Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Media Exposure Is Starting To Take Off!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:53 AM
Original message
Media Exposure Is Starting To Take Off!
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed

Though most of these articles state that there's a huge rumbling in the web circuit, they consider this more of a conspiracy theory than anything else...

However, here's an article that defies that common report, and aligns well with what people are saying here:

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04256171.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. I have had several hits to my site from searches for recounts
in OH and NH. People want to know what is going on and clearly don't feel like they are getting the whole story from the MSM.

------------------------------------------------------
Fight the fraud; fund the recount!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Truth is always at first called a conspiracy theory...
thanks for the links!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rmf Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Keith Olbermann interview with Newsweek
Keith interviewed a guest from Newsweek last night (11.10.04)
about the Voter Fraud controversy. This guest suggested that
the reason the media had not picked up the story earlier was
because of the 3.5 million voter difference. I emailed Keith
Olbermann telling him that his guest did not take into
consideration that we don't elect our presidents based on the
popular voter but on the Electoral College. With this in mind
there was a difference of 136,000. When you couple this with
this new revelation of the FBI, Homeland Security asking
whole precincts to shut down in Ohio (on election day!)
because of a terror threat, this whole thing becomes more
ominous.

P.S. Keith contacted the FBI and Homeland Security asking
about this. They know nothing about a terror threat or the
shutting down of voter precincts on election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carl Brennan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Great job. Welcome to DU
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rmf Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Thanks for the welcome!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Excellent point!
:) Welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. It doesn't matter if it is a conspiracy theory.....
Shit happens....conspiracies happen. Conspiracies to break federal law are quite serious. If the theories are proven to be correct, the election results should be changed and the perps should be imprisoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. According to the corporate press, nothing is ever a conspiracy
The why is the word even in the dictionary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsascj Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. GREAT ARTICLE!
When do we start hoping?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JudyM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. That 2nd article is good! Thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. the definition of conspiracy is
a group of people planning IN SECRET to perfom an unlawful act!

that leaves us out...like DU is secret and getting an accurate vote count is unlawful LOL

Msongs
liberal t shirts
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xpat Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Definition of conspiracy in federal law
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of 'partnership in criminal purposes,' and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of 'conspiracy' itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as 'a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.'

The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.

To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.

By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.

By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.
--b--

There's related stuff in other Library areas , so explore.

Back To The Letter * C *

The Lexicon's Lyceum Info & other Letters
The Reference Room Dozens of legal Topic Areas
The Rotunda Our central hub, Directory & Index

Court, Business and Personal Forms for all Situations and Locations

(This should open a new window. Close it when you're done and you may be back here.)
* * * * * * * * *
Software, Big Savings on Legal Fees and Lots More
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. Watergate started as a conspiracy
as well. Look how that ended and Woodward & Bernstein were NOT believed at first either! You rock KO!

"All the President's Men",would be great reading for members of the moronic mainstream media who don't remember/ever knew what it is/was like to take on the 'Establishment'. We have usurped their self-given right to investigate, report and we are much better at it than they are. The press is the Establishment that is being debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaryninMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. MOVE ON IS ON BOARD!
I am not yet able to start a new thread so can someone plesae do this! MoveOn has started a petitition to congress demanding an investigation and they are "spinning" it perfectly (as we'd expect from this great team).

This friends, is a very good thing because they have a huge mailing list! Here's the email that's currently going around:


Dear MoveOn member,

Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know -- was it or wasn't it?

If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and so we can prevent this from happening again.

Members of Congress are demanding an investigation to answer this question. The decision on whether or not there will be an investigation could come as soon as Monday. Join us in supporting the call for one now, at:

http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

Then please invite your friends and colleagues to sign, as well. We need to show Congress that hundreds of thousands of Americans are serious about protecting the integrity of the vote.
We're all hearing the stories and wondering what's true and what isn't. But at least two cases of serious problems are accepted beyond doubt:


In Broward County, Florida, electronic voting machines counted backwards: as more people voted, the official vote count went down. <1>


In one Columbus, Ohio suburb, election officials have acknowledged that electronic voting machines credited Bush with winning 4,258 votes, even though only 638 people voted there. <2>


These are just cases where we know something went wrong. There were also lots of reports of people being denied ballots on Election Day. So far, these reports remain anecdotal, but they must be compiled and examined. And the Internet is abuzz with theories about why the official counts were so different from the exit polls.

Do you have a story? Were you prevented from voting? Tell us, at:

http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

Six prominent members of Congress have called for an investigation. Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Holt (D-NJ), Nadler (D-NY), Scott (D-VA), Watt (D-NC) and Wexler (D-FL), have demanded that the U.S. General Accounting Office:

immediately undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered, and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration. <3>
We've got to support their call by asking our own Representatives and Senators to join them.

If you have a personal story of disenfranchisement, tell us. These members of Congress have agreed to include our stories and comments in their call for an investigation. Please sign now -- we'll deliver our compiled statements to them on Friday.

Even if you don't have a personal story, your signature on our petition will still help build support for an investigation.

To keep our faith in democracy, we need to know the facts. Your signature, and your story if you have one, will help.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, Rosalyn, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
November 11th, 2004

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC