You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: I think we should start at the beginning [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
28. I think we should start at the beginning
Then what Arnebeck was up to should pan out. Every time I try to discuss the specifics of this whole Connell controversy, I get attacked. Some have helped me with facts and understanding. I've been wrong about a few things. But mostly all I get are attacks on me. Let's start at the beginning with something I've posted before. I want to make it clear here that I divide the evidence that Connell was threatened into two categories. That which was reported up to Connell's testimony and that which was reported after his death. I'm only talking about the threat reports before Connell testified here. Can anybody refute what I've written?

In the original version of the story, there were threats from Karl Rove against Connell to make him take the rap for stealing the 2004 Ohio election. The problem with that idea was that there never was any evidence that Connell did anything wrong. There wasn't even proof that the election was stolen in the first place. All the suit that named Connell as a witness had was a theory about how Connell MIGHT have stolen the election. Experts who reviewed the claims found it was unlikely that Connell could have stolen the election in the manner theorized. The experts said they needed more information to make a conclusion.

Since the suit that subpoenaed Connell had so little merit, it makes no sense that Connell, let alone Karl Rove would be threatened by it. The original threat story from the ______ theory said Connell was supposed to take the rap for stealing the 2004 Ohio election. But if Connell would have taken the rap, he would have had to have admitted that the 2004 election was stolen in the first place. A revelation like that would probably lead to people in the White House going to prison. So why admit to something like that when there is no evidence against you? Why threaten somebody to make them expose everyone by taking the rap?

Another problem with the original version of the threat story was that it claimed if Connell did not take the rap, his wife would be arrested for lobby law violations. As far as I can find, his wife isn't even a lobbyist. A recent article describes her as a stay at home mother of four who was listed on Connell's businesses but played no role in them.

Where did the story that Connell was threatened first come from? In court documents, plaintiff's lawyer Arnebeck says the witness is anonymous and they came across him after the suit got wide spead notice in the "blogosphere." So he's probably just some guy on the Internet. We all know how trustworthy anonymous people on the Internet are. In some places, the source is described as a higher up in the McCain campaign. How many high level McCain staffers follow left wing conspiracy blogs? Supposedly, the same source also told the lawyers that the 2008 election was going to be stolen too. Arnebeck used that to get his case back out of suspension, but dropped it just before the election where the claim would have been proven false.

So Connell goes ahead on November 3 and testifies he knows nothing. Why then was there was any reason for Rove to threaten Connell?

The story and the details have changed now from the fist version. But it all is still coming from people who will not substantiate their claims or name their witness.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC