Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Hacking the Vote with Optiscans - Election Research. & Discussion News 12 Mar

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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 03:22 AM
Original message
Hacking the Vote with Optiscans - Election Research. & Discussion News 12 Mar
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 04:03 AM by autorank


Election Research & Discussion Forum News 12 March 2007

1) Weekly Comment David L. Griscom, PhD, Presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), San Francisco, Feb 2007.. (Also Here)

2) Weekly Collection of Public Media Articles - Links (Here)

Updated from original publication on OpEdNews, Feb 2007

Sleuthing Stolen Election 2004: John Brakey and the "Hack and Stack"

By David L. Griscom, Ph.D
Reprinted with the permission of Dr. Griscom

In the wee hours of 3 November 2004, the day after Election Day, the website showed an updated exit poll which had Kerry leading Bush nationally] by 2.6%. But soon thereafter the vote counting equipment reported Bush ahead of Kerry by almost the mirror image: 2.8%. Simon & Baiman

Never before had the U.S. national exit polls been so wrong or WERE they?

On 11 November 2004, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the Green and Libertarian candidates for president, announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the ballots cast for president in the pivotal state of Ohio. This recount (conducted by Ohio SOS Kenneth Blackwell!) was officially terminated on 31 December 2005 after a recount of about 3% of the vote, which found 734 additional votes for Kerry and 449 additional votes for Bush.

Flash forward to 10 March 2006 the Associated Press told us that "he third highest ranking employee at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has been indicted on charges of mishandling ballots during the 2004 presidential election recount."

And flash once more to 24 January 2007: Two election workers in Ohio's most populous county were convicted of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount, allegedly so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.

So, what was the big deal about failing to randomly select precincts for recounting?

The answer lies in John Brakey's "Hack and Stack."

Let us return to Election Day 2004. John Brakey is going about his duties as Democratic Cluster Captain for four precincts in a heavily Hispanic, 80%-non-Republican district of Tucson, Arizona. When he entered these polling places to collect "tear sheets" (carbon copies of the record of the names of voters issued ballots) he was met with hostility by poll workers at three of them, and he observed irregular things going on at these three stations throughout the day.

Finally, more than an hour after the polls were closed, John returned to the Pct 324 polling place (his home precinct) where, to the mutual shock of all concerned, he stumbled upon the poll workers apparently in the process of altering the records. These workers cursed and menaced John until he withdrew (see p. 132 in Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).

Like the "mild mannered Clark Kent" who became Superman when "truth, justice, and the American way" needed defending, John had risen up in the past to successfully sue a company that had been cheating subcontractors in Tucson. And, given that part of the court-ordered settlement required him to become publicly silent on what he knew, he headed "south of the border" for 14 years, where before long he was butting heads with crooked Mexican politicians in his successful defense of the Gulf of California against over fishing by commercial interests.

Now flash back once again to the morning of 3 November 2004. John Brakey took a page from election-theft-sleuth Greg Palast and went back to the Pct 324 polling place to poke in the trash. What he recovered there were the "ballot information slips" (3x3" slips of paper used by poll workers to record each arriving voter's registration number, party affiliation, and whether or not required to vote a provisional ballot). But these particular slips proved to be replete with non-standard indexing notations not normally used by poll workers. It was a consecutive numbering scheme (including some "alternate" consecutive numbers!!!), which would have enabled these poll workers to reorder (or alter) all other Election Day records at their whim.

What John did next was the most astonishing. He began working 18-hour days, seven days a week, collecting all public records relating to the nearly 2,000 voters registered at Pct 324 -- including those who didn't vote in 2004, as well as the 895 who officially voted (and 33 who signed a document at the polling place on Election Day but whose ballots were NOT counted). John manually entered these data into immense color-coded Excel spreadsheets which he and I began to pore over. By New Year's Day 2005, John had put in about 1,000 hours! My own contribution might have reached a paltry 300 hours.

By way of self-introduction, 2007 marks my 41st year as a research physicist. I am therefore well accustomed to sifting through Mother Nature's misleading clues in an ongoing struggle to understand some of the realities that she tries so hard to conceal from us. But, like Isaac Newton, I have to admit that own my successes owe largely to my "standing on the backs of giants." That is, physicists of the past provided me a legacy of proven theories as starting points. (In popular terms, I was spared having to "reinvent the wheel.")

But Karl Rove's election fraudsters appear to have created a system that, in retrospect, must have been designed specifically to confound crime scene investigators (at least until after the Joint Session of Congress met to accept the Electoral College results on January 6th). The laws of physics were of zero help to me here. I found myself sifting through misleading clues conjured, not by Mother Nature, but by human beings -- ones possessed of especially criminal minds.

John Brakey found most of the irregular patterns in the data, and I dedicated myself to trying to decide which of these patterns were causes and which were effects. In particular, I wanted to be able to deduce which causes or effects were incidental/innocent and which were artifactual/criminal. I was greatly aided in this quest by bouncing my ideas off Tucson-voting-machine-expert and Ph.D. electrical engineer, Tom Ryan. Tom tended to be the devil's advocate for "incidental/innocent." His counterpoint to my suspicious nature forced me to assemble John's data into all possible quantifiable categories, and seriously consider possible innocent explanations of each. When the dust finally settled, my conclusion was that the evidence irrefutably favors of "artifactual/criminal."

I won't go deeper into my evidence or arguments, beyond emphasizing the following: The poll-worker-instigated annotations on the ballot information slips that John recovered from the morning-after-Election-Day trash at Pct 324 provided a workable mechanism for deliberately creating numerical patterns that are "statistically impossible" if they are supposed to have happened by random accident or poll-worker incompetence (longer story available on request).

Suffice it to say that we had found evidence that Pct-324 poll workers STUFFED the (optical scan) ballot box with HAND COUNTABLE PAPER BALLOTS (HCPBs) that had the effect of shifting the presidential vote in this precinct by at least 12.8%. I am supposing that if the paper ballots in the box had been recounted by hand, the votes on paper would have agreed with the votes counted by the (un-hacked) optical scanner -- even though by my count 44 valid Kerry ballots were made to disappear and 80 Bush ballots were illegally created by the poll workers.

John calls such an act by colluding poll workers "the STACK." The type of person who would shamelessly commit such a crime against our democracy has been examined in immense detail by Mark Crispin Miller in his book Fooled Again. There are certainly enough of these folks (tens of millions) to have infiltrated most or all poll-worker positions in several percent of the polling stations nationwide.

I suppose that by now everyone knows about "the HACK" (specifically, the " Hursti Hack.) But let my just give the technical summary. In 2004, approximately 40 million Americans voted on optical-scan voting machines employing 1.94w memory cards. The 1.94w card illegally contains "interpreted codes" which can be hacked to change the final ballot counts without leaving a trace ...EXCEPT for the HCPBs inside the ballot box.

So if just a few percent of the ballot boxes are stuffed in the manner that John Brakey and I have uncovered at Pct 324 -- and crooked election officials manage to pick only those precincts for recounts (which are SUPPOSED to have been randomly selected) -- the more widely executed HACK would be covered up.

Is there evidence that this might have been what happened?

The reader should decide for him/herself by inspecting the accompanying graphic labeled "2004 Florida and Pennsylvania Registration and Voting". This graphic was picked from a now-defunct internet site,, which employed raw data found (and still available) at Data & Image

(The producers of this graphic) American Image's unique contribution was to show:
(a) voter registration by party,
(b) 2004 ballot tallies for president,
(c) voting machine type, and
(d) county size,

ALL ON THE SAME GRAPH, by using a color scale to portray both (a) and (b). The most spectacular thing you will see in this graphic is that the 24 smallest counties in Florida THAT EMPLOYED DIEBOLD OPTICAL-SCAN machines were the most skewed toward Bush. That is, the dark-to-medium blue colors in the left-hand column signify that 10 to 30% of the electorate were registered Republican in these 24 counties, whereas the medium-green-to-red-magenta colors in the second column from the left signify that 45 to 80% of these same voters appeared to choose Bush in 2004.

