More ballots found in King county

[bgwah]

As long as Logan is 'counting' the votes, Sims is s shoo in.

I asked how King County voters will vote, not how in your conspiracy theory world Dean Logan will count votes.

[phk]

Oh god, when will this issue die?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are you Republicans going to tell me that Washington's Republican secretary of state stole this for the Democrats?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Update

The depositions should be publicly available soon.

I have had a look at the crucial ones (Logan and his associate Huennenks).

Bad news for Gregoire.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Further update.

Have had a chance to see (with exception of sealed portion)  the Logan deposition.

As much as I despise the little weasel, I almost feel sorry for him.  Its clear he thought he could contain the situation by stonewalling.

He never thought that anyone would take the time to carefully check up on the multiple inconsistencies.

He has already tried to dump the blame on subordinates, which has just antagonized even more people into providing evidence.

The question is, when he realizes he cann't divert blame to subordinates, will he point to others?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Futher update. CARLHAYDEN is a liar.

[J. J.]

Further update.

Have had a chance to see (with exception of sealed portion)  the Logan deposition.

As much as I despise the little weasel, I almost feel sorry for him.  Its clear he thought he could contain the situation by stonewalling.

He never thought that anyone would take the time to carefully check up on the multiple inconsistencies.

He has already tried to dump the blame on subordinates, which has just antagonized even more people into providing evidence.

The question is, when he realizes he cann't divert blame to subordinates, will he point to others?

While I enjoy the update, this still isn't proof that that Gregoire lost the election or that there are enough invalid votes to throw out the results.

Logan shifting the blame only proves that he's a beaurocrat.  :-)

[CARLHAYDEN]

JJ

There already is in hand (in the judge's hands) enough evidence.

We're merely waiting for the process to be completed.

[J. J.]

JJ

There already is in hand (in the judge's hands) enough evidence.

We're merely waiting for the process to be completed.

When it's completed, you'll have a story.  We need evidence of the correct count or proof of the invalid ballots.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Oh, come on. The Sec. of State is a Republican. He certified the election, saying there was no fraud. And the Republicans called Al Gore a sore loser. Geez, move on people.

[Citizen James]

What was that phrase that was so popular with republicans a few short years ago..

Oh yes,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Further update:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/222211_election29.html

[J. J.]

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

[The Duke]

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

Officer: "Well, Crazy Jimbob, did you or did you not kill 600 people with a KaBar?"

Crazy Jimbob: "Nope"

Officer: Well, that settles that, you're free to go.  That's all the evidence I need."

Wouldn't we want a little more to go on than the word of established law breakers?

[A18]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

That law should obviously be repealed.

[jimrtex]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.

Check Article VI., Section 6. of th Constitution of the State of Washington.

[J. J.]

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

Officer: "Well, Crazy Jimbob, did you or did you not kill 600 people with a KaBar?"

Crazy Jimbob: "Nope"

Officer: Well, that settles that, you're free to go.  That's all the evidence I need."

Wouldn't we want a little more to go on than the word of established law breakers?

There better a lot more evidence than Jimbo's answer, either way, to the question.

[J. J.]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

Here is what the contstitutional section really says:

All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

There is nothing either illegal or unethical in this.

[Emsworth]

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

Secrecy in preparing the ballot is denied if a voter is compelled to disclose how he prepared the ballot.

[J. J.]

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

Secrecy in preparing the ballot is denied if a voter is compelled to disclose how he prepared the ballot.

No, after the fact, the court could order him to reveal his vote.  This cannot influence how he cast his vote.

As pointed out by Jimrtex, there is precedent for it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

Here is what the contstitutional section really says:

All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

There is nothing either illegal or unethical in this.

First, there is no question that the wording is not a precise as could be desired.

Second, there is a long history in Washington supporting secrecy of the vote (when I have more time I'll try to give you cites on this).

Third, the attempt to compel a voter to disclose how he voted is unethical for several reasons:

a. are you going to imprison someone for refusing to disclose their vote, but not for voting illegally?

b. how do you deal with a witness who lies (and how would you know)?

The bottom line which everyone is ignoring is that there are far more illegal votes counted than the margin of 'victory.'

Lets hold the election where the rules are complied with, and see the results.

[Frodo]

Democrats now claim 544 felon voters in 2004 election

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA+Felon+Voters&dpfrom=tsto

[jimrtex]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.

Check Article VI., Section 6. of th Constitution of the State of Washington.

As I understand it, the persons in question were not qualified electors (under VI.1 and VI.3).  Section 6 only applies to electors.  If the persons in question were not electors, then they are not protected.

In the Texas cases, the voters in question were not eligible to vote in the particular election being contested (one was a Norweigan, though most simply had voted in a district that they were not resident of).  Not all the ineligible voters were able to be contacted.  Ultimately, it was decided that their votes could not be based on a projection of the votes of those who were located.