Keep going Brad, as the plot will thicken, I guarantee. Take it from an anonymous insider. Your good.

Santafe Eric- If you are really an insider, please tell us what the hell is going on? Why is it that John Conyers is the only one on our side? Where is the outrage? What is happening on the "inside", because from the outside it doesn't seem like much.

Alison #2
Whatever is happening on the 'inside' cannot be much or the true 'insiders' would be crowing and lining up to take credit.

What the 'insider' is saying is ".. you guys stick your heads out and take the hits, if it works then we will join in and takeour rightful praise". Give Brad a pat on the back and take cover.

The neoCons will all hang themselves.
They can't help it.
Soon we will be able to just sit back and enjoy the show, as their greed, hate and stupidity consumes them.

Nana do you promise?

Thanks Cole.
I'm so grateful to Brad & all of the people who write on this blog. I can't tell you the comfort it gives me knowing that you all are here. I live in a "red" state where people drive around with the obnoxious "W the president" and
"I'm so proud of George Bush" bumper stickers and it is nauseating. It's a big help being able to click on Brad Blog and read about his investigations and read all of the comments. Thanks.

Alright guys time for a new game plan. Does anyone know a good website to look at archived newspapers? All the front pages back to 1999, and perhaps stories.

I have already begun mapping out all of the allegations and the connections reported between all these people and how their roles ties into each other and how they benifited.

Get back to Me

Charlie

charles #7 my guess is that they are in seperate sites all over the place and probably look like this link.

I would like any and all of your thoughts on a question that has been troubling me:

Why, in the face of such a large body of evidence indicating that Bush cronies may have stolen the election, is the MSM so unwilling to touch this story, when the same MSM, CBS and all, was so willing and eager to run the Bush Phony National Guard Memo story? CBS certainly had ample indications before they released the story that the memo was faked, yet they entirely ignored them. Why such lax standards for evidence then and such ridiculously strict standards now?

Is it just that the entertainment value of political news is lower once the election is "decided"? Or is the media more afraid of the neo-cons now that they have flexed their muscle in the 2004 election? Or is the MSM afraid that, while the public might be able to accept that our war-mongering President may have dodged his military duty, they will never be able accept the idea of a stolen election (even though the MSM is happy to lecture bloggers on how the Nixon/Kennedy election was stolen)? Or was the Dan Rather Fiasco a bizarre aberration? Or was Rather only able to run with the story because Rove wanted him to run with it (perhaps having even planted it)?

In my paranoid heart, I worry that the "top-ranking Democrats" have struck some kind of deal with the Republicans. So now neither side really wants this story out (or any of the other long string of truly shocking stories). But what would that deal be?

Dredd & Charlie,
Yes, and most of the newspapers online charge for reprints of archived articles.

Sometimes you can capture them at The Wayback Machine if you know the original link.

Are there any other methods to locate archived articles --- I don't have access to lexis-nexis, but it would be a way to find more info --- others?

Tim #9 --- "what would that deal be?" I dunno --- "cover my lyin', cheatin' ass?"

More on Abramoff --- sleazebag --- at Salon.com. Watch the little commercial & get a day pass!

Records show lobbyist Abramoff's influence

"May 9, 2005 Washington --- For lobbyist Jack Abramoff, no politician was too big to pursue and no detail too small to charge his clients for. Working to keep the Northern Marianas Islands free of new U.S. regulations, Abramoff sought help from Tom DeLay, other congressional leaders and high-level Bush administration officials.

At the same time, he charged the islands for such mundane tasks as securing tee times at the right golf courses for Washington visitors and obtaining an autographed copy of a book by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "

More on Abramoff --- sleazebag --- at Salon.com. Watch the little commercial & get a day pass!

Records show lobbyist Abramoff's influence

"May 9, 2005 Washington --- For lobbyist Jack Abramoff, no politician was too big to pursue and no detail too small to charge his clients for. Working to keep the Northern Marianas Islands free of new U.S. regulations, Abramoff sought help from Tom DeLay, other congressional leaders and high-level Bush administration officials.

