What Evidence - Hard Evidence - do we have to prove Election Fraud?

[merh]

Really, I want to know. What proof, rock solid, hard prove is there?

[Atman]

1. Do we have to do this all over again? n/t

.

[merh]

2. Why not? Do we have any hard evidence?

I really am trying to find out.

[BeFree]

5. Unfortunately, yes

It seems some here think that certain far reaching measures should have already been taken by certain leaders. The rants and raves against those leaders, while carrying great and nearly universal DU sentiment, however, are, in fact, baseless.

Baseless because there is no hard evidence with which to prosecute the alleged crime. Believe me, if there was enough evidence of the kind needed to move forward, I, too, would be ranting and raving.

I believe we will, in time, have that evidence, and then prosecution can move forward. In the meantime, we must conserve our unity, refine our message, and prepare our battle to get rid of those damned E-voting machines.

[merh]

My point exactly!

Thank you for understanding the purpose of this thread. :hi:

[BeFree]

15. With you all the way, merh

I have been reading more than I've been posting, and you, I've read, are a leader in this fight we must win. I am with you until the end.

[merh]

33. Thank you. I am just so tired of the attacks on our leaders.

They are not perfect, none of us are, but they are also not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement and election fraud are the issues. Election reform should be our goal, not belittling and damning our own.

Why waste the energy attacking our leaders when it is better spent in the fight for election reform?

[BeFree]

41. Why?

Well, there are trolls about. Plus, some folks are rightfully incensed about how things have turned out. And given that it is human nature to hit the closest thing to them when lashing out, and leaders are natural targets, leaders catch the lashes.

It is tiring, and unproductive, however, that's life. Peace.

[dlaliberte]

78. Why not!?

Our leaders are called leaders because they should be out there leading the fight, demanding the investigations, and pursuing punishment of the guilty. We are essentially without national leaders that we can call true leaders. We are run by mobsters and cheerleaders.

But we, the people of a democracy, can never rely entirely on our leaders. It is our individual responsibility to always question the authorities, and this time around, the answers are not satisfactory, at least not to us.

The problem is that perception is reality, and the media have created the perception that Bushco wants, and life goes merrily on... Not nearly enough people see the depth of our problems, and our elected leadership merely reflects the will of the people, or close enough. (The 2004 election fraud was extensive, but sadly, almost half the population still supports Bush.)

I don't know how we will work ourselves out of this bind, but things will probably get far worse before they get better. We will probably have to create new communication media, perhaps on the internet, and with a shared ownership structure that can never be dominated by any one force, minority or majority.

[Laurab]

21. I agree with one exception

There is no hard evidence WHICH WE ARE AWARE OF. What anyone may or may not be doing behind the scenes is another matter, and it's doubtful that they'd share it with us.

I've never understood the ranting and raving, and I've never received an answer when I ask "what exactly would you like them to have done"? With no hard evidence, should Kerry have run through the streets screaming "FRAUD, FRAUD"? Should he have contested the election, once again with no hard evidence? It's a lose/lose situation, in my opinion. His credibility would have been shattered, he would have been a laughingstock, and the idea of a fraudulent election would have been undermined by the uproar against the "sore loser".

I too believe we will have that evidence, and that Kerry's actions can only have assisted in the effort to get it. I reserve my ranting and raving for the * regime.

[merh]

26. Thank you for making such a very good point.

I too have been trying to get a legitimate answer to "what would you have had him do" only to be ignored or told "more than what he has done."

Thank you and a belated welcome to DU. :hi:

[BeFree]

29. A level head is needed

And yours is just that, and well reasoned, to boot.

At this point in time, as evidence is being gathered, we must remember to, as you say, Laurab, reserve our ranting for our enemies, and cut some slack for our friends.

We will win the E-voting war. We have too.

[Laurab]

52. I agree, and thanks

not about the level head exactly (although sometimes I'm capable), but that we will indeed win the e-voting war. I'm still optimistic enough to believe justice can and will prevail, just maybe not in the time frame some want it to. I can wait. Besides, the other guys give me more than enough to rant about - it's seems there's something new every 5 minutes.

Merh, thanks for the welcome, and if you ever do get an answer, let me know because I've asked a LOT, and never gotten a response. If I had, maybe I'd feel there'd be something to rant about.

[NationalEnquirer]

75. I haven't seen anything that will convince anyone who is not like us.

I personally am not 100% convinced, and at this point, it might not matter.
It would be GREAT if proof could eventually be found, but right now, there are perhaps more important battles to fight.

Andy, and the others, NEED TO KEEP LOOKING.
The rest of us NEED TO PUSH for election reform.

The former will get the Democrats labeled as kooks, the latter will make them Patriots!

In the end, I see us winning on this!

[Melissa G]

3. Do a search! Why are minority votes less important than white votes?

If these election tactics had happenned in suburbia Rove would have been all over this. What gives with this country?:puke:

[bush_is_wacko]

6. Actually if this had happened in suburbia the VOTERS would have

been outraged! I live in those pesky little exurbs and quite frankly many of my neighbors have the most entitled ATTITUDE I have ever seen in ANY other part of the state. They have no patience and no empathy or sympathy whatsoever. Rove wouldn't need to do jack! Soccer moms and dads are frickin vicious!

[merh]

8. That is not hard evidence of fraud.

That may be evidence of voter disenfranchisement, which legally may constitute a violation of the 1964 Voting Rights Act, but that is not fraud. The repugs defense to that claim is that both dems and repugs were on the BOE and were responsible for the allocation of voting equipment. Like state laws that were in effect years ago that allowed for poll taxes and testing to determine that a prospective voter qualified to be a registered voter, it was not until lawsuits were filed challenging the laws that the courts determined that poll taxes and the like were against the law.

I am looking for rock hard evidence of fraud. Not supposition, but evidence.

