I was struck by Arnebeck

[nmoliver]

For me, the high moment of the hearings was when Arnebeck described the situation in terms of Florida 2000.

To paraphrase him, he said that in 2000, the approach was to certify and inaugurate the candidate first, and count the vote later. The newspapers counted the votes and discovered that GORE HAD WON FLORIDA.

Excellent thing to say in public. I don't remember hearing that one out loud before, or seeing it in print from the mainstream except in very covert pockets of news coverage.

Arnebeck continued that this must not happen again. We want to see the correct winner certified before the inauguration, and not allow the wrong person to be inaugurated again because of successfully executed fraud. That is the purpose of his lawsuit.

- Nina

[noclonyofthechimp]

1. I really really like this gentleman. He speaks clearly, intelligently,

and with conviction so that the American people can understand his thought process.

[life_long_dem]

61. That sounds like John Kerry.

[New Earth]

67. damn straight

both men are great. if they were working together like some people suspect, that's one damn strong team

[KerryReallyWon]

73. Sounds like John Kerry

I agree!!

[Carolab]

2. Actually he said it the other day too

on "Washington Journal". That host, Steve _________, was pretty flumoxed by it, too.

[garybeck]

3. one thing he said worried me

when he was on TV the other day he said that he had hard evidence that votes were switched.

today he referenced the Freeman report and said that statistical experts will testify in his suit.

I was hoping he had something more than a report that says the election results are suspicious. I thought he had hard evidence, witnesses, or something more. I hope he does.

[Sideways]

6. He Called This Election RIGGED And Fraudulent

I trust he has the goods. I was cheering for him clapping my hands and crying when he said the F word. FRAUD. He is one cool cat.

[dalloway]

55. I agree ! n/t

[Straight Shooter]

8. Evidence can be presented in the form of sworn affidavits

"Your Honor, I would like to offer into evidence the sworn affidavit of so-and-so, attesting to the manipulation of votes as shown by forensic statistical analysis."

I'm not worried about what he says, and only slightly worried how he will be construed or whether what he says will be twisted by the Repub damage control machine. However, something tells me that Mr. Arnebeck is in command of the situation.

edit: out, out, damned typo

[garybeck]

9. is that quote from today's hearings?

I don't remember him saying that but I missed the beginning.

[Straight Shooter]

15. No. Sorry, didn't mean to mislead you. He didn't say that quote.

That's just kind of boilerplate legalese which is standard in court. I was just trying to show an example that evidence is not necessarily restricted to something physical; it can be a statement by an expert.

[noclonyofthechimp]

14. He seems to be holding something back? He is a lawyer and may

not hand over evidence until he has to. I think he is holding onto some info until the time is right.

[pbartch]

45. he is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO intelligent. You know he is holding all the cards

I was totally impressed by him and also by that young dark-haired attorney. Boy was he cute. (sorry, couldn't resist that comment)

[noclonyofthechimp]

82. I agree. On both fronts! Tee Hee

:toast:

[Snivi Yllom]

11. Just finished listening on C-span, not much beef

And this applies to all of the speakers at the Conyers forum today.

I have one comment. Where's the beef?

I heard a lot about irregularities, accounts of long lines, questions about lack of voting machines at busy Democratic precincts, and the overall imrpession it was a very chaotic day with lots of problems.

We also were told by several speakers that some type of fraud had in fact occured that swung the election to Bush from Kerry. However, none of these speakers gave any evidence to back up this fraud.

Arnebeck specifically discussed this at the end of his comments and said he has statistical evidence only to back up his claim. He is counting on evidence via discovery to prove the fraud he claims shifted 65,000 votes.

In the post 2000 court challenges I recall numerous statisticians attempting to prove to a judge that the Palm Beach recount could gain votes for Gore. None of this statistical analysis proved anything.

None of Arnebeck's statistical anaylsis is going to porve anything now if that is all he has.

[Straight Shooter]

16. Testimony of witnesses and evidence of statistical improbabilities ...

... may lead to impoundment and forensic examination of the machines, or a confidential "For Attorneys' Eyes Only" examination of the source code.

You've gotta start somewhere.

And 2000 was four years and a somewhat different scenario. It is also because of what happened in 2000 that people with clout are more willing to believe and investigate the probability of manipulation of the 2004 election.

[Snivi Yllom]

19. Fine start somewhere

but you have to have the evidence before you can accuse someone of fraud in a court and make it mean something.

In 2000 we were talking about a few hundred votes determining the president. Now it's 118,000.

