PROVE IT!

[grace0418]

I see so many people, here and especially in the world at large, who get very hot under the collar when it is suggested that the 2004 election was stolen, rigged, etc. And these are liberals I'm talking about (obviously lunatic right-wing folks would probably shoot you for saying that).

I understand that BushCo has successfully brain-washed a lot of people into supporting them. What I don't understand is how liberals can ignore the MOUNTAINS of evidence of wrongdoing in every single thing the Bush administration has EVER done. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, profiteering, rigging, treachery... these are common occurances in the BushCo White house. Why should the election be any different? Yes, a lot of really ridiculously ignorant people live and vote in this country. But I don't think they're in the majority. I think there were enough to make the election close enough to rig, but not win. I think BushCo did the rest.

So why is it up to those who believe the election was stolen to prove it?* I say, PROVE to me that the election was FAIR. Because it seems far more likely to me that BushCo lied, cheated, and rigged just like they always do. Explain to me how, as a liberal, you've come to the conclusion that all was fair and square with such absolute certainty.





*NOTE* I'm not speaking in an official sense. Obviously, we need to continue uncovering hard evidence (and getting people to pay attention to the evidence already available) to OFFICIALLY prove election fraud. I'm just speaking in a general, personal opinion sense.

[stray cat]

1. Burden of proof in America is always on the accuser.

It fits with the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Overturning an election requires proof and it should. I agree however, with the statement "prove it" but I believe it has to be prove of fraud.

[grace0418]

5. Like I said, I'm just speaking in a personal sense.

Not an official, court of law sense. If you ask liberals for their opinion on BushCo's guilt or innocence on ANY other subject, you'll get plenty of "guilty" verdicts without hard evidence.

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Exactly

This is why John Kerry couldn't have done anything about it in the beginning. He knew that in a court of law people wouldn't consider him to be a reliable source and all that. "Sour grapes" and all that nonsense. Of course Bush can't prove he won either.

[William Seger]

65. Just as a matter of logic...

... it isn't possible to "prove that the election was fair." Even though there is no irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot, for example, that doesn't "prove" that Bigfoot doesn't exist. However, if Bigfoot exists -- or the election was stolen -- it should be possible to prove that by finding the irrefutable evidence. Don't get me wrong; I definitely believe the election was stolen (and that there is credible evidence to substantiate that claim), but the burden of proof is on the people making the assertion, if for no other reason than because the converse statement cannot be proved.

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Not when it came to WMDs

but I agree with the theory.

[iconoclastNYC]

31. Who is tryign to overturn an election?

Name someone. A group or an individual. OP is responding to someone in another thread who called anybody asserting fraud as a tinfoling wingnutter.

[grace0418]

33. Thank you. eom.

[KittyWampus]

44. I Disagree, It's Encumbent On The Political System To Prove It's Election

process is unbiased and fairly done. Transparent.

This should be a basic Principle, citizens have the Right to expect fair and free elections untainted by fraud.

And as a basic Principle, it shouldn't require the citizens to prove there's been fraud.

It's up to the Government to prove it's being run honestly.

[noiretextatique]

56. something to remember: the precedent 2000

they did steal that one...and it was proven.

[rman]

84. That used not to be the case with elections

The election system was so that its fairness was verifiable after the fact.
With the implementation of e-voting the system was changed so that fairness is no longer verifiable. The system no longer provides data that can be used to verify its fairness.
All we can do now is trust the republican corporations that monopolize the election system and that do not provide the data that can be used to verify the fairness of an election.

[napi21]

2. I agree with you phylosophy, but in our system, it's always up to the

accusor to PROVE the wrong doing.

Think about any court case. The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecutor HAS to prove his guilt.

In the voting case, I hate the idea, but the system isn't really a bad one.

[meegbear]

4. About to post something to that effect

If you make a statement that one could deem questionable, you should be prepared to have to facts.

[grace0418]

8. Again, I'm talking about personal opinion, not court of law.

I personally find the notion that the election was fair very, very, VERY questionable. So what I'm asking is for someone who believes that to PROVE to me it was.

[napi21]

15. But they don't have to, and they know that.

I'm sure, in their unsaid thoughts, they say they won, you lost, and they don't really care about your complaining.

[northzax]

39. define fair

seriously. do you think that literally every vote was counted as the voter intended? of course not. Was the spirit of the election laws violated? certainly. the spirit of campaign finance reform? no doubt.

but that's nothing new. so I freely concede that they was likely fraud in this election. was it more than in any other recent presidential election? did it tip the scales towards Bush? no, I don't think so. And so.

[kenny blankenship]

20. You're misapplying a principle

"innocent until proven guilty" is a principle in criminal proceedings. It and its fellow traveler, "beyond a shadow of a doubt", both derive from the belief that the freedom of the individual is so important that even when accused of a serious crime that person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, so they would not be deprived of life or liberty on the basis of flimsy evidence and bias.
It does NOT apply in civil court matters. And a court-led inquiry into truth or falsehood of a theft of a nationwide election, or a series of elections, such as the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly, would be an investigation of the breakdown in the integrity of our electoral system, not a trial where named inviduals would be defending themselves against specific charges. Criminal trials could come later, but the question itself is a civil matter without a defendant. However, we don't allow Federal courts to take on civil questions as they do in Britain. In deciding the question though, whether acts of concerted election fraud took place, the presumption of innocence is a stranger dragged in from outside. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof which must be met before confirming the proposition is likewise dragged in from a different arena. The preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard.

[grace0418]

24. Thank you.

That's interesting what you said about the Hutton Inquiry.