[New Earth]

11. didn't Andy say he had some?

he posted about it around the week of Jan. 6th. At least, it was proof that poll books were off in some way - i forget how, but it was off about 18 votes - and if that anomoly were scattered throughout the state, multiplied by the number of precincts, the outcome of the election would have been different. (this was in Ohio)

Don't forget how hard it is to get evidence of fraud from MACHINES.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Yes it was 18 votes...

and evidence of tampering with the poll books in Warren (Homeland lockdown) Ohio.

[merh]

13. Okay, but it is only 18 votes, that would not change the election.

We cannot surmise that this type of tampering happened in every precinct, that is just supposition and is not enough to make a difference.

Do you see how layered the process is?

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. Oh...I think there was enough tampering done...

in Ohio to change the outcome. But hey what do I know?

:shrug:

Edit: BTW it would have only taken 11 votes per precinct in Ohio...to change the outcome.

[qwghlmian]

17. Unfortunately, "I think" does not equate

"hard evidence". You found "hard evidence" for 18 votes. What is needed is "hard evidence" for 118,000 votes. Hell, even "hard evidence" for 10,000 votes would blow this wide open.

[Andy_Stephenson]

20. Hey...I only focused on one precinct...

Given the time and resources...and a little help from the state of Ohio...I could have found the evidence.

It is there...I know it is there.

[merh]

35. I believe you Andy and I thank you for your hard work to date.

The point is, how can you be upset that Kerry won't discuss election fraud when no one has provided him with enough evidence of fraud? Supposition is not proof.


(yes, I mean proof. lol - edited to correct that silly typo. thanks :thumbsup:)

[New Earth]

36. you mean proof

:)

[dlaliberte]

80. I think therefore I am

... certain there is fraud :-)

Seriously, hard evidence of 18 forged votes is hard evidence of fraud, period. It is not enough fraud to change the election, but ...

YES! I do blame Kerry and every other elected official who turned the other way when faced with evidence like this, as well as the substantial statistical evidence of fraud in Ohio and several other states. It is enough to warrant an investigation, to call into question the election process itself. It is the responsibility of every citizen of a democracy to always aim a skeptical eye on the democratic process, but our elected leadership has a responsibility that is an order of magnitude greater. And they have let us down.

We, the people, cannot be expected to produce all the hard evidence on short notice when it is hidden by impenetrable law and insurmountable obstacles (e.g. 11 forge votes per precinct). But because of the absolutely critical importance of honest elections, we CAN expect that everyone in any position of authority (especially the media) must do their part to ensure the safety and integrity of our elections. Anything less is begging for trouble. And we got it.

[merh]

18. That is supposition. Proof is finding the 11 altered votes in each

precinct.

[BeFree]

19. Yes, just 11 votes per

And one day, due to efforts of valiant soldiers like you, Andy, we will have the hard evidence needed to eliminate this scourge upon our democracy. Until then lets be at peace amongst ourselves and our leaders, eh?

[Bill Bored]

83. Isn't it half that, if the votes were switched from Kerry to Bush? n/t

[euler]

87. Yes.

The distinction between fraud and mistakes, or fraud and stupidity, or fraud and incompetence is lost in our debate. So we need to put the focus on passing laws that minimize the possibilty for mistakes, stupidity and incompetence. Of course, at the same time, the search for evidence can continue.

[Democrat Dragon]

4. We need

to find trashed documents and private recordings. Weren't recordings the smoking gun for Watergate?

[bush_is_wacko]

9. Yeah, it is my fantasy that the bulge on GWB's back is a tape recording

parasite that has just been hanging out until the opportune moment to make a break for it and walk in to Senator XXXX's office with the smoking gun.

Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Daddy Bush learned a powerful lesson from the time they spent in the Nixon and Ford administration. I don't think they'll ever make that mistake again. In my fantasy they do though!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Goldeneye]

10. The poll tapes in Volusia (sp.?) county Florida.

I think this is a legit question. What's the problem?

[merh]

16. Okay, how many votes does that entail?

What difference would that have made in the election?

Because our election laws are so diverse, because each state is responsible for conducting its elections in accordance with its laws, the process of "proving" fraud is very complicated. A vote here, a poll book there. It has to all add up to enough to have resulted in a different outcome than what has been reported.

Do you see why the Carter Center could not monitor and validate our elections?

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. In volusia county...as many as 20k votes

could have been tampered with.

We may never know the full story in Volusia as they have been busy destroying evidence I am sure.

[qwghlmian]

24. Sigh -

"could have been" is just NOT hard evidence.

Millions of votes all over the country could have been tampered with. Is that hard evidence of fraud?

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. The hard evidence of tampering is there. ...

I am only one person...I found problems in two states...I think that is evedence enough to raise a few questions. But you seem to not want to hear it...why?

Pardon me...but I don't think your in any position here to question what I have seen for myself. "Sigh" all you want...but like a poster said earlier in this thread...a good hacker will leave no "evidence". At least in Volusia, Fl and Warren OH we have some proof. Just not all of it.

[bleever]

60. Transparency is the ultimate solution here. That's the only way

to make sure that we all can see for ourselves.

Satisfies both sides' need to know that it's a fair process.

Who can argue with that?

[FtWayneBlue]

25. I saw a newspaper report from Oklahoma

that showed early results (around 80% complete) from all counties, with total votes for each candidate listed. When the final official results were posted the next day, Kerry lost thousands of votes. Where did they go?

[Land Shark]

23. The premise of this question implies statistics are not evidence

or at least not "hard" evidence.

And a really good hack would leave no evidence beyond the statistical evidence that is the end product.

But there's good reason to believe that hacks under election day conditions may not be perfect because of the decentarlized, multijurisdictional nature of our election systems.