As a skeptic I took the time to listen to the hearing today, and I remain just as skeptical.

[robbedvoter]

24. That's what investigations are for - to GATHER EVIDENCE

Unfortunatelly, the accused has been boycotting/hampering/eluding investigation at every step. You cannot demand proof at this point in the game - and I suspect, as the guilty party in the case has the power. they'll run off the clock before we can get any. For you to ignore the power play in here is bordering bad faith.

[Snivi Yllom]

30. yes, investigations investigate

They dont come to conclusions before the investigation is conducted.

[anamandujano]

69. that's the way the repukes do it

they state the conclusions and use that to hamper or stop the process.

[reality_bites]

20. Finally, a 1000+ poster says the apparantly not-so-obvious.

Some mistakes were made in my opionion. I heard several referenes to statitical studies. Yet, all studies I've seen have been credibly questioned or entirely debunked. So, whether the studies are right or not is irrelevant. MSM will completely neutalize the statistical studies referenced by the panel by trotting out credible experts who will question and debunk them.

To many references to exit poll comparisons were made. Again, this is bad because the other side can trot out many scholars who will say no valid conclusions about fraud can be made by looking at and analyzing exit polls - we've seen this on DU already. We may have faith in exit polls, but MSM can find a hundred scholars to say exit polls are useless for fraud analysis. Mitofsky himself said as much. He will be all over MSM explaining how stupid we are. Who will the public beleive ?

Even the complaints made by Kerry voters are possibly problematic (not each individual complaint, but the general idea that fraud can be supported by looking at the number of complaints from Kerry supporters.) The majority of the complaints (around 80%) in Ohio came, not on election day, but after, when the results were known. There may also have been many issues on election day for republican voters, but most of them would not file a complaint because there guy won - what's the point in complaining? Would there 40,000 complaints from Kerry voters if Kerry had won ? This is already 'out there' at some minor media sites.

What I heard in the forum was not convincing.

[Sideways]

21. Well Like Bush Once Said "Who Cares What You Think"

Spreading the love yet again reality_bites?

[Sideways]

23. Apparantly Is Not A Word BTW We Have Spell Check You Might Want To Use It

EOM

[reality_bites]

26. I'm bad about that n/t

[Sideways]

29. Hey R_B My Son Is A Political Science Major At George Mason

And he told me the professor that issued his report debunking Berkeley (my alma matter BTW)is a fucking ass hat repuke. Ian said he has done much debating with the clown and that this guy is not just a puke he is an asshole.

I trust my kid. Didn't you use this guy's shit as a rebuttal? YMMV. Meaning your mileage might vary.

[reality_bites]

28. As always

Hoping it sticks.

[Snivi Yllom]

22. It was not all fluff. There was a healthy discussion of problems

I think the illustration that there were horrible lines at polling places will force positive reforms to make it easier to vote. There may even be legislation passed that spells out a federal right to vote without incident, harassment or problems.

But as far as the allegations of fraud and stealing the election, I heard nothing new and just as little to back up the claims.

Worst of all, the meandering statements by those with 'questions' at the end was a circus and reduced the credibility of the entire hearing. Jeff Fisher looked and acted deranged.

[reality_bites]

25. Agreed n/t

[Sideways]

31. Sorry Molly Ivins Cliff Claimed Fraud And Rigged Elections

You did hear something new today. He is filing his claim today. Just wait those claims will be backed up. The gloom and doom from you and R_B is positively funky. Funky indeed.

[Snivi Yllom]

35. some call it doom and gloom

Some call it reality.

[Sideways]

37. Some Think Farts Smell Sweet Too

Reality is only as big or small as one's mind.

[Snivi Yllom]

38. ok

:wtf:
When your farts smell good and Arnebeck gets the election overturned get back to me.

[Sideways]

46. Honey I Am 5-9 Leggy Blond My Farts Always Smell Good

At least that is what the 1000's of guys sniffing my butt have told me. Arnebeck is gonna kick ass do not worry. I am not a bit worried that Cliff is gonna kick ass. What comes of it I do not know but there will be rolling heads of that I am sure.

Ciao from Sicily. And smelling quite fine.

[Snivi Yllom]

66. no comment necessary

it would ruin the moment

[TexasChick]

39. ROFLMAO!!! n/t

[IAMREALITY]

42. WRONG

One's personal PERCEPTION of their OWN reality is as big or small as one's mind.

Reality in and of itself is ABSOLUTE. It is unalterable by any human influence. Period.

