That’s the conclusion of Ed Miller at Hot Air. That, and the fact that less lawyers are needed the fewer ballots there are to counted. But I think that an important point is missed here. Namely, who the hell needs so many lawyers in the first place.
Sure, if I’m in a recount with a snake I want the best possible lawyer on my side. Sure, that lawyer may need an assistant or two. But in this world of cell phones, lap tops and blackberries, who needs dozens of lawyers? I have no idea how many each side had on hand, but in my professional opinion, more than a couple was redundant and a serious waste of money, not to mention a serious over-charge by the lawyers if they claimed that they needed more of their associates on hand to help them.
And what the hell is up with having to ship lawyers in from the lower 48? Don’t they have competent lawyers in Alaska? I understand that Alaska might not have the best election lawyers in the country. I already addressed that: bring in one or two of the best from down under, not a whole boatload of them. Mere mortals sometimes over-rate lawyers, while simultaneously hating them, mistakenly thinking that lawyers are smarter than the rest of us.
Couldn’t they have non-lawyer assistants doing the job of watching the counting of the ballots? How smart do you have to be to look at a ballot and figure out whether or not
Merkowski Merecowski Murkowsky is speeled kowreckdly? Answer: Not very. I’m sure that even Gramps could handle the job, and his fee would prolly be just the mere cost of some cheap Polish wodka 😉 . Being a former lawyer, it is not that I am against lawyers, it’s that I know that lawyers have a hard time saying no when somebody throws money at them and asks them if they want to go on a road trip. I don’t blame the lawyers. I blame the idiots who hired so many of them.