Why should the pro-Bush skew be confined mostly to the smallest counties? And why is this skew mainly confined to voters who voted on optical-scan machines?

My answer to the first question is that (1) the smallest counties are probably the most vulnerable to takeovers of the polling places by colluding poll workers (the "STACK"), (2) small counties are less likely to be checked by exit polls, and (3) Karl Rove was thereby enabled to play on the myth of the "Dixiecrat effect" in small rural counties in Florida. As for the second question, it is easy to suppose that Karl knew that the touch-screen machines would the objects of much suspicion, so by minimizing vote theft on the touch screens (in 2004), an illusion of honesty was achieved.

Greg Palast believes that the 2004 Election was stolen by means of the disappearance of 3.6 million ballots that were cast but not counted. (The U.S. Census Bureau places the figure at 3.4 million.)

Nevertheless, a September 2005 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO Report) recognizes that there is evidence that security weaknesses in voting machines "have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and MISCOUNT of votes." So, while Palast focuses on the LOST votes, John Brakey and I have homed in on the MISCOUNTS.

One method of miscounting has been demonstrated by Harri Hursi (links above). Namely, it entails flipping votes for candidate A to candidate B and vice versa, by inserting executable codes into the 1.94w memory cards associated with the optical-scan ballot boxes (the "HACK").

When the HACK is covered up by the STACK (i.e., only precincts where the ballot boxes were stuffed by colluding poll workers are "randomly selected" for hand recounting), we become victims of a scam that John Brakey has termed the "HACK and STACK."

That is, a hand recount of the HCPBs in a STACKED precinct would be found to agree with the official ballot tally even though the poll workers had shuffled ballots in and out in order to skew totals away from the way the voters actually voted.

On the other hand, the remaining, NON-STACKED precincts using optical-scan ballot boxes with 1.94w memory cards are vulnerable to HACKING, which could be adjusted to skew the official tallies to approximately the same degree as the STACKED ones. But big the difference is that any hand recount of a HACKED-but-NOT STACKED precinct would instantly reveal the actual MISCOUNT.

With 40 million voters voting on optical-scan machines in 2004, the HACK and STACK alone could have been sufficient to steal the election -- despite the fact that voter-marked HCPBs were employed. If only about 10% percent of the precincts had only been truly RANDOMLY SELECTED for hand recounts, the HACK would have been detected. Then we would now be talking about a conspiracy to steal the election as a PROVEN FACT instead of denigrating election-integrity researchers as "conspiracy theorists."

Moral: As long as optical-scanners are with us, we must assure TRULY RANDOM RECOUNTS. N.B. There are several mathematically proven ways to decide how many precincts or ballots to recount in order to have high confidence of catching fraud.

See, for example:
ElectionArchive.Org or Election Defense Alliance

David L. Griscom, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, retired in 2001 from the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he had been a research physicist for 33 years. He has subsequently held visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris, Lyon, and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology; he was also Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at The University of Arizona in Tucson. By virtue of his collaboration with John Brakey, Griscom was an invited presenter at both the National Election Reform Conference (Nashville, April 2005) and the Election Protection Hearing (Houston, June 2005); he will be presenting the same material at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (San Francisco, February 2007).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. In other words, a cheating technique as old as printed ballots themselves can still work
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! I tell you! And you can frequently find hand countable paper ballots in boxes floating down rivers as well. As Brother Land Shark keeps saying, it isn't about particular technologies, it's about checks and balances. (Which are of course impossible for touchscreen tabulation, which rules out that particular technique.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Graphic from "Hack & Stafck" article above.
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 03:35 AM by autorank

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wide awake...kick'n and recommend'n... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. You'll want this - PowerPoint from Dr. Griscom's AAAS Presentation - GREAT Stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R ... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. Mandatory 10% manual random precinct recount of opti-paper ends the fraud n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. Optical Scans are a Trojan Horse!
there must be AUDITS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Or a Cyber Tea Party...How about and E-Bay Cyber Tea Party
I grew up in California and watched my mother vote until I was old enough for the poll workers to say, "No you can't go in there" without fearing I'd have a tantrum. Every ballot was huge, the size they are now in California. Every election it took about three hours or so and the ballots were all counted and the results announced late election eve. Have we become idiots, incapable of what was done most places for decades? Don't answer that ;)

Seriously, I'd like several truly objective panel, scientists like Griscom, marketing people who deal with visual presentation, business forms people, and lots of everyday citizens. Have them look at the data and make reasoned judgment. No vendors or special interests, just people, some with expertise but most without. Take the consensus and refine it. We'd have a system that the majority of people could understand and it would work.

I agree that audits are mandatory for any machine driven election. 2008 will be with machines and 10% is the minimum. With a plan like Bill Faulkner's, we'd be able to avoid audits since there woudlbe simultaneous.

Keep up the great work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Great idea, pending hand-counted, paper ballots under public scrutiny!
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 09:48 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
I think it could be of immense benefit if someone such as Congressman Conyers could impress upon the nation the extraordinary significance of circumstantial evidence, not least in the form of mathematics, and more specifically, statistics. Not, of course, that the circumstantial evidence of election fraud is confined to statistics by any stretch of imagination. But it is sufficient and wholly compelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. 10th K and R
Bookmarked til evening.

Good show, Michael!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Book mark the 17th bro!

Those Pendergrass canals should be filled with a green substance, liquid green, for that day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. Fired Federal Prosecutors & Election Fraud: Indicting Republicans & Not Democratats?
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 01:52 PM by autorank
Also here on GD, lively discussion, come on by for some Tripple Expressos with a French Market chaser



Monday, 12 March 2007, 8:42 pm
Article: Michael Collins

Sacked for Indicting Republicans
and Not Indicting Democrats?

Scoop Independent News
Washington, DC

Top U.S. law enforcement official Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez engineered a Pearl Harbor Day for eight Republican appointed federal prosecutors. From one end of the country to the other, previously well regarded prosecutors were summarily fired (allowed to resign) on December 7, 2006. Chief of the Office of U.S. Attorneys, Michael Battle spread the news. In a rare case of the messenger shooting himself, Battle abruptly decided that he too would resign after the firings turned into a major scandal this month.

Even hard core Bush supporters were appalled. High profile Republican partisan and former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova made his opinion clear: This is really a pathetic way of running government." Mark Corallo, a former close aid to Attorney General Ashcroft said: "These are people who worked hard in the pursuit of justice. To go out and trash their reputations -- it's galling." John Smietanka, deputy to George H. W. Bushs Attorney General William Barr, offered this: If they were going to ask for the resignations of people, they should have given reasons, just for pure tact and humanity." (Source of quotations: Law.Com, 12 Mar 2007)

Working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems to be the essential requirement to stick ones head in the sand and support this process.

Why were these eight selected? The notion that they were somehow ineffective is a non starter. All eight prosecutors had positive personnel reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) according to the Wall Street Journal whose reporters had access to the files. The conventional wisdom is that they were somehow disloyal to the Bush White House, either through acts of omission or commission. Thats obvious. But what were those acts?

Is there a common element to the firings? In the case of four of the eight, there might be.

*** # # # ***

David Iglesias., New Mexico. Leaned on by a Senator and his heir for failing to indict Democrats before 2006 elections.

Senator Pete Domenici, (R-NM), recommended David Iglesias as New Mexicos federal prosecutor. Imagine the volatile senators outrange when he reportedly called and asked Iglesias for a favor. Domenici was concerned about the slow pace of expected indictments of Democrats in election related cases according to Iglesias. Should the indictments come just before the 2006 election, they would help Republicans in tight races. The alleged interference took its toll. Iglesias said I felt sick afterward. I felt leaned on. I felt pressured to get these cases moving.

