Reply #196: I dunno, either. Obviously (perhaps to some, I guess not to others) I am PURELY speculating

[demwing]

in response to your post. But to follow through with the thought and respond to your question - IF something like what I described actually happened, then Kathy Nickolaus didn't commit any crimes, or at least none that can be proven. Again, for those who might believe I'm actually promoting this idea - have a seat. I'm just playing with the OPs question, alright?

The basic fact is that this whole thing stinks to high heaven - but it's more than just a loss that worries people. Kathy Nickolaus is not acting in the way that many would expect an innocent person would act. Dems are rightfully touchy about election fraud, and have developed a sense when something just ain't right.

No one made much of a fuss about Feingold losing, or Grayson. We didn't feel happy about it, but the random squeaks about fraud were not very loud, and not very well received at DU. That's because - sad as they were - those elections passed the sniff test.

This one doesn't. And I know that just because we can't nail it down yet, does NOT mean that the fraud ain't there...