Mike Connell death. It stinks to high heaven! So, let me get the facts straight.

[Lil Missy]

Connell was "directly implicated in the rigging of bush 2000 and 2004 elections."

"WH was concerned about him talking"

"11/3/08, Connell 'finally' testified"

"Connell then told a close associate that he felt bush/cheney were going to 'throw him under the bus!'"

"In July, a tipster revealed that Connells life (and his wife's) was in jeopardy, due to threats from Karl Rove."

"Connell was given a tip not to fly his plane, as it could be sabotaged. Indeed, Connell had to cancel 2 flights in the last 2 months because of suspicious problems with his plane."

Feds knew of these threats, and wanted to put Connell under 24 hour protection. (Link I can't find right now.)

Tin foil, my ass! If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, and poops like a duck, it's a fucking duck!

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Yep. It sure is a duck..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x511190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4712367

[Lil Missy]

4. I bookmarked. I recall the name "Andy Stephenson" from research I did before I joined DU.

I was doing research on Black Box Voting and came up with TONS of shit on DU and with Bev Harris.

Took me DAYS to follow all those links. (And what a piece of shit she turned out to be, and the stories about Andy, etc.)

[Jazzgirl]

5. Lil Miss...it makes me mad because...

Back in the day I actually donated money to Bev Harris. When I figured out what she was really about I was soooooo mad!!!!!! She is certainly a piece of shit and nobody can come on here and exonerate her ass at all!!!

[Lil Missy]

7. Oh Please! I hope you know I am not trying to "exonerate" Bev Harris!

She was a charlatan, and a worthless piece of shit! Series! And the stuff that transpired with Andy in his illness was unconscionable and cruel.

Only thing I could never quite figure out was what the "quai tam" meant? Or why that was good, bad, or indifferent??

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Qui Tam

http://www.whistle-blower-net.com/false-claims.htm
The False Claims Act - Qui Tam is intended to encourage people to come forward with information and assist the government in stopping Medicare fraud, defense contractor fraud and other kinds of fraud. Under the statute, individuals are awarded a percentage of the money the government recovers as a result of their successful whistleblower lawsuits.

http://www.answers.com/topic/qui-tam
Lat: who as well. A "qui tam" action is a lawsuit under a statute, which gives to the plaintiff bringing the action a part of the penalty recovered and the balance to the state. The plaintiff describes himself as suing for the state as well as for himself.

In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning " who sues in this matter for the king as for himself."

[Lil Missy]

12. Yeah, but I still have no idea what that means with voting fraud.

All I remember is that Bev was paranoid someone would do it to her, so she did it instead.

ipso quacky hacky quam pro poopy, I don't understand shit like that. As long as she is out of business, that's all I need to know.

[troubleinwinter]

87. Not exactly "to her", but beat her to it.

Bev and her partner, Jim March (the right-wing republican libertarian gun lobbyist) thought they'd get rich by splitting about $5 million bucks, according to March.

Imagine their disappointment when they each got a measley $75k after all the effort she put into smearing, lying about and attempting to destroy so many REAL election integrity activists.

I hope she rots.

(By the way... she has not posted her 2007-2008 IRS 990, which was due Nov. 15. She's all for "transparency" and "citizens' right to know", except when it comes to Bev Harris)

[Jazzgirl]

60. I do believe you misread my post.

Nowhere did I say you were trying to exonerate her. I have seen many other posts where people were trying to but I was not referring to you.

[Ian David]

2. We need to stop saying "throw under the bus."

Instead, we need to say "Throw under the plane."

If they prove the plane was sabotaged, I want a new investigation into the death of Paul Wellestone.

[Merlot]

26. "throw out of the plane"

I've been under many planes, and nothing happened!

[creeksneakers2]

3. Some flaws in that

Connell was never directly implicated in the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections. He was subpoenaed in a lawsuit which had no evidence at all that Connell did anything. The suit was based on a theory of what Connell MIGHT have done. Upon analysis, Connell could not possibly have stolen the election in the way that the theory proposed. Even the lawyer that filed the suit now admits there is nothing worthwhile left without Connell. The wish that somehow if put under oath Connell would admit to sensational crimes, exposure of which would realign politics in the US, is all there ever was to the suit.

The idea that the White House was concerned about him talking is unbelievable. First off, the suit that subpoenaed Connell was junk and posed no threat to anybody, so there was no reason for the White House to worry even if they had stolen the election. Bloggers, last summer, said Connell was threatened but their only source was an anonymous tipster from the Internet. We all know how reliable people on the Internet are. Since Rove was under no threat, the anonymous story had no credibility.

Further, the originally story about a threat went that Rove had threatened Connell to take the fall for stealing the 2004 election. One is asked to take a fall when the group is in jeopardy and one is asked to sacrifice for the others. There was no jeopardy for the group from the suit. Also, Rove would not want a person to take the rap for stealing the 2004 election, as that would make it necessary to admit that the 2004 election WAS stolen, which would have brought the White House negative publicity and mass uproar and probably would have led to at least some of them going to prison. The story about the threat later morphed into one of violence, even though the anonymous Internet tipster remained as the stated source. Of course, its just as likely that the bloggers made up the whole thing about the threat, as the story never made sense and they never revealed the source.

Yes, Connell did testify but he just said he didn't know anything about stealing the election. At that point, the newer version of the blogger story about threats had to end, because it would make no sense to threaten someone to keep silent who had already kept silent and under oath yet. The later story about the threats and Connell planning to tell all to investigators are all based on one blog journalist's unsubstantiated claims. She refuses to give details. The spectacular revelations did not come about until after Connell's death. The "throw him under the bus" line also came from the same journalist whose stories have varied. Sometime she said Connell told her. Sometimes she says she got the information from a mysterious meeting with Connell's wife on park bench. It strains credibility to suggest that Connell who was a rabid Republican would risk his life, his wife's life, and his livelihood to be a confidential source for a left wing blog journalist.

The story that Connell had been warned that he would be killed comes from the same bloggers, one of whom is a convicted serial bomber. Yes, they did warn Connell and even wrote the attorney general and told the court they felt Connell was in danger. There was nothing mentioned on the blogs about planes until after the crash. The story that Connell knew his life was in danger and experienced two attempts to sabotage his plane and yet still flew the plane is beyond belief.

There is no evidence anywhere that the Feds wanted to put Connell under surveillance. I haven't even seen the bloggers claim that.

If it does NOT walk like a duck, etc, it isn't a duck.

[Lil Missy]

6. Thank you for that very thorough analysis. It's always good to be able to measure both sides.

[JackRiddler]

8. Question.

What if anything do you dispute in the following set of facts advanced about Connell's involvement with the Ohio 2004 official election returns site commissioned by Blackwell; the firms known as GovTech and SmarTech; and the Republican e-mail system connected to the US Attorney firings?

The interest in Mike Connell stems from his association with a firm called GovTech, which he had spun off from his own New Media Communications under his wife Heather Connell’s name. GovTech was hired by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to set up an official election website at election.sos.state.oh.us to present the 2004 presidential returns as they came in.

Connell is a long-time GOP operative, whose New Media Communications provided web services for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Republican National Committee and many Republican candidates.

Alternative media group ePlubibus Media further discovered in November 2006 that election.sos.state.oh.us was hosted on the servers of a company in Chattanooga, TN called SmarTech, which also provided hosting for a long list of Republican Internet domains.

“Since early this decade, top Internet ‘gurus’ in Ohio have been coordinating web services with their GOP counterparts in Chattanooga, wiring up a major hub that in 2004, first served as a conduit for Ohio's live election night results,” researchers at ePluribus Media wrote.

A few months after this revelation, when a scandal erupted surrounding the firing of US Attorneys for reasons of White House policy, other researchers found that the gwb43 domain used by members of the White House staff to evade freedom of information laws by sending emails outside of official White House channels was hosted on those same SmarTech servers.

Source, more at link: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Killed_GOP_pilot_suspected_plane_had_1222.html

[creeksneakers2]

21. There aren't any specific accusations

Connell is associated with the GOP, who have done more sleazy or even illegal things than I can count now. But there never is anything to link Connell with this other than he built websites for Republicans. There is no evidence that Connell knew anything illegal. In the case of the E-mail system its very suspicious, but end there. If there were proof, we'd all know more about it.

Please follow the discussion at other posts I will make on this thread.

[JackRiddler]

22. Wow.

The Conyers report, based on hundreds of reports of irregularities and anomalous incidents in Ohio, makes the case that the vote count there under Republican SoS Blackwell was fraudulent. In fact, it appears the election stolen by a widespread fraud campaign using a broad variety of means: lockdowns of the voting process, count fraud, harrassment of voters, caging, intimidation, "lost ballots," etc. They were out to win by any means. This has been well-substantiated in other research (Crispin-Miller and Fitrakis), and there have even (at least) been convictions establishing that the recount was not trustworthy. Nothing has been settled about Ohio 2004, everything points to fraud.

The engineer of the Ohio campaign, Blackwell, set up a site for announcing the questionable returns, and lo: it's in Tennessee, run by Connell! The same structure was used for an unquestionably illegal function: conducting government business on a private server, and then "losing" millions of e-mails. But you can't see how Connell might have been involved in anything illegal! Although you have nothing to offer in way of a counterargument, just a vague dismissal of the lawsuit implicating Connell and insults for the reporters who say he was ready to talk and was threatened with death.

Then, in the middle of his depositions, his plane goes down in this fashion. And the GOP does "more sleazy or even illegal things than" you "can count now," but apparently you're not interested in counting or ac-counting, because, as you say of the e-mail system, "if there were proof, we'd all know more about it." (!) This with regard to a destruction-of-evidence case!

Except that preemptive denialists such as yourself would come prevent us from even asking the obvious questions.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Conyers did find lots of problems with the election

But all those problems didn't involved Connell. For example, there is no reason to believe Connell was involved in voter suppression. I share your desire for justice if the election was stolen, but don't believe Connell fits into that in the way described in Arnebeck's lawsuit.

I don't say that Connell could not be involved in anything illegal. I say there is no significant evidence that he was, just suspicion.

I will describe why Connell could not have stolen the election in the way described in the suit. I'll do it on another post on this thread. Please read my other responses.

I am a skeptic but not a denier. If someone can prove me wrong I'd love it. That would mean I learned something. I have no interest in keeping anybody from looking into anything. I merely want to join the debate.

There is no debate if this is just going to disintegrate into personal attacks.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creeksneakers2]

44. On the contrary

I can't prove Connell wasn't involved in anything illegal. I'd love to see proof that he was. I am merely arguing that Connell presented no threat to Rove, and therefore Rove had no reason to threaten to murder Connell.

There were lots of flaws in the Ohio election but if they were all tied together in some massive conspiracy then it wouldn't make sense to kill Connell to shut him up, as at least hundreds of people were a threat to secrecy.

I argue that Connell could not have stolen the election the way the suit proposed. For more on that, please see post #41. Eomer's post #19 is also helpful.

The plane didn't go down in the middle of depositions of Connell. He'd already testified.

I'm not a preemptive denialist. I'd love to see George Bush and Karl Rove go to prison just as much as anyone here. There are hundreds, if not thousands of great stories that expose Bush here on DU. I contribute what I have to help expose when I can. I have little but thanks to DU I'm one of many. However, I look at false leads as destractions to the overall effort.

[lala_rawraw]

53. i am laughing at this point...

these questions have been answered, so do play the "who me?" dance... it is silly and makes you look more obvious than you intend to be. go to my original responses to you... see how polite i was? that was because at that point i actually thought you were a person seeking info. you have proved yourself otherwise. so stop with the "but i am just posting because i want to know, honest" crap. really, it is silly already.

[altan]

93. ***

***

[lala_rawraw]

24. Really?

Not Blackwell's office to a separate network on election night and hosted on servers on which the wh emails seemed to have also disappeared? That one example is not specific enough for you? What about right-wing, very conservative, whistle-blower Spoonamore who gave a deposition under oath as to his conversations with Connell? Have you read those documents? Is this a right-wing conspiracy theory or a left one? Or are we all in it together? Do you need DNA and an anal probe before you think reasonable questions should be asked? You don't know the facts of this at all, that is clear from your assertions and committed commenting on this topic for the last 72 hours.

[creeksneakers2]

35. AT THIS POINT I'LL POST THE CENTER OF MY ARGUMENT

Suppose you have a bank teller. The bank teller accepts 10 $50 dollar deposits. Each time the teller takes a deposit, she must print out a receipt for the customer and her computer puts the amount of the deposit into the tally for the day. Could the teller says she only receive $400 rather than the $500 she actually did and pocket $100?

Obviously not, the central computer would recognize that 10 X $50 = $500 and not $400. The teller would be caught immediately.

Suppose the teller could hack into the bank computer and change the amount of deposits she received. That might work for a little while, but it wouldn't be long before a customer complained that they'd not received full credit for their $50 deposit. Again, the teller would soon be caught.

Now I want to expand the idea to the 2004 Ohio election. These results of the 2004 Ohio election are down loadable from the Ohio Secretary of State's website. You'll need a program that handles Microsoft Excel data to open up the download.

The basic unit of election reporting is the precinct where the voting actually took place. The precinct is the equivalent of the bank depositor getting a $50 receipt. When the polls close, the results of the voting at that precinct is tallied right there or in some cases at a central location. There are many people looking at the precinct results. Committee people are there to see how they've done. Campaign workers are also watching to call in results to candidates. Precinct election workers record the results.

The results are often published in the newspaper and are available from the Ohio Secretary of State's office. The people involved at the precinct level look at these results. They want to know how other committee people did, or how other polls turned out where others were working. People who work on election day often go on to manage campaigns and pour over the data to look for swing districts and trends. Candidates and their managers pour over the data to find out who came through for them and who did not, and end up back in touch with committee people or those who are managing them.

It would be very difficult to change the results of a precinct without somebody noticing. Ohio has 11,571 precincts, all of which are recorded with the Ohio Secretary of State.

From the precincts the results go on to counties. Counties tally up the votes of all the precincts. At that time, the counties send information to the Secretary of State's office, both electronically and with redundant methods like copying the tallies and faxing them in. It would be impossible for the results to be changed at the country level, because they only have the added results of all the precincts, and numbers only add up one way.

When the results of the counties get to the Secretary of State's office they are added together. Its a simple function that even the computer in front of me could easily carry out. From there, the results went to Mr. Connell's computer in Tennessee, which doesn't appear to have been there to tally votes. That would make no sense. Mr. Connell's computer was there to help with an overflow in requests for information from the Secretary of State's website.

Mr. Connell could not have changed the sum of what the counties reported. Numbers only add up one way. If somebody here wants to check the addition of all the counties and precincts within them, Excel can add up all the numbers.

Mr. Spoonamore alleges that Mr. Connell's computer at that point changed the results. But as I have noted that would be impossible. It would be like the bank teller claiming she had $400 when the addition would show she had $500.

DON'T BELIEVE ME?

Raw Story ran the theory that Connell could have changed the sum of the county results by a professor who understood elections and the electronic means of tabulating. From Raw Story:

Not everyone agrees. RAW STORY also sent the schematics to computer science professor David L. Dill, a longtime critic of electronic voting machines. In an email message, Dill said he’s skeptical that an attack of the sort described by Spoonamore could have been carried out undetected.

"It seems that the major concern is whether routing election results through a third-party server would allow that third party to change the reported election results,” Dill wrote. “These diagrams haven't answered my basic question about that idea. The individual counties know the counts that they transmitted to the state. If those results were altered by the state or a middleman, I would think that many people in many counties would know the actual numbers and would raise an alarm."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Documents_reveal_how_Ohio_routed_2004_1031.html

The coauthor of this article is Larisa Alexandrovna.

A conspiracy theory is never shot down. Its simply morphs into another version of the conspiracy theory when a flaw in the theory's logic is exposed. Mr. Spoonamore went on to say that from his point in the data flow, Connell could have programmed his computer to hack the Secretary of State's computer to hack all the county computers. As Alexandrovna's expert noted in the article, this would be nearly impossible to carry out. What's more, even if the county results were changed, there would still be the results of the 11,571 precincts that would have to add up.

So the election could not have been stolen in the way theorized by Mr. Arnebeck's suit.

Since there was no evidence in the first place, and the only theory of the lawsuit doesn't stand up to scrutiny, there would be no reason for Karl Rove to be threatened by the lawsuit. Therefore, there would be no reason for Karl Rove to threaten Connell, as alleged by the conspiracy theory proponents. Since there was no reason for it to happen it did not happen, and the conspiracy theorists are either lying about this, or as reported in a court filing, based the whole threat idea was based on an anonymous poster on the Internet. We all know how reliable those are. By the way, the initial threat story has changed several times, and made no sense to begin with.

There were many complaints on this thread that I didn't due more than make broad assertions. That is true but one can see how long it takes to explain this, and if I'd posted something this long the first time I doubt it would have been read.

There is a rule on Daily Kos that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems here that rather than the maker of the wild conspiracy theory claims defending what she has said and done, I have to be the one to defend. That should tell readers something about the quality of the conspiracy theorist's arguments.

[tabatha]

40. I think Spoonamore knows more about it than you do.

Why count the votes if the % for the candidates is known ahead of time?

The total does not change - hence the $400 versus $500 is specious - but the % for the candidates changes.

In fact they changed more than 6% according to exit polls.

[creeksneakers2]

45. Somebody has to add up the votes

That result isn't done until somebody does.

Mr. Spoonamore knows more about computers than I do but his theory of how this electin was stolen doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A college professor who knows more about this than I or Spoonamore says Spoonamore's theory doesn't add up.

[tabatha]

48. Have a link?

I have read college professors who have stated stuff that is incorrect.

[creeksneakers2]

52. Yeah

Its in post #41. The story is also at the current bottom of this thread.

[tabatha]

66. I meant a link to the college professor

where his statements refute Spoonamore's for all to see and consider.

[creeksneakers2]

69. The refutation is linked to in post #41

Its an article coauthored by Larisa. It doesn't start out with all the professor says but read it through. He debunks the conspiracy theory.

[tabatha]

70. The TOTALS were not changed - the percentages were.

"Not everyone agrees. RAW STORY also sent the schematics to computer science professor David L. Dill, a longtime critic of electronic voting machines. In an email message, Dill said he’s skeptical that an attack of the sort described by Spoonamore could have been carried out undetected.

"It seems that the major concern is whether routing election results through a third-party server would allow that third party to change the reported election results,” Dill wrote. “These diagrams haven't answered my basic question about that idea. The individual counties know the counts that they transmitted to the state. If those results were altered by the state or a middleman, I would think that many people in many counties would know the actual numbers and would raise an alarm."

The actual numbers were not changed. He does not understand what was done. That is hardly a refutation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. by all means, explain it to us!

How does one change the percentages without changing the totals?

It's fine to say that David Dill "does not understand what was done," but if you think you do, hey, do tell.

Here's my idle speculation about what you may mean, based on post #40:

The total does not change - hence the $400 versus $500 is specious - but the % for the candidates changes.

As I assume we all actually realize, there isn't just one total. Each candidate has a total number of votes in each county.

Shifting votes from one candidate to another wouldn't change the total number of votes cast, but it would change the totals for the two candidates involved. (That's the point, after all.) No?

[creeksneakers2]

75. Are you looking at the total number of votes for all candidates?

I suppose hypothetically you could steal one vote for every one you give and the total number of votes for all candidates wouldn't change. However, you couldn't change what any candidate receives himself because the counties know what those results are, and the counties are also held in check by the precincts. The total of all the votes a candidate receives in all the counties is his final result.

I don't know what you mean by changing the percentages. If I get 60 votes and you get 40 I got 60% of the vote and you got 40%. I don't understand how percentages can be separated from the final tally.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. I think you've confused me with tabatha

I'm trying to say basically the same thing you are.

[tabatha]

85. Maybe I am putting the cart before the horse.

I assumed that the computers did the counting and the results for each candidate went to the MIM before reaching the SOS.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. maybe we can take it point by point

I think we can agree that various computers do the counting, and then these counts are aggregated to obtain the final results. And we can agree that the number of votes for each candidate is counted, so that to switch votes from candidate A to candidate B means to take votes away from A and to add votes to B. Yes?

Now, you say you assumed that "the results for each candidate went to the MIM before reaching the SOS." That's the suggestion as I understand it, too: that the vote totals were changed en route from the county boards of elections to the SOS. (I don't know of any evidence that the Smartech server actually was a MIM, but let's assume it for a moment.)

Here, again, is what Dill said:

“These diagrams haven't answered my basic question about that idea. The individual counties know the counts that they transmitted to the state. If those results were altered by the state or a middleman, I would think that many people in many counties would know the actual numbers and would raise an alarm."

Your response to that was, "The actual numbers were not changed. He does not understand what was done." I still have very little idea what you meant by "the actual numbers." If the actual numbers are the numbers that the counties have, Dill would agree that they weren't changed, and that is precisely his point: they therefore would not match the state numbers.

The most obvious way around this, as eomer suggests somewhere, is to propose that the Smartech server could actually alter the county-level results in real time, so no one at the county level would ever be the wiser. However, I haven't seen anyone try to explain how this actually might have been implemented in Ohio in 2004.

[tabatha]

90. I mis-typed.

By actual - I meant total votes that had not been counted/assigned on a candidate basis.

On edit: this is the video I watched to come to the understanding that I had:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRW3Bh8HQic

Watch from 25mins onwards.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. OK

So, the response is that counties should know how many votes were cast for each candidate, not just the totals. Dill already knows what you know.

I don't have time right now to sit through another Spoonamore screening, but I'm downloading so I can listen to it at some point while doing other stuff.

[Wilms]

97. A "Spoonamore screening"??

Ya mean "could have", "might have", "was in a position to", "wouldn't answer my question", "man in the middle", "little man in the black box"... Oops. Sorry. That last one is Bev Harris' little night-time story. :rofl:

I've watched that "Spoon A Little More" series. And I think a number of the claims are fairly convincingly established by it (certainly by DU standards).

- Spoonamore is an attorney

- Spoonamore is a Republican

- Spoonamore is an "operative"

You'll need some of this.




I'm sticking with :popcorn:

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. eh, I think he's kind of a showman

I recently visited a doctor who made a point of rattling off the four kinds of white blood cells he would get levels for, presumably to impress me with how thorough he was being and how knowledgeable he was. When I watched Spoonamore drawing network diagrams with lots of switches and such (with absolutely no bearing on his argument), it seemed pretty familiar.

As he says himself, IT is 5% technology and 95% marketing -- but (he adds) you really need the 5%.