A big part of the pressure was from Congresswoman Heather Wilson, (R-NM)]. She called Iglesias and reportedly pressured him to indict the same Democrats requested by Domenici. Iglesias would have none of it. Wilson later said that shed called to help Iglesias with his investigation, an assertion that became the object of mockery among commentators. Regarded as Domenicis political heir for the New Mexico Senate seat, she was one of those Republicans who would benefit form early indictments of high profile Democrats. Wilson needed every bit of leverage available to win re-election. She won by less than 1,000 votes in one of those controversial elections.

There were no pre-election indictments by prosecutor Iglesias.

The likely motivation was for the firing was clarified by New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Allen Weh. In a just published account by McClatchy Newspapers, he described a 2005 phone call with Karl Rove, Weh asked, Is anything ever going to happen to that guy? referring to Iglesias failure to bring the requested pre election charges against Democrats. Roves response was direct, Hes gone. And he was, just a few months after the phone call.

*** # # # ***

John McKay, Washington State. Investigate voter fraud in 2004 Governors race or tell me why you didnt!

John McKay of Washington State was apparently the object of a longer held grudge by the White House. He refused to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 election for Governor of Washington State. McKay told Senate investigators of receiving a call from the chief of staff for Republican Congressman Doc Hastings. The call concerned a prosecution to challenge the Democrats in their 200 vote victory in the 2004 race for governor.

The Seattle Times published a letter from trade association executive Tom McCabe to Rep Doc Hastings from July 2005. Talk about a demand letter. Hastings, a former chair of the House Ethics Committee, surely knew what this meant.

I urge you to call on President Bush to fire John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Western Washington.

. If you decide not to do this, let me know.

Tom McCabe
Executive Vice President

(N.B. The cc. list on this letter includes one John Fund.)

After receiving the letter, Hastings staffer Ed Cassidy called prosecutor McKay making inquiries about the status of the 2004 allegations. McKay quickly cut him off expressing concerns about illegal influence (its a crime to try and influence a federal prosecutors decisions in this way).

The call ended and a few months later so did McKays federal service. His reward for service to his country was a threat that DOJ would release information damaging to his reputation. They did. It was widely dismissed.

*** # # # ***

Daniel Bogden, Nevada. Getting too close to corporate gifts for a Republican Governor

Nevada federal prosecutor Daniel Bogden may have been undone by an explosive FBI probe of just re-elected Governor Jim Gibbons. Gibbons dealings with friend and defense contractor Warren Trepp are a part of the investigation. It isnt hard to figure out why.

Among the dozens of e-mails is one allegedly sent days before Trepp and his wife prepared to set sail on a Caribbean cruise with (Governor) Gibbons and his wife. In it, Trepp's wife allegedly wrote to her husband: "Please don't forget to bring the money you promised Jim and Dawn." Trepp's reply, according to the Journal report, was: "Don't you ever send this kind of message to me! Erase this message from your computer right now! Washington Post

There are other examples of Trepps cash and carry relationship with his friend and traveling companion, the governor. The possible resignation of Gov. Gibbons due to a scandal was apparently too much for the White House to bear. Senate testimony indicated that there was really no reason to remove Gibbons other than to make room for a political appointee. Long service and an excellent record offered no protection for this loyal civil servant.

Another layer of protection for the governor was provided when intelligence czar, John D. Negrponte filed a statement saying any investigation of the Gov. Gibbons Trepp connection would compromise vital national security interests.

Is this the security of knowing that youll be able to actually spend the walking around money your patron gave you during your Caribbean vacation together? Time will tell.

*** # # # ***

Carol Lam, California. Poking around the mother of all political scandals, Hookergate.