And, totally OT, I kept wracking my braind to figure out where I'd hear the name kenny blankenship before until I looked closely at the image in your sig line. AWESOME show!

[marions ghost]

34. thanks for explanation

I knew it was not applicable, but you explained it well...

Interesting point you brought up--if Federal Courts were allowed to take on civil questions as in Britain, would this help us deal with election (and perhaps other white collar crimes) better, or not? Is the British system better in this sense?

[kenny blankenship]

37. I don't know if it's better

I really don't know enough about the differences and how it has worked out in practice. Part of me thinks they have something good there, taking certain questions out of the political arena removing them to a judicial process. But another part of me says any process can be politicized if people are determined to have ideological versions of what's true overshadow all other versions. In theory, Ken Starr was supposed to be a dispassionate objective investigator of money losing land deal Bill and Hillary got mixed up in. I still don't understand how he could go from prosecuting an allegedly fishy real estate deal to subpoenaing the President's penis and genetic material.

[marions ghost]

40. good point

Ken Starr...the taxpayers sure got ripped off on that one...

[Lars39]

3. Elections should be TRANSPARENTLY honest.

We shouldn't have to be jumping through hoops to get honest answers.

[annabanana]

9. ex. act. ly.

Even the APPEARANCE of impropriety should raise red flags all over the place.

AND any HONEST American should agree with you..

[China_cat]

6. See if you can ever get an answer

from a right-winger for this question:

If your guy is so good, why do his supporters have to lie, cheat and smear others in order to get him into/keep him in office?

[zoids]

13. I know the answer to that!

It's Clinton's fault!! :evilgrin:

[grace0418]

16. LOL!

Of course! If the election was rigged, it must be because Bill got a blow job.

[grrl62]

10. people don't want to believe they are being lied to

b/c if they could allow themselves to see it, then they would be forcing themselves to admit that the gov't is not a perfect/good-patron/protector system, but that is it corrupt. and to see that, to *really* see that would scare the shit out of most people. they WANT to believe everything is ok. they NEED to believe everything is ok to go on functioning.

[canadianbeaver]

12. Ding ding ding...we have a winner.....n/t

[annabanana]

18. You got it grrl62!

If they recognize the lies, they have to reasses everything else they've been told by this thunderous lying stampede..

Oh, and
:toast: Welcome to DU!

[grrl62]

21. exactly!

one must reasses everything. and it can make people run away and hide w/ the blinders on for the rest of their lives or it can be a life altering experience - a wake-up call for self-empowerment and repossessing our country.

b/c when we become complacent we get duped. we have to keep fighting for the truth and we MUST keep educating the masses.



and thanks for the warm welcome!!:D :toast: :D

[annabanana]

27. America agrees with you..

It's not enough to criticize the leaders in this country.. It's the duty of citizens to set them straight.

[marions ghost]

41. I would agree

voting is such a cornerstone of Democracy that if you come to the conclusion that it seriously at risk, it causes a large amount of emotional discomfort. Denial is so much easier.

The fact is we have an election system that is so byzantine, so vulnerable, so rife with abuses that it boggles the mind if you really start looking at it. Nobody in the business world would put up with this shoddy system, with no ability to audit any election effectively. Reform efforts are ongoing, but it remains to be seen if we can create a really transparent and trustworthy system. Right now, anyone who trusts it is just not willing to look at it closely. It's a complete mess.

[grace0418]

23. Very good point.

Welcome, and thanks for the insight.

[BillZBubb]

14. Your post seems a little disingenuous

You say you are not speaking in an "official sense". But, when you go around making very serious accusations about stealing a national election you must back it up with proof. Otherwise, you won't be taken seriously by a big majority of the population.

If you feel the election was stolen, there is no reason for you not to express that opinion--and note it as such. But, those taking that position have to bear in mind it is simply that--opinion. Get some hard evidence, and it can then be considered substantial.

Personally, I think it is much more probable that the sheeple of this country really did elect the moron than that it was stolen. There are a lot of very dumb voters, more than enough to elect a proven failure like Bush.

[grace0418]

22. Unclear maybe, but disingenuous? That's a bit harsh.

What I'm asking, and maybe not very well, is how can liberals who will believe just about any kind of wrong-doing on the part of BushCo suddenly get very uppity at the suggestion that the election was stolen? And I'm asking the question because I've seen many, many posts here on DU where people are jumping on others posting the election theft opinion to PROVE IT.

I AM strictly speaking in opinions here and I've said that repeatedly. And I'm not asking the majority of the population to why they believe it. I'm asking fellow liberals to explain to me why they hold that opinion, AND why even the SUGGESTION that the opposite is true is so beyond the realm of possibility.

It's like if we were all on a message board talking about some serial killer. We all agree that the serial killer was an awful, evil person who has killed a lot of people. Then, one day, the house next door to the serial killer gets purposefully set on fire and the dear, sweet little old lady living there dies. So someone on the message board, without forensic evidence of course, says "I bet the serial killer next door started the fire!" Suddenly, half the people on the message board insist that poster prove this with hard evidence and absolutely REFUSE to believe the serial killer could POSSIBLY be kill such a sweet old lady. My question again would be why not?

[Fly by night]

68. Hard evidence??? Where have you been for the past nine months?

Certainly not on the DU "2004 ERD" forum. We are literally buried in hard evidence from a dozen states at least. For example, Cliff Arnebeck et al filed 900+ pages of hard evidence with the Ohio courts just on the fraud that was committed in Ohio. When the Ohio AG filed a "frivolous lawsuit" charge against them in an effort to have them sanctioned (stating that the 900+ pages of evidence was meaningless), the Ohio courts threw out the AG's attempted sanctions. That would suggest to me that the 900+ pages of hard evidence was anything but frivolous.