Anyway, so far it's moot to me whether he's an "operative" or what. His critique of electronic voting seems OK; his ideas about what happened in Ohio and elsewhere don't seem to add up (arguably consistent with his insistence that he only spends a few hours a month on the issue).

[Ellipsis]

103. It's apparent that he's modified his "CEO pitch " to address anonymity in voting...

and security concerns.

This video should be posted in political videos and in the ER forum.

It's very concise articulation of Voting network topology and it's vulnerabilities. For someone who hasn't spent much time on election fraud and is unfamiliar with networks... It's a brilliant diatribe.

I wouldn't blow this guy off because he has an ego. I'd embrace him for it.

[Wilms]

105. Meh.

First, the videos have been posted in both of those forums.

Your use of the phrase "brilliant diatribe" leaves me puzzled. Mostly because Spoonamore hasn't really described anything to support his admitted hypothetical scenario, which then gets reported in a way that leaves many readers thinking he's fingered people stealing an election and showed us exactly how it was done. He doesn't even claim that.

I'm not blowing this guy off. In fact, I take it very seriously when a guy described as a Republican operative says what he says (nothing much) and the blogs swoon over his "shattering" testimony.

:popcorn:

[Ellipsis]

107. He's a good geek translator... is really the point

He gravitates to the level of the user. Thats a talent.

Hadn't seen the video before... god to know it's posted

SPOONAMORE HAS RESOLVED NOTHING.

AS to the whole man in the middle thingie... a kingpin is just ANOTHER vulnerability of the "solution". I'm not on board with the manipulating OF any data by Connell. Hell I'm just curious to know who had super user passwords at Govtech.

[Wilms]

115. Pretty much. By the way...

...I need a little more salt. Got any?? :popcorn:

[Ellipsis]

116. It's interesting how he name drops Josh Bolton oh so casually.

Guys like him don't do casual on "presents".



If Spoonamore sinks his teeth into this, and he certainly seems genuinely sincere about bringing down the bad guys... with a willing DOJ he could do it.


If there was a redistribution of votes it most likely would be proportional in the precincts applied based off the votes or registered voters. Phillip's numbers make some assertions to proportionate distribution in some precincts if I'm not mistaken.


My salt needs to go on the driveway at the moment but I'll join you in the...:popcorn:

[tabatha]

111. No.

I understood the opposite - i.e. just the totals. But that may be a fallacy on my part.

However, Spoonamore does make the claim that the communication between the counties was two ways - i.e. into MIM, and MIM back to the counties, to change vote tallies.

I believe Spoonamore is a (very) smart guy. I hope he addresses what Dill has raised in better detail. Maybe they have more information that they are not sharing. Spoonamore has had tons of experience in credit card fraud where there is lots of fraud detection apparatus. In voting machines there is none. Possibly hacking the central tabulator allows whoever is perpetrating the fraud to know how many votes are required to be switched and there is some other mechanism to hack the actual votes.

Interesting discussion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. fair enough

I don't have a clear picture of what you mean by "just the totals" -- but at this point it probably doesn't matter.

I agree that Spoonamore is a very smart guy, but I honestly don't get the impression that he knows much at all about the Ohio election. The basic idea of detecting election fraud wouldn't be very different than the basic idea he describes for detecting credit card: numbers that aren't what they should be. There he may be relying on Richard Hayes Phillips and others.

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. OK, so...

Spoonamore thinks that the MIM actually altered results at the county tabulator level. That may be possible, depending on some facts about the county board setups that I haven't seen Spoonamore or anyone else discuss. Of course, most of Ohio voted on paper (most often punch cards), so to pull it off requires people willing to tamper with ballots whenever someone is about to discover the fraud.

Spoonamore thinks that maybe votes were switched in 'batches' of 50 per precinct. It seems unlikely that Spoonamore has ever scrutinized the precinct-level returns. One could steal 100,000 votes by switching 50 votes in each of 1000 precincts, but the results from those precincts would tend to stand out. Mebane and Herron scrutinized the results for the DNC's Voting Rights Institute, and found no sign of any such shift.

Spoonamore suggests that the fraud was concentrated in Republican counties. But county-level analysis of 2004 returns vis-a-vis other elections gives no indication of fraud concentrated in certain counties, Republican or otherwise.

Spoonamore apparently thinks that Kerry led in Ohio around 9 PM, until the results started being routed through Smartech at 9:32. The earliest vote count I can document for Ohio is from CNN via Lexis-Nexis:

BLITZER: CNN Election Headquarters, Times Square, New York.

Let's recap where we stand. Almost 9:30 p.m. on the East Coast....

Key battleground states that we have not yet been able to project winners in.

Florida, look at these numbers, 53 percent so far for Bush, 46 percent for Kerry, Nader we are 1 percent, almost 20,000 votes. Fifty four percent of the precincts reporting, almost half of the vote in.

Pennsylvania, 14 percent of the precincts reporting, Bush with 29 percent, Kerry at 71 percent, very early in that state.

Ohio, 9 percent, less than 10 percent of the vote in, Bush with 53 percent, Kerry 47 percent.

Also from Blitzer of CNN, at somewhere around 11:40 pm:

In Ohio, another key battleground state, with 64 percent of the precincts reporting, the president is atop with 52 percent of the vote, 1.8 million, Kerry with 48 percent, 1.7 million....

I recently saw Fitrakis and Wasserman claim that Kerry was ahead after midnight until votes stopped coming in -- and here I see Spoonamore claiming that, well, at least Kerry was ahead before 9:30 -- but I don't think either claim is true.

[creeksneakers2]

98. Its also noteworthy

That Spoonamore testified that a shift in voting trends late at night led him to the conclusion that the election was stolen. DUers here watch the returns come in, and we expect shifts, because different demographics and regions vote differently, and the sources of those counts shift throughout the evening. It could well be that the votes from areas out in the sticks where banjos play and Bush is popular straggled in last. That's a much simpler explanation.

Some of the precinct and county anomalies claimed by the group filing the suit don't exist on the current download of 2004 election results. It could be the results have been changed since then, but I wonder how, because counts must be certified shortly after the election and shouldn't be subject to change after certification.

Very good work on coming up with the CNN Transcripts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. precinct and county anomalies

The Connally anomaly still exists, not that it matters.

The exit poll discrepancy still exists, not that I think it matters either.

The thousands of spurious votes in that Gahanna precinct were corrected before the vote was certified. Some people actually seem to think that Bush forces tried to steal thousands of votes in a single precinct, but that's daft.

Results for the three Concord Twp precincts in Miami County (I think I have that right), two of which initially reported bizarrely high turnouts, actually were amended well after the certification date. I think votes were simply shifted among precincts, not altering the countywide candidate totals.

I don't remember what else is alleged in the suit (or that particular Richard Hayes Phillips affidavit or whatever). At one point on election night the SoS(?) was reporting obviously erroneous returns for some counties -- such as equal vote totals for Kerry and one of the minor-party candidates -- but those could no more have held up than the result in Gahanna.

--As for voting trends, I think the surprise if any was how little shift in trends there was. A lot of Cuyahoga reported late, so people thought that Kerry might close the gap. (Phillips thought the Cleveland turnout figures were too low, but in historical perspective that is far from obvious.)

[creeksneakers2]

99. I watched after the 25 minute mark

And Spoonamore does not address the issue of precinct counts. His theory is that somehow the kingpin hacked into all the county computers, but those results are only the sums of all the precinct counts, and Spoonamore doesn't address how the precinct counts were changed.

I surf the web to see how many Ohio precincts actually do a tally right at the precinct. I couldn't find an exact result but in the movie I've seen about this the election fraud hunters were looking at tapes printed out by the precincts.

By the way, while surfing around in general about this, I noticed that Spoonamore testified that he's a friend of Connell's and he didn't believe Connell would steal an election. Spoonamore did testify that Connell MIGHT know about a theft though. Connell calls himself a business acquaintance of Spoonamore.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. a few things

First of all, I don't give much credence to Spoonamore's attack scenario.

Most Ohio counties voted on punch cards in 2004, and those punch cards were centrally counted and tabulated. I don't think it's safe to say that "those results (on the county computers) are only the sums of all the precinct counts"; both the precinct counts and the countywide totals very well might be on the same computer(s).

I think only one county in Ohio used precinct-based op scan in 2004; a bunch (ten or so) used central count op scan. (I'm guessing that the movie you're thinking of actually shows DRE tapes from Florida, although that's neither here nor there.)

One of the reasons I don't give much credence to S's attack scenario is that he seems to think that it explains the "Connally anomaly," whereas I don't think the "Connally anomaly" is anomalous. He seems to be relying on bad information there.

[creeksneakers2]

104. Then I was wrong

with the idea that the precincts served as a check on the rest of the system. Much falls with that, although I still think that there wasn't enough of a case against Connell to make him confess to something. Therefore, Rove still had no reason to threaten him.

[OnTheOtherHand]

106. the ballots serve as a check

That's a big reason why Richard Hayes Phillips wanted to check so much paper. As far as I can remember, he hasn't found any large discrepancies between precinct ballot batches and official returns (except perhaps that the Concord ballots were scrambled?). So he points to extremely circumstantial evidence that persuades him that the ballots have been tainted to match the hacked electronic results. That hypothesis is pretty much unfalsifiable -- the chain of custody protections are too weak -- but there is no real need for it, because the returns generally look OK.

Setting that aside, indeed, there doesn't seem to have been any case against Connell. So he gave what I saw one true believer describe as a 'surprisingly unhelpful' (? may not be verbatim) deposition in early November, and then...? Much handwaving about how he was on the brink of telling all, but that started months ago.

[creeksneakers2]

108. So the ballots match

So its extremely unlikely the election was hacked at all. Therefore, there is no reason for Rove to threaten Connell.

I spent days reading the blogs about this and they expected that Connell would be forced to tell all, but I never saw anything dated before the accident that said Connell would voluntarily tell all and wished to do so on his own. If you can tell me where I might find that on the web I'd appreciate it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. substantially, yes

I'd expect some discrepancies, and I certainly don't remember everything Phillips reported in Witness to a Crime. But I have to think that if he had found any discrepancies consistent with massive vote-switching, I would remember. Instead, it's Connally anomaly, supposedly suspicious signatures, long "runs" of Kerry or Bush votes, claims that subjectively too many people were "gay-friendly Republicans" (voted for Bush, against Issue 1), and so on. If anyone else has read the book, maybe s/he will fill in something I am forgetting.

On the other point, by "telling all" I didn't intend to imply freely volunteering it. I do think that after the story in July about threats against Connell, I saw some speculation that now Connell might come clean, but I don't recall whether any of this came from Fitrakis, Raw Story, BradBlog, Miller, or any other recognizable source.

[creeksneakers2]

110. Thank you

You've been very helpful to me.

[creeksneakers2]

76. I don't understand

How does one steal an election without changing the numbers?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

91. So, you believe elections are open and honestly counted.

From creeksneakers2 (post number 35)


"It would be very difficult to change the results of a precinct without somebody noticing. Ohio has 11,571 precincts, all of which are recorded with the Ohio Secretary of State.

From the precincts the results go on to counties. Counties tally up the votes of all the precincts. At that time, the counties send information to the Secretary of State's office, both electronically and with redundant methods like copying the tallies and faxing them in. It would be impossible for the results to be changed at the country level, because they only have the added results of all the precincts, and numbers only add up one way.

When the results of the counties get to the Secretary of State's office they are added together. Its a simple function that even the computer in front of me could easily carry out. From there, the results went to Mr. Connell's computer in Tennessee, which doesn't appear to have been there to tally votes. That would make no sense. Mr. Connell's computer was there to help with an overflow in requests for information from the Secretary of State's website."



So what you are basically saying is that ballots are accurately and honestly counted at precinct level, then at county level and then finally at the State level and that counties merely tally the precincts and then the State tallies the counties; right ?

Please take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&pages=

Yes, I know it is quite dated, but it does tend to raise some questions about your theory regarding honest and accurate ballot totals being the reality of elections in this country.

[creeksneakers2]

96. I believe that to fix an election one must fix the voting machines

themselves or the counts from the voting machines, because after those results are set the only thing left to do is add them all together.

You raise an interesting point about discrepancies between county totals and secretary of state totals. The Ohio Secretary of State commented on this at their website download of the 2004 vote totals. They said all of the counties had a less than 10 vote discrepancy except one county that had 13. These numbers aren't large enough to steal an election unless is especially close. I didn't research the discrepancies but I know numbers change slightly after election night because of late absentee ballots, etc.

Very good work on Florida 2000. Thanks for it.

[tabatha]

10. Your reasoning is as shaky as the reasoning you criticize.

Apparently, Connell did say something in his deposition that was of value, and the filers of the suit say that they will continue.

Who is the convicted serial bomber? Surely, such a person if convicted, would be in jail.

[tkmorris]

11. He was. He was released in 1994 I believe

After serving something like 12 years. Guy's name is Brett Kimberlin. He swears he never planted any bombs, just sold drugs, and makes a number of other claims about his early release etc. but who you believe is up to you.

[tabatha]

13. What does he have to do with the lawsuit?

Never heard of him.

On edit: I have followed this from the point of view of the whistleblower Spoonamore, who has, to me at least, an enormous amount of credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRW3Bh8HQic

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

67. Yeah, he/she has come up with no solid facts to refute

the lawsuit. Just vague generalizations and smearing.

[creeksneakers2]

27. You are right. Arnebeck says the lawsuit will continue

And I misremembered what I had read. However, From Brad Blog:

"Michael Connell was a critically important witness. His loss hurts our case," Cliff Arnebeck, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the King-Lincoln Bronzville v. OH Sec. of State lawsuit, told The BRAD BLOG in an email responding to questions about Connell's death.

We will have to adjust," Arnebeck told us in response to queries about where the case may necessarily need to go from here. "The kind of organized criminal enterprise we are addressing requires the resources of the very best that the investigative press corps and law enforcement, at all levels, can muster."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6768

So Arnebeck is admitting his case relied on Arnebeck, and lacks what is needed to go forward at this point. Arnebeck says he needs to get more information from the investigative press corps and law enforcement.

There is no report of Connell saying anything of value, other than that he brought one of the other election technology companies into Ohio. Not enough there to build on.

I read all last weekend about the case on Velvet Revolution and the other sites involved. I didn't find any claim that there was any evidence besides what they hoped the Connell deposition would produce.

Would you please read other responses I am making on this thread? They help explain what I'm trying to say.

[lala_rawraw]

59. Ding. Ding. Ding... we have a winner...

Let me save you the trouble... I am right about the rest too, and you certainly could not have misread those claims, because you are their originator. So let me help you, again:

1. Cliff Arneback is not Brad Friedman's attorney
2. Velvet Revolution was not started by Raw Story, nor is Raw Story in any way affiliated with that organization, except for one project in which we were asked - as many others were - to join in a media/journalism thing. Beyond that, we have no business and no affiliation with that organization.
3. The court documents related the alleged threats. I merely reported what was in the court documents. I did not start the threat allegations, they were in the court documents that I reported on.
4. Michael Connell was not flying from PA, but from DC
5. I have never said, am not saying, have yet to even suggest that Michael Connell was murdered (I want to see a direct quote from me for your claims). I have said that given the context, his crash must be investigated with fully transparency and attention to all details and relationships.
6. The weather is not the culprit in Michael Connell's death. You say the gas claim originated from me. The authorities first thought that, because I don't know enough about aviation to even put forth a cause. They then changed their story to it being the weather. I corrected my information going on their accounts. They have no discounted the weather, which you continue to promote, all the while claiming I am originating these things. I am simply providing the updated information from the authorities.

I think that about covers it. You are wrong, entirely, on every one of these points. Retract, apologize and then maybe someone around here will take you seriously.

[creeksneakers2]

36. The serial bomber is the coowner of Velvet Revolution

which is a website organized by Brad of Brad Blog and the serial bomber. Most of the outrageous claims associated with this conspiracy theory come from Velvet Revolution. Its says on Velvet Revolution itself that Mr. Arnebeck is an attorney for Velvet Revolution.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. it does?

Sorry, I'm late to the food fight. Where on the VR site does it say that Arnebeck is an attorney for VR? I'm not saying that it doesn't, but I see a bunch of links about his work in Ohio, and so far I haven't spotted anything about VR even having an attorney.

Did you actually say that Arnebeck is Brad's attorney and/or that Raw Story helped to start VR? I'm having a hard time understanding the claims and metaclaims here.

[Wilms]

74. A press release for VR says Arnebeck is VR's attorney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081220/pl_usnw/bush_insider_who_planned_to_tell_all_killed_in_plane_crash__non_profit_demands_full_federal_investigation

I was surprised. It was the first reference I saw. Perhaps a typo. Surely more mud for the waters.

Whatever.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. thanks

I thought I had read that press release, but with so much going on in there, I missed that nugget completely.

I find it pretty plausible that Connell was involved in funky email dealings. The idea that he hacked Ohio's 2004 election results in real time so far isn't doing anything for me.

[Wilms]

82. Same here.

Which makes me concerned that Spoonamore has set this whole thing up as a distraction.

But I don't want to say too much. Unpopular opinions get harshly branded in this environment. College level logic probably has informed many of what is/not here and those who "get it" have probably figured it best to stay out of it.

It's one thing to believe the 2004 election was stolen, as I do. It's another thing to think my belief or someone else's unsubstantiated claims are proof.

My convictions do not require that kind of faith.

[creeksneakers2]

79. I got it from Brad Blog, which also says they are a partner in

Velvet Underground.

As posted on the New York Times website in full on Saturday, the last line of a press release from VelvetRevolution.us, who has retained Arnebeck as counsel in the case, reads "Our prior request to have Mr. Connell protected went unheeded and now he is dead."

The quote is from an article down the page called: EXCLUSIVE: OH Election Fraud Attorney Reacts to the Death of Mike Connell

http://www.bradblog.com/

I never said Arnebeck was Brad's attorney. I defended by agreeing with someone else who said Arnebeck is Velvet Revolutions attorney. I also said Velvet Revolution was cofounded by Brad, which I got from the link above. I never said Raw Story started Velvet Revolution.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. thanks -- this is ever more bewildering

"...the last line of a press release from VelvetRevolution.us, who has retained Arnebeck as counsel in the case..."

"The case" appears to be King Lincoln Bronzeville, but as far as I know VR isn't a party (even an intervenor) in that case, and Arnebeck has been on it from the beginning. Maybe this means that VR is underwriting Arnebeck's expenses? Maybe, as Wilms suggests as a possibility, it's just a mistake?

[creeksneakers2]

84. Could be anything

I'm not a liar though. A took the fact from the word of the source himself.

From what I've read of the case, it has numerous plaintiffs, including something called "100 John Does."

[troubleinwinter]

89. One can see how a person would think Brett Kimberlin, the serial bomber,

is associated with Raw Story.

In January 2008, the promo for the radio show 'L.A. Steel Show':

Politically Independent talk show, activism, alternative news, and interviews with authors, activists, politicians and researchers. Tonight we interview Brett Kimberlin, the man behind e-voting investigations of BradBlog.com and the investigative internet journal Raw Story.com.

During the radio show, the co-host TWICE introduced him as:

Brett Kimberlin, moving force behind Raw Story, Brad Blog, the imeachment movement and voter fraud.

Kimberlin did not correct her or clarify (nor did he correct "voter fraud", as opposed to "election fraud").

Larisa Alexandrovna, Managing News Editor for Raw Story, said "Take it or leave it, but for what it is worth, I vouch for him" so when he allows an indroduction of being "moving force behind Raw Story" twice, without correction, one might accept association between the two.

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. thanks, that's interesting

Kimberlin taking credit for Raw Story obviously isn't the same thing as Raw Story being a force behind VR -- but there are definitely connections.

I'm just curious how it is that Larisa A. is making all these statements about what creeksneakers supposedly has said, somewhere, and I can't find the somewhere.

Maybe the problem really is that she is assuming that creeksneakers has a bunch of sock puppets, so she is attributing other people's statements to him.

I do wonder what sort of preparation one undertakes before being willing to "vouch for" a convicted bomber who is said to be a shameless and accomplished liar.

[troubleinwinter]

71. "Who is the convicted serial bomber?"

Unrepentant serial bomber, suspected murderer, DoD impersonator, self-confessed major drug smuggler, Brett Kimberlin, co-founder with Brad Friedman of Velvet Revolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2358825#2388888

http://allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org/brett-kimberlin-anyone-else-thinking-cointelpro-t221.html

[Peace Patriot]

14. Creeksneakers2, your statements are so broad, and your analysis so lacking in details, that

I am inclined to dismiss them out of hand. It strikes me as the work of someone with a grudge.

For instance: "Upon analysis, Connell could not possibly have stolen the election in the way that the theory proposed."

What way is that? How can we evaluate your assertion that Connell "could not possibly" have done something if you don't say what it is, and explain why that is impossible.

Connell was Karl Rove's top IT guru. There are dozens of ways he could have stolen, or helped to steal, an election. What are you talking about specifically? What does the lawsuit actually say?

Earlier in that paragraph, you write: "Connell was never directly implicated in the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections. He was subpoenaed in a lawsuit which had no evidence at all that Connell did anything. The suit was based on a theory of what Connell MIGHT have done."

Do you mean implicated in election theft in the lawsuit? These statements of yours ignore the normal procedures in a lawsuit like this, which reaches the point of depositions and discovery. Lawsuits generally do not get to the point of depositions and discovery unless the suit is substantial. They are thrown out of court precisely because it is unfair to subject witnesses to depositions and discovery (which can be an arduous process) if the allegations are thin or baseless. I have not read this lawsuit brief, but I do know that, if they doing depositions and discovery, then a judged has ruled that the allegations are substantial.

You write: "The idea that the White House was concerned about him talking is unbelievable. First off, the suit that subpoenaed Connell was junk and posed no threat to anybody...".

If the suit in which Connell was compelled to give a deposition was "junk," it would have been thrown out of court before Connell was deposed. Using a word like "junk" doesn't help at all. What do you mean by "junk"? Please quote the lawsuit and explain why you dismiss it so totally, when it has been judged to have enough merit for depositions.

I believe that this is the lawsuit that was seeking Karl Rove's emails (the ones that Connell is suspected of having 'disappeared'). That is hardly "junk."

This is why I have judged your opinion about this matter as being based on a grudge, or perhaps a political agenda. You do not explain yourself well. Your allegations are vague, dismissive and don't help us understand this case, or the probabilities that Connell was murdered because of what he might disclose.