At the same time, he charged the islands for such mundane tasks as securing tee times at the right golf courses for Washington visitors and obtaining an autographed copy of a book by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "

Thanks Dredd and Kira... really appreaciate that.

Hey Tim Goldsmith #9 makes a pretty good point. Why are the democrats being so laid back about everything? Only a couple have spoken out. Its not like they don't have the support of 1/2 the country.

Barbara Boxer and John Conyers are they only real congressional people standing up to the bush regime.

So why??.....I'll be pondering that point. Nice one.

Later Charlie

More Fun with Feeney for you guys. This site, here, has created a DeLay Ranking List that attempts to answer the question: "How close is your representative to scandal-plagued Tom DeLay?" It considers $ to and from DeLay as well as voting history.

Who do you suppose is first on the list?

Re: #14

You're asking 'Are they complicit?'

Is Nader right that both are rather complicit in the set up of this whole situation; that is, there isn't that much difference?

What is the level of threat to them? LIfe or death or worse? Or is it ambivalence?

Boxer and Conyers are very brave. I wonder what impact this has had upon them.

This is an extraordinary moment.

Ney is a phony, but he's a clever phony. He was the only Republican to show up for the Nov. 7 Common Cause hearing on the election. Even by that early date, it had already become clear to almost everyone at the hearing that the election had been rigged.

Ney talked about HAVA, and how "We have more work to do." He added, "Neither side is going to get everything it wants."

In other words...honest elections are nothing more or less than items for horse-trading. "You get paper trails" and "We get hidden source codes," for example. By the time your obedient servant used the word "fraud" during Q. & A., Ney had long since left the room, presumably to report back to his G.O.P. colleagues about what was going on. The next day, a G.O.P. press release referred to the Common Cause hearing as "partisan," and used the same language to describe John Conyers' hearing the following day.

Ney puts on a good face. But he's a phony.

Re #17 --
Ney was in on the Nov. 2, 2004 sElection in Ohio, I know it. We don't have the proof on Ney yet but we'll get it. Dam straight we'll get it on all of them.

# 15 American Women
Thanks for that link! That is sooo funny.
VOTES 4 SALE

Tim #9

You asked "Why, in the face of such a large body of evidence indicating that Bush cronies may have stolen the election, is the MSM so unwilling to touch this story, when the same MSM, CBS and all, was so willing and eager to run the Bush Phony National Guard Memo story? CBS certainly had ample indications before they released the story that the memo was faked, yet they entirely ignored them. Why such lax standards for evidence then and such ridiculously strict standards now?"

The MSM is no longer the american press in the traditional sense of being a watchdog of the government. They are actually becoming the lapdog lackies of the neocon elements of the government more and more.

The big lie that covers this up is that the press is "liberal".

This truth is so shocking it is not noticed. Tell a big enough lie ... you know the bit ...

They had to cover the campaign, so any lies told were "news." Once the votes were tallied (sic) on Election night, it became Kerry's responsibility to challenge the outcome. He failed.

Kerry has been thoroughly dishonest throughout. I don't like saying that, but it's true. The other day he was asked point blank, "Why did you concede?" His answer? "There was no smoking gun."

The problem with that answer is that he conceded before a smoking gun could possibly have been discovered. That could only have come from an investigation, which he wasn't willing to stomach for fear of jeopardizing his chances in 2008. The stigma against "sore losers" is very, very strong.

RLM:True, and so sad. Kerry doesn't seem like the big hope for 2008. I do think he is an honorable man, but he was such a wuss.

Yeah, but damn. Honorable is so important.

I have to disagree here. I don't think there's anything honorable about turning the other cheek in the face of cheating. When Kerry conceded, tens of thousands of complaints had already been registered over an 800-line established in advance for that purpose. Kerry had people on the ground in Ohio, well in advance...there was every reason to suspect what was going to happen.

