WA Gov Court Case: Wasn't This About Fraud?
Maybe the audio is the problem?
As I sat watching Republican lawyers cross examining Democratic witnesses, I kept asking myself if I was in fact watching the correct court case.
This is Borders vs. King County, correct? I am watching the right court room aren't I?
You've got to wonder.
After all, for six months we've been hearing nothing but how there has been massive criminal fraud (is there any other kind?), and that the GOP was going to demonstrate that when they got their day in court.
Well, so far, they've had eight days in court, and not only have they not shown any evidence of fraud, they appear to have entirely given up trying.
Case in point, their questioning of Dean Logan. Here's a guy who has been mocked and lambasted by the right wingers and GOP PR cheerleaders. Here's a guy who headed the elections department that supposedly acted collusively to allow the fraud, to enable the conspiracy, to facilitate the stealing of the election. This was their primary target for insults, innuendo, invective and bile, yet all the GOP lawyers tried to do, albeit with dripping sarcasm, was point out a number of inadvertent mistakes that were made during the course of voting and the processing of votes.
So that's the sum total of their case, there were inadvertent mistakes, and that's not a good thing. That's the bombshell? Even Dean Logan agreed that, no, inadvertent mistakes are not a good thing. But fraud, fraud, wherefore art thou fraud? Nowhere to be found.
Oh, and the argument about how to consider the felon votes (it is hardly worth considering the dead voter issue given how few there were) was argued in court. Again.
And again.
And again.
But, what happened to the fraud allegation so appropriate for news conferences and press releases? So perfect for rabble-rousers and six minute talk show segments. The fraud allegation doesn't compute. It takes a back seat to statistical gyrations and obfuscation. Poor Judge Bridges just had to scratch his head wondering which expert witness to believe; which lie, damn lie, or statistic to believe.
So what are we left with? The court case has put the warts of the system in the spotlight. This is not a bad thing, even while the warts are not a good thing. Yet, they are also not an unusual thing - we simply are finally putting up a magnifying glass on the problem and paying attention for once. Our election systems is too haphazard for it to be a perfect undertaking. Obviously Judge Bridges grew weary of hearing about the warts and yearned for some indication that election officials felt the same way and were taking steps to try to improve things.
Yet, this might be a revealing insight into how Bridges will rule on Monday. Clearly the case has not been made that Rossi was the unmistakable winner of this election. Clearly no case for fraud has been made that would cause the result of the election to be thrown out. However, Bridges is pained by the holes in the election system, and while he knows he has no evidence that meets the burden of proof needed for him to rule in favor of a new election, he realizes that it would hardly cause the holes to be plugged, and could even mean we all get to go back to court to contest a re-election outcome were he to make such a ruling. Which leaves the status quo, that uncomfortable place that falls short of having any impact or influence to help prod forward needed improvements to the election system. Which was inevitable, because election reform was always going to occur despite this election contest, not because of it.
I guess my TV isn't broken after all, and neither is the good ol' fashion American way of using the court system as an excuse to fight a PR battle. The GOP may lose this court case, but they never expected to win it, instead realizing the court of opinion was the battlefront that mattered most. So expect them to play the fraud card for years to come, regardless of the fact they had nothing to back it up with in a court of law.
The joke's on us if we allow them to continue to do so. (nwphtt48)
Posted at 6/02/2005 11:36:00 PM PT
Permanent Link
6 Comment(s):
I know this doesn't fit your definition of fraud, but when the independent SOS director of elections sent those e-mails to discredit and throw out the Rs challenge was the turning point for me on the subject of fraud. In other words, he was conspiring to fraud the voters their choice of governors.
I was up in the air till then.
Also Also and Karma have both hammered on me in the past because of the statistical analysis. Perhaps, they are now more humble and accept my opinion of statistical analysis.
Stats can be made to say whatever you want.
Nick Handy's email is hardly an indicator of fraud. I think he quite clearly expressed his position that contrary to the facts, contrary to the way he knew this election had been run, the GOP were besmirching his office and the elections in an unfair and dangerous manner. His email was simply taking the position that that should not stand unchallenged, and that the unfounded rhetoric needed to be countered.
In short, that email was no different than a person defending one's good name against insults or slander. Hardly an indicator of guilt and fraud.
As for stats, Stefan has skillfully used them to paint the pictures that suit his arguments. That's the great thing about stats, especially when handled by non mathematicians and non statisticians - you can make all kinds of seemingly factually correct pronouncements with them, while hiding so many other truths, or actually shielding the truth.
Yumpin' Yiminy. This is like G Gordon Liddy blaming Mark Felt for his problems. The Rossi team MADE CRAP UP, and then had to drop it even from their trial pleading because they had nothing, and they knew they had nothing. Two examples were provided in court by Ahearne. And of course we know how the big ballot stuffing and fraud allegations the first day have gone.
Handy knew contesting an election based on crediting was utterly ridiculous, and he told counties, Dean Logan among others, to fight that perception and undermine the misleading, false argument being pushed in the media.
How can a trial turn on belief a person is biased because he told the truth, in favor of a guy who lied? And how do we know it's the truth? The judge has explicitly said so. That is phenomenal to me.
That does not change my opinion. This e-mail showed the guy totally biased. I'll agree that your opinion is different than mine.
And the truth is not always the truth when it gets to court, is it? Truth as I know it sometimes, if not most of the time, gets twisted once attorneys or journalists get it. So all these droppings were window dressing. I think the revote folks just wanted something clear and concise that the emotional and irrational Dems ( not you guys, but the ones in the party heirarchy) could hang their hats on that wouldn't get clouded by extra stuff. I think they accomplished that.
The judge seemed to think that the trial was a waste of time. "Dismissed, with Prejudice". He also had no use for the statistical garbage the R's were pulling out.
The result was certainly bad for Rossi. He should FINALLY!!! concede this election and not even bother with an appeal after such a devastating verdict.
Of course he'll try to do so in a way that makes him out to be a good guy in the process. But it is too late for that. Conceding on Dec 23rd would have allowed for him to be seen that way. Doing so now he cannot stop from being tainted as a power grabbing politician of the worst kind - one willing to put the state through a trial for his own gain.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link