Blackwell, like Feeney, doesn't want to be subject to a deposition and grilled over all the dirty details. So running out the clock, stalling litigation, stone-walling investigations, and intimidating parties and potential witnesses will be part of the overall game plan by Republicans to obstruct justice and cover-up the fraud. They may win by default, but people revolutions don't allow for such slight of hand and phony victories.

Let's try to get at least one senator to sign on to the challenge!

Freebird.

That is the most expeditious tactic at this point. A public debate in congress. That is the only way the populace will hear the issues.

The people are not even aware of the issues.

The Ohio Justice Moyer was wrong to not excuse himself to avoid the appearance of or actual conflict of interest on the facts involved.

I do, however, think that the Ohio cases should be prosecuted to the max at the same time, if for nothing else, to build the public record.

I Agree!

what good is a challenge anyway...as far as I can determine, congress would then appoint the Speaker of the House as acting Prez?? I cannot find anything in the constitution that allows congress to order a new election? what the hell would happnen? The speaker is just another repub!

T-Rod,

I need to check the exact language, but as I recall, the objection then means that both the Senate and the House will debate the issue "until the matter is disposed of"

Which could mean anything. At the very least, it would mean attention to the issue (and that of Election Reform in general) as we haven't seen since...well, since 2000. And perhaps even more attention than that.

Constitutional Crisis anyone?

We'll see what may happen this week.

I don't know if my nerves can't take much more...hopefully, this will come to a positive end this week!

The GOP senators, Frist mainly, are gung ho to ramrod the past appointees to judgeships THAT WERE REJECTED last term.

The president, in an obvious affront to the DEMs in the senate, re-nominated EVEN THOSE the GOP did not want to vote for (primarily the pro-torture, pro-the-president-is-ruler nominees).

The president, in my opinion, has made a tactical mistake by re-ramroding these nominees that even GOP Spectre et. al. does not want to process.

If the DEMS and some GOP filibuster the GOP leadership (Frist) will roll over the fillibuster rules by asking Cheney if the filibuster rule is constitutional.

Those who wrote the torture-is-ok memos for the admin will write the fillibusters-are-unconstitutional memos which Cheney will sign as president of the senate. Fillibusters will be history.

Then they will ramrod the nominations thru on a majority vote and those judges are there for life.

THAT BEING SAID, there is no reason, then - since it comes up first, not to have a full confrontation on this electoral-vote-in-Ohio issue.

Full debate is good in that we will be showing the junk election methods we have in our system. Junk election methods that even recent converts from communism would call junky and non-democratic (e.g. Ukraine).

So airing it all out is my first great hope. If we win a re-vote, valid re-count, or reject Ohio electors - fine. But the main thing is letting america know.

The fact that there is no guarantee of "winning" is not as important as the fact we can get national attention on the issues this way and this way alone (xcept maybe the lawsuits).

How much debate will be allowed and how much news coverage it will receive is in question? But it will at least spark some attention and add another black eye on George DUMBYA's shoddy corrupt election records for 2000 and 2004.

Freebird:

How much debate will be allowed and how much news coverage it will receive is in question?
>>

While we could look at any historical precedent, it does not follow that it would be the same this time.

But the statutory framework, on its face, seems to allow a full debate.

This can only help. The GOP or any DEMS who resist will look bad.

I mean think about the NEE thing, the Curtis thing. And think about what americans are going to think when they find out that felons developed the software for the machines voted on.

Felons can't vote in person but there are indications that they were allowed to have a major effect on the election process ... from actually developing the software to implementing the way much of the system works.

And one of the felons, actually a main programmer, had been convicted of 23 counts of computer fraud.

This is the type thing that will come out. I tell you this is the stuff that keeps Feeney et. al. awake at nite.