Maddow warns: 'With this many top of ticket races tied, turnout will be everything...Now we watch for the ways that people will try to stop voters from turning out or from having their votes counted, by hook or by crook'...
Just one quick update to our full dismantling of James O'Keefe's latest hoax video, this one purporting to show "voter fraud" in NH (as carried out by O'Keefe and his co-conspirators!). As ThinkProgress details today, the liberal Democrat Mayor of ... I mean, the conservative Republican Mayor of Manchester is now calling for O'Keefe and his pals to be "arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"...
After James O'Keefe's latest video, released yesterday, featured individuals committing voter fraud during Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, two prominent Granite State officials are calling for their arrest and prosecution. Ted Gatsas, the Republican Mayor of Manchester, told the New Hampshire Union Leader, "They should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." Similarly, Nashua City Clerk Paul Bergeron told ThinkProgress by phone that what these individuals did "is a crime, regardless of what the intent might be. What they did was wrong." Bergeron said he hopes the case gets prosecuted because it "appears to be a violation of the state's wiretapping code for one thing, which is a Class B felony in New Hampshire, in addition to a possible violation election fraud."
TPM reports tonight that others are now piling on, furious at O'Keefe and calling for accountability. Moreover, as TPM's Ryan Reilly notes, O'Keefe's latest fund-raising plea touts that he received $50,000 from an unnamed "extremely generous funder," to create this two-bit "voter fraud" scam, and now he's asking for more to help float further projects and line his own pockets. As his ironically-named Project Veritias has somehow been approved as a tax-exempt, "non-partisan," non-profit 501(c)3, he'll have to disclose who that "generous" funder is eventually though it'll take a while. (Anybody wanna place some guesses what that is in the meantime? There are plenty of suspects here!) In the meantime, O'Keefe previously disclosed on his application for tax-exempt, non-profit status that his salary is scheduled at $120,000/year for heading the propaganda outfit.
Oh...and by the way. Please note that O'Keefe has been pimping yesterday's video as "part one of the Voter Fraud investigation" with a promise of "More to come!" Um, what do you suppose the odds are that "Part One" will prove to be the only part of this particular O'Keefe "investigation"?
And for those who like to do math, with 247,000 votes in the NH Republican primary, you'd need to recruit, persuade, and pay 2,470 different people, all over the state, to walk into polling places and impersonate dead persons.
Not an efficient (or in any way plausible) way to commit election fraud.
She goes on to point out that had those 2,470 different people been paid to commit felonies across the state, to vote on Election Day as "dead people" (assuming there are even enough recently deceased people who hadn't yet been removed from the voter rolls), the effort would have yielded, at best, a 1% tamper rate. Yes, that's just the way to defraud an election! Better to risk one person getting caught in a huge conspiracy, than simply paying off, say, one or two guys to remove legal voters from the voter rolls or change the results in the computer tabulators with just a few keystrokes or --- well, just institute polling place Photo ID restrictions and keep thousands of your opponents' legal voters from being able to cast a vote at all..."legally"!
Brad: I believe that both Federal and NH prosecutors would be well within their rights to subpoena all records relating to the $50,000 contribution as well as any records that would reflect how many people knew about the manner in which O'Keefe et al sought to carry out this little scam.
What we may be looking at is a conspiracy to violate both state and federal election laws.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/13/2012 @ 6:49 am PT...
What about the people he sought to impersonate - are they complicit?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/13/2012 @ 9:58 am PT...
... Marzi asked...
"What about the people he sought to impersonate - are they complicit?"
They would be another set of victims, no?
But as I understand it they are all very recently deceased so they themselves are unlikely to be filing complaints against O'Keefe...
... however would family, friends, and others have standing on any grounds?...
Notice the little old ladies in his video. His cowardly gang will do "stings" with little old ladies who should be commended for working the polls (probably because no one else wants to do it), minorities (ACORN), etc... He's not man enough to do a "sting" against billionaire (white) banksters or the military industrial complex who are ripping us off to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars. Big "hero": punk rich Republican kid James O'Keefe. And his cowardly friend Andrew Breitbart's name usually pops up somewhere.
I bet his "heroic crew" tried many places (not in his videos, of course) who turned them down, and the only ones they got to do this were these poor little old ladies in this video.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/13/2012 @ 12:15 pm PT...
