WA: Rossi Makes it Official

All of what you say is true but as I pointed out on the SoundPolitics threads, Judge Bridges' decision leaves us with a conundrum. He said, in effect, that if the election laws are unworkable as they are written, those adversely affected by those laws (Rossi et al.) have to use the legislative process to fix them. But the legislative process is determined by the election laws. If elections are dishonest, one can have little faith or assurance that the legislative process will ever be effective in redressing the unjust laws. In my simple-minded way, what I heard him saying is that you have to use a broken system to fix a broken system. Ever try using a broken tool to fix a broken tool? Usually doesn't work too well. This was the problem I had with the Bridges decision.

Then again, a look at history shows we've been down this road before. Our ancestors were faced with dealing with a corrupt and unworkable government in pre-Revolutionary days. They tried for years to work within the system, enduring insult after insult, injustice after injustice, and things went on that way until they couldn't stand it any longer and the patriots started shooting at people on a bridge in Concord. I guess that's why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, but there is an “elective” process there, too, in that you have to get the initiative on the ballot, and then count the votes in favor or against the initiative. In the 2004 governor’s election, one obvious place the system broke down was in the vote counting process. It was utterly corrupted by the KC ‘Rats. A close vote on a ballot initiative could conceivably get similar treatment.

Ah, but the Republicans did fight back. In fact they did everything available under the law.

Sam Reed, the Secretary of State, had a purely ministerial role under the law and could do nothing to stop what was going on in King County. The fraud was being conducted under the letter of the law. After all, if ballots are "misplaced" and found, they should be counted. Fraud has to be proven.

For the state to intervene in King County, the County Executive would have had to request intervention from the state Attorney General. But the King County Executive was in charge of the fraud, and the state Attoney General was the one running for governor. Add to this the fact that the local press and broadcast outlets were running interference for the Democrats.

The King County Executive was careful to leave some space and deniability between himself and the people who were actually executing the fraud, and no one was willing to break ranks and go to the FBI, which had established a presence as soon as the fraud began. It should be noted that the US Attorney still has a docket open on this case, but no one is willing to talk.

The Republicans took the case to court because our state constitution has a provision that permits a state court to overturn an election and force a new one if fraud or incompetence is proven. But if you check an earlier post on this thread, you'll see how that turned out.

Collusion between the County Executive and the Attorney General permitted the fraud. With no one willing to talk to the FBI, there were no legal grounds to have the agency impound everythng and count the votes itself as it did in Chicago in 1968.

Everything legal was done.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.