In the report at www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf
it shows machines that were shut down promptly upon exhibiting a seeming touch screen abnormality, and they voted for the Republican by 50% more than the Democratic gubernatorial candidate (in the closest race in state's history). That's at least hard evidence that malfunctions favored one side over the other. And there's a lot of evidence in THAT category nationwide.

But if you mean hard evidence that someone PURPOSELY tried to alter the vote, then you would be looking for things like affidavits of the Ohio elections clerk who saw the triad technician altering a computer. Of course the technician denies any fraudulent intent.

Ultimately, it matters only for criminal penalty and SOME political purposes WHY an election is inaccurate (fraud vs. malfunction favoring one side). If the election is an invalid measure, it's invalid for whatever reason.... If you seek a smoking gun not of MALFUNCTION favoring one side but a smoking gun of PURPOSEFUL intent, that is virtually always proved circumstantially, so the requirement of a smoking gun on the question of intent to defraud is to set the bar too high.

I can, and have, tried consumer fraud cases in court. If there were a videotape or something like that you'd never need a trial. Cases win in trial when enough circumstantial evidence points to a defendant's intent to deceive (for "common law" fraud). For consumer fraud, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant intended to deceive, only that the reasonable consumer would IN FACT be deceived regardless of what the defendant intended to do.

It is in this last sense that the election seems most clearly fraudulent: regardless of the various mechanisms to create the error, since the voter is being asked to believe that * won by more than 3 million votes, that is fraud, because we are deceived, regardless of whether there was any "order" from somewhere.

In fact, no such "order" is necessary (nor desirable). All people on both sides, 50 million strong, knew WHO needed it (Bush or Kerry) what their candidate needed (votes), when they needed it (November 2) why they needed it (electoral college) and WHERE they needed it (Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and popular vote padding anywhere). Who needs a conspiracy to know what to do? Who needed an "order"? You've got 50 million people running around with motive. YOu only need a small handful of assassins, er, vote riggers, and we've always had individuals willing to use even violence to affect the Presidency, so we must expect there's an even larger number of people willing to use nonviolent methods to affect the Presidency.

It's amazing to me that even in DU there are so many people who will set the bar way too high in terms of what one legally needs to prove, even if WE have the burden of proof. I would submit to you that it is OUR GOVERNMENT that has to prove the elections were free, fair and transparent, and CANNOT do so.

[merh]

28. I am not saying that I do not believe there was fraud.

I am not setting the bar too high, the law does that. My point is there are those who would rather judge the candidate for his inaction because he did not and will not scream "They stole it from me, I am president, there was election fraud" when the prove of fraud is so diverse and complicated.

Statistics constitute circumstantial evidence at best.

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. True enough...But the candidate offered NO help...

in uncovering the fraud. One has to ask why.

[merh]

45. Have you asked him?

Why not make an appointment with Sen. Kerry or Cam Kerry and discuss what you have found with them? It doesn't hurt to try, does it?

[Andy_Stephenson]

56. I don't think the good Senator

really wanted to know...as evidenced by all communication coming from him and his spokespersons. I will be in DC Thursday-Sunday I will talk to him if someone can get me in the door. I doubt very seriously that he will see me though.

[merh]

57. It doesn't hurt to try.

You are taking the word of his spokesman. I personally have my suspicions about the folks "protecting" and "speaking" for him.

[New Earth]

31. in other words

you're telling the Kerry bashers to STFU.

oh wait no, that's what i'm telling them.......lol :hi:

[merh]

42. LOL - you do such a lovely job of that Faye, I can't compete.

I am just trying to get folks to appreciate how complicated the issues really are. If I were the candidate that lost you can bet your bottom dollar that I would love to be pointing my finger at the thieves and screaming "you MFer's you stole it, you treasonous bastards". But, it just isn't that simple.

[trudyco]

39. Don't know about the ranting and raving but why do you expect

the cart before the horse?

Maybe if Kerry had put the spotlight on Ohio then Arnebeck's suit would have been taken seriously and taken in a timely manner. Maybe not. I am upset that the dems didn't scream for months before the election that the vote makers and vote counters were all pro bush. I also don't understand why there isn't a daily outcry from all dems on the poll (time) tax many Ohioans, mostly African Am, had to pay. What was the point of MLK if they still tax you based on ethnicity?

As for fraud, I have no clue why you would expect "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence when there has not been an investigation. Somebody has to lead the investigation(s). Somebody has to bring it to light. Isn't that what the ranting and raving is about?

trudyco

[merh]

54. Putting the cart before the horse is expecting the leaders to

claim fraud when fraud has not been proven. An investigation is needed and Conyers has called on the FBI to conduct one, the Government Accounting Office is conducting one, I believe the Ohio Dem party has asked for one.

[Land Shark]

44. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence?

The best evidence is circumstantial evidence. The other evidence is direct eye witness testimony but you can bring in all kinds of expert testimony to show that human beings are inaccurate recallers of traumatic events.

Circumstantial evidence is just that: EVIDENCE. Law School 101.

[merh]

48. Do you have proof that a crime was committed? Where is the

body? That is basically what we are dealing with. We have to prove that a crime was committed, that fraud occurred. To do that you have to prove that the election was Kerry's and through fraud, they took it from him. Circumstantial is not enough if you can't prove that a crime took place.

[Land Shark]

70. though laws vary from state to state

usually in election contests one has to plead (and then later on, prove) that there are enough irregular votes to put the election in doubt. When this happens, it is going to be cobbled together in some lawyers' offices from 6 to a hundred different sources, all adding up to a figure exceeding the overall margin.

So in order to truly understand the case, one needs to wrap one's head around the entire body of evidence of many different types.

The above is why I find most statements from people that there is "no evidence" to support something just an admission that they haven't studied the situation. LIke the Republicans saying (for the cameras) there's "no evidence" of fraud in Ohio when they've got Conyers 100 page report in their hands, or should...

[merh]

74. Your assumptions about my "failure" to study the situation as just

as bad as your assumption that fraud can be proven just because we claim it happened by using statistics or circumstantial evidence alone. Without "solid" direct evidence, the burden is very high and leaves dismissal by a "conservative" judge far too easy.

I have never claimed there is no fraud, the purpose of this post is to discuss why it is so difficult to prove the fraud and how complex the issue really is. BTW - have you contacted Arnebeck or Kerry's lawyer in Ohio and volunteered your services?

[marions ghost]

85. can you clarify

what kind of evidence is a "smoking gun?" Circumstantial evidence is never a smoking gun? A smoking gun must be "hard evidence?"
(I understand why a smoking gun is not always necessary).

[Zan_of_Texas]

51. The candidate

did not have to go screaming through the streets. The candidate did not have to rant or rave. That is not what anyone here asked or expected. Candidates for president merely have to call a press conference, NOT rant. Or, just show up for the 2-hour discussion of voting. Or show up and make a speech saying that every vote should count, and vote to challenge the Ohio electors.

The candidate's party elected officials and DNC should have been investigating and funding the investigating and recounting. One local Democrat called the DNC after the election -- tried to reach their recount/election fraud department. Happened to call shortly after 5 pm their time -- the operator told him EVERYONE HAS GONE HOME!

I don't think the original poster is being consistent -- first you want fraud proof, then you want fraud proof that overturns the result of the election. But, what you really seem to want is a halt to criticism of Kerry.

If you want violations of law in this election, READ THE CONYERS DOCUMENTS.

Even just the 6-page document he sent to Ashcroft.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/dojelectionspconltr11405.pdf

CONYERS ASKS ASHCROFT TO APPOINT A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE CHARGES OF VIOLATIONS OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Whether tens of thousands of people have their registration disappeared, or whether an official makes sure that it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for everyone who wants to vote that day because they shorted the machines, or whether some votes were vaporized or switched through modems, the result is the same - a mock election.

If the Democratic candidate and the DNC and the elected members of Congress in that party do not find this a compelling problem and a crisis, then those people do not represent me.

[Melissa G]

32. kick for landshark

The bar you ask for proof is unnecessarily high. If we wait for perfection we will give them time to plug even more holes in their efforts to steal our voting rights. The burden of proof is on the Them . The bank analogy stands. We would not put up with these shoddy standards in handling money but it is OK for our votes?

[merh]

40. Proof of election fraud is required to make a difference regarding

the outcome of the election. To blame our leaders for not screaming "election fraud" at the top of their lungs is wrong.

In an effort to prevent the fraud from happening again we must continue to work for election reform. But we must also realize that assumptions are not facts. Our leaders have to have "facts" to give substance to their efforts.

[Land Shark]

46. Please merh

the question is not whether there are any "facts" or any "evidence", conyers report gives a hundred pages of it. The only question is whether there is SUFFICIENT evidence.

Please re-read my earlier post.

Now, believe it or not, I have to go finish my trial brief on FRAUD. Please Merh, I am perfectly willing to debate the SUFFICIENCY of the evidence (and this is probably your ultimate point), but to deny there is not "any hard evidence" or we've given our leaders no "facts to give substance to their efforts" is not a reasonable position, at least if one has a proper understanding of what evidence is, because it implies that there is "NO EVIDENCE" of fraud, and that's a false statement.

Relevant evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition in question either more or less likely. Statistical evidence is a type of evidence too.

HERE's what I think is a real key: No one should say or imply there is "no evidence" of something without ALSO stating how broadly they've searched, and what resources have been checked. I would not accept a statement from someone at face value that there was "no evidence of such and such" unless that person (like a prosecutor) had conducted a thorough investigation, had motive to find the evidence, and failed to find it.

Anything less than that full investigation, comparatively speaking, makes "no evidence" an empty statement.

[merh]

53. I agree with you that a thorough investigation is necessary.

The sufficiency of the evidence is the issue and thus the purpose of my post. I wanted posters to provide me what they consider to be "evidence of the fraud". The purpose of this thread is to provide for a discussion of the evidence and the sufficiency of that evidence. You and I both know that we could put 100 statisticians on the stand to say that statistically there was fraud and the repukes could put on 100 that would say there is no proof of fraud. Statistics at best bolsters the argument, without "hard evidence" such as the 18 votes that Andy has proof of, the experts testimony would not be enough.

[jbnow]

58. But if we always let it go

without "hard evidence" fraud will always pay off.

Computer fraud, in either the voting technology or tabulators,is not evident while it is going on. Buzzers and alarms and flashing fraud lights don't go off when the count is rigged.

Statistics are not hard evidence, they can only indicate irregularites.

Though I read through the thread I am not clear on your point. What other kind of fraud would have been anticipated that did leave "hard evidence?"

[merh]

64. No one has "let it go" legal actions are still pending that are

requesting that the machines be seized and inspected. No one has let it go. The fight is on going.

[Land Shark]

69. Many cases are a proverbial "battle of experts"

and a judge or jury is perfectly entitled to believe one side and not the other.

Lawyers don't necessarily want to go to trial on a "he said, she said", but that doesn't mean that you can't win. Most divorces and other cases are he said she said but the court still decides....

There is an undeserved sense of hopelessness about he said she said cases or cases that are a battle of experts NOT because such is not enough evidence to win (it is) but because the risk of losing is greater such that lawyers would tend to shy away from taking the case on a contingency or advise the client that it is a risky way to spend hourly fees.

When you're talking about defending our democracy, there will be plenty of public minded lawyers such that the above analysis of economic feasibility of taking "battle of the expert" cases doesn't hold the weight it usually does.

[Blackbeard]

102. You guys sound like W

This type of conjecture sounds a lot like the administration's arguments for invading Iraq:

"We don't have hard evidence of WMDs, but we just KNOW they're there."