Depositions are based on an accumulation of evidence and suspicions of a crime laid out in the initial lawsuit brief. The brief does not necessarily provide accusations against specific people, nor does it have to prove that a crime was committed. That comes much later, in court. This is the "discovery" stage, where the accumulation of evidence is tested against new documents obtained from witnesses, and from the question-and-answer of depositions. The purpose of depositions is to find out more information. And if the lawyers are deposing a possible perpetrator, the deposition stage is where they pressure that person to disclose everything he knows about the matter against his unwillingness to do so. The depositions may take place over days and weeks. The witness may stonewall at first, but eventually fess up; or may inadvertently disclose something that the lawyers can follow up on, to find out if a crime was actually committed, and who did it.

You seem to think that because Connell initially denied knowledge of 2004 election fraud, that is the end of the matter. Not true. The lawyers might depose someone else, for instance--perhaps on the basis of the Connell deposition (someone he mentions)--learn something more, and call Connell back for further deposition. And this was the very stage of things when Connell's plane went down in flames. He was a pressured witness, someone the lawyers were pursuing--trying to crack; trying to get him to tell all, or parsing his deposition for contradictions, lies, perjury, etc., to further pressure him.

Thus, the following underlined statement (of yours) makes no sense to me: "Yes, Connell did testify but he just said he didn't know anything about stealing the election. At that point, the newer version of the blogger story about threats had to end, because it would make no sense to threaten someone to keep silent who had already kept silent and under oath yet."

This simply isn't true. A crime gang member may well deny everything to a prosecutor yet remain a threat to his gang leaders for many reasons (--he is a key witness; he's fearful of going to jail; the prosecutor has some kind of leverage over him). He could be killed on spec if he is an important enough witness--not because he had disclosed anything, but because of what he might disclose. In this election fraud case, the lawyers are acting in lieu of prosecutors. They have some of the same functions, including trying to crack open a case by pressuring witnesses. And Connell is a very important witness, indeed.

Your accusations about "bloggers" are also very vague, and you give no links. What are you talking about? Who are you talking about? I can't follow you.

"The later story about the threats and Connell planning to tell all to investigators are all based on one blog journalist's unsubstantiated claims. She refuses to give details. The spectacular revelations did not come about until after Connell's death. The 'throw him under the bus' line also came from the same journalist whose stories have varied. Sometime she said Connell told her. Sometimes she says she got the information from a mysterious meeting with Connell's wife on park bench."

What is this all about? Please provide links.

And I make the same request of the Original Poster. Please provide links. The OP itself is vague. With that I agree. How are we to evaluate this matter, pro or con, with neither of you providing links, attributed quotes, or other ways to judge for ourselves the credibility of sources.

Your failure to provide names, attributed quotes and links makes it easy for you to say anything you want to say, without contradiction. You say the lawsuit is "junk." I happen to be familiar with the election fraud work of one of the lawyers--Cliff Arnebeck--and I simply don't believe that he would be involved in a "junk" case. I am also familiar with this kind of dismissive tone--that a lawsuit is "junk"--from corporate attorneys in environmental cases. Such cases are seldom "junk" for the simple reason that they are so very difficult and expensive to do. By the time ordinary citizens get a civil case against corporations and government into court, anything "junky" about it has been grievously tested. It is VERY difficult. I think you should show some respect for the effort here of citizen action. Merely to get this case to the deposition stage more than likely took inhuman effort on the part of several or many people. A stolen election is not a frivolous matter. And Cliff Arenbeck is not a frivolous man. And if you cannot defend your use of the word "junk" with citation from his lawsuit brief, as to what you mean by "junk," then I will be done with you. You will have lost all credibility with me.

[Lil Missy]

15. Thank you very much! Peace Patriot!

I did not articulate this OP very well. And I thank you for pointing that out. I'm not so smart, sometimes.

Here are the links I should have included in the Original Post. And what I based my opinions on ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4689737

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x252136

[eomer]

19. Some thoughts on the election theft theory

Re:

For instance: "Upon analysis, Connell could not possibly have stolen the election in the way that the theory proposed."

What way is that? How can we evaluate your assertion that Connell "could not possibly" have done something if you don't say what it is, and explain why that is impossible.

Connell was Karl Rove's top IT guru. There are dozens of ways he could have stolen, or helped to steal, an election. What are you talking about specifically? What does the lawsuit actually say?

Spoonamore has confused the discussion by focusing mainly on a theory that is obviously flawed. A man-in-the-middle attack that modified the election results when they were transmitted from the counties to the state would result in the counties' numbers being different than the state's version of those same county numbers. Since no such discrepancy exists between county numbers and state numbers, that can't be the attack that was used.

I just reread Spoonamore's affidavit and I see that he does mention another possible attack, one that isn't entirely impossible as far as I know. This other attack would be for the Govtech computer (that Spoonamore has called the man-in-the-middle) to access the county tabulators and manipulate their code or data in order to change the vote counts at the county. That way the county BOE workers would only see results after they were manipulated, and never the true ones. But this type of attack is not a man-in-the-middle as it is commonly defined.

Another source of confusion is the mischaracterization in many articles that Spoonamore is a whistleblower who is revealing how the election was stolen. Spoonamore doesn't appear to know how it was stolen; rather he is just speculating about one or more possibilities of how it could have been. In reality there may have been some totally different tactic used, such as direct tampering with the county tabulators that had nothing to do with access to them by Govtech machines. And even if Govtech computers were somehow involved in some rigging, it is pretty clear that there were many other types of rigging that occurred in Ohio 2004 so it wouldn't be an accurate description to say that Govtech "stole the election" but rather would be the case that Govtech "was one of many actors whose combined actions stole the election". Spoonamore's speculation has been fairly clumsy and therefore not very helpful.

[lala_rawraw]

23. Excellent response...

I assume I am the "blog journalist." And the unsubstantiated claims he mentions are the court records in which the facts are as follows:
1. Cliff Arnebeck informed the USAG that there were threats
2. Had a meeting in chambers with the judge, Connell's attorneys, and the Ohio Attorney General
3. Based on those discussions, the judge agreed to force the deposition
4. Connell's attorney's asked that all discussions of threats and business practices be asked and answered under seal. The judge agreed

So, the court record, the attorney's request to put it under seal, the letter to Mukasey, and the judge granting the sealing motion are all pieces of information I pulled out of my ass while bored one day. Describing what has been going on with these allegations is not me claiming insider knowledge of threats that I and only I know of.

The person you are responding to first attacked me somewhere in the forum because I said Connell was coming from DC. This person claimed that I was wrong, Connell was coming from PA. Now go look at the flightaware data and such, at the reporting out of FAA and tell me, do you see PA as a stop anywhere? Nope. Then this guy went after me because the initial reports out of Akron-Canton was that there was either a gas leak or he ran out of gas. They then changed their story to it being the icing and weather. So I updated that part. Because I updated that part, this person claimed that as proof of my not knowing what I was talking about and went on to describe the weather conditions. The problem with that is that the weather conditions, the FAA interm. report, and not to mention the actual radar data all have agreed, it was not the weather. In other words, the investigators first thought gas, then weather, and now have ruled out both. But the person above somehow thinks that it is me making up stories.

Whoever this person is, they have no interest in what happened. There is far too much dedication in the last few days, too much energy spent, and very emotional responses that suggest a grudge to me = as someone noted above.

Your questions are excellent, let's see where he comes up with the links for his assertions. Thanks for your response to this person.

[creeksneakers2]

41. Hard to respond to all you have attacked me with

But I'll try with this post.

You are not the only person to allege Connell was threatened. However, you are the ONLY source of the claim that Connell was about to spill the beans on some high level plots. We have nothing but your word on that, and the way you attack me suggests that you can't defend your allegations and must therefore attack the questioner.

You did initially say that Connell was coming from DC. I pointed out that was wrong but I correctly linked to a newspaper article that said Connell took off from an airport in College Park, MD. The thread is there if anybody would like to look. I never said anything about the flight coming from Pennsylvania.

What you label as "initial reports" you described when your information turned out to be wrong as a secret source at the airport who you were in touch with because the source was helping you spy on Connell's movements. (another far fetched story) Its funny that this source who was supposedly there to track Connell's movements got it wrong where Connell was, as well as the running out of gas story which he had no way of knowing and you later retracted. The running out of gas story remains in this overall conspiracy discussion anyway, despite your retraction. I've merely pointed out that it was retracted, by who, and why. I got people back on the right track.

I don't remember ever saying anything about weather conditions. I don't know anything about planes so I have no idea why the plane crashed, except that the idea it was sabotaged is not supported by the available evidence.

Is everybody who ever questions your claims some obsessed person with a grudge against you? There are lots of people discussing this. I'm not the only one. I am one of the few skeptics. I don't believe that taking one side or the other proves anything about the poster.

My links are scattered about the thread, where they relate to the substance of the theory.

[lala_rawraw]

56. now you are the one being attacked????

really? wow... okay, so you claim that I made up the threats about Connell (nope, simply reported the court record, and provided links to the court record), that me Brad Friedman started Velvet Revolution (nope, go see full list of their members, to note both that i am not part of that and also how many different groups are), that Cliff Arnebeck is Brad Friedman's attorney (nope, he is an Ohio lawyer who brought the case), that Brad Friedman is lying by simply reporting on the same facts from the court record as I have, that we are all part of a group led by a terrorist...let's see, what did I leave out?

the point is, you start this crap and then you claim you are being attacked? oh, wait, and then you bring in two new personalities to help you spread this:

Antipode
antipode


so why do you feel attacked hon? the ruse not working out for you? the only people attacked here were me and Brad Friedman by you and your multiple personalities. you posted absolute total lies, despite all evidence to the contrary (seriously, have you read the court documents by chance?) about us and you want some sympathy? at this point, you are my laughing game given your ugly rehtoric. so by all means, please continue to entertain me and don't ruin by claiming victimhood hon...you know i need a good laugh after these last few days.

[MiniMe]

68. DC vs MD airport

Yes, the airport is in Maryland. It is probably a mile or 2 from the DC line. It is the closest airport to DC, and there are only about 50 people who are authorized to use it at the current time because of the proximity to DC. After 9-11 the airport almost went out of business because nobody was allowed to fly from or land there for a very long time. LaLa could have been more specific, the plane flew from the DC area would have been more accurate, but Connell was leaving from DC after testifying, it is a very short drive out to College Park.

From your analysis, how many airports are in Washington, DC? If you try to book a flight, the answer is 3. 2 of them are in Virginia and 1 is in Maryland, none are in DC.

[creeksneakers2]

39. That's a long list, I'd like to respond to as many as I can

As to why it was impossible to steal the election in the way the lawsuit proposed, please see my post #41. Also, the post of eomer, #19, is also helpful. You can evaluate my assertion and I'd love questions about it.

On the matter of lawsuits being thrown out - The only way a lawsuit can be thrown out prior to the discovery phase is through what is called a motion for summary judgment. The laws vary by states, but the basics are the same, that a suit cannot be thrown out if there is a single issue of fact. There were numerous issues of fact here, and the parties did not agree on the facts. A judge did not rule the evidence was substantial.

The lawyers who filed the suit did want to depose Connell about the E-mails but did not have the right or authority to do so, as the E-mails had nothing to do with the matter at and. Please see documents under Motion to Quash at Velvet Revolution.

Calling the lawsuit junk offends lots of people and makes it less likely somebody would believe what I am saying. However, I chose the word to summarize my evaluation. Elsewhere on this thread, the parts of the suit not related to Connell were in a suit that was withdrawn in 2005. So there doesn't appear to have been much there if it was withdrawn. The suit we are dealing with now was suspended for a long time at the request of the filing party.

