Duke - I've heard it now on 4 different networks that the Democratic attorney falsely told the FSC that the Illinois SC case allowed the counting of dimpled ballots. Have you heard this yet?
Elmer, I believe I am unbiasd in this matter. David Boies, the attorney of whom you speak, made the argument in open court. Boies, is a very competant attorney. I also hate his guts. He is the attorney that the DOJ(and Gore?) hired to, my words, bend the law to illegally destroy Microsoft. He is not my buddy.
But this ethics thing is total, legally put, bullsh*t. He cited case in his papers, he cited an Illinois case to the judges, they all have electronic access to the original case, and the lower court case from which it was appealled.
He argued language in the case that was favorable to the democratic theory that intent could be discerned. He was correct. The language is in the case. The Bush attorneys DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ THE CASE!!!!
It was their job to bring to the court's attention that the Illinois case UPHELD a case that denied dimpled chads. Boies did not argue the case for dimpled chad, he argued the case for its "dicta", (extra language not necessary to the holding).
When they gave the case to the Recount Board, I think They were bright enough to spot the problem, so he got the, I assume, "Illinois" attorney, who was there at the time the Illinois case was tried, to state, that they counted dimples, even though the lower court didn't rule that way. The next day, that attorney amended his affidavit to state that they counted dimples, only if light showed through.
He did not ask that attorney to lie under anything I have seen.
If what my understanding of the facts is true, then it is as malicious a lie to accuss Boies as if Gore had said, I just want everybodys vote to count, while secretly directing that absentee military ballots be not counted for any technicallity possible reason that you could find.
Duke |