[Sideways]

48. Don't Get Too Heavy Here It Is Just DU

:evilgrin:

[IAMREALITY]

50. HeHeHe

:evilgrin:

[bobbieinok]

57. see Suskind's NYTimes Sunday article in Oct

(don't have the link; maybe someone here does????)

Suskind quotes extensively from a bushco WH worker who states that they create reality......

[IAMREALITY]

64. Once Again

Even in that context there is an understood missing.

They create (the perception of) reality (in the minds of the fools who fall for it)

[anamandujano]

72. Attempts to describe reality is where the situation gets dodgy.

This is why people think reality is perceptually questionable, especially when you move out of the realm of stubbing your toe and the like to feelings about intent etc, various connotations of words--the list goes on.

[IAMREALITY]

75. REALITY DEFINED (Abridged Version)

In the many realms of which we exist, only one true level of Reality can be found. This level, however, can only ever be attained by the truly wise, the truly pure, and by only those with a clear enough mind so that it is truly open, so that they understand that with every bit of knowledge they learn, they see they have learned in fact less.

Most will never attain this highest level, this TRUE level of Reality. Instead most souls will jump from level to level existing always on the sub-levels of Reality. Though there is only ONE true Reality, there are an infinite number of sub-realities. These are the levels of perception. Perceptions are the children of Reality. They are what make up the pyramid of knowledge that contains ignorance on the bottom, but that ultimately, at its peak, contains only Reality.

Though most souls will jump up and down the levels multiple times daily, they will find themselves existing on one main level most of the time. This is their own personal perception of reality.

These levels when corrolating, forge Love and Friendship, but when contrasting forge hatred, misunderstanding, fighting, and frustration.

Each level of reality can see levels to the right and left of it, and all levels downward. But one can never look up a level, and truly understand it. Two people on the same horizontal sub-level can still have conflict, as each horizontal level also has an infinite number of sidesteps. These types of battles are often the worst, as the sides are fighting each other with equal ammunition of knowlege, but using different perceptions of it.

It is a bit more complicated when different sub-levels meet, however, especially when there is a significant gap between them. If that on the higher level is regarded as a teacher, and that on the lower level receives such with an open mind, a very strong bond can occur which usually will result in the lower level climbing the pyramid, albeit slowly at first.

When, however, that lower level regards the higher level as an equal, or as a lesser level, much heated conflict can take place. I'm sure many here can relate to such occurances, when they feel the need to reply to a message that is obviously coming from a perceptual sub-level of reality that is far beneath them.

Regardless of the infinite sub-levels of which souls exist and regardless of the convictions one has on their own level that it is in fact Reality, there ALWAYS will exist only ONE level of Reality. The level of Truth, Integrity, Honor, Purity, and Knowledge in its highest form. It can never be altered by perception, as it is bound by logic and fact. Opinions do not exist on the level of Reality, only Truth.

I hope this helps.

[anamandujano]

77. Webster--"something that is neither derivative nor

dependent but exists necessarily"

mine--"what is"


edit to add--

when Sideways said--"Reality is only as big or small as one's mind.", I believe she was saying that the openness of one's mind determines one's perception of reality and in essence one's reality.

[IAMREALITY]

78. Mine's Better

:P

[anamandujano]

79. really now

:P

[IAMREALITY]

41. And Reality Calls It Stupidity n/t

[anamandujano]

70. "horrible lines at polling places"

aka strategic partisan allocation of voting apparatus=civils rights violations=bad

[MarkusQ]

53. Don't discount the effects of long lines

Long lines means that people are arriving to vote faster than the available resources permit them to vote.

Which means that the resources (polling booths, voting machines, what have you) and not the voters are the limiting factor in the number of votes cast.

Which means that whoever decides which precincts get what resources can determine how many total votes each precinct can return.

Which (given that the voting proclivities of the precincts are well known) is enough to determine the result of an election such as this one.

You don't need a lot of clever hackers if you can prevent your opponent's supporters from voting.

--MarkusQ

[mother earth]

68. They had time constraints

None were allowed to go beyond their alloted time, I'm sure they could have gone on and on, but the purpose was not to present their "proof" but to bring up all of the issues as to why Ohio is a problem which must be addressed. The beef can wait for the Judiciary Committee to bring on the criminal charges.

[ClintCooper2003]

71. That is my main concern as well. What we have are a bunch of...

"fishy" looking numbers and an affidavit from Clint Curtis (who we haven't even seen yet) and that's really not enough to overturn an entire election at this point. I'm getting worried! Somebody tell me something to quell my fears.

[The Judged]

84. Considering we are discussing public domain information ...

Any sworn allegation of a crime or election irregularity should be sufficient to warrant discovery, and in the case of allegations sworn to as a matter of Election fraud, prejudicial Election Official conduct and disbursement of public monies toward a personal chosen party and candidates, allegedly unconstitutional election official policy manipulation which had the net effect of disenfranchising poor and minority voters in poor and minority precincts, AND ALREADY DEMONSTRATED "glitches" THAT THE PUBLIC DISCOVERED from a limitied access to election data and the reasonable belief that the public fears that more "glitches" remain undiscovered as a result of the public not having access to review and verify the election and all voter.

[Razorback_Democrat]

12. He's gotta have witnesses, a statistician wouldn't cut it alone!

if he has witnesses I bet he's keeping that part mum for now.

[troubleinwinter]

13. The two statements are not contradictions. Why are you "worried"?

[november3rd]

4. Cliff Ahrenbeck

You gotta love this guy.

Cobb, too.

[Carolab]

36. Arnebeck

RULES

[IndyPriest]

5. The guy's a diamond-tipped drill...

intent on boring right through the rock! Focused like a laser. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd personally pick up Kerry and lift him over the threshold of the White House if he had to!

[Sideways]

17. You Are More Right Than You Know

I got an email from a friend in MA last week telling me that Cliff and Kerry are 20 year old friends. These guys from what I understand are tight. Cliff sounded convinced and resolute today. I fact he even used the word resolved in his closing remarks. A slap at MonkeyNuts and a kiss to Kerry.

I think Cliff is gonna kick the BFEE in their fuckin assholes.

[TexasChick]

27. OMG! I didn't know that, Sideways! Thanks for sharing that bit of

intriguing info! Interesting, indeed....

[Sideways]

32. More Intrigue On The Way TC

I mean this in all seriousness. The rabbit hole is just enlarging honey.

[TexasChick]

34. Thanks! I cannot wait! Slowly but surely coming out of this depressed

stupor I've been in since Nov. 3rd....wait, do you know something we don't know...you seem like you know something...okay, I'll wait! LOL!

:toast:

[IAMREALITY]

43. What I Wouldn't Give

To see Arnebeck live in the court fighting the case.

Any chance THAT one will be televised?

Cliff's gonna kick some major ass.

[IndyPriest]

74. Sideways, I do think I LOVE you... n/t

[glitch]

33. You do my heart good. Thank you for posting that!

PS Sounds like you raised a damn fine son!

[Sideways]

40. Thanks Glitch Ian Is An Amazing Young Man

Top debater at George Mason and a looker to boot. Mama pride out in force. He is funny and sweet too. I love that boyo.

[glitch]

44. I have a very beautiful, smart and funny niece in Calif.

Just saying, in case he's single and you're a meddler (like me).
;-)

[Sideways]

47. Yeah Let's Hook Them Up I Dig The Arranged Marriage Thingy

Parents do know best.....1950's song music here.....He is 6-3 blond and kinda quiet until we bring up politics. He is my little Elliot Spitzer. And he is so fucking nice.

Let's do it glitch!

[glitch]

51. Uh oh, now my niece is going to kill me.

But what the heck? Life's too short to worry about stuff like that. I'll email her and see if she wants to start anything. She's 22.
Actually, I have two beautiful nieces. But the other one is Republican and loves Bush. Yes, it's true. Heartbreaking. I would so love to see her meet someone who could engage her mind and help break her programming. She's 20.
They are both stunning. Not just saying this as a proud aunt, either.
I'll PM you when I hear back. :hi:

[Sideways]

52. Good Ian Is A Gem

I raised my boys to respect women and they do. He is untouched by the MTV woman as baggage messsage. He is so great if I wasn't his Mum I'd marry him myself. He could turn your RW niece I am sure of it.

[glitch]

54. Wow, can you imagine? I would die happy.

I am trying to figure out how to word the email. I'll PM you when I have it.

[E_Smith]

65. No that was Ralph Neas

that used the word resolved.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

18. What a great metaphor

He really has a commanding way of speaking. We noticed he leaves "white space" in his speech, so that you wait for his next words. That way, he draws people into what he is saying. He is one of our greatest assets, IMO

[Stand and Fight]

7. One of my personal heros.

A role-model for an inspiring lawyer if ever there was one.

