SUPPORT SENATOR WYDEN (D-OR) TO OBJECT TO 2004 ELECTION

[dzika]

November 3, 2004

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) vows to object to 2004 election results

On November 3, 2004 Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that he would contest the 2004 election results if election fraud was found. This was in response to a question asked by a citizen at a Medford Oregon Town Hall Meeting that was attended by 150-200 Oregon voters. Ron Wyden knows that systematic voter disenfranchisement is not OK and is evidence of election FRAUD.

Watch him live showing his support for fair U.S. elections on C-Span at 1:00 pm EST on January 6, 2005

On January 6, 2005 Congress will meet in joint session to certify the 2004 presidential election. On that day, if one member of the House and one member of the Senate object to the certification of the vote, then all members of Congress will finally discuss these issues. On January 6, 2001, not a single Senator would join with the Representatives who demanded an inquiry into the Florida recount. Let's help our Senator take this stand.

Please support Ron in this historical action with faxes, emails, phone calls before Jan 5, '05

Click Here for Sample Letters and Contact Information

Link:
http://www.aefwg.com/votewyden.html

(Please post independent confirmation of possible)

EDIT: subject

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. You mean we have Senator to stand up?

Damn, I hope nothing happens to him in the next few days.

[dzika]

6. It says "if fraud was found"...

I think we should show some support.

[merwin]

2. IF fraud is found? It's already BEEN found n/t

[euler]

33. Not everyone agrees. In fact, most don't. I don't

[myschkin]

78. So...

If 95 % of all glitches are going in favour of Bush (nationwide) this is no proof for you for fraud? And please read the new Exit Polls study of Baiman... (!)

For everybody who can think (well I don't talk of the media) fraud is evident (and this is enough).

[In Truth We Trust]

99. Then you are misinformed. I suggest you look into it!

You can start here on DU and research the archives. Then you can talk to those folks who waited for nine hours to vote.

[Not_Giving_Up]

3. Dupe - Self Deleting

[truthpusher]

4. Is this a new statement from him?

[GregD]

10. It does not appear to be, and I feel the title is misleading

[Quakerfriend]

5. Rock on Sen. Wyden!

:bounce:

[OKthatsIT]

7. I WILL VOTE for him in 2008...Presidential Election!!!!!!!!

Now we're talking!

[SharonRB]

8. Does this mean we have our "at least one senator"?

Yipppeeeee!!!!!!! Now let's see who else will join him. Makes sense that it's someone from Oregon -- we know they have fair elections.

[Redneck Socialist]

9. "...if election fraud was found."

Pretty big out he left himself there.

Like many here I think fraud was committed, but you best be prepared to be disappointed. Nobody's standing up on the 6th.

[demnan]

13. Yeah, sadly, I agree

n/t

[nashville_brook]

35. i read "if election fraud is found"

to be "if enough people demand it, now that I've gone and said this..."

[Redneck Socialist]

40. I hope you're right

but I don't think it's going to happen.

[SueZhope]

11. is this a way of getting him

to live by his own words?

fraud was found alright ,
Yet as we know
some would argue that there is no actual proof.
(so he might chicken out) hope not.

its great idea I hope it works.

[seito]

12. And so it begins

I think I shall go and invest in a fax machine.

[Jo March]

75. seito, I told hubby that I needed a fax machine

Even after the 6th, I will still be faxing my lovely Congress people to make sure they don't get stupid and start drinking the kool-aid.

[Amaryllis]

115. What's the kool aid reference I keep seeing?

[birdsmedicine]

14. Very misleading!

Shame on you!!

[joevoter]

31. Not intended to be misleading

We need to show positive support for his public statement on Nov 3. Remember, We are a support group for our politicians that stand up for voter rights!

[TexasChick]

76. eh, nevermind. n/t

[wildflower]

15. Does he have all the info? (Statement is from Nov. 3)

The article says the statement was made Nov. 3, and says "if fraud was found"...he has been sent all the info?

[Amaryllis]

106. We're working on that.

[renate]

16. he's my senator

I just wrote to him and cited that quote... thank you!

[SicTransit]

17. "if election fraud was found"

I will take any bet - in any amount - that he will NOT stand up, since no proof of widespread election fraud exists. Any takers?

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. Wonder if he'll settle for widespread compelling evidence of

vote suppression?

