If you'd like to the ePluribus Media report which first exposed Ken Blackwell shipping Ohio's Election Night Results through that TN-registered server system setup by Mike Connell, check out Ken Blackwell Outsources Ohio Election Results to GOP Internet Operatives, Again and the followup report Ohio's election website still sent real-time results to GOP mirror server.

Brad, thanks for posting this clip, great way to see how the pieces fit together!

Thanks again for putting this stuff out for all to see.

'Course Blackwell *did* lose in 2006, which punches holes in the conspiracy theory. Then again, maybe the Rethugs just let the Dems win in 2006 to make everyone think everything was hunky dory, so no one would ask questions when the Rethugs win the presidency in 2008? Stay tuned...

'Course Blackwell *did* lose in 2006, which punches holes in the conspiracy theory...

Not really, they'll game anything that's arguably within a span of the margin of error. They're not stupid, very smart analysts work that margin in whatever ways are available and Ken Blackwell's chances were nowhere near enough to be arguably gamed in 2006.

But they also may have accounted for the fact that their system had been outted that day and thought better of being caught openly in the act. I suspect the first thought is the better explanation.

We learned this week that Connell may have been threatened by Karl Rove...

That's not the way the story was first presented at BradBlog. But since this stale act has been getting exposed lately, perhaps BradBlog is adjusting.

Brad did nothing for Bev Harris, when she was getting smeared at the Democratic Underground. This is enemy turf to you Bev Harris. Brad has stabbed you in the back.

He is buddies with Brett Kimberlin. Search engine that asswipe. Their Velvet Revolution is tied in with Mike Rivero through Tinoire. His moderator is a corrupt Tinoire clone. Think about all this.

I'd write more, but there is no real free speech here. So save your stupid hypocritical lectures, Brad. Perhaps this is a good time for your bullshit moderator to just delete or edit at his or her whim. Nice facade you had going here. The key word is had.

Brad Friedman is a fake progressive. Don't fall for it. He is a gatekeeper and a strawman.

p.s. Don't fall for Brad's email tricks either. He'll tell you what you want to hear in private but will never address things in public.

That's not the way the story was first presented at BradBlog.

My god I just noticed. Your Right! It's STILL Presented that way.

Brad did nothing for Bev Harris, when she was getting smeared at the Democratic Underground. This is enemy turf to you Bev Harris. Brad has stabbed you in the back.

Not that Brad had any obligation to "do something for Bev Harris." What do you mean exactly? Show some url / thread or something. Cause I remember getting laughed off, smeared myself back in the day on DU. I had 202 posts before I left. I can find only a few, since I can't search their website. Why is that? Huh? Could it be that they don't want my shit indexed because (however misdirected I was back then) it was the truth. Could it be that I didn't agree with Andy (before he died) back then?

Furthermore, I've seen plenty of comment here from Bev Harris. Right here on Bradblog.

He is buddies with Brett Kimberlin. Search engine that asswipe. Their Velvet Revolution is tied in with Mike Rivero through Tinoire. His moderator is a corrupt Tinoire clone. Think about all this.

Your the one saying it, why don't you show what it is your talking about. I ain't even asking for evidence, just a basic understanding of whatever the hell it is your ranting on about.

Cause I don't get what it is your saying, seems to be several things. You don't like the moderator? (which has seemed fair enough to me, but I will get to that later)

I ain't no journalist, I am just a guy that does bands and music and a USAF veteran that hates these fucking "electronic vote tabulation devices" --- a term that I have coined after trying to get involved since 2004. A term that I use now to put the finger exactly on the problem that pissed me off the most. A term that I present and use to anyone that I meet that doesn't understand this crap. A term that I use to technical folks so they can "home in" and quickly grasp exactly what I am saying. In the early days I said voting machines, then electronic voting machines. I have learned since then. We no longer HAVE TIME to learn. We have to get rid of this shit.

I have been friends with people I don't agree with over the years. Does that make me some kind of corrupt Rat Fucker? I've aired bands that are republican, or have republican ideals, or message does that make me a Rat Fucker? Should I be smashing my U2 disks?

Brad Friedman is a fake progressive. Don't fall for it. He is a gatekeeper and a strawman.

I don't recally Brad saying he was a progressive. I do remember that a lot of what he does is progressive. I do remember that he tries to stay neutral. But how can anyone fully stay neutral? That's a lot to chew. There's one reason that I like Brad, if that reason changes, I'll leave this second. That is that Brad hates these fucking electronic vote tabulation devices. See I can relate to that. There's other reason's also, old sysop's tend to flock together. On a technical level we can relate.

Do us a favor and show how he's a "gatekeeper" or a "strawman."

I'd write more, but there is no real free speech here. So save your stupid hypocritical lectures, Brad. Perhaps this is a good time for your bullshit moderator to just delete or edit at his or her whim. Nice facade you had going here. The key word is had.

Oh do write more, I do want to hear what you have to say.

You say there's no free speech here, but the TRUTH is that this is an OPEN SYSTEM.
Even my OWN blog isn't currently that OPEN in comparison. The Bradblog is about as close to the NirvanaNet ™ Charter as you can get. Just type the freaking captcha and your in. Since back in the bbs days, I have taken a much more conservative approach to providing public access message boards, even though I had always wanted to remain 100% open. Look at the evolution of the temple of the screaming electron today.
You can't just post anything you want there anymore.

You HAVE to be able to edit today. If not for spam alone. You got some kind of thing that Brad won't let you post, lemme see it, it could be I will post the motherfucker on my own boards, if I think it's true and Earth-shatteringly important. Show me what your talking about, I believe in 100% (PEG) Programming on public access and if I can't publish the fucker I sure as hell will try to point you in the right direction to people that CAN or will.

I quickly loaded your website and I see that your interested in "Chem Trails." I think your right about chem trails, but personally I can't do anything about chem trails, I can however try to regain control of my government and by proxy possibly get control of the aircraft that are spraying that shit. But I have to solve how to get the fucking vote counted first. See my personal belief is that ALL THESE FUCKING PROBLEMS are because of electronic vote tabulation devices. That's a radical opinion I guess cause it's what's driven me off every fucking progressive website and landed me here at Bradblog. So I got Bradblog, or my own blog left. Brad gets more traffic and solid discussion than I do, if he was gone tomorrow, then it would be only me bitching on my own website. I don't agree with everyone here. ASK EM. They they don't always agree with me. (part of that is my short temper, I'm working on that though.)

I got a band of idiots that fuck with my websites still to this day. I hope you don't consider me wacked for using iptables, and other scripts and methods to filter the Rat fucks out. And it ain't like I have a team working for me either. I do all the shit. In fact I do shit for other people on TOP of that. Pretty much stretched as thin as I can get and yet not paid a single fucking penny.

So I hope you listen to what I said carefully.

Socrates, what is stale about this. It just happened last week. And Bev is quite capable of protecting herself, thank you. I am thinking about all of this and I have concluded that you need some intensive anger management counseling. If you think that your spewings change people's minds you are sadly mistaken. It doesn't even make people angry, instead they feel sorry for you that you have chosen to slosh around in pig dung instead of, like Brad, helping to change the world. In fact, maybe you could start your own blog and attract the type of people you cater to, like more haters and disparagers.

Your free speech clearly shows that you, my fellow American, have chosen to rely on hate, insult, inuendo, scandal, and outright lies to try to make a point that you don't like Brad and the people he associates with. OK, point made. Who cares. Oh I forgot, Karl Rove and his minions care, maybe you could apply for a job there, fits you well.

Furthermore, I also love Bev Harris. ;o)
(almost forgot that)

CONNELL THREATENED BY ROVE FOR DUMMIES

step 1,

READ THIS

This isn't a personal attack against you Socrates. I really do want to understand what your saying. I have met Brad, and I trust what he's saying, do I like it when I put my own foot in my mouth and get publicly proven wrong? No I don't, but I suck it up when I do.

I haven't been wrong about my opinion and knowledge of electronic vote tabulation devices.

With that nobody can argue.

They might argue about the US Constitution with me. But I ain't a lawyer.

They might argue about the trickle down effect of electronic vote tabulation devices.. e.g. it's the corrupt candidates that are raping us. They might be right..

But you know what, it all has to start somewhere, and I hope that your not going anywhere.

Face down the questions you have and get answers.

Follow the rules because not everyone has the same ISP or TOS or policy.

They're a lot more open than your thinking. Look at all the crap they have put up with, with me!!

I am not sure I could handle it. And I am being honest. I am looking for direction too, but I also know some things in my heart about right and wrong. And no unconstitutional law of the land is going to change what I know. Or even what I swore an oath to in the USAF.

I hope other comments in this thread don't make it to where your not welcome. I still value your input and I share your frustration.