We have filled pages and pages (and thread after thread) of hard evidence in the 2004 ERD on the fraud in Ohio alone. ("Cheat sheets" provided by Triad employees before the sham recount -- which itself violated every portion of the Ohio law governing recounts; Kerry votes covered over on ballots in Clermont county so that the ballots could be remarked and read for Bush; false (and illegal) "terrorist" alerts in Warren county so votes could be counted in secret, etc, etc.) And similar evidence exists in many other states, as a post I did yesterday outlines, in response to someone else (where are you folks coming from?) who suggested that we "get real" (he meant "get over it") about the election theft. Here's what I had to say then:
------------------

If you had read any of the widely available fraud analyses, you'd know that the (fraud) issue is not simply who won each state (though it's likely that between 3-7 states were called for Bush when the votes cast there -- if counted properly -- would have colored them blue for Kerry) but how discrepant the "reported" votes were from the expected outcomes. The Busies used fraud in both red and blue states (and, I believe, in Tennessee, an Orange State) to create their artificial mandate. (The only real "man-date" Bush has had lately is Jeff Gannon.)

For example, even though Kerry won Pennsylvania, the margin of victory was 80% lower than was predicted by the exit polls there. The odds of this occurring by chance (according to Freeman et al) are less than one in 1,000.

In New Mexico, some heavily Democratic precincts showed Presidential "no votes" for as many as one of every six voters there. (For the Danaher voting equipment in New Mexico, there was an almost 6% "no Presidential vote" total statewide, which was 10 times higher than for most other equipment.)

For Wyoming (where Kerry clearly had no chance), the vote totals released by their Secretary of State after the election (and published in the Casper Star Tribune) had a voter turnout that was 106% of the total registered voters in that state, even though Wyoming was anything but a battleground state.

Even Maryland -- which Kerry won -- has recent analyses showing that the reported Presidential "no vote" in a number of heavily Democratic precincts in Baltimore was 6% or higher.

And recent analyses in Georgia also show a widespread 5%+ "no Presidential vote" in Democratic precincts there, even though their Secretary of State ... has hidden this figure by calling it something else.

All of this evidence (which is only a small taste of what we know) documents widespread and systematic fraud. Where have you been all these months? The volume of evidence for widespread election fraud is everywhere. But it has most decidedly been here on DU for the past nine months.

Since it appears that you've done very little reading on the subject, I would recommend Freeman et al; Fitrakis et al; R.H. Phillips' Ohio research; the archived analyses of TruthIsAll and (for analyses of systematic fraud and disenfranchisement documented by the Election Incident Reporting System and Common Cause databases) berniew1; the Conyers report; the New Mexico analyses of Judy Alter, Warren Stewart, Ellen Thiesen and others; the Arizona analysis of David Griscom; and the audio from the National Election Reform Conference (Nashville, April) and the Election Assessment Hearing (Houston, June). I would also recommend that you read Cliff Arnebeck's rebuttal of the Brazile report (sic) when it is released (which should be soon).

Once you've reviewed that evidence, get back to me, won't you. I'll then give you another list to review.

"Get real", eh? Read the above research and then talk to me about reality-based views of the 2004 election theft. Even one in every eight Republicans now believes the election was stolen (40%+ of Independents and 50%+ of Democrats believe the same thing), based on the last surveys I've seen.

As my daddy used to say, "You can lead a skeptic to evidence, but you can't make him think." Or, it appears, even read.
---------
My yesterday's post included just a smidgen of the hard evidence that is already available to us. Come visit the 2004 ERD forum, read what's posted now (e.g., Diebold paying a $10,000 bribe to one Ohio election official and $50,000 to another (ever heard of Kenneth Blackwell?); supposedly Democratic members of the Hocking County election commission refusing to step down after a unanimous "please leave" vote of the local Democratic Party and saying they serve at the "pleasure" of Katherine Blackwell; etc, etc). More importantly, spend some time reviewing the past threads in that forum -- the hard evidence there would choke a herd of elephants.

And then go out to your newsstand and purchase the August edition of Harper's magazine, with its cover story, "None Dare Call It Stolen". Read the new Fitrakis et al book (available at www.freepress.org), read the Steven Freeman papers and forthcoming book. READ ANYTHING, please.

Our democracy is drowning in hard evidence, and some people who know where DU can be found on the 'net still haven't bothered to read that evidence. Unbelieveable. Fortunately, more than a third of Americans know the election was stolen and almost none of them know where DU is.

The 2004 election was stolen. And I will not get over it. I am a proud member of the "reality-based" community, and we've got plenty of room for others with the time to read and discuss and think to join us. And then to act to throw these traitors and thieves out. Truth and justice can be the "American way" again, and we are the ones we have been waiting for to get us there. Peace out.

[marions ghost]

78. you summarized it well!

:applause:

enough evidence to choke a herd of elephants...

[Cocoa]

17. the election was not completely fair

the credible approaches to election reform aren't aimed at abstractions about proving anything to some unspecified, unattainable degree.

They are aimed at concrete steps to improve the system, and they rely on empirical evidence.

[skids]

19. Burden of proof is on the government.

Please don't make this mistake. It isn't that the American people are the "accusers." It's that the American people are governed by their own consent. If they are not utter fools, then it is up to the government to gain that consent by proving that what we have here is a democracy, not an oligarchy.

Again, the government claims to be a democracy. That's why the burden of proof is on them. No "accusation" needs to enter into this at all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. I say , prove it wasn't stolen!

Those who claim it wasn't stolen, the burden of proof lies with them.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. You can't prove a negative

and as long as you can dismiss the increasing evidence as it is uncovered, the tally remains a zip.

When all of the evidence is compiled, it will be hard to dismiss. But too late to change the present.

[Griffy]

81. You COULD prove who won, IF there were ballots to recount.. THATS the prob

Overlap this problem with the liars in bushco (fixed the facts for war, whats that to fixing machines..) and the probablity greatly increases. I believe the truth is NO ONE can PROVE who won... and thus is the point of all the people that believe it is the governments responsiblity to insure transparent election! (after all, they oversee the banking system.. funny how well they count then).

So with no way to prove who won.. you gotta look at the bigger picture and try to see the forest for the trees! Personally.. the war lies are going to bring him down.. DSM to traitoorgate.. impeachmnet is on the march!

[Walt Starr]

28. Believe it all you want

Espousing that belief publicly, however, will only cause you to be taken less than seriously on other issues.

[grace0418]

35. Why? Explain why the idea is so outrageous.

I keep asking someone to tell me why they think it's utterly impossible, and why it doesn't "even pass muster as hypothetical."

And, btw, all my friends take me very seriously.

[Walt Starr]

36. Because there is NO EVIUDENCE

Thus it is specualtion about a serious matter.

And I know you claim there are mountains of evidence. If this were the case, a case would have been made already.

There is only one case of election fraud resulting in criminal charges from the 2004 election, and that was directed at DEMOCRATS.

[marions ghost]

42. we don't have a system that

is set up to address the issues of a stolen presidential election.

[Walt Starr]

46. Sure we do

At the very least, those who engage in such fraud are prosecuted, as occurred in East St. Louis over election 2004:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/federal-jury-convicts-east-st-louis.php

This is the ONLY case where anybody was charged with election fraud related to election 2004. Those charged, and convicted, were Democrats.

I'm sorry, but the truth is the truth. If you have evidence, give it to a prosecuting attorney because somebody needs to go to jail. If you have evidence of widespread fraud, then federal authorities need it ASAP to prosecute those reponsible.

[marions ghost]

51. read my post 38...

this is how it occurs, and I think you know that in a secret election system, becoming ever less auditable, the incentive for people to report anything is just about nil. You ask some prosecuting attorneys if they really think anyone can be "brought to justice" on this. Jail! Don't make me laugh. Romantic notion. No. Political. Will. period

Go to the Election Forum here at DU and ask somebody what really happened on the ground in Ohio. People there can easily answer your questions with specific details. But generally speaking, y'all who believe that we have a justice system that cares about this kind of thing are sadly misguided. The fact is our election system is under corporate control, and We The People can go crying about all the infractions we see and "evidence" we have--and nothing will be done.
Revise that to say--some of our legislators such as Conyers, Boxer, etc. DO get how messed up the system is, but it's too discouraging for citizens at the state level to fight.

If all you can say is...'we would have seen indictments'...whew, then I'm sure I can't say anything to shake your faith in the system if you buy into it that much.

[grace0418]

43. You didn't read my question or my OP very carefully.

I never said there was a mountain of evidence to prove election fraud (although I believe there is at least a haystack), I said there were mountains of evidence that BushCo has committed all manner of wrong-doing since taking over the White House, and that is why I find the idea of election fraud totally plausible. How DARE I suggest that a criminal is capable of crime! GASP, the nerve!

And what I've asked those of you who don't believe the election was stolen is why is the possibility so utterly implausible to you? You don't think it's AT ALL possible that an administration capable of all manner of lies, "fact"-fixing and dirty tricks to start a war wouldn't also be capable of the same to stay in office? That doesn't seem logical to me.

Yes elections are very serious. But wars are even more serious. And BushCo had no problem sending 1700 soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis to their deaths based on lies and manipulations. An administration capable of that is capable of anything as far as I'm concerned.


P.S. Part of the reason for this "lack of evidence" you claim is voting machines with absolutely no paper trail and no way to check for accuracy or to insure against tampering, made by companies who are open and active Bush supporters. There is a reason why they don't let friends of the defendent sit on juries, so why should friends of the president get to make voting machines?

[noiretextatique]

58. what about 2000?

are we supposed to believe the same folks who took such extraordinary measures to "win" 2000 suddenly decided to play nice in 2004?
only in america...

[Fly by night]

76. There may not be any "eviudence", but there's a shitload of evidence.

See my post #68, and the several others on this thread that call your persistent assertions to task.

What's that you say, you can't hear me? I would talk louder but it would be so much easier if you would TAKE YOUR FINGERS OUT OF YOUR EARS.

AND THE ROVE-MONOGRAMMED BLINDFOLD OFF YOUR EYES. Just a suggestion.

Can you hear me now? ............... Good.

[helderheid]

29. Recommended!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Most presidential elections are "rigged", "unfair", etc.

However, most usually come out pretty close to what the majority of the people voted for.

From what I've seen, all the blather about giant conspiracies and a "stolen" election in '04, is just that, blather.

You want real change, and fair elections? Take out the money. No advertising. Allow each party to present their case on the media in detail, without the Madison Ave salesmanship of billowing flags and folksy crappola. Followed by publically subsidized debates between ALL the candidates.

As it is now, our "democracy" is really an oligarchy, where elections are decided on well manufactured sound bites and PR, paid for by the fatcats who actually control the country.

[grace0418]

32. ANOTHER person calling it blather, claptrap, tinfoil hat garbage,

or whatever else people say about it. Yet NO ONE as yet is willing to tell me why they think the notion is so preposterous. Or why they are so damn certain I am wrong.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. OK. Where are the indictments, trials, convictions?

If election fraud was egregious enough to overturn the election, why aren't the engineers of it in jail?

Or, is everyone in on the Great Conspiracy?

[grace0418]

47. I guess I'll stop asking you the question because you don't

seem to want to answer it. It's actually a very similar tactic many politicans use when asked hard questions. They never answer, they just ask more questions.

But why aren't the engineers in jail you ask? Because they're busy running the country- straight into the ground.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. OK. I'll rephrase the answer.

There is no evidence of a giant conspiracy. Nor, is there evidence of enough fraud to have swung the election to Kerry.

If there was, the perpetrators will be in jail.

Not questions, statements. Respond if you dare. With evidence, if you have it.

[grace0418]

52. If I dare?

Never once have I claimed I have concrete evidence. Not once. Go back and read all my posts in this thread, if you dare. I never claimed I plan to take my opinion to court and overturn the election. Please, tell me if you find that in any of my posts and I will humbly apologize. I specifically and repeatedly stated that my question was based purely on personal opinion.

What I asked of liberals who so vehemently disagree the election was stolen (and still haven't gotten a straight answer on) was why is the notion so outlandish to you? Do you honestly believe that a president not only capable but willing to send 1700 American soldiers to their deaths based on lies is above fixing an election in his favor? Honestly? I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about possibility. An administration capable of mass murder is capable of anything, in my opinion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Well, we agree..sort of.

I certainly agree that BushCorp is "capable of anything" in the sense that they are immoral enough to contemplate anything, and even try to do it.

However, that is a far stretch from being able to carry out such a thing as swinging a presidential election through massive fraud without getting caught.

There is a difference between what they may like to do and what they can do. I don't at all doubt their fascist mentality and their attempts to install it. What I do doubt is their ability to carry it off.

As Mort Sahl said, years ago, "The fascists always leave clues."

[grace0418]

63. Thank you. That's all I was asking.

I may disagree with you on whether or not they pulled it off, but it's good to hear your answer.

[bvar22]

70. "If there was, the perpetrators will be in jail"

I'm sorry, but that statement is simplistic and naive.
I've lived in the US for over 50 years. I KNOW better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. How do you KNOW better?

I've been for 61 years and certainly don't consider myself naive about the doings of this rotten government, political parties in general, voter fraud, or the like. I'm as sceptical as they come. But, I'm just as sceptical of claims with no proof, or massive conspiracies with no witnesses.

All I've seen, so far, is a lot of speculation based on theoretical evidence.

Simply saying that "If A might have happened, then B might have happened" or, "If A happened, then B might have happened" is hardly building a case.

So, again the question, if you have evidence that massive voter fraud occurred (enough to overturn a national election), why is that evidence not presented to the courts?

Unless you can believe that a conspiracy involving a whole raft of unconnected people: poll watchers from both parties, the media, election officials, computer geeks, district attornies from different locales, judges, Democratic lawyers, a whole collection of bystanders, The Masterminds, and all of the above's friends and relatives who may have been "in the know", carried the whole thing off without a word or a trace of evidence.

Finally, if you have evidence of such a conspiracy and it's successful operation, why aren't you (or anyone else with such knowledge) presenting it to the courts? Surely, there is one district attorney who isn't part of the conspiracy.

[bvar22]

75. Have you NEVER seen a criminal, or groups of criminals...

BUY their way out of prosecution?
Do you believe that it is not possible to Buy a Verdict or influence an election in America?

Discounting the information and evidence of wrongdoing in Ohio Election 2004 because the State Prosecutors or Courts would have stepped in is more far fetched than most of the conspiracy theories I've read.

In Florida, CONCRETE PROOF of a rigged election exists. Did the Florida State Courts and Prosecutors step in? Why not?
According to your PROOF of a fair election in Ohio, they would have stepped in to correct the wrongdoing.


Remember, this is a state where the person in charge of supervising the election also CHAIRS the Republican Campaign Committee.



"conspiracy involving a whole raft of unconnected people: poll watchers from both parties, the media, election officials, computer geeks, district attornies from different locales, judges, Democratic lawyers, a whole collection of bystanders, The Masterminds, and all of the above's friends and relatives who may have been "in the know"....

An active conspiracy with ALL these people "in the know" is NOT necessary. Most of these people would ONLY need to know that you "don't bite the hand that feeds you". It only takes ONE State AG to prevent prosecution or investigation, and he wouldn't need to know all the details. One State Governor in a mildly corrupt state can prevent this from EVER seeing an investigation or prosecution.


"So, again the question, if you have evidence that massive voter fraud occurred (enough to overturn a national election), why is that evidence not presented to the courts?"

Finally, if you have evidence of such a conspiracy and it's successful operation, why aren't you (or anyone else with such knowledge) presenting it to the courts?




I don't need to do this. I may not even believe this. I DO SUPPORT the continued investigation, collection, discussion, and collating of data. DU is The Perfect Place to combine resources for this activity.


I DO agressively respond to the establishment mantra of "PROVE IT or STFU!"
What possible harm does it do to you if people want investigate, to collect and assemble data, or propose different theories about ANYTHING? Why would you want to discredit them, or stop them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. So, who's stopping you?

The OP asked why some liberals/progressives/whatever didn't believe that the election was stolen.

I'm a progressive and I don't believe it was and told her why.

I don't give a rip what you do in your spare time. You can collect, assemble, propose whatever you wish.

When you present your theories on a public forum do you expect everyone to kiss your hand, bless your efforts, and accept them because you say it's so?

And, I have never, in my tenure on DU, told anyone to STFU.

