Reply #70: No Prob. Link below. Actually I am cool with part of what he said

[Tom Rinaldo]

I strongly feel however that now, before Congress meets tomorrow, was not a good time to say "our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election." He has a right to say that of course, it probably is literally true, but with more questions raised than answered to date, in my opinion it sends the wrong message to other Senators. If Kerry's people on the ground find no evidence that proves the election in Ohio should be overturned, why should any other Senator balk? Why not just accept those electors from Ohio? Kerry obviously has. If he doesn't now was the time to say so. Everyone present in the Senate tomorrow will cast a clear vote, but Kerry won't be there. I have to assume Kerry would have voted to accept Ohio's electors. I do not assume he expects us to keep guessing where he stands.

Why reject Ohio's electors without categorical proof of fraud? The answer is simple. With so much smoke in the air someone must go looking for a fire. There has been more stonewalling so far than investigation. Kerry's people on the ground do not have answers for all the "irregularities" Conyers has compiled. Their true scope can't be measured without investigating, but already it appears that laws have been broken and constitutional guarantees seem to have been undermined. That is enough grounds for Congress to invoke their right to investigate the legality of those electors.

Here is a link to Kerry's letter but I bet you have seen it by now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1470879