It's amazing to think of the massive fraud that has gone on in this country, mortgage brokers using white out to change loan applications and saddle little old ladies with exploding mortgages that re-fid them right out of their house, Bank of America et al interally emailing about what crap and lies they put on spreadsheets certifying to the quality of very bad quality loans so they could sell said crap to investors, MERS having almsot no actual employees but having people from all over financial world signing property right documents as VP - MERS, foreclosure mills and robosigning document mills falsely signing false afffadavits.
No one is being prosecuted for this, no new laws with any teeth are being passed to better address this lawnessness, but states are fighting a war on VOTER FRAUD? Really?
I would like us to launch a war on fraud, when we get done election fraud and theft, and done with Wall Street and the rest of the dishonest parasites in the FIRE sector, then I'd be happy to consider what we can do to stop the handful of voter fraud cases that have likely happened in the last decade.
Al Sharpton and Nashua, NH City Clerk Paul Bergeron nailed it on MSNBC.
Sharpton notes there's only been one conviction for voter fraud out of 3,315,022 votes cast in past NH elections.
Bergeron, who feels O'Keefe & friends committed a crime, adds:
You don’t prove there has been voter fraud by committing it yourself.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/14/2012 @ 8:52 pm PT...
"...short their political memories..."
Democrat--Lyndon B. Johnson
In 1977, Salas, the election judge who'd been quiet for years, admitted to The Associated Press after much coaxing that he had certified enough fictitious ballots to steal the election for Johnson. Jim Mangan, the AP's Texas bureau chief at the time, interviewed Salas and broke the story.
"I kind of pressed him, 'If you die, history will never know what happened, Luis,'" recalled Mangan, who lives in San Antonio. "So he told his story."
Salas was a henchman for Parr, nicknamed the "Duke of Duval," and obviously was intimidated by the party boss, but Parr had since killed himself, Mangan said. Salas said he was finally revealing what happened so he could find "peace of mind and to reveal to the people the corruption of politics."
Salas said he saw the names of people who hadn't cast ballots added in alphabetical order and that he certified them. Another witness described the names as being written in the same colored ink and in the same handwriting.
Salas is now dead, too. Johnson and Stevenson both died in the 1970s.
"Everybody knew what had happened," Mangan said. "This was no mystery to anybody that the election was crooked."
COMMENT #9 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/16/2012 @ 2:02 pm PT...
Bergeron: Go back to Law School. There are no "wiretapping laws" involved, nucklehead. That's the same tired old "cop talk" that LEO's are using to breakup Digital Video recording today. Those "wiretapping laws that this legal scholar makes reference to are from the 50's and 60's ard are largely irrelivant in today's world.
O'Keefe might be a clown, but know what you are talking by getting your facts striaght. A High School Diploma is a terrible to waste.
O'Keefe is already being sued in San Diego for taping conversations without consent, so damn straight these privacy laws are current and relevant. He has rich lawyers from CIR backing him as he tries to evade paying $75K to a previous sting victim.
But the M.O. is the same here, it's the journalistic equivalent of entrapment when O'Keefe commits or proposes crimes, then looks to blame or embarrass anyone that helps him. He was the one to propose crimes in his ACORN stings, not any of the workers - then edited the tapes deceptively.
It's not undercover journalism to suggest crimes, fishing for accomplices just because they are Democrats.
In fact, O'Keefe should be charged with conspiracy to commit human trafficking of underage prostitutes and tax evasion - if his video victims are accountable, why isn't he?
As we wait for updates on O'Keefe's San Diego lawsuit, we also may hear about another suit brought by Nadia Naffe, a blogger who testified in a criminal complaint she was drugged and had her panties stolen while in the company of O'Keefe. She also says he tried to get her to 'crash' in his barn as she was losing control of her senses.
WELL; What I didn't plan on getting into due to the constraint's of this reply is the fundamental difference in nature between the two. Almost every Circuit Court that I'm aware of, (the level just below the Supreme Court) has ruled in favor of video recording. THIS IS NOT THE same creature as the analog component of the wire tapping laws. In this digital age,the concept of privacy as you conceive it does not exist.
I go into this to some degree on my web site, but will expand on this if there is any interest.
New Jersey is 1 person state in the area of consent to monitor communications, of all types.If I agree there, is no prohibition to the types of communication I can monitor.Some states are 2 party consent state, for telephonic communication.
When you step outside, you are in the public domain, with NO expectation of privacy.
I believe that NH is in the 1St Circuit Court of Appeal, they have already ruled on that.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink] ...
said on 1/21/2012 @ 4:45 pm PT...
Skinny, white and young looking. Someone is going to have a boyfriend in jail