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

REPUB REFRAME Of Illegal Pressure On US Attorneys Re: Voter Fraud Keeps Focus Away From REAL CRIMES! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:42 PM
Original message
REPUB REFRAME Of Illegal Pressure On US Attorneys Re: Voter Fraud Keeps Focus Away From REAL CRIMES!
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 01:48 PM by kpete

Republican Reframe Of Illegal Pressure On US Attorneys re:
Voter Fraud" & not Election Fraud Keeps Focus away from Real Crimes

The scandal involving United States Attorneys/Prosecutors is continuing to get larger and may result in another Justice Dept. resignation and removal, perhaps Alberto Gonzales himself. In any case, the defense being offered by the White House, namely that there was a justification for firing for failing to investigate "Voter" Fraud is fascinating, and disturbing, in its emptiness.

To start with, the pressure that was placed to investigate "voter fraud" was so clearly going to cross the line into illegal pressure that United States Attorney John McKay had to warn the chief of staff for Republican Representative Doc Hastings (Ed Cassidy) that he was sure that he did not wish to "go there."

McKay testified in front of the Senate: "When Mr. Cassidy called me on future action, I stopped him and I told him I was sure that he wasn't asking me on behalf" of Hastings, McKay "because we both knew that would be improper. agreed it would be improper, and he ended the conversation in a most expeditious manner."

And yet, note the INCREDIBLE reframing of "voter fraud":

Republican Reframe: Illegal pressure on federal prosecutors is actually grounds for firing those prosecutors because they did not respond to the pressure, as intended!

This is all concerning the 2004 elections, and in a nutshell there was pressure on these federal prosecutors to bring VOTER fraud prosecutions and they all refused and are now fired. (Voter fraud, as opposed to election fraud)

This approach however focuses the government's investigatory powers on the least likely places for abuse: individual voters who get very low payoffs (one lousy vote) in exchange for a felony, when it all takes place way out in the open, and creates a lot of evidence along the way.....

Of course, if one is going to engage in fraud to alter an election, any THINKING criminal will go to the sources that can deliver the desired RESULT: the ELECTION RESULT. This can only mean INSIDERS, or election officials and other government officials with access.

The chance here is not only to point out the absurdity of the Republican "defense" but to highlight how these nonexistent voter fraud issues emanate from the VISIBLE portion of our elections systems. But there is also a huge INVISIBLE portion of our elections systems that is unmonitored, and is where any reasonable criminal would operate. This is the realm of
trade secret electronic vote counting by private vendors, where democracy
itself has been outsourced, privatized and transparency eliminated. The realm of government insiders and their chosen vendors who exercise government powers without accountability.

By using the above visible/invisible dichotomy, and moving on to mention at least in passing secret electronic vote counting, we can get some factual messages out there about evoting and more importantly DEMOCRACY, right now through letters to the editor, etc. The unlikelihood of what the Republicans were pressing for, AS OPPOSED TO the much greater likelihood when there are huge payoffs like reversing entire elections that are available with evoting.

When you consider that successful election cheaters become officials, and even
election officials, shame should be cast upon those who try to focus the
defense of elections upon citizen voters as a class, who are the real
supervisors and bosses in a representative democracy.

Although nobody condones double voting, there is something unseemly about government SERVANTS turning the entire focus of our investigative police branches on the
citizens, when the #1 suspects in any election fraud will always be the insiders, who are the only ones with the power to deliver the desired result -- the election result.

Besides, anybody who thinks that elections are not at great risk year in and
year out must not love America or understand the attractions of power.

It borders on the most idiotic statements ever uttered, but there are still
those who try to claim that it is "paranoid" or "conspiratorial" to suggest
that ANYBODY would try to alter elections that are for the control of the
world's only superpower and the world's richest country...! What does
history teach in this regard??

For those that haven't read history books, consider that virtually all of us will (by inviting only our likeminded friends) stuff the electronic ballot box in an "unscientific" online poll.
When we do this, we don't care in the slightest that the result may be
rendered unrepresentative and even MORE unscientific because we want the
MORE JUST side in the poll to win. So, even without considering the fact
that American elections are for control of the world's richest nation and
sole military superpower, we can add to the list of suspects anybody who
will want to stuff that ballot box in order to give justice and righteousness a chance!