My life has turned to crap over the last few years. Most people I know have given up. They simply can not make a living and deal with it anymore. So they decided to not deal with this crap and just go live their life. I envy them. I wish I could. But I can't. I chose a different road back in 1981 back when I raised my hand and took that god damned oath..

It's apparent that Socco wants to get booted so he can say he got booted, to feed his delusions.

Get back on the meds buddy , and quit hijacking these important threads

MIKE CONNELL THREATENED BY ROVE FOR DUMMIES

Step 2:

WATCH ARNEBECK PRESS CONFERENCE. Pay close attention to "the spoon" (aka Elliot Ness of cyberspace).

Step 3:

WATCH ARNEBECK INTERVIEW

Step 4:

LISTEN TO ARNEBECK INTERVIEWED BY BRAD AND PETER B. COLLINS

Step 5:

GET BACKGROUND OF MIKE CONNELL, PART 1

GET BACKGROUND ON MIKE CONNELL, PART 2

GET DEEP DEEP DEEP BACKGROUND ON MIKE CONNELL FROM KOS DIARY (make sure to read comments)

Brad, please lighten the load on your front page, it making the browser crash, people will just give up.

Socrates, just chill. We get it, you don't like Brad. Regardless, let's stick to the facts of this case.

Phil, you kick ass.

If you take a hard look at Mike Connell by visiting the links provided in previous comments, it becomes more and more difficult to believe Connell was not involved, on any level, in the fraud.

Connell was a playah. He goes way back and if he's clean as a whistle, I'll eat my whistle. So, what gives here when "the spoon" says he has no evidence Connell was in on the fraud.

If Connell was truly threatened by Rove cause he knows where the shit is buried, we may have the biggest story since Watergate, in that this one may see the rats actually turning on each other.

Is it possible Connell is just "the unwitting tech guy", a loyal scrub? I'm not buying it. Connell appears too deeply rooted in the shit since he was in College. But if they got Connell to turn, then it's best to keep him as clean as possible.

Either way, something just doesn't fit. These rodents don't turn that easy.

Then again, if "the spoon" really does have the shit on them, ie heavy duty IT trails of unscrubbable techno poo, then the shit might really be hitting the fan.

Here's my best guess:

"The spoon" appears to be the kind of guy who doesn't cast aspersions without facts to back aspersions up. Sounds to me like "the spoon" has serious IT evidence fraud happened in the 2004 election, but no evidence Connell is guilty. So it wouldn't be ethical or practical to cast aspersions on Connell.

If Connell is as smart as they say, then perhaps they will never be able to tie him to fraud. Think about that one. The question is, will he tie Rove and others to fraud? If Rove got freaked by "the spoon"... who knows. This story has legs.

We shall see.

GREAT VIDEO!

Socrates, go pick up your damn paycheck and get out of here!

Paladin-

Then again, if "the spoon" really does have the shit on them, ie heavy duty IT trails of unscrubbable techno poo, then the shit might really be hitting the fan.

While it would be great if they did have the "smoking gun" my experience with the stolen Mexican Presidential election tells me that the "techno poo" is pretty much incomprehensable to the general public and therefore of limited value.
For the Mexican election, election experts and statisticians(some even from the U.S.) poured over the numbers and showed how they were likely to have been manipulated, but the corporate press was doing it's best "sore loser" pressure and the already installed politicos did their best to scuttle any substantial recount.

Did anyone else here pay attention to that election, or is everybody only interested in what happens to US?

The mexican people were even "prepared" for a theft, seeing how AMLO was almost gamed out of even being on the ballot by the conservative oligarchy. Activists were scattered throughout the country with their cell phone cams ready for the fraud and they still got away with it.

There was even some people on this board recently that advocated boycotting elections that use riggable electronic vote tabulating devices, like the Zapatistas did in Mexico, in the hopes that if the turnout is low enough, then the global community will see the election as a Fraud similar to the situation in Zimbabwe. Well that won't work either as the MSM narrative will plow ahead with or without our votes.

As Phil @6 accurately states

We no longer HAVE TIME to learn. We have to get rid of this shit.

So how do we get rid of this shit? Well I have an idea.

The only thing left IMO, for election integrity activist to be able to prove that the electronic vote tabulating devices are hackable and that recent elections have been stolen is to…,
STEAL THE ELECTION FOR CYNTHIA MCKINNEY!!