As to your assertions about the Ohio and Florida officials "not stepping in". Are the high powered Democratic lawyers so inept that they can't file charges of fraud based on evidence? If the "investigators" are so good at finding wrongdoing and corruption in state office holders why aren't they going over their heads to the feds? If the feds are also corrupt to the degree that you propose, why aren't they going to the press? If our media is that corrupt as to pass on a blockbuster story and take a pass on monumental fame a la Woodward & Bernstein, then why aren't submitting their evidence to "The Guardian", "Le Monde", "La Humanite", "Der Spiegel", "The International Herald Tribune", "Asahi Shimbun", "The Times of India" or "The Australian".

If it's such "concrete" evidence about fraud and a massive cover-up by the states and the feds, it seems like it would make a helluva story that they would gobble up in a second. Or, have they been "bought" too?

I see the whole electoral system as corrupt. But, not in the way you do. Not some political hack stuffing ballot boxes and buying votes.
Rather I see it as corrupted by money and the pursuit of money by the politicians who seek it from corporate America and the other bosses with fat wallets.

[marions ghost]

48. LOL OMG

you REALLY think we have a legal system that is set up to deal with widespread abuses of the election system? Ask around. Ask people on the ground in Florida and Ohio (and many other states) how it REALLY works. Your question is typical though--most people have no idea how wide open for fraud and corruption the system is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Yes, as a matter of fact I do think the legal system can deal with it.

IF, it exists. So, far the evidence is lacking. Please explain how such a grand conspiracy can be kept that secret that only a select few can be aware of it.

If you have evidence, why aren't you presenting it to law enforcement?

[marions ghost]

53. 1. read the last paragraph

in my post #38 below. That pretty much explains it.

2. Because I do not believe that 'law enforcement' or the legal system is set up to handle this whatsoever. Go to the Elections Forum and ask how it went when activists tried in Ohio if you want a real in-depth answer to that--it's too much detail to repeat here.

[eomer]

66. Here is some evidence.

Evidence that the recount in Ohio was not performed according to consistent standards as required by Ohio law and by the U.S. Constitution:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID COBB, )
et al., )
)
Counter-Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.: 2:04-cv-1139
) (ES/TK)
) Hon. Judge Edmond Sargus
and )
)
)
KERRY-EDWARDS 2004, Inc. )
)
Interveror-Counter-Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD )
OF ELECTIONS )
)
and )
)
J. KENNETH BLACKWELL, )
)
Counter-Defendants

DECLARATION OF DONALD J. McTIGUE

I, Donald J. McTigue, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am counsel of record for Intervenor Counter Plaintiff Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
in the above-captioned case.
2. I was responsible on behalf of Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc., John Kerry, and John
Edwards for coordinating their participation in the Ohio recount of the results of
the 2004 presidential general election.
3. Following conclusion of the recount, I developed a survey to be answered by the
persons who served as county recount coordinators on behalf of John Kerry and
John Edwards at such recount.
4. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether procedures were followed
consistently by the county boards of elections from county to county during the
recount.
5. Attached hereto is a summary of the results of the survey compiled from the
responses I received from the Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. county recount
coordinators.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2005
/s/ Donald J. McTigue
___________________________________
Donald J. McTigue

Here is a link to the attachment referred to in the Declaration:
http://www.nvri.org/updates/kerry_edwards_summary_chart_022405.pdf

If you look at the attachment you will see that the recount was inconsistent from one county to another in a number of ways. If you are familiar with Ohio recount law you will also recognize that the specific procedures in Ohio statutes and SOS rulings were not followed.

This recount lawsuit is still in progress. The most recent action was to transfer the case to a different District Court (ruling to transfer was made on May 9, 2005). http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_sargus_transfer_order050905.pdf

Here is another place you can go to see additional evidence of how the recount was not according to law:
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/

The facts are quite clear. The Ohio recount did not comply with Ohio law.

The Ohio legal system was not up to the task of dealing with these facts in a timely way. The Ohio Supreme Court should have stepped in and forced this recount to be done according to law before the electoral college electors were certified. So your faith in the legal system is unfounded.

Another point about the legal system with regard to elections - the main concern is not to prosecute criminal charges against individuals, although I am all in favor of that when it can be shown that criminal acts were committed. Rather it is to have a system for resolving matters like the 2004 Ohio recount and the 2000 Florida recount in a timely way so that the real results can be determined before anybody gets inaugurated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. We just went through a similar thing here in Washington.

In the election for Governor. Any number of lawsuits and countersuits, counts and recounts. Plenty of invalid votes or wrongly discarded votes were found. Procedural "errors" were also found (whether they were intentional "errors" I don't know). In the end of it all, the Democrat won by some very few votes.

To be honest, I didn't follow it all that closely other than watching for the outcome.

The point being that the judicial system worked in a very complicated case.

I have no doubt that irregularities, even fraud, occurred in Ohio (and elsewhere). But, I contend that the possibility that it affected the outcome is, at best, miniscule. Further, I am highly sceptical that the conspiracy needed to perpetrate fraud on that scale and conceal it given the number of participants, would be impossible to conceal.

I would love to be wrong but I just don't buy it.

[eomer]

85. From what I remember about the Washington governor recount...

procedural disputes were settled in a court with a full documentary record and met at least a "smell test" that they were somehow based on the law. Both sides were allowed to argue their position and the ruling was made in the full light of a public courtroom.

In the Ohio recount, procedural disputes were resolved by a private phone call to the SOS/co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign. There was no opportunity for any opposing position to be argued, there is no documentary record of these rulings and many of the rulings were in obvious violation of the law.

In other words, in Ohio, elections are not by the rule of law. Laws don't really apply.