So, while it is a good instinct to be suspicious about elections, being
suspicious about VOTER FRAUD is entirely misleading. Election fraud is
where it's at.

AND NOTE WELL: The systematic attempt to steer the focus of the federal investigatory and prosecutorial apparatus to focus on THE PEOPLE who at their very worst are extremely minor elements in election irregularities, and disproportionately on DEMOCRATS, as other writers have pointed out so well.

All those eyeballs in the transparent and visible portions of elections deter crime, that's one of the many good reasons why in August 2006 my Zogby poll revealed that 92% of Americans prefer a voting system where citizens can observe the vote counting and obtain information about it, as opposed to our present regime of secret vote counting through "trade secret" software.

So, now, where are we REALLY AT, WITH ELECTIONS?

Here's the Answer:


While (to some) it may remain uncertain in some people's minds as to
whether or not 2004 was a stolen election, at some level we need not be too
fixated on those folks because some things even greater and more important
than that are beyond debate:

1. Even if a particular election isn't stolen, *our DEMOCRACY clearly
has been stolen,* in that the indispensable attribute of a
representative democracy is gone: namely, that the people are in charge and
the source of all legitimate power, and the government workers are the
servants. The public is undeniably no longer in charge at any level in
this country when the public can't see the vote counting, can't obtain any
information about it, and in most cases is held to have no standing to do
anything about it.
*In stark contrast, the counting of the vote is a piece of corporate
PROPERTY called a trade secret, thus showing that we are not talking about
corporate "influence" over our government we are talking about *corporate
OWNERSHIP of the HEART of democracy.* As with all forms of property, We
the People are being kicked out as trespassers, since property implies the
exclusive right to control (witness the Sarasota ruling upholding trade
secrecy rights as, apparently, being more important than the integrity of
that congressional election).

2. Even the critics agree that, based on secret vote counting, there is
*no basis for confidence in American elections*. ANY of them (elections),
if they are electronic. It may not pay to get bogged down in the specifics
of any given election dispute when even critics of exit polls as evidence of
irregularities in the 2004 elections are forced to and in actual cases
have conceded that there's no basis for confidence in the 2004 election or
any other election, *they just don't think the affirmative fraud case is

We shouldn't and don't require anything more than "no basis for
confidence in elections" to justify emergency intervention to set the
election system straight.
*So, we should take back our elections, and now.

Why can't politicians find a way to servethe 92% that want to
observe election vote counting and obtain information about it,

*PARTICULARLY WHEN for politicians to do otherwise, is engaging in corrupt
self-dealing whereby politicians are directly voting that THEIR
OWN RE-ELECTIONS should retain electronic secret vote counting, an
undeniably corrupt and non-confidence-producing method of
election management.*

On 92%, see the Zogby poll press release at this link or google Zogby 92% for more results and analysis from this poll:

This huge conflict of interest that politicians have, if brought into
the light of day, should mean that politicians are falling all over
themselves to find the most transparent possible system of vote counting and
elections that makes the 92% extremely happy.

I've recommended before that people meet with politicians, explain the
needs of democracy and the conflict of interest, and if they continue to
claim (as a few have) that the only politically "realistic" thing to expect
is more electronic secret vote counting, whip out your camera and get that
on film for the sake of posterity.

Because if a politician voting on their own re-election tells you that a transparent vote count is "unrealistic" that would mean that YOU WERE THERE when
they turned the corner even on a limited representative democracy and
thumbed their noses at the public, (i.e. at "government of the People, by
the People and for the People") telling We the People in the clearest
possible terms that the public is no longer in charge, and that the heart of
democracy is a wholly owned corporate asset, in the very most literal sense

Do you want America to be a wholly owned corporate asset, right at the very heart of representative democracy? If not, then every form of e-voting, optical scan to touch screen "DRE" needs to be voted out or, if necessary, relocated to Boston Harbor.

---Paul Lehto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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