Carol Lams courteous demeanor masks a prosecutor tough as nails. It was Lam who brought charges against Republican Congressman Randall H. Duke Cunningham. Lam indicted and convicted the former Naval flying ace and Republican icon for bribe taking in 2005. She wasnt done yet.

Exposed and disgraced, Cunningham resigned after the indictment and apparently began singing the right tunes for the prosecutor. Lam widened her investigation and connected Cunninghams cash cow, defense contractor Brent Wilkes, with a broader potential scandal involving Wilkes and former CIA executive Dusty Foggo.

Hookergate has it all politicians participating in prostitution, gambling, and influence peddling. Its alleged that federal money was provided to a Virginia based limousine company to carry Congressmen between Capitol Hill and the Watergate complex for recreational sex with prostitutes and gambling with each other. It appears that both Foggo and Wilkes are closely connected to the merry making.

The implications of this scandal are staggering. Any member of Congress caught up in this scheme, particularly if photographed, will be forced from office immediately. It doesnt take much imagination to figure out which political party will be totally decimated if this scandal explodes.

After Lams previously announced resignation was moved up, she remained undeterred. Just before leaving office, she filed an incredibly detailed indictment of Wilkes and Foggo that will be at the top of her replacements to do list. This more than justifies a Congressional investigation into the more explosive Hookergate affair.

*** # # # ***

Emerging Pattern?

It is apparent that the four dismissals are related to politics and not performance. A pattern begins to emerge. Political leverage is brought to bear on past, current or future elections through the use of federal prosecutors, clearly not a part of the job description. Two prosecutors were dismissed after failing to indict citizens in order to influence an election. The Nevada prosecutor was sacked in the midst of an investigation that had the potential to remove a sitting Republican governor. But Lam takes the cake.

It appears that she was dismissed early to discourage the very indictment she brought just before leaving, an indictment that has the potential to literally wipe the Republican Party off of the political map. If it ever breaks, Hookergate will be the mother of all political scandals with corruption, influence peddling, and prostitutes paid for with government funds.

Its no coincidence that the eight were removed when they were. This process was a gift to the President by Republican Senator Arlen Specter. In a clever move before the bill was finalized, Specter included a few sentences in the Patriot Act broadening the options for the midterm dismissal of federal prosecutors. The White House noticed this loophole and used it when needed, without restraint.

Hovering at a paltry 30% approval rating with no hope in sight, the White House operation needs every bit of help it can get. Given the reaction of even their staunchest supporters, the troubles are just beginning.

*** END ***

Special thanks to Mario for his ongoing insights.

Permission to reprint with an attribution to the author and a link to this article at Scoop Independent News.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm on the road. Look for dedicated posters for Daily Impeachment News
I know where to look for dedicated posters on DU. HERE.

For the last week, I've been launching a Daily Impeachment News:

I cannot post while off in that e-wilderness (w/o connection).

If you like this idea, keep it alive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. So does this mean Al Gore in 2000, knew the audit was rigged
and thats why He wanted to hand count the whole state of Florida? I think I'm starting to get it now. B-) Thanks Auto, K&R

Offer to Bush: Hand count, then meet to show unity

I propose a way to settle this matter with finality and justice.
First, we should complete hand counts already begun in Palm Beach, Dade, & Broward Counties to determine the true intentions based on an objective evaluation of their ballots. Observers and participants from both parties should be present in every counting room as required under Florida law. If this happens, I will abide by the result, and I will take no legal action to challenge the result.

I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida. I would also be willing to abide by that result. We believe the count can be completed within seven days of the time it starts.

Second, I propose that Gov. Bush and I meet personally, before the vote count is finished, not to negotiate, but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America.

Shortly after the results are known, we should both come together for another meeting to reaffirm our national unity.

Source: Statement by Al Gore on Florida recount Nov 15, 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
In Truth We Trust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. Hand Counted Paper Ballots! Nothing more and Nothing less!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Ballot box stuffing works exactly the same with HCPB n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 20th 2017, 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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