[Pam-Moby]

18. What bothers me

is that many Democratic Reps have said that they would contest the vote if FRAUD was found. But they also know that we would not need then to contest if it was found. The evil doer and his chums would actually need to find good lawyers then!!!!

[liam97]

20. Dzika, why not edit the headline to say

support Senator...

[dzika]

30. Added the word "support" to the title...

sorry for the misleading title.

[Amaryllis]

41. THIS gives the answers to "I will contest if fraud is found"!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=7598&mesg_id=7598

[Stand and Fight]

21. Recommend change in title of thread.

This is good news that one of the senators in this country has finally publicly commented in this issue. He's left himself a viable exit strategy however, and I'd be surprised to see him take a stand. Nonetheless, he'd have my respect for life if he does.

(Change the title of thread please -- very misleading.)

NOTE: The date is from November 3rd! This is old news and happened before the efforts to expose fraud even happened. It's a nice lead, but the thread title is misleading and the news is old!

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. I second that. Please edit headline!

[dzika]

27. Subject has been changed. Thanks!

[intheflow]

22. Here's my email to Wyden:

Dear Senator Wyden,

Thank you for pledging to stand up for fair elections. Even without the infamous computer "glitches," and regardless of the outcome of the election, the voter intimidation and disenfranchisement that occurred in heavily minority and Democratic precincts in Ohio and throughout the country cannot be tolerated in a society that values free and open elections. Your standing up in the Senate will force the national press to report on the irregularites in the Nov. 2004 presidential election; with that public acknowledgement, we may be able to correct the problems and avoid them in future elections.

Sir, I am not your constituent, but I am your fellow citizen. As such, I am grateful for your courage and dedication to fair and unbiased elections. You are indeed a patriot. God bless you!

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. I see his on-line form only accepts OR addresses.

Will one of his constituents please tell him a woman in Florida is begging him to stand up for her rights too?

[intheflow]

25. I just wrote my state in with my city.

And thanked him as a fellow citizen. Can't hurt, right?

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. That's actually what I did too.

In my letter I told him I knew how Senate mail worked and did not expect a response.

[Amaryllis]

42. MANY of us in OR have been supporting, requesting, asking, etc.

We have quite an organized effort.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. That's great to hear. Keep up the good work.

[Verve]

47. Keep up the good work Amaryllis! We're all grateful! n/t

[Amaryllis]

105. It takes all of us! I am a Lord of the Rings fan and I often think how

it took all of them working together to deal with the dark forces. If anyone of those working toward the same goal had not done their part, the whole thing would not have happened. I feel so much kinship with all of you good Souls.

[Pastiche423]

28. Misleading

and a bunch of bunk!

[dzika]

32. sorry... I changed the title

[joevoter]

36. Please see post 31

His statement was not bunk. The person in the audience that asked the question sited F911 as an example of what we don't want to see this time around. The supportive message that we constituents offer help him to know that we care.

[Eye_on_prize]

29. I just phoned Wydens office in PDX and...according to his staff...

YES he IS "supporting Conyers investigations" (she said he sent Conyers two letters of support for investigations in Nov),

BUT..she also said..

NO, he hasn't YET said that he is definitely standing up on Jan 6th.

I'm hand delivering my personal letter along with a petition to his office today, asking him to join Conyers on the 6th.

keep the pressure on..

Strength in numbers. Full court press. Go Conyers et. al.

[Amaryllis]

43. Do you know about this meeting in Portland Tuesday?

ALL GROUP MEETING TUESDAY, JAN. 4TH, 7PM
First Unitarian Church
1011 SW 12th Ave, Portland, 97205 - [phone]

All invited.

Combined meeting for Action Speaks, Clean Vote, Code Pink, Deaners, Alliance for Democracy, Greens, and all groups or individuals working on election fraud. Public invited!

We will discuss next action items in our work on the election. Many different groups have connected and are combining efforts. This should be a very interesting meeting.

www.actionspeaksportland.org

[Eye_on_prize]

61. yes, I've been to several and 'll probably be there Tues. too..

given the timing re Jan 6th updates, etc. I'm on the email list, but thanks for letting me know where it was tonite cuz i hadn't checked to see. see you there!

[Left Brain]

49. WHERE ARE YOU?

I'm working in SE Portland today, how can I sign the petition?

I have a call in to Wyden's office, too.

[Eye_on_prize]

64. I'm in NE , near 29th and Knott. His office is near Lloyd center ...

if you want to meet me at a certain time in from i'll have it with me.. let me know. I can be there say at 2:30. does that work for you?

[Left Brain]

67. Yes, 2:30 it is

on Multnomah St., right?

[Eye_on_prize]

71. yes. 700 NE Mult. let's meet in front . see you there at 2:30

[nashville_brook]

34. my letter which i'm sending to MY senators

(conversational in tone, but hey, it's all i can muster today) - brook


__________________________


Holy cow! I want to move to Oregon! You are my hero! THANK YOU so much for speaking out on election fraud!

Once this is brought up for discussion, please understand, that you have people all over country standing with you in getting an investigation, a re-vote, and/or "whatever it takes" to have an election that is at least as transparent and fair as a third world or eastern european or "old european" country.

Candidly -- I can count on one hand the number of times I've written MY legislators (after today I will need two hands). I am emailing from the other side of the country. This is so very important. We are very scared of what has happened to our country (and what worse is coming, e.g. Social Security, war in the Middle East, SCOTUS appts, Senate filibuster). Please work hard on this issue! You are not only standing up for all of Oregon -- you are standing up for ALL OF AMERICA!

Sincerely,
Brook Hines,
Nashville, Tennessee 37216

[Scout1071]

37. So excited, then so disappointed after reading the big, fat "IF".....

come on man....change the title of the thread!

[rodeodance]

38. so--there is no proven (legally) fraud found at this point.

[garybeck]

44. I disagree

Until a judge or jury has seen all the evidence we shouldn't be saying there is no evidence of fraud.

there is a mountain of evidence for fraud!!!

voting machine allocation???

Traid's cheat sheets?

Triad's machine tampering?

98% voter turnout?

if this isn't evidence of fraud, I don't know what is.

[myschkin]

80. More evidence

And please don't forget the 98 % glitches which are going in favour of Bush. And the exit poll discrepancy!

There is evidence of fraud nationwide, not just in Ohio!

What about the Berkeley study, the Freeman paper a.s.l....?

I hope the Senators don't forget that there is a sign for manipulation in big style over the country...

[Amaryllis]

107. YOU GUYS! See this! THEY ARE CONGRESS. They don't have to

have PROOF of fraud. That is the lawyers' job. See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=7598&mesg_id=7598

And please kick it! Because it is VERY important. We ALL should be using these points in our communication with our legislators. And Gary, can you post it on your wonderful website?

These are excellent talking points from the Dean People, just out today, that address every single argument for not contesting:

-There is no proof of fraud
-not enough "irregularities" to change the outcome of the election
-it won't do any good
-Kerry conceded
-elections have always been a mess
-Republicans will vote it down
-It will ruin my career

Go to the link for the whole doc. Below is a small section:

Informational Points -- to satisfy queries and combat honest ignorance

· It is the affirmative DUTY of each and every Member of Congress to personally judge the validity of presidential electors base on any information they have at hand. Yes, the apparently need to be told this. (See Note1 below)

· Each Senator/Rep is Constitutionally charged with the burden of being the backstop or safety valve for an election procedure that has rendered an invalid result

· States have no "right" to have electoral votes counted and many slates of electors have been disallowed in the past -- particularly after the Civil War

· The Voting Rights Act makes it unlawful for minorities to receive disparate treatment by any election process -- no willful or negligent act need be found to have occurred -- a disparate circumstance or result is sufficient for violation.

In 2001 the US Commission on Civil Rights made a legal finding of just such a violation in regard to the Florida election - undisputed evidence of poll-tax-lines and registration process violations makes clear that there has not been a correction of this finding

· If a state's election laws includes a contest provision, that state's election is not lawfully completed unless and until such contests have been disposed of judicially

· Elections are intended to measure the will of the people, not the will of the candidates; therefore, it does not matter if a candidate has conceded.

· An election is not a contest -- it is a survey -- an effort to measure an objective reality. (See Note2 below)

Argumentative Points -- to counter unfounded rationalizations, excuses, and fears

· What is being asked of the official is a simple question:

"Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor minority voters and none for affluent white voters a tolerable condition for you personally?"

Yes, strong stuff. But necessary stuff if we're going to secure our right to have confidence in free and fair elections.

· No unlawful election process can lawfully certify electors

· Objecting is the best action they can take to advance the general cause of "Election Reform"

Objecting to electors, successfully or not, creates a "consequence" for the failures of the system.

A traffic light rarely gets built until someone is killed or injured. Only after 9/11 did Congress seriously address anti-terrorism.