"We don't have hard evidence of election fraud, but we just KNOW it happened."

Now, I'm not comparing invading Iraq to challenging the integrity of the election system, but both have serious consequences and once done cannot be taken back.

[EC]

34. Question?????????

How exactly do the touch screens work? Is it a chip under the film of the screen that records a vote at being touched? Doesn't Neil Bush own a screen company? Maybe checking into this could lead somewhere. Also was wondering is there a way of hacking e-mail from the precincts? Is that illegal or hasn't that been determined yet as private domain? And I can't figure why it is not mentioned that the machine shortage in precincts wasn't because of lack of machines, because there were machines that passed inspection held in the warehouse...I know that it's not proof of fraud, but it is proof of willful disenfranchisement, because they just merely refused to place those machines, even though precincts were requesting them...

[merh]

55. Do you know for a fact that the BOE responsible for the precinct

that was shorted machines requested more machines and those requests were denied or ignored? If so, then Blackwell should face state charges for his inaction and malfeasence in office.

[EC]

59. You know tomorrow when I have more

time, I'll go through the voter hotline and read the complaints, I know at one prescient they finally got l more machine 30 minutes from closing when it was requested in the morning...I'll have to look it up....

[merh]

63. Thanks, that would be great.

Have a good night.

[EC]

76. I'm finding an awful lot of info to go through

so I may just cut and paste and bookmark for now and go through it on weekend. Kos has allot on it on his site. But what I'm really looking at is independent blogs from people in Ohio...so far I found one that was a poll worker and a Democrat, so I'm reading through her site for names to research...I'll be looking for other people that worked the polls on the 2nd and have their own blogs or diaries...hopefully something will pop out at me...

[merh]

81. I do appreciate it.

thank you. :thumbsup:

[Imagevision]

37. Video tape Of Blackwell messing with tabulators wouldn't do it

No hope-- we have a renegade administration in charge and even if a nuclear device went off in New York -- Bush would blame the terrorists and the msm probably wouldn't even cover it!

[Imagevision]

38. There';s nothing we can do --it's a dictatorship now.

[Melissa G]

43. Try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[merh]

49. The link doesn't work. n/t

[Dr Fate]

47. You have to have a full, open investigation of all the "irregularites"

...and "glitches" first. Seems there were hundreds of them, nationwide.

Generally, there has to be an investigation of the crime b/f all the evidence is gathered.

[merh]

50. I agree. n/t

[Beth in VT]

77. Right, the person asking questions needs subpoena power. n/t

[Democrat Dragon]

61. This post might help a bit

I'm not sure, but if this whistleblower is correct, it might lead us to the smoking gun:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x277773

[merh]

65. Thanks, that is a very interesting post.

I do appreciate it. :hi: A belated welcome to DU!

[garybeck]

62. you can't answer this on a thread. there's too much

try this

http://election.solarbus.org

[merh]

67. I appreciate the link and will review the sites contents.

As you say in your post "this can't be answered on a thread", thus my point that election fraud/voter disenfranchisement is very complex, multi layered.

[garybeck]

66. here's a random bone to throw at ya

http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html

[dandrhesse]

68. i have a specific question maybe you could answer it?

In reading about the election on blackboxvoting.org I read that Bev and at least one other person witnessed, that is eye witnessed that records from the voting machines were found in the garbage and they had been lied to as to the tapes they were given being the originals.

Bev said that was a felony and after reading more about election laws and procedures it seems it is a violation of federal law to tamper with discard or mishandle any thing to do with federal elections.

My question is this, if that was a violation of a federal law then why was the election official not arrested and charged? I just don't understand. Several times in the Conyers report it referred to activity that violates both state and federal law. So why are those responsible not being arrested and charged.

People had their cars towed on election day for standing in line for hours because of parking law violation and these people commit a felony and they are running around free? Please explain how this can be possible? Thanks for your patience!

[Democrat Dragon]

71. Why were those who let 9/11 happen promoted instead of fired?

almost the same answer;)

[merh]

73. There lies the most difficult obstacle.

It appears that those who have the authority to prosecute and investigate are not loyal to our nation, but are loyal to their party and the current admin. I don't know what Bev has done with her evidence. If it were me, I would be knocking on the door of every prosecutor and official investigator demanding that they investigate and take action. If no elected official that is authorized by law to pursue the matter takes action, then I would file a lawsuit charging that the elected officials have neglected their duties. Of course, there would be the issue of finding someone who has standing in the court to be the primary party to the suit, but I wouldn't just sit on the evidence. I also would be going to every news outlet in the country, I would show them the video and the bags of discarded documents and I would ask them to help spur the investigation. As far as I know, Bev is just sitting on it.

If I had evidence of 11 or 2000 bad or questionable votes, I would be going from office to office trying to get someone to pay attention.

[demodonkey]

72. There is hard evidence that the recount in OH was not lawful.

For example -- "Random" 3% samples were NOT random in all but one county. May or may not have changed the outcome but that is not the point. The LAW was not followed, it was broken.

Also, if it is off due to fraud, it is fraud. Doesn't matter the size of the fraud. Whether it is "off" by 18 votes or 118,000 votes should not matter. Even if it is "off" by ONE vote, that is WRONG.

A vote is a vote; the one and only way for some little somebody to have a voice in his or her government. People DIED for that person's right to cast their one little vote and have it counted. As such each and every vote is important. Sacred, if you will, because it was a right earned in blood.

[garybeck]

82. yes it is a proven fact that OH recount was illegal

[mod mom]

79. Equal Protection Under the Law! We can prove this!

[Bill Bored]

84. I would suggest....

Recount the following 3 Ohio counties by hand in their entirety:
Butler, Clermont and Warren (in which Bush got 130,000 more votes than Kerry in the aggregate and Kerry got fewer votes than the Democratic candidate for Ohio Chief Justice).

And recount Cuyohoga county by hand.

Here's why: Ballot order may have allowed votes to be switched from Kerry to Bush, even if ballots were read by the wrong machines randomly. In precincts where Kerry was ahead, Bush would get half of Kerry's votes, which is always more than Kerry would get from Bush if the switch was made randomly, because Kerry had more votes to start with. Cuyohoga was a heavily Kerry county and there are pro-Kerry precincts in the other counties.

And for obvious reasons, count the 93,000 undervotes for the very first time ever!

There is enough here to swing the election if there are large anomalies, but if not, I think Shrub probably won Ohio.

[Old Mouse]

86. testimony IS evidence

why does this simple fact seem so completely forgotten?

[Land Shark]

88. The fact that testimony IS evidence is forgotten because

people get intimidated by the mere existence of a counter-argument. FOr example, a totally unprecedented election day surge for Candidate X occurs that raises the question of fraud or inaccuracy. Someone counter-argues that the last television ad campaign musta been really successful. The fact that a counter-argument exists is enough to send most people away in despair, but doesn't really resolve the question at all, one way or the other.

As I posted elsewhere, it is always the TOTALITY of the evidence that proves fraud (no one admits it), and every individual piece of evidence has a counterargument. Think of your favorite guilty criminal, the lawyers for the defense still had an argument each step of the way, but the TOTALITY of the evidence is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So when election activists tee up individual facts for Merh or anyone else, surprise surprise, there's always a counterargument. But that doesn't mean anything.

Merh is right though that it is a multilayered complex argument, and the fact that we are all "drinking" our information, so to speak, from an information firehose that changes direction every 30 second news hole may be the hardest barrier to true investigation of all.

In effect, the hypothetical truth need no longer be CENSORED, it is now readily possible to use more finesse and just allow the truth to be buried in huge piles of MSM bull and celebrity stories.

[General Paranoia]

89. Some people think it's a simple question but don't want an answer.

"Really, I want to know. What proof, rock solid, hard prove is there?"

I presume you only mean a smoking gun so huge the MSM will cover it for more than 30 seconds, the FBI will investigate it and the Justice Department will seek indictments. Could you please give ANY example that would meet your criterion?

Nothing is a smoking gun anymore unless enough people start yelling loud enough to scare up a cursory investigation. Airplanes hit two buildings in New York and there didn't seem to be any need to investigate until the yelling got loud enough months later.

An unbought prosecutor could get indictments in Ohio and elsewhere based on the publicly available evidence. With subpoena powers they could get a boatload in both the election and the (illegal) Ohio recount. If the MSM published the available evidence instead of indirectly badmouthing it, there would be enough yelling for your smoking gun. This is what would have happened 20 years ago.

Some people keep asking "What proof, rock solid, hard prove is there?"
but they don't really want an answer. Some people would rather that others don't keep looking for even more.



:mad:

[merh]

93. Guess you missed reading the entire thread before you posted.

Don't think that I want the investigation to stop or people to stop looking. I want them to continue to look, to not settle for what we have. I am tired of the blame many would put on Kerry and others because they haven't done anything about the fraud or they just gave up or let us down or whatever.

What we have is not enough to make the noise to get the MSM and prosecutors to pay attention to. We have to find so much that they can't ignore it. We need to put the smoking gun on their desk and say "do you believe us now?" The purpose of this thread is to try to make people realize how complicated the situation given that those in authority are the ones we are attacking and accusing of the wrong doing. Our burden is very high, but we cannot give up, we cannot settle with what we have, we have to find more.

No one is "badmouthing" the evidence. I am simply pointing out that apparently it ain't enough since no one will pursue it and investigate it. Your judgmental post of the thread without having read all posts is unfair and offensive.

[General Paranoia]

107. Not quite.

The link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=288780#288900

There are two Voting Fraud smoking guns (items 2 & 4) and one CLEAR Election Law violation (item 1). Your comment?
"Thanks, that is a very interesting post." I think this is a rather tepid reply to a direct answer to your question.

The Election Law violation would normally be a slam dunk indictment because they can easily find who made the decision. The Voting Fraud items are the equivalent of the dead bodies in the OJ case. In the first case (item 2) you have the eye witness and in the second (item 4) you need to investigate. Please explain why these do not constitute THREE SMOKING GUNS!

Twenty years ago there would have been a massive investigation and headlines for weeks. We have plenty "to make the noise to get the MSM and prosecutors to pay attention to". The problem is that the people have to make that noise and they are simply lot aware of the evidence that has already been found.

A lot more effort needs to be spent off the net to let people know what is going on because the MSM is not just ignoring it, they are actively attacking it. This will only change when enough people push on them to investigate it.

You mention how complicated the situation is but you asked a simple question that has be answered many times in other threads. Perhaps you should provide a simple response. Does or does not the link above have HARD EVIDENCE TO PROVE ELECTION FRAUD?

(I will respond later to your other message)

[merh]

111. It hasn't been answered.

Who is going to prosecute the crimes? The same folks that opposed and are opposing the civil litigation in Ohio? The republican prosecutors? In order to make them pursue the investigation and hold their feet to the fire, we have to have as much evidence as possible and as powerful evidence as we can find. Have you heard of anything from the Ohio AG other than his request for sanctions against Arnebeck and his fellow lawyers? What about the FBI - I posted in this thread that Conyers has called on them to investigate, but God knows if they are since Ashwipe is in their boss. The General Accounting Office is investigating, but lord knows what they will cover and how long it will take and even then, they have no power to sanction.

Did you know that the General Accounting Office came out with a report in 2003 that debunked the myth that malpractice lawsuits were causing us to lose doctors and forcing doctors to stop practing? Yes, that report exists and it clearly states that it is the insurance companies that are to blame for the rise in malpractice costs and their "losses in the market" and poor business practices. Yet, the weed continues to blame horrible law suits and insisting that tort reform will solve the medical malpractic woes that harm our health care system.

A smoking gun is needed, a deep throat is needed. Something that cannot be ignored, something so spectacular that the press cannot let the admin explain it away.

The question is not "was there fraud" the question is - was there so much fraud that if it had not occurred, John Kerry would be celebrating today. The more evidence the better.

[Imagevision]

90. who cares anymore? ..I don't get Iran next and finish it!

[troubleinwinter]

91. One does not begin with "rock solid, hard" proof

House Judiciary Minority Leader, Rep. John Conyers has asked the Dept. of Justice for a special council to investigate:

"numerous possible violations...of state, federal and constitutional requirements", "apparent violations by Secretary of State (Kenneth Blackwell)" and "several specific apparent violations of federal law".

letter here: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/dojelectionspconltr11405.pdf

In Conyers' 102 page report, he used the word "fraudulent". He clearly feels there is evidence.

Hard proof??? Was there "hard proof" that OJ committed murder? Many are convinced so, yet he was acquitted. Was there "hard proof" of Scott Peterson's guilt? No, but he's on death row because of evidence presented.

There is LOTS of evidence, but "hard proof" is decided in court.

[merh]

92. You don't get the point of the post, many who have posted on this

thread have missed it.

To get someone to act, to get a prosecutor, whether it be county or state or federal to act, to begin an investigation, you have to have "evidence" that a crime was committed. To have mere supposition or the multifaceted theories and assumptions that there was fraud is not enough to act upon.

This is a very, very complex issue. You and I can say there is fraud, we can point to several suspicious occurances, wacky glitches that were in the weed's favor, statistics that appear to support fraud, but those things alone are not enough to act upon.

That is criminally, to pursue an action in civil court means that you have to have a client who has standing in the court that has jurisdiction in the area where the particular "fraud occurred". Then you have to have a cause of action - was the fraud enough to constitute a violation of the 1964 Voting Rights act or did it violate a particular state law that was establishe to protect your client, the litigant with standing?

Voter disenfranchisement, though an apparent integral part of the pattern of deception, is separate from the fraud and to pursue it legally, again, your client has to have standing and has to have been harmed by the action.

The point of this thread is to point out the complexities of the issues involved. That makes it easier to understand the slow process and why certain "leaders" have not been able to take a stand in an open forum and scream "THERE WAS FRAUD". What is apparent on its face to many who have spent hours researching and reviewing the occurances and the issues, is not so obvious to others.

Basically, to get some one to investigate this (if it is not yet being investigated by the FBI or other policing authorities) is to have a smoking gun (an insider who spills the beans) or at least to have a body (a computer that clearly reflects the tampering).

I believe there was fraud, I know there was and in my gut John Kerry is the President Elect. But that is not enough.

In the OJ and Peterson cases there were dead bodies that proved there was a crime. We have no "body" - we have suspicions. Sadly, in order to get the authorities to take it seriously, to pursue the investigation, to get the press to pay attention, there has to be more than just circumstantial evidence.

[troubleinwinter]

95. "to begin an investigation"

"To get someone to act, to get a prosecutor, whether it be county or state or federal to act, to begin an investigation, you have to have "evidence" that a crime was committed. To have mere supposition or the multifaceted theories and assumptions that there was fraud is not enough to act upon."

Rep. Conyers wrote to the FBI and Hocking County Prosecutor requesting investigation into "illegal election tampering". His letter (with attachments... a sworn affidavit and other supporting 'evidence') can be seen here: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/brockbealohelecltr121504.pdf

Other than violations of federal law (42 U.S.C. 1973 and 42 U.S.C. 1974) and the 14th Ammendment, the letter alledges violations of:

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.24
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.27
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.33
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.34
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3505.32

A portion of the letter:

[merh]

96. YOU DON'T GET THE POINT

Stop sending me crap that I know - understand the POINT!

As easy as it is to say "Conyers has asked for" and "laws have been violated" -- It isn't that f'ckin easy and to demand Kerry do more or act more vigorously when the investigation has not been conducted or completed, when litigation is on going, and when the issues are so damned complex and convulted is stupid (imho).

Instant gratification members on this forum expect too much, too soon and when it doesn't happen, they condemn our leaders. Maybe its because they refuse to read and understand all of the information provided (like on this thread) or available on this forum.

Read all the posts and know that I agree there was fraud, it just ain't as easy as you and others wish it to be!

[troubleinwinter]

99. Oh! I don't care about what Kerry does.

I know you agree that there was fraud, I thought you were saying that there was no proof of fraud. There IS "proof". The evidence has not been presented in court yet. And I agree, it is COMPLICATED.

I suppose I did misunderstand the point of your original post. You and I agree. I didn't expect Kerry to go around screaming "fraud" before legitimate investigation and evidence.

And I do not expect it to be "easy". It clearly is not.

I have been trying to point out that the accusations of fraud have been made, evidence is being presented, formal criminal investigations requested.

That is good. It must be done in this order.

[merh]

100. It can't be done over night and as obvious as it is to those of us

obsessed with it since Nov. 2, 2004, others don't see it and won't until we have that "smoking gun" or the our own "deep throat". Even the war protestors in D.C. - the anti-weed protestors - the anti-cornation crowd -- won't mention the theft of the election.

[troubleinwinter]

101. I think many/most of those protestors

are clueless about the fraud issue. They actually believe bush "won".

I doubt that those of us who know about it and have seen the evidence can ever let it go until it is prosecuted and prevented from happening again. I think it will be a life-long vigil to prevent it. We will never be able to completely let down the guard.

Elsewhere on DU, I have suggested that WE work to become the BOE officials and elections workers.

