins. It will, however in my opinion, be a shadow of itself as the years progress.
I don’t know what you do for a living, Darryl, but lets assume you sell “crazy”, and you are damn good at it. If some kissass who couldn’t sell shit suddenly became your boss, do you think you might consider selling “crazy” somewhere else? That’s not FEAR, that is human nature.
All we’re saying is that it will be very difficult taking orders from someone who used a letter in the alphabet to con a community into handing him the keys to something we treasure.
T @ 172 and TDOG @ 173
“You are entitled to your opinions, but I challenge you to find someone close to the criminal justice system and get them to come out and support Sherman, even anonymously.”
I completely understand your point. But, here is where we disagree. The KC Prosecutor is an elected position, and elected by the people of the county, not by other prosecutors. The opinion of other prosecutors not particularly useful, since this is a political position.
In particular, I have long had my own well-though-out reasons why I would never, ever again vote for Maleng. And, I sure as hell will not vote for his Protégée, who I’ve long had gripes with on separate accounts.
Newbie @175,
A PAO endorsement and the ensuing aftermath is exactly why we do not want Mr. Sherman to win.
A PAO endorsement is the type of thing that would likely seal a victory for a candidate.
Now, what does the winner do to ensure he/she gets the endorsement next time? I would suggest that he/she would get rid of all the dissidents and start hiring all Ds or Rs depending on which way they swing. The result, a partisan office making decisions not based on what is just, but rather what helps my party.
Norm was an R who hired based on who was the most qualified and who would most competently help him carry out justice… and it turned out to be a bunch of Democrats, go figure.
On November 6, the people of King County have an opportunity to hire based on who is the most qualified to carry out justice… and it turns out he’s a Republican. The fear, though (as evidenced by the many bloggers here), is that blind party loyalty is going to result in a great injustice.
Darryl at 171-
are we back to the Lori Sotelo thing? Did you not read the post days ago that clearly outlined how Sotelo’s behavior, offensive though it may have been to you and many of us, did not even come close to chargeable as a criminal offense? (You may have skipped past it, because it contained actual citations to law and legal analysis, which can be tough stuff).
Let it go- just because we may not like it, doesn’t make it a crime. Bill might have charged her, and THAT is what should scare you.
whocaresaboutblueorred,
“This is not a “Republican” or “Democrat” thing… it is a reality thing. As I have said before, the office will not fall apart if Mr. Sherman wins. It will, however in my opinion, be a shadow of itself as the years progress.”
Hogwash! County Prosecutors are elected all over the country. Where are all the tragedies and injustices caused by these offices being elected?
“If some kissass who couldn’t sell shit suddenly became your boss, do you think you might consider selling “crazy” somewhere else? That’s not FEAR, that is human nature.”
If I remember correctly, in 1988 or 1989 there was a big news story pointing out that there were more lawyers in law school than there were JDs in the U.S. Somehow, I think the office will manage to survive! Furthermore, the few people who decide to quit will be unlikely to do so simultaneously. This fear angle (which HAS been overexplotied by the Republicans in the last 6 years) doesn’t pass the bullshit test. Sorry.
“All we’re saying is that it will be very difficult taking orders from someone who used a letter in the alphabet to con a community into handing him the keys to something we treasure.”
Sorry…but you have a job where your boss is selected by a popular election every four years. If you are unwilling to accept that, then you aren’t in the right job!
Darryl @171,
You wrote, “I strongly disagree with Maleng’s decisions to not prosecute Lori Sotelo.”
Mr. Sherman and his supporters keep pounding this drum, but I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how she was going to be prosecuted and under what law.
RCW 9A.72.060 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.”
While I’m sure her motives were crap, she did withdraw the challenges that were in question. If you can explain how one disproves this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, then maybe I’ll write you in for Prosecutor.
If you can’t explain this to me, then you need to get the Dem dominated State Legislature to change this law.
Darryl @181,
You wrote, “County Prosecutors are elected all over the country. Where are all the tragedies and injustices caused by these offices being elected?”
Think Duke Lacrosse, and someone who goes by OJ.
You wrote, “Somehow, I think the office will manage to survive! Furthermore, the few people who decide to quit will be unlikely to do so simultaneously.”
Did I not say the office would not fall apart? But, I’m curious your reasoning to conclude that those who choose to leave would somehow have to stagger their exodus?
Finally, you wrote, “Sorry…but you have a job where your boss is selected by a popular election every four years. If you are unwilling to accept that, then you aren’t in the right job!”
Of course we are willing to accept a boss being elected every four years. What we are sayiing (if you care to pay attention) is that we may not be willing to accept Mr. Sherman. And you are absolutely correct… if we are unwilling to accept Mr. Sherman, then this is not the right job.
There is a God… Darryl got the point. Congrats.
where are all the injustices, Darryl asks- are you f-ing kidding me???
You’ve heard of the Duke Lacrosse case? You wanna try to argue THAT didn’t have everything to do with a prosecutor who was just a bit too enamored with politics??
And remember OJ?- the brilliant elected DA in that county put two idiots on the case and allowed both them and himself to get caught up in the lights and cameras to the exclusion of the trial. How’d THAT work out for Justice, Darryl?
How about the fact that it’s kinda hard to convict even a confessed murdered in San Francisco, so the DA deals most of them away rather than fight the good fight? or that in Boulder, Colorado many serious cases are resolved in back room deals before they’re even charged? Jon Benet Ramsey still begs from the grave for a prosecutor who knew what the fuck he was doing.
How ’bout the fact that Prosecutors in places like Utah, Cook County Illinois and Dade County Florida seek and obtain the death penalty like they’re picking strange fruit on a tree for what would be in most other counties your “average” murder?
You’re unbelievable, Darryl. You have no idea what this position means to the community. You can’t really believe it’s sufficient to pick a letter when deciding who should be the most powerful and influential lawyer in our county, can you?
TDOG @ 180,
“are we back to the Lori Sotelo thing? Did you not read the post days ago that clearly outlined how Sotelo’s behavior, offensive though it may have been to you and many of us, did not even come close to chargeable as a criminal offense?”
If you mean this analysis, I did miss it, and too bad. It is a seriously flawed analysis.
Oh…and did you notice that I was the one who originally cited the RCW in that thread!
Sorry, but whocaresaboutblueorred was superficial and incomplete. I agree that it might be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sotelo signed without “personal knowledge” (regardless of the fact that it came out during the challenges that she didn’t do the research herself!). But, Sotelo clearly mislead a public servant in the performance of duty when she added a new category to the challenge form. The only point of adding the new category was to challenge voters for which she could not provide an actual residential address—a similar category on the official form requires the challenger to provide an actual residential address. In other words, she was hiding the fact that she had incomplete information for a proper challenge.
What would have happened if she had checked the correct box but had left blank the information on current residence? If so, the challenge might well have been rejected as incomplete by King County Elections Office. Sotelo’s trick mislead King County Elections into improperly processing the challenges and therefore disenfranchising voters who were eligible to vote.
The point: Modifying a form in order to mislead officials is clearly intentional. Saying you have “personal knowledge” is much fuzzier and likely more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Together, the case may be stronger.
Secondly, the fact that Sotelo withdrew a fraction of the challenges doesn’t preclude her from being charged under RCW 9A.72.040 for false swearing on most of the rest of the forms. There were numerous cases thrown out as blatant errors that showed a total disregard for responsible investigation of the challenged voters.
Finally, even if this were a marginal case, she should have been prosecuted. Disenfranchising legitimate voters is a very serious crime that has the same effect on an election as allowing illegal votes. It is inexcusable that she was not prosecuted, given the ample evidence that she was not personally involved in the research on the individuals who were disenfranchised.
So…yeah…the Lori Sotelo case disqualifies Dan Satterberg form getting my vote. But there are numerous other reasons, as well, I have outlined in previous comments.
Darryl @185,
Read my post @182 and the referenced statute. “No person shall be convicted of perjury or false swearing…”
Try again. You sound like you have thought long and hard about this so you of all people must be able to find me one thing to charge her with… please.
At the end of your post it almost sounded like you were advocating charging someone with a crime just to prove a point… even though you could not prove it or that the law does not describe her conduct as criminal. If that is how you want justice carried out, please vote for Mr. Sherman, he’s your man. Mr. Satterberg won’t do that, sorry to disappoint you.
whocaresaboutblueorred and TDOG,
“where are all the injustices….”
Oh, cut the bullshit. First, I was talking about prosecutor offices falling apart because of an election. You give cases of lame prosecutors—not the same thing.
Even so, finding a small number of high profile cases is worthless. Show me the statistics where prosecutor’s offices go to hell right after an election.
They don’t or there would be a move away from elected county prosecutors.
It’s the exact same thing, Darryl- Bill is a lame prosecutor.
And again (and again and again and again), NO ONE has said the office would go to hell- but we have all said it would be negatively affected.
But hey- as long as we have a D in there, who cares, right? After all, the DV victims Bill twice left behind to run for office got over it (or did they?)
whocaresaboutblueorred,
You sound like you have thought long and hard about this so you of all people must be able to find me one thing to charge her with… please.
She filed 1,900 challenges and withdrew 170. That leaves the potential of something like 1,700 counts of false swearing….
“At the end of your post it almost sounded like you were advocating charging someone with a crime just to prove a point… even though you could not prove it or that the law does not describe her conduct as criminal.”
No…if you read my post very carefully, I pointed out that even if the case would be difficult to prove (i.e. if it were a “marginal case”) it should have been prosecuted because of the seriousness of the underlying issues. As you must know, a case being difficult to prove is not the same things as not being able to prove it.
I think it would be somewhat difficult (not impossible) to convict her with second degree perjury under RCW 9A.72.030. Even more realistically, I think charging her with some 500+ counts of false swearing under RCW 9A.72.040 would likely have lead to a plea agreement that would set an example to anyone contemplating such shenanigans in the future.
“If you can’t explain this to me, then you need to get the Dem dominated State Legislature to change this law.”
They did change the laws on the procedures for voter challenges!
we don’t charge “marginal” cases, Darryl. And we don’t charge 500 counts of anything in hopes it’ll scare a plea out of someone. If you want that kind of outcome driven lawyering, move north, or south, or vote for Bill.
TDOG,
“You can’t really believe it’s sufficient to pick a letter when deciding who should be the most powerful and influential lawyer in our county, can you?”
You misunderstand. I am not picking a letter. I am selecting AGAINST a letter, and the person behind that letter (even though he pretends he is not behind that letter).
TDOG,
“we don’t charge “marginal” cases, Darryl.”
Yes you do, because the KC Prosecutor’s office does not win every case. And you do charge people with crimes you know you cannot convict on. I was even on a jury once where the charges were clearly front-loaded with a marginal charge and the “real” charge. We convicted the guy on the real charge.
TDOG,
“It’s the exact same thing, Darryl- Bill is a lame prosecutor.”
I’ve heard otherwise. And…um…your credibility on such a claim is zilch.
TDOG @ 190,
“And we don’t charge 500 counts of anything in hopes it’ll scare a plea out of someone.”
Absolutely…I certainly wanted her charged to be convicted! Realistically, under Norm, she probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist (say, like, Jane Balough).
“If you want that kind of outcome driven lawyering, move north, or south, or vote for Bill.”
Yes…I do believe I will do the latter!