Its true lawyers may have found additional evidence that would lead them back to Connell. That is nothing more than a wish though, and such a possibility would not be a threat to Rove, especially one he'd commit murder over. And if there were others that knew, what would be the sense of murdering just Connell to shut everything up?



The clearest reason for why its obvious that the don't have a case is that the Velvet Revolution website where all this is coming from is offering $250,000 for evidence about how the 2004 election was stolen. They apparently don't have enough now.

I disagree with your analysis of the situation where a crime enterprise is threatened because somebody knows something that they might reveal. Everybody in the crime enterprise knows something. You can't shut up everybody. And if you start murdering all who know, you'd have to involve more people to carry out the murders, so even more people would know, and this time about murder which is a more serious offense than election fraud. The idea is out there that one witness might be singled out because he was under the threat of prosecution and therefore more likely to talk. But Connell was not under any real threat from the Arnebeck lawsuit, and had in fact already testified that he knew nothing a month before the plane crash.

A link to the sensational story about Connell being murdered on the way to go spill the beans is here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4693420

While this post is not the only source of the claim that Connell was threatened, it is the sole source of the claim that Connell was about to talk when his plane crashed. The idea that he was about to talk is the spine of this whole uproar.

For who is involved in pushing the conspiracy theory you can start at response #38 on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3656469

The journalist is Larisa Alexandrovna AKA lala_rawraw.

You dismissed me at the end of your post but asked numerous questions before that. I've chosen to answer your questions and would like it if you would consider my arguments about the lawsuit before drawing conclusions about me.

[Lil Missy]

49. Peace Patriot, here is another report on this matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x253180

[Ian David]

31. Excellent analysis, but please provide links to your facts when you get a chance...

... and post them in a new thread?

[creeksneakers2]

50. I don't think a new thread would get much response

However, I have answered lots of questions on this thread since post #3. The guts of what I'm saying are at post #41. I've provided links where they are called for.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

37. Yo, son.

Yes he was. There is good evidence that his servers, his IP addresses that were registered to him and his company in Chatanooga, were in the chain to the Ohio SoS website. With no good reason for those IP's being there, I might add, as he had no hosting responsibilities. You can find that documented by some investigators who were real IT gods and goddesses over at Daily Kos. They did some great forensic IT work over there.

On the other hand, it was a fact reported by the news that in the 2004 election, Rove had himself quite the IT setup, one that was bringing him real-time information from a variety of sources.

I wonder how many of these "man-in-the-middle" operations Connell had going?

[creeksneakers2]

51. Please see post #41

[BadGimp]

16. The Dude was Wellstoned..

He got Carnahaned..

They Baxtered his ass..
as in Cliff Baxter of ENRON

think about this string of coincidences, or don't

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

38. And with the late Mr. Baxter...

That was not ratshot that killed him, that was a Glaser Safety Slug, something which, if I was involved in covert wet work, I would consider using for a headshot or a torso shot on an unarmored person. It is a frangible round, designed to be, and very good at, causing massive wound channels and destruction of tissue in vivo.

While not explosive, per se, it's effects due to method of construction and how those methods leverage hydrostatic effects in vivo, make it like an explosion has gone off in the body. Frangible rounds are designed to kill with one or two shots, and as such, are very effective at their intended work.

[Selatius]

17. The fact is this. He is now dead. Whatever he knew died with him. We will never know what he knew.

The fact that he died means that a key witness in Ohio's vote rigging will never testify.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Yeah, I was going to point out this irony in Creeksneakers2's listless, lazy comment.

"Connell was never directly implicated in the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections. He was subpoenaed in a lawsuit which had no evidence at all that Connell did anything. The suit was based on a theory of what Connell MIGHT have done. Upon analysis, Connell could not possibly have stolen the election in the way that the theory proposed. Even the lawyer that filed the suit now admits there is nothing worthwhile left without Connell. The wish that somehow if put under oath Connell would admit to sensational crimes, exposure of which would realign politics in the US, is all there ever was to the suit."--Creeksneakers2

The lawyer (unidentified--there are several involved, I believe) did NOT say "there is nothing worthwhile left," that I know of, or, if one of them did, has subsequently revised that opinion, since the lawsuit will continue. But this Creeksneakers person fails to see the irony--and suspiciousness--of this circumstance, and of his/her own statement. A very important witness has met with a small plane crash--a phenomenon so frequent and so infamous, with regard to persons who threaten the Bushwhacks, that it has become a common usage phrase, "to be Wellstoned"--and that at least hampers the case that is in progress about 2004 election fraud. This is Freeper logic ("Move along, nothing to see here": "Get over it"). JFK is dead. RFK is dead. MLK is dead. Paul Wellstone is dead. RFK, Jr. is dead. Get over it. WE rule, you whiners! Your key witness is dead. Give it up. Abandon the lawsuit. WE win!

:silly: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy: :silly:

[antipode]

20. RFK Jr. is dead?

:scared:

[Peace Patriot]

47. Sorry! Typo--I meant to say John, Jr. A lot of people think he should be added to the list

of the 'Wellstoned.' I don't know as much about his crash as I do about Wellstone's, but I respect people who ask questions, investigate official lies and try to find out what's really going on, in events like that. I think it is suspicious, and I don't trust any "authorities" on the deaths of Bush Cartel enemies or potential whistleblowers. I am 100% skeptical of all Fed (i.e., Bushwhack-controlled) law enforcement and prosecution (even when they go after Pukes, I look for the potential Bushwhack motive to punish, silence, intimidate, set up, blackmail or control, or to teach lessons to others about their power). I am, oh, 50% skeptical of local law enforcement/prosecution. As for investigating small plane crashes of anyone who poses a threat to the Bushwhacks, I don't trust any official persons--cops, paramedics, coroners, judges, prosecutors, etc. We have just been fed too much absolute bullshit, from JFK's assassination through 9/11 and into last week, and Michael Connell's plane crash.

Anyway, RFK Jr. is alive and well--and I hope he stays that way. I'd like to know what happened to his lawsuit on election fraud.

[lala_rawraw]

28. Um...

yeah, amazing how people lie for a bit of cash, no?

[KoKo]

32. Well...the sock puppet also has been busy all over the place, too.

I posted on here a few days ago that Michelle Malkin had called out her troops.

[lala_rawraw]

33. yup

time to kick some puppet arse with facts and non-stop responses not to mention a few complaints about these posts.

[creeksneakers2]

46. Threats

and gangs. Who needs them?

"If they were right, they only would have needed one." Albert Einstein.

[lala_rawraw]

55. m'kay

the court records don't exist... in fact, there is no court. gawd, get a grip... nice Einstein quote though AA... does it make you feel less like you are lining to cite someone so well respected?

[creeksneakers2]

42. I have amended that point about the lawyers admission

He did not say he had nothing. He said that the suit was seriously hurt by the loss of Connell. If the suit was hurt by Connell's death, it was already limping along, as Connell had already testified that he knew nothing. There is no reason to believe Connell could be deposed again, as the original subpoena was even nearly quashed.

I don't know of any pattern of people who opposed to George Bush dying in plane crashes. Millions of people have opposed Bush, so it stands to reason that some of them would die in plane crashes.

I call it freeper logic when somebody says something and everybody agrees with it because it fits with their ideological view. Under freeper logic, there is no discussion of what might and might not be factually true. I am not asking people to move along and close there eyes. I'm asking people to take a good look at the facts. That's the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of.

I'm certain George Bush, at least Junior, had nothing to do with the death of Martin Luther King.

[lala_rawraw]

57. caught in one lie, alter the story...

What about the rest? So Cliff Arnebeck is Brad Friedman's attorney? Raw Story helped start Velvet Revolution? Waiting for you to "amend" and issue an apology, until then, consider yourself a visible troll.

[Subdivisions]

34. You might be mentally ill...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4716443

[Hissyspit]

43. Raw Story: Documents Reveal How Ohio Routed 2004 Voting Data Through Bush Email Host Co.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Documents_reveal_how_Ohio_routed_2004_1031.html

Documents reveal how Ohio routed 2004 voting data through company that hosted external Bush Administration email accounts
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday October 31, 2008

Newly obtained computer schematics provide further detail of how electronic voting data was routed during the 2004 election from Ohio’s Secretary of State’s office through a partisan Tennessee web hosting company.

A network security expert with high-level US government clearances, who is also a former McCain delegate, says the documents – server schematics which trace the architecture created for Ohio’s then-Republican Secretary of State and state election chief Kenneth Blackwell – raise troubling questions about the security of electronic voting and the integrity of the 2004 presidential election results.

The flow chart shows how voting information was transferred from Ohio to SmarTech Inc., a Chattanooga Tennessee IT company known for its close association with the Republican Party, before the 2004 election results were displayed online.

Information technology expert Stephen Spoonamore believes this architecture could have made possible a KingPin or "Man in the Middle" (MIM) attack -- a well-defined criminal methodology in which a computer is inserted into the network of a bank or credit card processor to intercept and modify transactions before they reach a central computer.

In an affidavit filed in September, Spoonamore asserted that "any time all information is directed to a single computer for consolidation, it is possible… that single computer will exploit the information for some purpose. ... In the case of Ohio 2004, the only purpose I can conceive for sending all county vote tabulations to a GOP managed Man-in-the-Middle site in Chattanooga before sending the results onward to the Sec. of State, would be to hack the vote at the MIM."

Not everyone agrees. RAW STORY also sent the schematics to computer science professor David L. Dill, a longtime critic of electronic voting machines. In an email message, Dill said he’s skeptical that an attack of the sort described by Spoonamore could have been carried out undetected.

"It seems that the major concern is whether routing election results through a third-party server would allow that third party to change the reported election results,” Dill wrote. “These diagrams haven't answered my basic question about that idea. The individual counties know the counts that they transmitted to the state. If those results were altered by the state or a middleman, I would think that many people in many counties would know the actual numbers and would raise an alarm."

Spoonamore has now filed a fresh affidavit (pdf), in regard to a case involving alleged Ohio vote tampering, which asserts that the schematics support a "Man in the Middle" attack having been implemented in Ohio in 2004. Ohio provided the crucial Electoral College votes to secure President George W. Bush's reelection.

"The computer system at SmartTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmartTech computers," Spoonamore wrote in the affadavit.

"Overall, my analysis of the two Architectures provided is the following,” he added. "They are very simple systems. They are designed for ease of use during the one of two times a year they are needed for an election. They are not designed with any security or monitoring systems for negative actions including MIM or KingPin attacks. These systems as designed would not be sufficient for any banking function, credit card function, or even or many corporate email systems needing a high degree of confidence. They are systems which will work easily, but are based on a belief all users and the system itself will be trusted not to be hacked."

He continued, "There are obviously many parties willing, with motivation, and able to hack an election for a desired outcome."

Inconclusive Evidence?

Dill told Raw Story the schematics are inconclusive and that he continues to have questions after reading Spoonamore's latest affadavit, although he cautioned that he himself is not an expert in Spoonamore's specialty of network security.

- snip -

Remaining Questions

Dill further noted after examining the schematics, "The 11/02/04 diagram has several computer icons in the upper left for EN Results entry of various types. I don't know how this works, but given that counties are using different software to prepare their totals, I suspect the data is entered by hand into web forms or that spreadsheets are uploaded. Such an entry method would not easily lend itself to corrupting the original data. ... Even if data can be changed at the county servers, many pollworkers and possibly others know the results that were reported from their precincts, and someone would probably notice if the numbers reported by the county or state differed from those."