[merh]

103. I agree with you - we can never let our guard down.

I am trying to find out how to be a poll watcher and when elections for Election Commissioner will be had.

In Mississippi, our Circuit Clerks are responsible for the elections in their counties.


I will never give up!

[General Paranoia]

108. Maybe the point is: No amount of evidence alone will be enough

If Kerry had stood up and started yelling as Edwards apparently wanted to do, he would have gotten coverage from CNN, MSNBC and others. CNN tried to stick up their heads at various points but most news people stopped paying attention when Kerry conceeded. If he had pushed, the Democratic base would NOW be aware there was a REAL problem. All of the MSM (including FOX) would have some coverage if 25 million voters were screaming at them. Likewise for the FBI and prosecutors.

After what happened to Gore in 2000 and the weirdness with the exit polls in 2004, why shouldn't we have expected Kerry to at least NOT CONCEED until some serious investigation was done. Kerry was our leader but he abandoned us at the worst possible time and caused a great deal of damage. We now have a voter base that either hasn't heard about fraud allegations or believe they are minor because Kerry conceeded. It is 100 times harder to get the word out now.

I maintain that no amount of evidence is going to be enough until we have enough voters calling and writing to the MSM, advertisers, congress critters and prosecutors. All of the preceeding show courage in direct perportion to citizen invovement.

:argh:

[merh]

110. Because we are at war!

"why shouldn't we have expected Kerry to at least NOT CONCEDE until some serious investigation was done." It has been 79 days since the election was stolen and we still don't have enough evidence to make a difference. Someone has to run the country.

How effective was Gore's screaming and challenging and fighting? It wasn't - he didn't get the jog and they stole 2002 and 2004. :shrug:

You won't get enough voters to "call and write to the MSM, advertisers, congress critters and prosecutors" until you have more evidence and evidence that is convincing. How many people in your life have you convinced, truly convinced of the fraud?

I am not against the fraud, I believe wholeheartedly that there was fraud, I just want folks to be realistic. Don't settle with what we have and then become complacent with it and frustrated when nothing is done with it. Keep looking for the needle in the hay stack, keep trying to find the smoking gun or deep throat, but be realistic. NOTHING THAT KERRY could have done between Nov. 3 to Jan. 20 would have made a difference, not with the evidence we have today.

His attorneys are still litigating in Ohio federal court, that is still pending and they hope to have the triad equipment inspected to determine if they were rigged or tampered with. The wheels of justice grind very slowly.

[troubleinwinter]

97. prima facie case of election fraud

According to Ray Beckman, a lawyer who is deeply involved in fighting election fraud, the Ohio recount team assigned to Greene County were in process of recording voting information from minority precincts, when they were stopped in mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office that made all voter records for the state of Ohio, private and no longer considered “public records.” According to Beckman, “the Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV, Elections, Sec. 3503.26, requires all election records to be made available for public inspection and copying.” Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections.” Perhaps even more significantly, Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: ‘A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title.’”



To understand the significance of Ray Beckman’s analysis, one must understand what a “prima facie case” is. Black’s Law Dictionary says a prima facie case is one that “will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.” But that definition doesn’t quite tell us what’s involved. Black’s goes on to say: “A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it.” But consider this: “a grand jury is bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused.” It isn’t necessary for a grand jury to hear the evidence for the defense, once a prima facie case has been established.

http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/OhioVoteFraudBattleHeatsUp.html

[eridani]

94. We have PROBABLE CAUSE, not PROOF

Do educate yourself about the difference.

[garybeck]

98. no, there's proof in Ohio

particularly in the recount. there was tampering, admitted on video tape

[eridani]

112. I meant in a general sense

There are instances of proof of fraud, but given the whole country, many more with just probable cause.

[T Town Jake]

104. Whatever "proof" there was, wasn't enough...

...given the fact of the ceremony that just concluded in D.C. about an hour ago.

[Bill Bored]

105. I hope this is irrelevant

to the investigation. It's a CEREMONY. A FORMALITY. It's EYE WASH. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is finding the TRUTH about the election. Nixon was inaugurated too, wasn't he?

[Bill Bored]

106. Thanks merh

for starting this thread. It's a good one. I hope someday the unequivocal evidence will be posted here!

I wanted to suggest that as you're in Miss. and a constituent of Trent Lott, that you and others in your state write to him in particular about the verified voting legislation which he has blocked in the Senate. There were 3 such bills (S1980, S2313 and S2437) and he's the Chairman of the Rules Committee where they all found their final resting place, never having been voted on by the Senate.

A lot of people don't realize that there are a few leaders with the power to obstruct change and they are the ones who need to be held most accountable for the loss of faith in our electoral process. Lott is one of them.

Thanks!

[merh]

109. I have written the man, but unfortunately, he has no integrity and

he has no fears of ever losing his power. Like his fellow thugs, I hope one day he is caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar, or caught on video fornicating with a goat while a child watches. We are stuck with him.

:shrug:

[berniew1]

113. Documentation: widespread vote machine fraud and dirty tricks in 20 states

Widespread systematic vote machine fraud, and dirty tricks and suppression of minority registration and voting in at least 20 states in 2004 Election: summary of some of the documentation

Although it was thought that voting inTouchscreen machine counties produces no paper trail, this was not the case this year since the widespread problems found in the 2000 election resulted in 60 non-partisan organizations interested in fair elections forming a consortium in 2004 to provide an election incident reporting system(EIRS) for reporting election irregularities. Thousands of such irregularities were reported in several swing states, especially in touchscreen counties, thus providing a paper trail for election irregularities down to the precinct and even machine level in many cases. From this and other investigations, including the Ohio recount effort, vote machine fraud and systematic dirty tricks and suppression to reduce minority votes has been documented in most states investigated. It is also clear that this was a systematic effort, not isolated local events.

http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[rdmccur]

114. Need to link up to

uscountvotes.org and go forward.