[Quakerfriend]

49. Arnebeck mentioned

that part of his court case will involve the testimony of "3 scientists"........I'm hoping he'll include Avi Rubin- the fellow who did some of the original eval of these voting machines- from John Hopkins. This guy knows the pitfalls of this crappy system in great technical detail.

[jsascj]

10. Agreed! 100%

[Bill Bored]

56. Will Someone Please Cite a Source for "Gore Won FL"?

I've read the CNN account of the news media recounts, and they were one of the participants weren't they? In any case, they said that had the votes been counted, Bush still would have won FL.

My understanding is that Gore may have won if the overvotes were counted, but he only asked for a recount of the undervotes.

Is this wrong, or is this the reason why there's still so much controversy about what should be a simple, verifiable fact?

I too love Arneback but I'd feel even better about it if I knew that he was right about 2000.

Lots of Repukes think Bush won too, and it's not just because the court gave it to him. They actually believe he won the vote in FL.

The bogus felons' list is yet another issue, but I don't want to muddy the waters with that at the moment. I just want proof that Gore won FL based on the ballots cast in 2000.

Thanks!

[bobbieinok]

58. don't have source....but papers in consortium (way at the end, hidden)

said that in all but one method of counting/recounting Gore won

also report was to come out 9-11 or 9-12.....after 9-11 there was attempt to stop the publication because the 2000 selection was 'so pre-9/11'

IMHO, the supreme court decision is proof Gore won......'no precedent' when supreme court cases SET PRECEDENTS, false deadline given, Scalia and Thomas should have recused selves (Thomas' wife working for W transition team; one Scalia son partner in firm that argued W case in FL, another partner in Olsen's firm that argued W case before the supreme court)

[New Earth]

59. here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm#more

http://www.unknownnews.net/election2000.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

[KittyWampus]

60. NYTimes Reported It- If All LEGAL Votes Had Been Counted- Gore Won

nothing to do with undervotes, overvotes.

If all LEGAL votes (by Florida standards had been counted then Gore won.

Of course when NYTimes reported the results... they used a misleading headline and buried the FACTS in the middle of the story.

[Qutzupalotl]

62. Just did a quick Google...

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm
Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?
Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.

Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?

A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots.

[Bill Bored]

76. It's HARD WORK

trying to get a handle on all this which is probably why I'm still thinking about it four years later. Sorry if this is old hat to some of you, but it's so important that I'd like to have a clearer, more concise understanding of it, if for no other reason than to debunk the Repuke's claims to the contrary.

I've read all the sources you've linked to and it seems to me that:

1. Bush would have won if
a) at least 2 corners of the chads had to be detached to be counted, or
b) if a clean punch were required to be counted.

2. Gore would have won if either
a) the Palm Beach standard (count dimpled chads only if they appeared on other races on the ballot) were used, or
b) if all dimpled chads for president were counted.

But according to USA Today "..Gore could not have won without a hand count of overvote ballots, something that he did not request."

3. Overvotes - If the goal is to determine the intent of the voter, which is what the FL Sup. Ct. said (and that's good enough for me whether Gore requested it or not), overvotes would have to be counted, but how can one be absolutely certain that no one intended to vote for say Pat Buchanan or the Libertarian candidate instead of Bush or Gore? Voting straight Dem or Rep on the rest of the ballot is no guarantee. On the other hand, a write-in vote for the same candidate selected on the ballot should obviously be counted.

To summarize, I believe that Gore won FL, but after reading all the accounts, so far, I'm still not sure it's been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt or that it would have been had the SCOTUS not gotten involved. I'm going to search for the U. of Chicago study. If anyone finds it first, please post it here.

[Qutzupalotl]

83. Overvotes

Overvotes are defined as having more than one candidate marked. Most of the overvotes in FL 2000 were the result of people writing in the name of their candidate in the write-in area as well as filling in the candidate's oval above. In those cases, the voter's intentions are clear. The machine throws it out, but a human can "divine" the intent of the voter. (Heavy sarcasm directed at James Baker III.) Had these been allowed to be counted, Gore would have won.

Florida statutes say that "the intent of the voter" is the determining factor, so in my opinion the dispute about dimpled/pregnant/3-cornered chads is irrelevant. The intent of the voter is usually quite clear when the ballot is examined.

[myschkin]

63. He was like a movie star...

Just legendary...

So relaxed! So strong, so to the point.

[north houston dem]

80. Very Clark Kent

doncha think?

Superman save us!

[myschkin]

81. YES!

Go Clark!