2 Responses

1. 

   1)

   the_zapkitty said on 7/24/2007 @ 9:02pm PT: [Permalink]

   Just for fun here’s the latest DoJ electoral skullduggery as related by Senator Feinstein in the WaPo transcript of todays Senate Judiciary hearing. A somewhat lengthy excerpt follows…

   FEINSTEIN: All right. Let me go to something else. You, of course, recognize these books,

   “The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.”

   In prior hearings, we had the 1995 edition. Since May of this year, there is now a new edition. I’d like to read to you what has been dropped from the earlier edition.

   The first thing that’s been removed is this:

   “The Justice Department generally does not favor prosecution of isolated fraudulent voting transactions. This is based in part on constitutional issues that arise when federal jurisdiction is asserted in matters having only a minimal impact on the integrity of the voting process.”

   This was removed in this new edition.

   The second thing:

   “The Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself.”

   This is weakened on page 92. This language is removed:

   “Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period of while the election is under way.”

   Removed.

   Then a sentence that’s underlined in the ’95 edition, which states thus:

   “Most, if not all, investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.”

   It was removed in this new edition.

   Weakened was this language:

   “It should also be kept in mind that any investigation undertaken during the final stages of a political contest may cause the investigation itself to become a campaign issue.”

   Why was it necessary to remove this language in this new edition in the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses rules?

   (snip usual Gonzales “I don’t recall, let me go ask Karl Rove why we did that” routine…)

   “FEINSTEIN: Appreciate it. It becomes more relevant because two and possibly three of the fired U.S. attorneys were fired because they didn’t bring those small cases that might affect an election. And therefore, when one looks at this book now, sees a new book coming out in May ’07 that deletes the very things that these U.S. attorneys were told to follow, something’s rotten in Denmark.”

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 7/25/2007 @ 6:56am PT: [Permalink]

   John,

   As to the definition of a vote, federal law says:

   Uniform definition of what constitutes a vote

   Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.

   (42 USC § 15481(a)(6), emphasis added). So it is a definition capable of 50 meanings I suppose.

   What one could say then is that:

   a voice vote uses a sound (hearing) ballot and a tape recording of the sound to make an audit trail

   and that:

   a raised hand vote uses a visual (seeing) ballot and a photograph or video to make an audit trail

   and that:

   a written vote uses a paper ballot and paper to make an audit trail

   and that:

   a DRE vote uses an electron (magnetic) ballot and a storage file to make an audit trail

   Such clarity will surely inspire the stars 🙂 of the election integrity movement to new heights, so forget about waiting for apologies from those who always knew the one true spiritual meaning of the word “vote” and/or “ballot”.