Dill said it would be helpful to have more information regarding the computers used and how they were connected.

"It would be a great idea to get some more definitive information about how the computers were connected and run in those counties," he wrote. "Messing with disks might help cover up evidence after the fact. But the first thing that had to happen was that county-level results had to be changed in such a way that no one could compare the precinct results with the announced totals."

Spoonamore said tampering could have been accomplished without broad knowledge.

MORE

[Peace Patriot]

61. We have seen posters like Creeksneakers in the orginal DU elecion fraud forum,

and more recently in the Latin American forum. In the L/A forum, you can spot them by their irrational assertions that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator" (no evidence for it whatsoever). In the original DU election forum, you could spot them by their irrational faith in 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. Here, I think the key is use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to describe people who have been close to, or directly involved in, the Ohio 2004 election fraud lawsuit.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a buzz phrase, intended to turn off your higher brain functions and cause you to dismiss the concerns, the suspicions, the warnings, the alarms, and the hard, hard work of citizen investigation, reporting and prosecution that committed activists have undertaken when they don't believe an "official story."

If you were alive and awake during the Bushwhacks' recent Financial 9/11, and have any brains at all, I think you know that the American people have been had, big time. Looted, plundered, spied upon, our elections stolen, our Constitution shredded, our military hijacked for a corporate resource war, heinous acts of torture and mass murder committed in our name, our people lied to, time and time and time again, vast secret budgets, vast secret presidential powers, out-of-control corporate robbery of the people, and now the final fleecing unto the 7th generation. These things cannot happen in a democracy without a conspiracy to commit them. The mind-dissolving phrase "conspiracy theorist" is intended to sully those who are actively trying to hold the criminal perpetrators of these crimes accountable, and is intended to "dumb down" the public and delay public understanding of the methods used to hijack our government and our military for private gain.

What someone who bandies this term--"conspiracy theorist"--is doing is trying to make you look away, and, in this case, to look away from the election fraud in 2004, as a key method of the overall conspiratorial cabal that has committed all of these other crimes. Such people seem to have a lot of time on their hands to debunk the work of actual investigators, lawyers and others. Where is their work on holding the Bushwhacks accountable for their crimes? Where is their investigation? Where are the depositions they've taken? How many witnesses have they had die in small plane crashes, just as they thought they were getting somewhere with the witness?

If someone has a wrong theory of Bushwhack crime, or got some facts wrong, or is barking up the wrong tree, or whatever criticism you might have of someone else's work, you don't start by calling their work "junk" and calling them "conspiracy theorists" (and even terrorists). You go to THEM--and present your arguments, and try to HELP. Or, if you are not interested in helping them, but want your criticism known, to educate the public, you present reasonable arguments and explain your ideas in a respectful way. Anything else--calling people names, picking fights with people, slandering people--is a waste of everybody's time.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a badge of courage these days. It doesn't even work as a tactic of distraction. It is old hat. If fact, when I hear somebody called a "conspiracy theorist," I am immediately more interested in what they have to say.

Creeksneakers2's use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist," above, is a giveaway that the commenter does not want us to think very hard about what he/she has to say--Creeksneakers2's own analysis/theories. We are supposed to believe him/her because those whom he/she is attacking are "conspiracy theorists." Creeksneakers2 then says, in all caps, "AT THIS POINT I'LL POST THE CENTER OF MY ARGUMENT." The "center" is that voting systems are like bank teller operations. But this is simply not true, because of the secret ballot. In a bank teller operation, the customer is always a known entity and the customer's transaction is always connected to the customer's name/account. The customer knows what he/she did, and what the teller did, and has trackable receipt of the transaction.

In voting--whether on 'TRADE SECRET' code machines with no receipt, or opstiscans with some sort of paper trail, or punchcards, or even with paper ballots--all of which were used in Ohio--the identity, and thus the wishes, of the "customer" (voter) are lost in the transaction, because the essential connection for verifying the voter's intent becomes disconnected from the voter (on purpose, to ensure a secret ballot). And, at that point, the vote becomes vulnerable to theft--whatever form it is in. A paper ballot can be directly stolen and replaced with a fraudulent ballot--but this is difficult to do over a whole state or country, in sufficient numbers to steal a presidential election. Punchcards make it easier, because they can be put into the wrong machines for tabulation in large numbers (as happened in Ohio--the voter votes for Kerry and it's supposed to be counted by Machine A, but is put into a differently calibrated Machine B, and the Kerry vote becomes a Bush vote), or simply replaced, 'disappeared,' damaged or altered, as with a fraudulent ballot. (In FLA '00, punchcards made of inferior paper, likely to produce hanging chads, were supplied by either ESS&S or Sequoia. See "The Trouble With Touchscreens," Dan Rather, www.HD.net.)

Electronic votes are the most vulnerable--and can be changed in vast numbers, at the speed of light, in total secrecy, with almost no detectability. Those that have a paper trail are a little less vulnerable--but only if the paper trail is audited in sufficient numbers to detect fraud. And central electronic tabulators are also vulnerable to tampering in a 'TRADE SECRET' system, depending on how and where the votes are tabulated, and by whom. Only the voter knows how he/she voted. If the precinct officials are corrupt, or the machines are corrupted with malicious code at that level, the vote can be changed and no one would have any chance of finding that out. Many people saw their vote changed right before their eyes, from Kerry to Bush, on touchscreen machines (no paper trail), and remain uncertain to this day how their vote was recorded. Optiscan voters for Kerry (paper trail) had no way of knowing if their vote was included in their precinct's tally for Kerry or not, unless there was an audit. Audits are generally very minimal (insufficient to detect fraud), and, in Ohio, state officials and many county and local officials were very corrupt and secretive, failed to follow their own rules and regs, and were generally very untrustworthy as to audits/recounts and all handling of the election.

All of these methods and systems were used in Ohio, which had not been fully Diebolded by the 2004 election. And highly suspicious activity pointing to fraud occurred in at least two of them--e-voting (no paper trail) and punchcard voting--plus several other methods of election fraud (shorting black precincts on voting machines, purging voter lists, etc.). Michael Connell was not only centrally involved in transferring Ohio election data out of the state to his private company, before it reached the Secretary of State's computers, he was also centrally involved in setting up the private email servers from which some 5,000 of Karl Rove's emails during this period were 'disappeared.' His function as a "middle man" in Ohio's election data is therefore a highly suspicious circumstance, given the nearly 7% discrepancy in the Ohio exit polls (it was 3% nationwide--meaning Kerry won by 3%, according to the exit polls, before they were forced to conform to "official," electronically produced results). The Spoonamore theory may be wrong as to the exact nature of Connell's participation that night, but it certainly points to the inappropriateness, and suspiciousness, of Connell's "middle man" position. (Why was the data sent to TN? What was public election data doing on a private RNC server?) Also, as custodian of Karl Roves' emails, he may have later acted to hide content regarding the various methods of election fraud that were being used, and the Republican operatives at the state and local levels who were using them (say, a directive to switch the punchcards to the wrong machine, because Bush still wasn't winning; or questions/orders about particular people who needed to be activated to do something, or refrain from doing something, such as failing to deliver voting machines to black precincts). Rove assured Bush that he would win, late in the day, with Kerry ahead in the exit polls. How did he pull it off? (And--a bigger question--why was it even so close nationwide that OH, where Rove had a compliant and very corrupt Republican machine in place, including Connell, became the critical state?)

Just because one whistleblower may be wrong, or slightly wrong, about how exactly it was done, does not invalidate this lawsuit. In fact, one of the purposes of the lawsuit is to find out exactly how it was done--through depositions and discovery--given the compelling evidence, from many different types of data and information, that OH was gamed. Creeksneakers says that it was "impossible" for Connell to have gamed the OH election from his position as 'middle man,' but, in making this statement, Creeksneakers presumes, a) honest precinct officials, and b) honest voting machines. He also ignores the secretive nature of this business, all around, from the 'TRADE SECRET' code in the voting machines and central tabulators, to the private servers handling public data.

What if Connell's role was to feed the OH election data to Rove before it went to the Sec of State, to give him a sneak preview, before it went public, so that Rove would know where, and by what methods, to game the results in as yet unreported precincts? (It was a realtime feed to SoS Blackwell. Was it a realtime feed to Rove, who had no authority to receive it?)

Connell's may have been a passive role, just an illicit information-provider--a lesser crime than actually stealing the election. And if this was the case, he might well have been inclined, under pressure, to disclose information or blow the whistle.

Creeksneakers takes the simplistic view that, because he/she believes that Spoonamore's theory is "impossible," nothing else is possible, in this highly secretive, highly devious and illicit set-up that determined the outcome of the 2004 election. It is a nit-picking view--an "Alice in Wonderland" view (crazy focus on minor offenses).

And then, suddenly, Connell turns up dead--in a flaming small plane crash, no less.

Creaksneakers says Karl Rove has nothing to worry about from this lawsuit. I'm sure that is true--but not for the reason that Creeksneakers gives--that the lawsuit is weak. The lawsuit is only at the beginning of the deposition/discovery phase. If the lawyers had sufficient evidence, they would be in court, arguing it, and not taking depositions. Depositions occur when there is sufficient reason to be suspicious, but not yet enough evidence to prosecute. That is the purpose of depositions and discovery. The lawsuit brief is not required to win the case on paper. It is a preparatory document.

No, the reason Karl Rove has nothing to worry about is who he is working for--conscienceless evildoers who think nothing of slaughtering a million innocent people to get their oil. Would they off one of their hirelings to protect themselves, or a bigger hireling? Well, in my opinion, they would do so without a thought. And unless Rove himself becomes a threat or a danger to the Bush Cartel, he is perfectly safe from the consequences of any crimes he has committed on their behalf.

Why, then, would he be fearful enough of this lawsuit to murder a hireling who is a target of the lawsuit?

His game is P.R./propaganda. He has quite a lot at stake in maintaining his reputation as the Puke elections guru. If it was all a fraud, his money stream and his protection may dry up. Also, it tidies things up. It's neat, in the mafia way. It doesn't leave a potential whistleblower hanging out there, as a threat. And it is a warning to others. There were many people involved in OH 2004 election fraud. Now they are all on notice as to what could happen to them if they get religion and want to confess.

Why pursue the lawsuit--if Rove cannot be nailed? To educate and alert the public, and to assert the basic principle of justice in a democracy applying to everyone, high and low.

I don't particularly trust our courts to come up with a just verdict. But I admire those who pursue justice anyway--despite threats, despite offed witnesses, despite being called "conspiracy theorists," and despite the odds against actually bringing any major Bushwhack to account. And now I am worried about their safety as well. Creeksneakers' slandering of them, and casual dismissal of their efforts, strikes me as cruelty, at a time when they may feel vulnerable. I don't find him/her in any way persuasive.

[eomer]

65. Thanks for that.

I think you are on the right track about how Connell would have been involved:

(say, a directive to switch the punchcards to the wrong machine, because Bush still wasn't winning; or questions/orders about particular people who needed to be activated to do something, or refrain from doing something, such as failing to deliver voting machines to black precincts). Rove assured Bush that he would win, late in the day, with Kerry ahead in the exit polls.