[marions ghost]

79. thanks

for Ohio info, pointing out the need to assress a very serious flaw:

"...to have a system for resolving matters like the 2004 Ohio recount and the 2000 Florida recount in a timely way so that the real results can be determined before anybody gets inaugurated."

The way it's set up now, any recount or review is guaranteed to fail because of the time constraints alone...

[Fly by night]

87. By your logic, no lynchings occurred in the South prior to the 60s.

After all, where (were) the indictments, trials, convictions?

[rman]

86. "pretty close to what the majority of the people voted for"

How do you know what people voted for, other then by the results of a (by your own admission) rigged election?
Is there some objective independent shadow election that you know about but we don't? Or do expect people to just take you word for it?

[marions ghost]

38. Actually I have found conservatives

who believe the election was rigged in various ways all over the map. But there are still a large number of voters of both parties who do not understand the abuses that are possible in such a vulnerable system as we have in the US. Usually people who don't understand how bad the problems are have never actually worked in an election in any capacity. Once you do, you get a whole different picture...trust me on that. And remember we had a complete media blackout on this subject after the election of 2004--partly because of their complicity in the exit poll cover-up.

This writer says it better than I can:
------------------------------------------------
The Miami Herald Feb 03, 2005
ELECTIONS
Ukraine vote yields important lessons for U.S. democracy
BY LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH

(excerpt)
"...unlike this year's presidential election in Ukraine, the 2004 presidential election in the United States was left intact despite legal challenges and protests. In large part this was because U.S. election laws and political culture fail to take into account the potential for systematic bias in election administration. U.S. laws and public opinion focus, instead, on the possibility that unscrupulous candidates might arrange for votes to be cast illegally by individuals using false identifications, forged absentee ballots, or other ruses.

Election shenanigans were common in the 19th Century and in much of the 20th, but in recent years they have been eclipsed by scattered mischief that is carried out or abetted by public officials responsible for election administration. One factor that has contributed to this shift from the conspiratorial tampering of the past to the massive fraud that is so prevalent today is the poorly conceived effort to remake government in the image of the private sector. In recent years, civil-service protections for government employees have been greatly weakened, and many governmental functions have been contracted out to private corporations.

These changes in American public administration have created a new spoils system that makes massive fraud likely in today's elections because it effectively ties public employment and government contracts to election outcomes. In Florida and Ohio, for example, many corporations, public officials and government workers had a vested interest in the reelection of President Bush. No conspiracy was needed to orchestrate their activities. Multiple biases with cumulative effects could be (and were) introduced into the election system through the independent efforts of numerous individuals acting on their own initiative in the pursuit of the same objective. Until U.S. election laws are reformed to guard against massive fraud, our elections will remain vulnerable to systemic abuses.

To be sure, bias in election administration could probably be prosecuted today under existing laws. Certainly, officials in Florida and Ohio appear to have violated their official oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their states. They may have also broken federal civil-rights laws by intentionally weakening the voting power of African Americans. However, these acts of massive fraud have gone unpunished -- and, indeed, uninvestigated -- because most Americans have yet to recognize the new form of election tampering that is undermining our democracy."

Lance deHaven-Smith is professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University.

[grace0418]

54. Great article.

Thanks for posting it.

[marions ghost]

57. here's the 1st half of the article...

(post #38 was the second half), if you want to piece it together. Sorry I can't give you an actual link--it was posted on a newspaper website and the page gone now. Yeah--I think it gets at the heart of the problem and points to why so many people just can't wrap their brains around the concept. They are operating out of a dated view of how things are working in this country. Your question 'why not?" in light of the outragious abuses we associate with the B* regime, is a good one. Some people obviously think the justice system is 'working' on this...from what I've seen, that's a cruel joke.

--------------------------
ELECTIONS
Ukraine vote yields important lessons for U.S. democracy

BY LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH
[e-mail]
Ukraine's 2004 presidential election offers important lessons for American democracy. U.S. election laws and national opinion have yet to catch up with recent developments in election technology and administration. In particular, they are blind to what the Ukraine Supreme Court referred to as ''massive fraud,'' where the integrity of an election is subverted by many small problems that are mutually reinforcing.
When the Ukraine Supreme Court invalidated Ukraine's presidential election, the Court said that a variety of flaws made it impossible for the election 'to determine the voters' will.'' Problems cited by the court included inaccurate voting lists, precinct totals that exceeded the number of registered voters, and a host of bugs in the electronic system for counting votes.
These and similar problems were equally prevalent in the U.S. presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 and probably altered the election outcome in both cases.

• In Florida and Ohio, not enough voting machines were placed in the inner cities, which resulted in long lines and multi-hour delays that inevitably discouraged Democratic turnout.
• Florida's program for felon disenfranchisement was systematically biased against traditionally Democratic constituencies.
• In 2000, Florida officials dragged their feet in conducting legally mandated recounts, and in 2004 Ohio officials behaved similarly.

The main evidence of massive fraud in the Ukrainian election came from exit polls. The pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych was initially reported to have defeated his rival Viktor Yushchenko by 1 percent of the votes casts. However, exit polls conducted by Ukrainian research organizations indicated that the election had actually been won by Yushchenko.

