Election Theft in the USA

[PatrickHenry]

Greg Palast has found the smoking gun!
The BRAD BLOG : Palast Exclusive: The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters. Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished. How do I know? I have the caging lists... I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden. Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked: 1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony. 2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below. 3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor. The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.

[Osborn F Enready]

THANKS Pat, I will be checking that out as soon as time affords.... looks promising.

[Mozart1220]

But they didn't steal the 2000 and 2004 elections, no way.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Mozart1220 But they didn't steal the 2000 and 2004 elections, no way.

No? The Election Fraud Beginner's Guide: A Broken Democracy Crash Course

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: PatrickHenry No? The Election Fraud Beginner's Guide: A Broken Democracy Crash Course

I was being sarcastic. I truely believe that Gore won in 2000, and that Diabold handed Bush the 2004 election.

[Clarence]

guess it's time to get this ball rolling too.

Jimmy Carter can still serve his country in this capacity. Who else is trying to protect the voting process?

[xyzer]

Some simple but pertinent questions...How did Rove and Company get the names(much less e-mail addresses of the non registered ?homeless? people? And do the homeless people, and poor blacks, usually carry around computers in their travels and have ready access to the internet? Another question.. is there real evidence that anyone legally registered to vote was turned away at the polls? Were there complaints from any of these alleged 500?
The overseas soldiers problem was created by the Gore lawsuit!

This doesn't just border on nonsense..It reeks of it! Good luck you conspiracy nuts...you;ll have lots to prove and little evidence to find?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: xyzer Some simple but pertinent questions...How did Rove and Company get the names(much less e-mail addresses of the non registered ?homeless? people? And do the homeless people, and poor blacks, usually carry around computers in their travels and have ready access to the internet? Another question.. is there real evidence that anyone legally registered to vote was turned away at the polls? Were there complaints from any of these alleged 500? The overseas soldiers problem was created by the Gore lawsuit! This doesn't just border on nonsense..It reeks of it! Good luck you conspiracy nuts...you;ll have lots to prove and little evidence to find?

If there were lots of evidence laying around it wouldn't be much of a conspiricy would it?

The only nonsense here is people who still defend the Bush administration.

Gore's lawsuit was to see that the voters got what they voted for. Daddy Bush saw to it that his little boy got the job whether the voters wanted him or not.

Diabold got it done in '04.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Mozart If there were lots of evidence laying around it wouldn't be much of a conspiricy would it?

So once again, like so many other conspiracy theories, we're brought back to the absence of evidence being evidence of absence.

The only nonsense here is people who still defend the Bush administration.

Frankly, I think the only nonsense in this regard are people with so much hatred for the administration that they can't believe that a strong majority went out to the polls and went "Jeez, I don't like George Bush but I'd rather have him than that John Kerry guy." (at least in 04)

Clearly now, that was a mistake, but it doesn't change the fact that many many people still voted for Bush. It's much like the Iraq War critics who pretend that there was always the current level of contempt with the war when public opinion polling clearly shows at least a majority of the country supported sending troops to Iraq in the beginning.

[Setnakt]

The evidence is there. In 2004 1.9 million paper votes were arbitrarily thrown in the dumpster. Those 500 emails about caging lists exist, and there is a paper trail. The official agencies report the numbers of challenged votes. The news agencies that have reported on both elections have never to my knowledge been challenged and the UN elections council tried to look into it in addition to domestic interests bringing it to the proper authorities, but the Bush administration put a lid on it.

Just because we have noticed that a crime has occurred doesn't mean that we all are brimming with hatred. It just means we have noticed that a crime has occurred.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Setnakt The evidence is there. In 2004 1.9 million paper votes were arbitrarily thrown in the dumpster. Those 500 emails about caging lists exist, and there is a paper trail. The official agencies report the numbers of challenged votes. The news agencies that have reported on both elections have never to my knowledge been challenged and the UN elections council tried to look into it in addition to domestic interests bringing it to the proper authorities, but the Bush administration put a lid on it.

Two things. First, You are of course aware that presenting evidence is far different from merely saying that evidence exists. Second, even in the supposed facts you listed it doesn't specify who those 1.9 million paper votes actually voted for. Democrats have shown just as much a propensity for voter fraud as the Republicans.

Why is it so hard to believe that via fear mongering, smear campaigns, and a very ineffective campaign by the Democratic party for a candidate who was largely considered a joke prior to the Iowa caucus, that Bush was able to pull off an election?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 So once again, like so many other conspiracy theories, we're brought back to the absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Frankly, I think the only nonsense in this regard are people with so much hatred for the administration that they can't believe that a strong majority went out to the polls and went "Jeez, I don't like George Bush but I'd rather have him than that John Kerry guy." (at least in 04) Clearly now, that was a mistake, but it doesn't change the fact that many many people still voted for Bush. It's much like the Iraq War critics who pretend that there was always the current level of contempt with the war when public opinion polling clearly shows at least a majority of the country supported sending troops to Iraq in the beginning.