Yet he conceded quickly. That isn't honorable, according to my defintion of the word. No smoking gun? Like hell! The Conyers report has 102 pages worth of smoking guns, and Kerry knows it. He just sees politics through the same prism as other politicians...winners and losers. He thinks the election was about him and Bush, not about the people who hire politicians to represent them.

Honorable leaders do not, as Kerry has done, continue to offer occasional cagey words of encouragement to election fraud hunters while refusing to take the lead themselves in this vitally important matter. This, more than any other single act, have stymied our efforts to arrive at the truth.

Honorable leaders do not take money from people before the election to establish an election fraud investigation group and then not spend that money investigating election fraud. Where is that money now? In Kerry's '08 war chest?

Finally, and most annoyingly, if Kerry were not completely self-absorbed, he would know that he hasn't got a snowball's chance of the nomination in '08. Above all else, he was nominated because the democrats thought he was a winner. With the exception of the debates, he has amply proved his inability to run a presidential campaign.

On an unrelated point: I guess Dredd #20 is saying that the necon wanted their "lapdog lackies" to run the Guard Memo Story. Why? So the neocons could discredit it (and immunize Bush against further attacks on his military service)? I�m sure the neocons would have loved that. But is Dan Rather such a neocon lapdog that he would allow himself to be eviscerated to please his neocon masters? I doubt it. So why did CBS take the lead in running with this patently false document?

No offense, but you all see the John Kerry situation from the wrong limelight.

John would have been crucified before the media if he had not conceded, without first showing a smoking gun. Any politician would be and any person would be.

Kerry used to belong to the same hoopla corporate de force that a large majority of these criminals subscribe to. Council on Foreign Relations, which isn't interested in the good of the world it's rather interested in the money of the world.

This is no secret of course, but Kerry resigned his ties with this corruption some time ago and since been bringing others with him. Boxer will probably never be a member of CFR, and at the same time its doubtful Arlen Specter will also.

The government is in the middle of a massive in-fighting based war. Council on Foreign Relations wants to attempt to cover up every single thing about election fraud, phony 9/11, and illegal trade deals. Democrats and Republicans both in this group are intent on covering it up.

They will cover it up, just as they have been for the past 20 odd something years. But then one must remember, there are those who have left this order and are now speaking the truth or even shouting it.

John Kerry is one of those and deserves to be backed up by the people, but John Conyers is the most vocal about it. With the proceeding outcry that has happened Judge Sargus has now motioned to open up the Ohio legal case yet again.

Each step brings one closer and closer to the truth. But the real question is, can the american people really handle the real truth? Do they want to know that their government has been arranging for hostile religious takeovers, oil wars, drug trade deals and vast corporate plans which do nothing but soil our name?

Are they ready to face up to the fact that this "Council" in charge of the government, is a fascist movement comprised of people elected by desperate racists? Are they prepared to see how defunct the system is, and that racism and poverty dealings are inside every branch?

Because that's what Jack Abramoff is bringing to the front and center and that's what you're going to see. Bush's evil ways is nothing more than a conduit of that. It has always been there in the United States, and been hidden beneath the surface, but Bush like criminals merely put the full spotlight onto it in glorified detail.

Ringman

John Kerry will be crucified by the MSM no matter WHAT he does. In fact, he already was! (I am speaking here of the MSM's unwillingness to do investigative reporting into the Swift Boat Veterans For "Truth's" allegations.)

It is more imprtant than ever that an honorable leader not fear what the MSM will do (or not do). An honorable leader must lead. John Kerry has not.

Just why doesn't Kerry visibly stand up, really? That question has never been answered, other than he is unwilling to take a position which can be refuted by the media.

Nonetheless, someone has to stand up and it sure doesn't seem to be John Kerry. If we are going to get this real electoral reform adressed and finally taken care of, someone in the senate needs to stand up next to Conyers.

And they absolutely need to do it fast, or else either way they will be blasted and crucified by the mainstream media. There's no escaping that truth now.

Matt

Does anybody trust DOJ to do the right thing. They are republican storm troopers. Why would they do anything but damage control. They are going to keep focus on Abramoff and not the republican politicians that are at the heart of the matter.