Vote tabulations in the 2004 U.S. presidential election also failed to match the exit polls. The proportion of votes credited to Bush and Kerry in the official results differed from the split reported in the exit polls in 10 out of 11 battleground states. It would not have been surprising if the U.S. election results had departed slightly from the exit polls in one or two states, but it was astounding that they did so in 10 states, and that in each instance Bush's support was greater in the vote tabulations than in the exit interviews. An analysis by Steven Freeman at the University of Pennsylvania calculated that the odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 250 million -- which is to say, virtually impossible....(cont. post #38)

[Tactical Progressive]

55. Of course they stole the 2004 election

They stole the 2000 election flat-out, straight in front of everybody, on every level they could, from street thugs to lawyers to election officials like Katherine Harris and right up into the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court is corrupt, the last place on earth that should be corrupt, then every single Republican down to the guy that takes your change at the toll booth is corrupt by nature. How much benefit of the doubt do they get after 2000? None in my book.

Plus the nastiness and self-righteousness of Republicans got worse over the four years of Bush, not better for winning. There is zero percent chance that they didn't do everything they could get away with to rig the 2004 election. Proving it though, is another story.

What convinces me completely, as regards the 2004 election - besides the exit poll aberrations, the planned disenfranchised voting machine distributions, the wierd victory margin numbers, etc - is just how defiant the Republican voting-machine owners are about maintining no paper trails or auditability on their operations, and how Republicans in Congress support that. That means they are all knowingly complicit, if not in the specifics, then in what it means for the big picture as regards fair elections. It couldn't be any clearer, or more corrupt, or harder to prove.

If we had a Democratic Congress, investigations would stop that game dead. Catch-22, and little way to prove it from outside the box with Congress and right-wing judges protecting their treachery.

[grace0418]

59. Thank you. Nicely stated. Notice that I still can't get

an answer from those that disagree why they refuse to believe election fraud is even a possibility?

I just get tired of being told I'm nuts for believing that proven criminals are capable of crimes.

[rniel]

69. When I see

Republicans in congress claiming that somehow we can't go back to voting on paper anymore when we've been doing it that way successfully for over 500 years that's a big clue. Why would they fight against it unless they know.

[bvar22]

72. I'm not sure that a Democratic Majority would do it.

Most of our Democratic Represenatives don't seem to care.

[Swamp Rat]

61. LOVE IT!

:D

[ArkDem]

62. I'll guarantee you this, Kerry won the election in a personal

opinion sense!!!

[Pobeka]

64. You can't prove a positive with our election system.

Saying you can't prove a negative is not the issue -- at all.

The issue is, because the election system is so secretive (with the use of guarded computer code), and run by partisans (does *anyone* know about conflict of interest, and why it's important?), how can we have any idea that it is *not* tainted?

This is the basic responsibility of a true democracy, to show the layperson, unambiguously, that their vote was recorded an tallied without any monkey business. I recognize monkey business occurs, and always will occur. But we can have systems in place that make monkey business hard to accomplish, so only the very tightest of races could be affected.

[halsaxby]

67. Diebold Fishiness....

What I don't get is that Diebold and other voting machine manufacturers act as if it is a technical impossibility to provide a paper record of a vote. The press, general public, and apparently some of you accept them at their word. Yet, every cash register in this country has the ability to do just that and you would bitch bloody murder if they couldn't.

[bvar22]

71. I don't need to "PROVE IT" to state my opinion.

I merely need to supply some evidence that leads to my hypothesis (or opinion). If the link seems even remotely credible, then more evidence is collected to either support or refute my position.
At THIS point, it is up to those who disagree to supply either:

1) An indisputable FACT that disproves my hypothesis,

or

2) A Logical Fallacy that disproves my assertion.


I am SICK of those who INSIST ON: "Prove IT, or STFU".
They are BARRIERS to the TRUTH.


I FULLY SUPPORT those who are gathering data, discussing the data, collating the data and proposing hypothesis about the "Election of 2004". An open anonymous Discussion Board is The Perfect Place to compile and discuss this data and the resulting hypothesis and opinions.

[woldnewton]

77. I am totally on your side, grace

There is one *up* side, however...


a lot of these people will be on our side when the elections aren't so close when stolen.

Look for a lot of these liberals to switch sides in '06 and '08 and will themselves have to find a way to defeat the "prove it" question... hopefully they'll have thought of something by then.


The proof, however, will be on the streets -- Ukraine style.


When our mass demonstrations make theirs look puny... that will be all the "proof" the world will need...



and once we are there, getting ready to make the EU and other countries get to the point where they're seriously considering sanctions... we'll have made our point -- and reclaimed our democracy in the process.

[farmboxer]

82. The Judicial Coup In 2000, Republican Manufactured And

programmed voting machines, without a paper trail, the exit polls, etc. I believe the election was stolen because it's so obvious! Also, the 2002 elections and the 2004 elections! Simple logic shows the truth, but there is a huge cover-up and propaganda by Bush,Inc. and the corporate news media.

When Republicans fight against a paper trail, that tells me something!

[Wizard777]

83. Greased Pig vs. Shaved Chimp.

The Shaved Chimp Won! To think that all he had to do to win. Was reduce his platform to, "I don't understand" "I don't understand" "I don't understand" Well no shit, Sherlock!

[grace0418]

88. THANKS EVERYONE! I guess what I'm getting at in my own, clumsy

rambling way, is that you're free to disagree that the election was stolen. Really, you are.

But those of you who disagree that the election was stolen, can you PLEASE REFRAIN from calling those those who think the election was stolen lunatics, tinfoil hat wingnuts, blathering idiots, etc. or that their ideas are claptrap, bullshit, crazy, etc.?

I think most of us at DU can agree that BushCo is a bunch of criminals, so the fact that some of us believe that these criminals pulled off the crime of election theft is hardly farfetched. If you don't agree it actually happened, fine. But stop acting like it's absolutely out of the realm of possibility, because BushCo has proven they're not above ANY dirty trick.

Thank you.