I never said there was no evidence, I suggested that the evidence is not OBVIOUS. You have to dig for it, then you have to BELIEVE it.

Diabold is run by a friend of the Bush family. Florida's govornor is The president's brother. The majority of the country was for getting those responsible for the WTC attacks. Congress voted for the Iraq war due tofalsified information. Many now have recanted thier support in light of new evidence contradicting the old.

In effect, the Bush administration LIED to start a war, and even many Republican congressmen are upset about that.

I seem to recall much "hatred" for the Clinton administration, even though he didn't start any wars. All he did was have a PERSONAL relationship. Subtle difference.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Two things. First, You are of course aware that presenting evidence is far different from merely saying that evidence exists. Second, even in the supposed facts you listed it doesn't specify who those 1.9 million paper votes actually voted for. Democrats have shown just as much a propensity for voter fraud as the Republicans. Why is it so hard to believe that via fear mongering, smear campaigns, and a very ineffective campaign by the Democratic party for a candidate who was largely considered a joke prior to the Iowa caucus, that Bush was able to pull off an election?

It helps when Daddy is ex-CIA director, and a good friend of the family designed and built the voting machines.

[Setnakt]

When have democrats shown just as much propensity for voter fraud as the republicans?

How was the democratic presidential campaign worthy of being described as "fear mongering" and full of "smear campaigns," especially in comparison to the republican campaign?

Also, according to the vote count, in both elections, the democratic candidate won. However, the supreme court ruled it in favor of the republicans both times.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Mozart I never said there was no evidence, I suggested that the evidence is not OBVIOUS. You have to dig for it, then you have to BELIEVE it. Diabold is run by a friend of the Bush family. Florida's govornor is The president's brother.

Great, so you have proven the ability, (which is not something you really needed to prove as I don't think anyone doubts those in power would already have this sort of ability) now you have to prove that actual events of voter fraud occurred and that they were responsible for it. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I shot someone.

The majority of the country was for getting those responsible for the WTC attacks. Congress voted for the Iraq war due tofalsified information. Many now have recanted thier support in light of new evidence contradicting the old. In effect, the Bush administration LIED to start a war, and even many Republican congressmen are upset about that.

Exactly, so initially a lot of people believed him. So why does the general public have to be different? Why couldn't they have been fooled like everyone else into voting for him again?

I seem to recall much "hatred" for the Clinton administration, even though he didn't start any wars. All he did was have a PERSONAL relationship. Subtle difference.

Yeah, but when Clinton defeated Bush Senior everyone didn't cry election fraud. Everyone discussed how the party had lost its way. Similar to the recent 06 Senatorial election. And Clinton could have all the personal relationships he wanted as long as he didn't try and lie about them under oath. Trying to minimize that point shows bias seeing as he was even disbarred for his actions. Granted I'm not sure what Clinton has to do with the topic.

It helps when Daddy is ex-CIA director, and a good friend of the family designed and built the voting machines.

Whenever you're ready to show your actual evidence, by all means. I'm willing to look at it. Feel free to overload me with links because I'm probably not going to be able to get to it until tomorrow.

Quote by: Setnakt When have democrats shown just as much propensity for voter fraud as the republicans?

Since the party formation?

How was the democratic presidential campaign worthy of being described as "fear mongering" and full of "smear campaigns," especially in comparison to the republican campaign?

Re-read what I said. I was referring to the Bush campaign as "fear mongering" and full of "smear campaigns". Then on top of this I added the ineffective Democratic campaign for an ineffective candidate. These are the reasons why Bush was re-elected, not some back-room unsubstantiated conspiracy.

Also, according to the vote count, in both elections, the democratic candidate won. However, the supreme court ruled it in favor of the republicans both times.

That would be incorrect.
2000 was decided by the Supreme Court. 2004 was decided by a majority.

[Setnakt]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Exactly, so initially a lot of people believed him. So why does the general public have to be different? Why couldn't they have been fooled like everyone else into voting for him again?

If by "a lot of people" you mean "a few people who happened to be in congress"...

Yeah, but when Clinton defeated Bush Senior everyone didn't cry election fraud.

Because no one had reason to suspect any. I also don't recall accusations of outright voter fraud regarding any previous president, including republicans.

Since the party formation?

I'm not a fan of the democratic party, but this is non-specific and seems to be evasive.

Re-read what I said. I was referring to the Bush campaign as "fear mongering" and full of "smear campaigns". Then on top of this I added the ineffective Democratic campaign for an ineffective candidate. These are the reasons why Bush was re-elected, not some back-room unsubstantiated conspiracy.

Perhaps you did not effectively denote your switch in the subject of your nouns.

The "conspiracy," as you insist on calling it, was essentially in the open, and is substantiated by evidence. The elections oversight committee reports how many votes were challenged, and we have a paper trail that shows that they came from the Republican National Committee. The only reason legal action has not been taken is because the authority to whom the 2000 concerns were addressed was Ashcroft, and now we have Alberto "I don't recall but I'm sure it was legal" Gonzales.

That would be incorrect. 2000 was decided by the Supreme Court. 2004 was decided by a majority.

While I don't have the specifics at hand to rebut your point about the 2004 election and you may be right, 2004 is when an excess of 1.9 million paper ballots were tossed out. We do have the caging lists that show ethnicity, employment, and residence of those targeted by the challenges. We also know Diebold intentionally placed defective electronic voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas. The democratic candidate also withdrew his challenge arbitrarily. This does not build a convincing case for a "majority."

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Setnakt If by "a lot of people" you mean "a few people who happened to be in congress"...

Quote by: My Poly-Sci final A CBS News / New York Times poll prior to the invasion in 2003 asked "What if the UN Security Council votes against the U.S. sponsored resolution to take military action against Iraq? Would you approve or disapprove of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power without UN approval?" to which 55% approved and 41% disapproved (CBS poll, pollingreport.com). An ABC news poll also prior to the invasion asked "Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?" to which 65% favored this course and 30% opposed it (ABC poll, pollingreport.com). ... "PollingReport.com - Public Opinion Online." PollingReport.com. 2007. Polling Report, Inc.. 9 Apr 2007 <http://www.pollingreport.com/>. <http://www.pollingreport.com/terror10.htm>. <http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq13.htm>. < http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm>.

No... by a lot of people, I mean the country.

Because no one had reason to suspect any. I also don't recall accusations of outright voter fraud regarding any previous president, including republicans.

I do. Go read some.

I'm not a fan of the democratic party, but this is non-specific and seems to be evasive.

Sorry, I'm not going to pin-point every instance of voter fraud committed by the democratic party. I'm not writing a book. Both parties are guilty of voter fraud as seen by anyone with a grasp of history. It happens in nearly every election on some level or another by people at all levels. The only thing that you can really count on or hope for is that the actions taken by both sides cancel each other out.

You're sounding like you think that voter fraud was invented in the year 2000.

Perhaps you did not effectively denote your switch in the subject of your nouns.

Perhaps you failed basic reading in grade school. I have now explained what I meant verbatim.

The "conspiracy," as you insist on calling it, was essentially in the open, and is substantiated by evidence.

Great, now let's get into this.

The elections oversight committee reports how many votes were challenged, and we have a paper trail that shows that they came from the Republican National Committee.

Well, prove that these votes were improperly challenged.

The only reason legal action has not been taken is because the authority to whom the 2000 concerns were addressed was Ashcroft,

Speculation.

and now we have Alberto "I don't recall but I'm sure it was legal" Gonzales.

Also, speculation though Gonzales is slime.

While I don't have the specifics at hand to rebut your point about the 2004 election and you may be right, 2004 is when an excess of 1.9 million paper ballots were tossed out.

Ok, so seeing as Bush won the popular vote in 04 by 3,012,499 provided that all 1.9 million challenges were unjustified, Bush would still have won by 1,112,499.

We do have the caging lists that show ethnicity, employment, and residence of those targeted by the challenges.

Back those up and prove that the challenges were unjustified.

We also know Diebold intentionally placed defective electronic voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas.

Prove intentional tampering and not simply incompetence.

The democratic candidate also withdrew his challenge arbitrarily.

Right, I'm sure after raising and spending millions of dollars on a campaign, his decision to end it was arbitrary. Please.

[Klio]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Great, so you have proven the ability, (which is not something you really needed to prove as I don't think anyone doubts those in power would already have this sort of ability) now you have to prove that actual events of voter fraud occurred and that they were responsible for it. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I shot someone.

The CEO of Diebold said, in public, the summer before Bush was elected that he PROMISED the State of Ohio to Bush. That should give any rational person pause for thought, at the very least.

Whenever you're ready to show your actual evidence, by all means. I'm willing to look at it. Feel free to overload me with links because I'm probably not going to be able to get to it until tomorrow.

My brother (who lives in Ohio and is NOT a Democrat) said there was a half-second of scandal when one of the voting precincts had over 2,000 votes for Bush -- but only 673 registered voters. It got hushed up real quick, though.

That would be incorrect. 2000 was decided by the Supreme Court. 2004 was decided by a majority.

2000 was decided by the Electoral College (an institution which has way outlived its usefulness), after a majority of the electorate voted for Gore.

2004 was decided by fixed voting machines.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Kilo The CEO of Diebold said, in public, the summer before Bush was elected that he PROMISED the State of Ohio to Bush. That should give any rational person pause for thought, at the very least.

You won't mind backing that up will you?

My brother (who lives in Ohio and is NOT a Democrat) said there was a half-second of scandal when one of the voting precincts had over 2,000 votes for Bush -- but only 673 registered voters. It got hushed up real quick, though.

It got hushed up quick or it was found that there was no merit to the story so they dropped it.