The same is true here and an objection will put states on notice that they had better remedy their system or face rejection in the future.

· We The People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will

Our law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow "technical" or "legal" arguments and rationalizations to trump reality as we did in 2000.

· When the results of an election are in doubt, the moral burden is on the states to prove the results to be sound.

The People have an inalienable right to full confidence in the results.

Political/Strategic Points -- to provide pragmatic reasons to "do the right thing"

· Consider what standing up in 2001 did for the CBC. They are now without-a-doubt HEROS to the real Democratic party base. Perhaps not in DC, but among the regular party rank and file, Farenheit 9-11 immortalized their heroics.

· Standing on principle always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

· Should the Democratic Party finally see the wisdom of taking this stand, of mounting such a "charge of the light brigade" (even if that's all it amounts to), it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

· We on the left could use more "preaching to the choir." We've allowed our liberal values and morals to be constantly attacked, in part because we are basically tolerant people.

And that requires us to "create the reality" to combat their created reality. (Ours of course grounded in something they are fairly unfamiliar with - actual reality.)

To create our (real) reality, it is our "allies" we need to focus on. And none of us should hesitate to put it to them starkly, as in: "So, you're taking the side of the bush regime over Congressman Conyers and Reverend Jackson? That is how you want to be remembered?"

Call it tough love. But we can't leave any moral escape hatches.

Because there aren't any.

[joevoter]

109. Great post - best talking points that I have seen

[Scout1071]

59. I did not say that at all. I said that I was disappointed with the title

of the thread because it made it sound as if the Senator had announced that he would contest vote. I did not expect a big, fat "IF" although i probably should have guessed it.

I totally and completely believe that the election was rigged. I believe that with the raw data, we would have confirmation. I also believe that we do indeed have plenty of evidence of suppression. Lack of machines, Repug "challengers" at sites, missing votes, extra votes, missing absentee, "glitches" - all of whom favored *, loss of power, sudden computer outage with Mitofsky, closed poll books, obstruction by Blackwell and his appointed crew, Triad tampering and "cheat sheets", exit polls "shifting" to * late in the night, but funny how the only lines being filmed that late were in all Dem districts - who shifted it late? And oh yea.....those pesky little exit polls. Only the most accurate polling known to mankind. Used around the world - by the US and the UN to monitor elections - yet somehow they were horribly off here. No need to see the data, nothing to see here, keep moving.

The evidence is there....and I'm tired of hearing "if's." I'm ready for some action on behalf of our representatives.

[me b zola]

101. Up is down, down is up

How can there be a legal findings BEFORE the investigation?

Here in Portland, the police have used as their only source of evidence to pull someone over and kill them without provocation is that they were a black man driving a nice car in North Portland. And yes, no charges were brought against the cop.

In the election fraud case, we have a mountain of evidence that serious crimes have been broken and deserves to be investigated with every measure at our Nation's disposal.

[Botany]

39. I called and e mailed his office.

If we can get just a fraction of the proof out into the MSM it would be all over for bush.

:kick:

[Walt Starr]

46. Problem is, no election fraud was found

Not one shred of hard evidence, only supposition and innuendo.

[joevoter]

48. systematic voter disenfranchisement is not OK

and is evidence of election FRAUD...

[Walt Starr]

50. Hard evidence please

There is no hard evidence of that.

[roseBudd]

52. Are names in a roster book with ballot stub numbers but no corresponding

signatures in the poll book for the same voter evidence of ballot box stuffing AKA fraud?

[Walt Starr]

53. No

Evidence of clerical errors, not hard evidence of fraud.

[dzika]

57. I spoke to someone today in Ohio...

who saw the evidence that is being presented to the Senators. This person said that the evidence of fraud is undeniable. There are a things that we (in this forum) haven't seen yet.

I don't know if it's true but this person has been reliable in the past.

[Walt Starr]

62. And Kerry had a "secret plan"

:eyes:

[myschkin]

82. We have pieces of circumstantial evidence but not the murder

Walt Starr, please note that the best middle to show electronic manipulation of votes are statistical anomalies and discrepancies... And of these we have a lot.

It 95 % of all computer glitches are going in favour of Bush, this is a proof for me (and everybody who can thinking).

[Walt Starr]

83. There are three types of lies

Lies
Damned Lies

and Statistics.

[myschkin]

85. But there is a feeling for justice... - do you have it?

So why they revoted in Ukraine? (Very well founded) Suspicion is enough...

If you add together all facts there is enough evidence for fraud.

At least there is enough evidence to make an investigation... (this you won't deny)

[Walt Starr]

86. Enoguh evidencec to investigate? Sure, investigate

There's always enough evidence to investigate.

[myschkin]

93. Sorry, but you sound a bit cynic to me...

;-)

Sorry, if you lost your soul somewhere...

[Walt Starr]

108. I've listened to the shit for four years

"This is IT!!"

"Bush is TOAST!!!"

"We've GOT THEM NOW!!!"

:eyes:

False hopes have been the biggest enemy of DU the past four years. Bigger even than Bush!

[dzika]

98. "a major report that will detail that full body of evidence"

From the BradBlog 3:30 Update:

To that end, The BRAD BLOG has been told that Rep. John Conyers' office and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee staffers, "anticipate" in the next day that they "will release a major report that will detail that full body of evidence. And will be sending it to every Senator."

The source added, "It will make it absolutely crystal clear what the standard is for challenging Electors."

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001094.htm

I believe that this is the report that the person I talked to in Ohio was speaking about. We shall see.

[bettyellen]

77. you need intent for fraud, and you need an investigation to

uncover intent.
so why are you so hell bent on discouraging the continuation and completion of an investigation?
blackwell has been preventing an accurate and fair recount. you think that's okay, do you?

[Zan_of_Texas]

66. There is evidence of election laws being broken, Walt.

When Blackwell and his election officials took poll books out of the hands of qualified observers, that was against the law as I understand it. Someone quoted chapter and verse.

Recount procedures have not been followed either -- supposed to be randomly selected precincts. This was not done.

I could go on.

[Verve]

51. What? The triad guy tampering with the machine and talking about

cheat sheets? That's not fraud?

The only way to get more proof is to take a look at that machine. Katherine Blackwell will definitely not let this happen. The repugs are fighting every chance to prove or disprove Nov 2nd was a fair and transparent election. If there is no fraud what are they hiding?

[Walt Starr]

56. No, that's not fraud

Innuendo and supposition. There is no hard evidence of fraud there.

I'm sorry if it pisses you off, but nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, has gone all the way to presenting hard evidence of fraud. All that has been presented is supposition and innuendo.

[Verve]

60. There is no hard evidence because this election was not TRANSPARENT!

Until we are able to look at the secret source codes in the machines, have qualified, unbiased individuals look at the machines and have full exit poll releases we do not know if this election was fair or not?

CAN YOU PROVE THIS WAS A FAIR ELECTION? I think the burden of proof should lie with Blackwell and others to prove they ran a fair election! Where is this proof?

[Walt Starr]

65. The burden of proof is on the accusers

I agree, we need validation, but unfortunately in our system, Bush won. Nothing will change that fact.

[No Exit]

68. Are you a lawyer? Just curious.

Isn't it funny how there were no WMD's in Iraq, yet our country took the dire step of invading, resulting in the loss of (so far) well over 100,000 lives. Oh, there was just nothing wrong with all those Americans believing in WMD's that weren't real. How would they know?

If "we" could believe there were WMD's in Iraq when that was false, we can believe there was fraud in this election. There are many more facts pointing to fraud in this election than there were pointing to possession of WMD's by the Iraqis. So why do you act like it's such a stretch to think there was fraud in this election? It's not.

Just b/c someone can't give you an airtight explanation of the exact details of fraud, doesn't mean they don't have a right to say they smell a rat. I demand proof from YOU that the election was fraud-free. Don't talk to me about "burden of proof". I know what burden of proof is; I've met the burden of proof many times in my work. This is not a court, it's an internet forum.

BTW, since you seem to demand ironclad proof of anything/everything, may I ask, how do you know your mom was really your mom? How do you know the woman who you've been told physically gave birth to you, actually DID physically gave birth to you? Do you remember everything that was happening, and the names of the participants, from while you were being born? If not, perhaps you should ask that the person alleged to be your biological mother participate in a DNA comparison, with your DNA. After all, you want actual PROOF, don't you?

[SicTransit]

70. that's silly -

I, for example, have testimony of witnesses of the event of my birth, including the direct participant. There are no witnesses to the suspected electoral fraud, and no testimonies.

Here is an example of why I think people who shout "computer fraud" in the elections are full of it:

1. People claim that in Ohio the machines were programmed to miscount votes in Bush's favor.

2. In the Ohio recount, precincts that constituted 3% of the votes in each county were hand-counted and machine-counted at the same time. (Yes, the selection of the precincts was arbitrary and non-random).

3. If the machines were programmed to miscount votes, the discrepancy would show up in that case.

4. The counter-argument of the "bad machines" theorists is that the machines were programmed to correctly count the 3% precincts but not the rest of the county.

5. In order for (4) above to be correct, you have to have the people who picked the precincts that constututed the 3% to be "in" on the scam and pick exactly the precincts which the machines are programmed to count correctly.

6. There are usually at least 2 or more people per county, a Republican and a Democrat who decided which precincts go into the 3%.

7. According to (6) and (5) above, in order for the whole scheme to work you need a couple of hundred people across Ohio, both R and D, to be in on the fraud scheme.

I consider (7) to be extremely unlikely. What about you?

[No Exit]

72. Okay,

1. Yes, they sure do.
2.I see you admit that the official rules, by which a recount is to be conducted, were violated. Therefore, the recount is invalid.
3.How do you know the discrepancy hasn't shown up?
4.So?
5.I, for one, don't know who picked those precincts that made up the 3%. It may appear that some lower-level election official picked them, when in reality that lower-level person may have simply been acting on instructions from above.
6. Oh, you believe that b/c there was a "democrat" involved (supposedly by a law which said both major parties were to give an ok), that that ensured no fraud? I recently read that in fact ALL--ALL, regardless of stated party--elections officials in the state serve only at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. Do you trust him? I don't. (Gee, maybe it was that "sorry, your registration is on the wrong weight of paper so it's no good" bit that made me look askance at him.)
7. I don't see why you'd need that many people. It's clear that the Ohio Secretary of State rules the whole process with an iron fist. I'm sure the people down the line just asked his office "what do I do now" on everything. It was the holiday season, and they sure didn't want to make extra work for themselves by being difficult.

Did you know that some of the voting machine corporations claim that their 4th Amendment rights would be violated if they had to open 100% of their operations up to public scrutiny, or even to the scrutiny of investigators? Yes, that's right--4th Amendment rights for... corporations.

Do you also believe other things we are told by the government in this age of fake WMD's, and phony "terror" alerts? Sorry, the proverb says, "A liar is never believed, even if he tells the truth." It's a longshot, but they could be telling the truth when they say there was no fraud. But it is an ironclad fact that they lied to us about Iraqi WMD's. Therefore it is completely logical for us to doubt them on other things they say to us.

[SicTransit]

74. You're misinformed even about how the elections officials

get their jobs in Ohio. What happens is the Democratic Party submits the names of the people they nominate to the BOEs to Blackwell, and he has the right to either accept or reject them. I am not aware of Blackwell rejecting any such nominees.

Your believing that the election officials in the state "serve only at the pleasure of the SOS" just illustrates how people spread misinformation and how others pick it up and run with it.

You think that every BOE picked up the phone, called the Secretary of State office and asked him which precincts to pick for the recount. And, since you are aware from my points above that if any of those officials actually did the picking themselves, out of the blue, the "fraud", if it existed, would be blown wide open. Just how many such assumptions does it take for such "fraud" to exist in your (and others') imagination?

[No Exit]

112. I disagree. The fraud is real. Bob Fitzrakis has an

article, dated Dec. 30, which is on here somewhere. The article will explain to you why you're wrong to say the fraud in this election is not real. I'll try to hunt down the article so you can read it.

[Qutzupalotl]

84. That's Blackwell's argument.

5. In order for (4) above to be correct, you have to have the people who picked the precincts that constututed the 3% to be "in" on the scam and pick exactly the precincts which the machines are programmed to count correctly.

Not true; you would simply target your fraud to precincts that did not approximate 3%. The most logical and likely precinct selections for sample recounts are those that are nearest to but not below 3%. That means less work for those doing the recounts.

6. There are usually at least 2 or more people per county, a Republican and a Democrat who decided which precincts go into the 3%.

7. According to (6) and (5) above, in order for the whole scheme to work you need a couple of hundred people across Ohio, both R and D, to be in on the fraud scheme.

I consider (7) to be extremely unlikely. What about you?

Blackwell used the same argument. Yes, it's unlikely that thousands of people are involved in fraud, but it's also unnecessary to involve that many people. Central tabulators are vulnerable to hacking, for instance. Precinct selection was neither random nor arbitrary, but based on size approximating 3%.

[SicTransit]

87. so let's see - you commit a crime of monumental

proportion and to cover it up you HOPE that the election officials in ALL 88 counties will pick the precincts you want them to pick when they decide which precincts to include in the 3%? And in the end they ALL DO. Amazing what you're willing to believe in to support your theories.

[Qutzupalotl]

88. so let's see - you have x number of days to do a recount

and you're going to pick a precinct that's 10% of your county?

[SicTransit]

94. the suspension of disbelief that is required

to adopt your theory is amazing.

But you know what - all this can be solved. According to Ohio laws, the ballots will be open to public in a few days. All you have to do is come up with a few hundred bucks for the county personnel who will handle the ballots for you (since you're not allowed to touch them yourself), file the request and in a few days you can hand-recount a few precincts that you consider suspicious. Then you can compare the results to the official results.

If you find a wild discrepancy, I promise to eat my hat. I don't expect I will be doing that.

[Qutzupalotl]

95. Let's hope for your sake it's a porkpie.

;)

[SicTransit]

96. so by that comment am I to understand

that you will be doing what I suggested?

[Qutzupalotl]

97. Not possible in my current situation,

but I'll definitely be interested in what Conyers has to say on Thursday. (I was joking, as I assume you were about eating a hat.)

Also very curious as to why Blackwell is shielding himself from answering some very pertinent questions.

[SicTransit]

100. Well, if not you, any Ohioan (is that what they are called?)

can do this. That's just another something that should convince you that nobody would contemplate a ballot-miscounting adventure on the scale of hundreds of thousands of votes. It is too easy to check. The recount would have caught it, even if the precincts were not randomly picked, as I have shown, and if not - the after-canvassing-period possibility of any precinct being checked by any private citizen is too much of a risk. Nobody would contemplate committing an election-fraud-of-a-lifetime with such enormous risks of getting caught.

[Karenca]

110. YOU KNOW THAT SAYING.....

'then they fight you" :evilgrin:

[JBear]

117. Not so fast.....

"SicTransit" has posted a set of theories....but the theories fail to past muster when you add to this that in SEVERAL cases (not just one and cases ARE documented) the Traid employee ASKED WHICH PRECINCTS were to be recounted by hand - and the Triad employee was told! Then the Traid employee goes back to the machine and "reprograms" it some more.

Now, you have a stack of ballots that has to equal close enough to election night results, and match by hand and machine...not too hard when you know which stack of ballots they are (and in some cases are presorted for Bush, Kerry etc).

It is this combination of events that give me a clear indication that there was fraud in at least some of the Ohio counties.

1) non random precinct selection
2) Triad employees reprogramming machines - after finding out which precincts to count
3) ballots being ordered in some counties so that all the Bush votes were grouped, all the Kerry votes grouped etc.

I hope this helps!

:bounce:

[Walt Starr]

79. Sorry dude, I'm just putting the reality out there

Don't like it? TOO FUCKING BAD!

There is no proof of fraud. None.

[In Truth We Trust]

103. There is Prima Facie evidence of fraud and if you don't like it

TOO FUCKING BAD!

[saracat]

104. Anyone who has not seen the evidence as presented to the Senators

Has no business making a statement as to its veracity. You and most people do NOT KNOW what evidence Conyers has. I respect his insider judgement far more than the negative opinion of someone on DU who hasn't seen the document.

[idealista]

54. precinct in Miami County, Ohio w/ all but 10 registered voters voting

and a canvas of half the neighborhood found atleast 25 voters who said they had not voted. Discrepancies found elsewhere between poll books and vote totals, despite Blackwell's attempts to prevent public review of poll books, because as we know they will show MASSIVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

[Walt Starr]

55. Why should somebody be truthful with you?

Seriously, 25 people didn't vote in your canvassing. That proves nothing whatsoever. How many were ACTUALLY REGISTERED?

No proof. Innuendo and suppostion but no hard evidence.

[gkhouston]

58. gosh, maybe they thought to ask/check whether these folks were registered?

My voter's card is in my wallet. Maybe these folks were carrying theirs also.

[Walt Starr]

63. Maybe their cards were out of date?

Maybe they weren't under oath so it doesn't mean shit?

[Laurab]

102. I am AMAZED at WaltStarr's knowledge

Albeit somewhat distressed by the fact that he has apparently been given whatever information Conyers et al. must have, when I have not yet seen it, and I'm not even sure the Senate has seen it yet.

Maybe I'm just jealous cause this guy KNOWS -and I just don't know how. Matter of fact, after reading his posts, it seems he knows just about everything. I'm thinking maybe it's JK himself posting under another name or something. I don't know, I am just really impressed...

[wildflower]

69. Is voter suppression technically considered fraud?

Because they have proof of this, I believe. For example, I know that there was deliberate

-Calling of voters to tell them to vote at a different precinct
-Distributing of flyers that said Democrats should vote on Nov. 3
-Holding back of voting machines in Democratic precincts
-Throwing away of Democratic voter registrations

(I don't know if all of these occurred in Ohio.)

And then there were the flyers distributed in minority neighborhoods saying something; my mind is blanking on exactly what they said. The flyers were mentioned on This Week before the election.

And of course there was all of the voter-challenging at the polls.

Tampering with the machines (before and after the vote) and with the counting is, I think, a separate issue from voter suppression. Are both issues considered fraud?

-wildflower

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Wow, this is great news.

Another one to add to the list of 'definites,' right?

[Eye_on_prize]

81. My letter to Senator Ron Wyden - hand delivered today with peitition

Jan 3, 2005

US Senator Ron Wyden
700 NE Multnomah Blvd.
Portland OR


Dear Senator Wyden,

As you know, Congressman John Conyers’ ongoing investigations into ‘voting irregularities’ in OH (and elsewhere such as FL) are on a lot of voters minds these days. I was told by one of your staff members in Portland today that you sent several letters to Conyers supporting his investigation in November, and I want to thank you for doing that. As you are also no doubt aware, the investigations have indeed turned up a lot of very disturbing indications of widespread fraud on Nov. 2.

Based on his investigation -- which is amazing in itself, given the incredibly short time he had to work with -- Conyers has recently indicated his intention to contest the certification of OH electors on Jan. 6th. I have reviewed much of his findings and wholeheartedly agree with his decision to challenge the OH electors. I also understand that Conyers has sent his findings to you, along with an appeal to all US Senators to stand with him and support the challenge of OH electors.

I believe John Conyers is a man of integrity and would not be challenging the OH electors if he didn’t think his evidence warranted such challenge. I strongly encourage you join Congressman Conyers and his House colleagues in this challenge. Unless and until voters are assured that their votes really do count, we really don’t even have a real democracy in this country and many people will be watching to see what happens on Jan 6th. It is scheduled to be aired at least on C-span and may indeed get wide coverage on more mainstream outlets too, as this is shaping up to be a historical event.

One recent poll indicates that at least 20% of the public (or roughly 40% of Dems) believe something went seriously wrong on Nov. 2 (9-10 hour lines, misinformation about polling places and dates to vote, and voter intimidation), and something also went seriously wrong in the wee hours around 1:30 am on Nov. 3, when millions of new electronic votes for GWBush *mysteriously* appeared out of thin air, rendering exit polls ‘suspect’. Curious that the Bush Administration believes exit polls in Ukraine indicate fraud, but here they don’t. hmmm. There are also a number of affidavits indicating that electronic vote rigging skewed the official ‘results’ in Bush’s favor.

This country -- historically the world’s beacon of democracy -- simply cannot endure another election clouded by massive ‘irregularities’ and indications of fraud, like we did in 2000, and just have it glide by without a serious and vigorous challenge on Jan. 6th. Challenging OH electors will effectively register the concerns of the voting public and place the evidence into the public record in a way that is sorely needed right now. I believe this action is crucial in order to restore the voting public’s confidence in our electoral system.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lil ol' me
Portland OR

[Verve]

90. Thank you Eye on Prize. You're what every DU member should strive to be!

:yourock:

[Qutzupalotl]

92. Excellent.

Thanks, Eye_on_prize. :hi:

[joevoter]

113. Thanks... I posted the letter on the votewyden site

and I will alter them every 2 hours so that they are unique.

[Amaya]

89. Is this thread a little misleading?

Nobody jump on me, just asking?

[Verve]

91. Yes! Look at post 14 and others. n/t

[madbelgiancow]

111. kick for action

[drummer55]

114. organizations in oregon you can join in oregon

www.truthinvoting.org

www.actionspeaksportland.org

www.cleanvote.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome

www.votesmustcount.com/

[KnowerOfLogic]

116. This statement is typical ass-cover; he'll stand up if it's popular. nt