Reply #145: Speaking of inappropriate insinuations...

[BradBlog]

Kelvin Mace said:

I don't consider Paul (or Brad) sworn enemies
I am simply VERY disappointed in their take on the issue, and their insistence that I, and other people who are harshly critical of Bev, should suspend those criticisms publicly. Brad, for example, has publicly condemned my remarks about Bev, but refuses to make similar harsh criticisms of Bev.

I have "condemned" your remarks when you've made repeated assertions, knowingly, which are untrue. As you did concerning Bev's involvement in the Stephen Heller matter, claiming that she "ratted out Heller" when in fact she spoke to law enforcement AT HELLER'S REQUEST. And that she refused to cut him into the qui tam law suit, when in fact, HELLER DECLINED TO JOIN IT. All of that, Despite Heller's repeated and public corrections to your claims, which he was forced to make here even while under indictment for 3 felonies and under orders by his attorneys not to speak publicly.

He has refuted then, and in great detail later, various claims you have made about Bev Harris that had to do with him. You knew that he refuted such claims, and yet you continued to make them. I condemned you for that. First privately, and then when you continued to do it publicly, I had no choice but to do so publicly.

I have done the same with Bev when she has done something similar. Many times over the years. Including recently when she took a shot at David Dill which I felt was inappropriate and not germane to the discussion at hand.

While her expressed points might have been correct (I don't know, any more than I know if your claims about concerns of her c3 reporting are accurate), they were not germane to the conversation, were seen, by me, as an unfair and inappropriate attack against David Dill (who I disagree with on several issues personally) and should not have been made.

In that same way, when you Anti-Bev folks decide to trash her on a personal level in an attempt to discredit her demonstrable pro-Election Integrity WORK (such as the Hursti I and Hursti II reports, etc.) such personal attacks, which have no bearing on the WORK and EVIDENCE unearthed by her or her organization, are inappropriate, in my opinion.

The anti-811 group have pretty much chosen Bev as their standard bearer, and refuse to see the damage they are doing to their credibility.

For the record, nobody is my "standard bearer". I speak for myself and for my own beliefs. Since you mentioned me in the subject line, before writing the above, I feel it's necessary to point that out.

If we do not get 811 passed, we will either pass NOTHING, and the issue will continue to fester, of we will see a bill FAR worse than 811 passed, which will favor Diebold et al.

I disagree, of course, believe such comments are without evidence (but come directly out of Holt's office) but that's not the point of this particular post.