What if Connell's role was to feed the OH election data to Rove before it went to the Sec of State, to give him a sneak preview, before it went public, so that Rove would know where, and by what methods, to game the results in as yet unreported precincts? (It was a realtime feed to SoS Blackwell. Was it a realtime feed to Rove, who had no authority to receive it?)

[creeksneakers2]

83. Most of this evaluation is based on the idea that

the data was corrupted from the very start, at the voting machines or before the precincts made their counts. Many worry that elections can be stolen that way, if the master code for all the voting machines was corrupted at the manufacturer.

However, Mr. Connell had no involvement with the voting machines or precincts. He could not have fixed the voting machines from where he was. His access came two steps away. Since conspiracy theories morph, and from what I was reading it look like Arnebeck's case morphed this way, one could offer that perhaps Mr. Connell wasn't involved in the execution of the plan, but he conspired with others who did have access before the effort started. But, there is no evidence Connell did that. He's no more likely a suspect than anybody else anywhere. So there would be no reason for Connell to admit to his role even if he had one. Remember, if Connell admitted to something like that he'd go to prison.

I was reading some of the stuff from the people behind the theory, which I will not ever call a conspiracy theory again if you can offer me a substitute term that will do as well, and the people described the architecture as information flowing from counties to the Secretary of State's computers, and from there to Mr. Connell's. There would be no reason to have Mr. Connell involved in the tallying operation, as even the computer I'm typing on now can easily tally numbers. Connell's role was to absorb and overflow of requests for information from the Secretary of State's website.

I don't slander lightly. I spent an entire weekend reading about this before I started raising questions about the ______ theory.

[Peace Patriot]

112. A weekend, eh? And we're supposed to heed your attacks and slanders against

people who have spent years studying election fraud and fighting against it, and who have put themselves on the line in every way for the integrity of our election system?

-----

"I spent an entire weekend reading about this before I started raising questions about the ______ theory."

-----

You started with insults and slander--anonymous insults and slander, at that. You say, "I don't slander lightly." I have gained the opposite impression of you from this thread. You're still doing it--once again bringing up the "conspiracy theorist" phrase. So I'm having difficulty giving any credit whatever to your over-the-weekend analysis, and there is nothing you have said so far that convinces me that, while you may have blundered in with both feet, to begin with--calling the lawsuit "junk" and calling people (in effect) "terrorist-lovers"--perhaps that was a mistake on your part, and you actually have something to contribute to the fight against election fraud. But when you make statements like this--"He (Mike Connell) is no more likely a suspect than anybody else anywhere"--a ridiculous statement to make about Karl Rove's chief IT guru"--your exaggeration, all the way into untruth, makes me even less inclined to credit any of your notions. You furthermore interpret your own assertions in an exaggerated way. You say that "conspiracy theories morph," you identify this as a "conspiracy theory" (pejoratively), then you imply that this legal theory has "morphed" from one idea to another because it is a "conspiracy theory." But how about if it "morphed" because new facts came to light, as investigation, depositions and discovery went forward (and, indeed, are on-going).

Let me give you an example. A prosecutor suspects Gang Leader A and associated gang members of killing Gang Leader B by running his car off a cliff into the sea, where the body has not yet been found. He brings Gang Leader B and all of his associates in for questioning, and discovers that Gang Leaders A and B were actually forming an alliance, but he picks up a stray remark about the Gang Leader B's estranged wife. It turns out that, while Gang Leader A will benefit from the murder, it is more likely--and the evidence begins to point to--a marital dispute. He begins to revise his initial theory and focus on Gang Leader B's wife. Meanwhile, he hears from his sources that Gang Leader B is alive and well in Mexico--but the body of a man finally washes up onshore. This turns out to be Gang Leader B's wife's lover. The prosecutor then starts formulating a theory, not that Gang Leader B was murdered, but that Gang Leader B committed murder--killed his wife's boyfriend--and fled to Mexico, with the help of his co-conspirators including the original suspect, his new ally, Gang Leader A.

Is this prosecutor a conspiracy theorist? Did his theory of the crime "morph" because it was substanceless? No, he was engaging in normal prosecutor behavior of formulating a theory and testing it against the evidence, as more evidence came his way, in an unfolding situation.

What grounds do you have to interpret the Ohio 2004 election fraud lawsuit as a "conspiracy theory" (pejorative) rather than a normal event (evolving theory) in a complicated case in which the perps have enormous power to hide their crime.

You are just bandying words around. Michael Connell was an OBVIOUS suspect in Ohio and US election fraud. He had many functions. He was right in the middle of the loop of all of Karl Rove's electronic transactions. One would naturally suspect him of being involved in some way in vote tallying fraud, given the irregularities around electronic handling of the OH election data. He was also custodian of the 'disappeared' Rove emails. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suspect him of the main crime (tampering with the voting outcome) until proven otherwise, through depositions and discovery. And there was so much secrecy and deviousness involved in the Ohio count that it would be impossible to say, at first glance, who did what.

You interpret this as a "conspiracy theory," by which you mean loony-tunes. You do this on the basis of a weekend analysis. But a reasonable and normal interpretation is that the lawyers and others, who have been working on this case for years, were/are trying to find out exactly who did what. This disrespect for the people who are prosecuting this case is egregious. And it leads you to make stupid statements, like Michael Connell is just like "anybody anywhere." Connell was NOT like "anybody anywhere." He was the recipient of lucrative electroncs contracts for Karl Rove, for the Republican National Committee, and to get inside the Congressional firewall. He was aiding Rove in bypassing the White House official records laws. And God knows what else he was doing. Your statement is naive in the extreme. And nobody is that naive.

So, why are you making it your mission, this holiday weekend, to slander, insult, discredit and debunk this lawsuit? Why are you trying to allay suspicions that Connell's death is related to Karl Rove election fraud? Why would you want to do that? This death needs to be thoroughly investigated. Why would you want to contribute to authorities who might be inclined to (or are being bribed to) cover up a murder feeling less scrutinized? Why would you want them to think that suspicions of murder in this case are a mere "conspiracy theory"? Who do that? Why are you trying to convince us, and not, say Cliff Arnebeck, that his lawsuit is "junk"--if not to contribute to a climate of holiday sleepiness and inattention to this important death? Why are you helping the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies to ignore this story?

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. "attacks and slanders"?

Projection much?

[creeksneakers2]

118. The responses up the thread have changed a great deal from

the start. I was wrong about precincts being a check on county results, as the two were counted together. However, somebody who is more familiar with this than me says that the votes themselves, at least some of them, have be studied and there is no significant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen by any fraud. So there the point remains that there was no reason for Rove to threaten Connell. Others who are more familiar with the case also agree that the lawsuit had nothing more than a theory about how the election MIGHT have been stolen. So again, no reason for Rove to threaten Connell as the lawsuit was not a threat to Connell and therefore, not a threat to Rove.

I don't condemn work on election security but I do condemn some things, like using an anonymous Internet poster as a source of wild stories about threats.

I offered to stop using the words "conspiracy theory" if you could offer a substitute. It certainly is nothing more than a theory that Karl Rove caused Mr. Connell's plane to crash to shut him up. And that theory involves a conspiracy. When I say it morphs like a conspiracy theory, it does. The original story about the threats was the Mr. Connell was threatened with a prosecution of his wife for lobby law violations if Mr. Connell didn't not take the blame for stealing the 2004 Ohio election. That allegation made no sense at all. For one thing, Mrs. Connell is not a lobbyist. So the story morphed. There is a pattern to these types of theories and people have turned against such ideas after seeing how unsupported most are. I am not to blame if the public feels that way. Yes,theories adjust to new facts and not every time a detail is wrong does a story completely fall. But I can promise you now, if the FAA comes out with a finding that the crash was caused by pilot error, there will be plenty of people who will say the FAA investigation was fixed. With these theories, its impossible to convince some of the people who follow them that the theory is wrong,no matter where the facts lead.

I discounted Mr. Connell as a possible suspect in the crime based on the opinion of professor Dill and my own mistaken belief that county election results couldn't be changed because the precincts counts worked a check. There is plenty of reason to question a Republican operative having a part in the election return counting, but to make an accusation one must have more than just a theory on how it MIGHT have happened. There are several who know more about it than me, but they all say that without more information, they could not agree that it was possible to steal the election from Mr.Connell's computer at all. I say Mr. Connell was no more likely to be responsible because its the pattern of conspiracy theories that if its proved Mr. Connell's computers on that night could not have hacked the election, the theorist can, and probably will then say that Mr. Connell had others carry out the crime. Evidence should be required for such a statement, as I could just as easily say Dennis Kucinich had the election fixed with no proof at all, if no proof is required. That was the point I was making.

On the discovery idea - Suppose I find one morning that overnight someone had burned my car up. I suspect some person who didn't like me did it. Can I then just sue the person with no evidence and hope that somewhere somehow later I might find some evidence? I would call that a frivolous suit. Suppose I don't find anything. Then what have I done?

I told you about motions for summary judgements in a prior post.

Some of the things I said about other people here were harsh but came after days of trying to get answers and finding things that didn't add up. I don't want to defend myself anymore, as that would bring up again what turned into a pretty ugly argument. I do continue to distrust the lawyers who filed the case, because the idea that Rove would threaten Connell never made sense and there never was any credible evidence before the deposition that Rove did. Since I believe the lawyers were dishonest about this, I distrust whatever else they say.

My effort to debunk the plane crash / murder idea is probably about the same as your desire to argue for it. I enjoy talking about issues like this, and I think we both hope that the truth will come out in the end, no matter what it is. I do not want corporate news outfits to ignore any news that sheds light on any wrongdoing by anybody. However, if the news media picks this all up its likely that the flaws will be found and the folks on the Internet will wind up looking like fools. I have no power or even influence over how the media will cover this though, so arguing here will not make a difference on that and is therefore not my motivation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. one quibble

I hesitate to accuse the attorneys or others in this case of being "dishonest" solely because they said things that seem to make no sense. It seems perfectly possible, for instance, that some crazy person or prankster (or, for the conspiratorially inclined, some provocateur) sold the attorneys on a wacky story. It may also be possible that the story has some basis in fact.

That said, when people say things that make no sense, it's prudent to distrust other things they say.

The trouble with accusing people of dishonesty, absent really compelling evidence (and often even if you have it) is that it evokes the Loyalty Response that Peace Patriot modeled above: you're criticizing the Good Guys, so you must be a Bad Guy. Of course, any criticism whatsoever is likely to evoke that response, so who knows?

ETA: I didn't really think of this as "advice" -- just comparing notes. If it were "advice," I'd have to direct you to my five biggest flame wars so you can judge for yourself how well it worked.... ;)

[creeksneakers2]

120. Thanks for the advice

[TexasObserver]

62. K&R

[Lil Missy]

63. Quack!

[Norrin Radd]

64. kr

[Sparkly]

80. Anybody remember Clifford Baxter, of Enron?

I put nothing past these people.

[ellie]

86. So this was the guy

who set up Ohio's election returns to go through his server in Tennessee? He was a right wing, anti abortion wacko?

[jmowreader]

117. Folks, quit trying to find ways the GOP stole Ohio through tabulator tampering

They did it through voter caging, inadequate numbers of voting machines in precincts that could be expected to go blue, and other pre-count hijinks. It's much simpler and infinitely less detectable than trying to stuff the ballot boxes.

Yes! I think there WAS some ballot box stuffing, but not enough to tilt the election toward Bush.

Election Reform Number One: make damn good and sure it's a federal crime for a state's election certification official to become a state party chair or campaign chair.