Fitrakis & Wasserman: What John Kerry said about 2004 stolen election...

[AtLiberty]

What John Kerry definitely said about 2004’s stolen election and why it's killing American democracy

by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
November 10, 2005
Free Press

The net is abuzz about what John Kerry may or may not be saying now about the stolen election of 2004.

But we can definitively report what he has said about New Mexico and electronic voting machines soon after his abrupt "abandon ship" with 250,000 Ohio votes still uncounted.

And we must also report that what he's not saying is having a catastrophic effect on what's left of American democracy, including what has just happened (again) in Ohio 2005.

In recent days Mark Crispin Miller has reported that he heard from Kerry personally that Kerry believes the election was stolen. The dialog has been widely reported on the internet. Kerry has since seemed to deny it.

We have every reason to believe Miller. His recent book FOOLED AGAIN, has been making headlines along with our own HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008...

For full story, click:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1556

[xchrom]

1. well...

:popcorn:

[ProSense]

2. This is getting silly.

If everybody can prove the election was stolen, why don't they? Is Kerry that powerful?

I read, with pleasure, tons of articles and information on freepress.org, Cliff Arnebeck's old site thealliancefordemocracy.org/, and his new one ohiohonestelections.org/, and want to know what all the commentary means?

To all the lawyers: Collect the evidence, take it to court and prove it was stolen.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Here, here

examine this vital issue in open court. PLEASE!

[mod mom]

6. they attempted to take it to court with the evidence, w/o subpoena power

and not only was the case dismissed (note Rep judge with close ties to Noes) but the OH AG Jim Petro applied sanctions on them (later dismissed) for a frivoulous law suit. Unless you live in Ohio, you don't understand just how corrupt it is. The GOP, including Karl Rove spent a lot of time setting up the election system in Ohio, knowing of its importance to the final outcome. They didn't do this overnight, in fact, Blackwell went down to Florida in 2000 (for training?). The GOP are entrenched in Ohio from the courts, to the elections boards, to state governorship, house and senate, to the voting machine companies and the software companies.

I suggest reading John Conyers + the House Judiciary Dems Staff book "What went wrong in Ohio". This book, coupled with the recent GAO Report, gives a clear indication of what transpired. Silly? I don't think so.

[ProSense]

8. Please allow me to clarify

Silly is referring to the constant Kerry said this, Kerry said that.

I am very familiar with Conyers' report, the legal actions, including the motions filed by Kerry/Edwards.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the election was stolen. Conyers' report, like the GAO's, raises a lot of serious questions, but do not constitute evidence.

I'm not saying it's impossible to prove that the election was stolen, it may or may not be, but what good would it do to proclaim that it was stolen without irrefutable proof.

I think Kerry won the presidency, but I certainly don't want him to start jumping on tables saying the election was stolen, until he can prove it.

A protracted battle of words, sans evidence, would give the GOP an opportunity to turn the discussion of this serious subject into a circus. And while the Republican Party is weakened, the Democrats don't need a circus messing up their momentum.

Now in case any MSM members see this post:

The only way a battle of words would work is if the MSM gave the Democrats the "WMD special," 18 months of free air time, allowing the kind of discussions that have gone on on these boards to permeate the public psyche.

What are the chances of that happening?

The MSM hasn't covered the excellent reports from Conyers or the GAO, the statements that spawned this discussion and article,and nothing on Teresa Heinz' statement.

I would prefer to see the Democrats regain their majority status in Congress, then do what they need to do to right this wrong, i.e., impeach Bush and investigate the election. No MSM needed.

[Stevepol]

7. How do you prove what, by definition, is unprovable?

When you can't audt or recount the vote or when the vote is not audited, how can you prove the machines are rigged?

It seems to me the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, but to "prove" it with anything beyond that kind of evidence is by definition impossible IMHO.

Kerry isn't that powerful, but unless somebody who can get plenty of MSM coverage begins to yell loud about the voting machines, it won't be investigated and until it's investigated, there won't be, can't be, evidence of a more substantial nature (audits or recounts).

[INdemo]

4. And What are those reasons.to believe Miller? (he wants to sell his book)

enough already..............

[MelissaB]

5. self delete