Only “stealing” the election in such an absurd way that makes it obvious that the vote was hacked, will force the Corporate Media and the Public alike, to confront the seriousness of the issue at hand.

Seriously, can you imagine on election night, what the talking heads would do when the first results came in as 1. McKinney, 2. Kucinich, 3. Ron Paul, with Obama and McCain tied for 4th,, and continued that way for the rest of the night? They would shit their pants because they would know that McKinney cannot be allowed to win after the Dem/Repub. hype, and that the only way not to seat her would be to admit that the vote was hacked.

All the ex-post-facto trying to "catch" them hasn't worked, and as others have pointed out, even if you catch them doing shady shit, like voting machine "sleepovers," once installed and sworn into office, it's too late.

There should even be a prize for the hacker(s) that can pull it off and then show how they did it. Perhaps even, a website called “StealitforCynthia.com” or such where persons could organize the “theft,” and could generate buzz and get a few more people to actually vote for her. Maybe even inject the meme into the media, satirically, that those last minute voters put McKinney over the top.

Ah…, it would almost be like a real stolen election, only better.

Feel free to spread this idea, as I hope Brad and Bev will use their connects to help make this happen.

Cheers!

Dear New Constitutional Convention,

No offense, bro... but I really don't like your post above for the following reasons:

The first part is defeatist. You seem to believe that, since Mexico couldn't punish the fixers, we won't be able to punish them either. No, I'm not having that. Every case is different and so is this.

For me, it's down to "the spoon". I'm fascinated by The Spoon's involvement. (more on "the spoon" shortly). I listened to him discuss the facts of this case in that 8 part press conference with Arnebeck. The spoon is everything Rove would NEVER want to face in court.

Rove is "the man" when it comes to spin and win, lie or die, cheat defeat...

but ROVE AINT AN IT GUY.

IT guys are the sharks, lions and GODS of their world and laymen who think they can talk their talk are going to end up swimming with the fishes.

Mike Connell is Rove's IT guy. The Spoon said that he's worked with Connel, so Connel knows how bad ass the spoon is. If Connell is afraid of the spoon, then Rove must know the spoon stepped in his "stinky IT poo", and stinky IT poo is probably the only poo Rove can't

a)understand from a technical standoint
b)clean from an illegal standpoint

Think about it. If the IT poo really stinks and the spoon has smelled it, he knows who dealt it. That would leave Rove with three options.

1. Have Connell fall on his sword.
2. "Neutralize" the spoon.
3. Accept defeat

The spoon is the only thing in this case which gives me the kind of hope necessary to believe Rove could actually go down here.

let me repeat that with big bold letters

"THE SPOON" IS THE ONLY THING IN THIS CASE WHICH GIVES ME THE KIND OF HOPE NECESSARY TO BELIEVE ROVE COULD ACTUALLY GO DOWN HERE

(The spoon is also a republican. More on the spoon later.)

As for your second proposition, I'll assume you're just joking and not really suggesting anybody break the law and stoop to the level of that which is wrong with the USA today. The joke isn't funny.

This will be my last post. I apologize for the hissy fit above. It was well-intentioned.

I did find that Brad stuck up for Bev in one thread. I am afraid to really answer in detail, because this is about Connell, and I'll be accused of hijacking the thread.

I'll try to answer quick and be on my way.

Phil #6 Thanks for the response. I'm thinking this place is more strawman than gatekeeper. The strawman is based on the image. The Curtis thing is wobbly at best. The Brett Kimberlin thing is mind blowing.

I was probably a bit wrong with the Bev Harris thing, because I found one thread in which he defended her. I Can't talk here. Ciao.

BIO OF "THE SPOON"

taken from:

http://cybrinth.com/uploads/spoonamore.pdf

Mr. Spoonamore is considered a leading theorist and innovator of systems involved with compression, digital image management and remote electronic monitoring. He has developed solutions for government agencies and elements of the US Armed Forces who have been aware of the threat risks in cyber security since the early 1990s. Mr. Spoonamore also serves as a member of the NEEEC/ANSI task force to determine standards and needs for E-Authentication of Identity, and the ComCARE Alliance task force to examine the security and development needs of the EPAD All-Hazards National
Alert System.

As an Entrepreneur he has founded, or co-founded, eleven previous companies in sectors. The best known of these firms Creative Production Resources Group (sold in 2002) developed television studios, corporate control rooms and technology centers for numerous clients including GE, GM, ABC/Disney, Viacom, Bloomberg, Lehman Brothers and the US Army. Under his leadership, the firm was awarded two technical Emmy Awards (for the Nagano Olympics Studios and Oprah Winfrey Studios). He has served on several public sector investigation boards examining disaster after-actions. He has received several awards for his contribution to the public sector including: 1995 he was awarded a Civilian Citation for outstanding contributions to the Defense Department by Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. In 2003 he was recognized by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his work helping expand the NYCTV system. 2004 he was thanked by Sec. of Homeland Security Tom Ridge for his work developing process for the www.ready.gov web site. He has also served on delegations and task forces for the UN, UNDP and USArmy, including in 2001 when he was honored to serve as the small business delegate on a US Trade Mission to Central Europe. During this tour he led presentations on small business strategy in Warsaw, Prague and Munich. Finally he has been called on as an expert witness for congressional testimony both on the House and Senate sides in the areas of secure communications and emergency systems used in communications. He is well respected for his ability to translate complex technical issues into terms and ideas understandable to both Laymen and Politicians.

MUST READ PRIOR RAW STORY FEATURE ON "THE SPOON'S" PRESS CONFERENCE AND HIS ONGOING WORK EXPOSING ELECTRONIC TAMPERING OF ELECTIONS

This is an excellent piece written by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday July 18, 2008

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Some quotes:

A leading cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections...

Sources close to Spoonamore said he was very concerned that he would lose his contracts as a result of coming forward and would take a "large financial hit." These sources added that, despite his concerns, Spoonamore felt obligated to reveal what he knows to the public. "He felt he had no choice as an American citizen but to come forward, and he also knows the likely consequences of him doing so," one source said...

KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER:

OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE ASKED ARNEBECK FOR DIRECTION REGARDING WHO SHOULD BE INDICTED.

and

PRESIDENTIAL PARDON POWER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN OHIO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

From reading the comments all over the web on this story, it's obv most do not understand the gravity and depth to which this case has already been catapulted.

Arnebeck and the Ohio Attorney General's Office are cooperating, and such cooperation has been presented to Judge Marbley in Arnebeck's recent motion to lift the stay.

The following is taken from Arnebeck's motion:

"A central part of the settlement negotiations in this case was the possibility that the Attorney General's Office, under power granted by House Bill 3 to investigate election fraud, would open such a criminal investigation...

Upon being advised in regard to the limited resources of the criminal division of the Ohio Attorney General's office, and its preference that their involvement begin at the point where specific targets for indictment had been identified, plaintiff's counsel advised the criminal division that plaintiffs would proceed with the civil case for the purpose of further developing the evidence in the case..."

There's much defeatist commentary going on that all of this will be swept under the table as per the Rove norm, but most of that fear is based on erroneous assumptions that the Dept. of Justice or FBI will simply look the other way to quash it all in a cover up.

Rejoice, the Feds have no standing to interfere with the criminal prosecution mentioned above.

What about a presidential pardon of the perps by Bush?

While the underlying civil case has been brought in Federal Court, the Ohio AG and Secretary of State will be looking into the Criminal charges. The most obvious charges are for Criminal Contempt as to the order issued by Ohio's Secretary of State to preserve the ballots.

But presidential pardons only extend to Federal crimes, not to state court convictions.

Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President.

"Criminal contempt" carries a sentence for acts of "bad behavior", just like any other crime, as opposed to traditional contempt where a witness refuses to testify and is held until they comply.

The criminal contempt sentence is ordered for a set term by a judge after the accused is found guilty by a jury.

In this case, the "bad behavior" involved the failure of various Ohio board of election officials who were subject to the Ohio Secretary of State's order to preserve all ballots from the 2004 presidential election.

Now, "imagine" that Karl Rove organized the effort to have these ballots destroyed. Rove would then be subject to criminal contempt charges in Ohio as well and the President would not have the power to pardon him.

Back to Arnebeck's motion to lift the stay:

The suspected lead perpetrator of this conspiracy against the civil rights of the plaintiffs and against the rule of law in the United States is Karl Rove...

Of course, the Ohio AG won't be limited to just contempt, all possible criminal activity involved with the 2004 election can be the subject of Ohio indictments/prosecutions as well as any attempts to cover up such criminal activity. That includes obstruction of justice and perjury.

PMG -

In regard to pardons, I'd also add that Cliff Arnebeck, in my interview with him on the PBC Show Friday (audio posted here) noted that Presidential pardons are not available for convictions in civil RICO cases, which Arnebeck is compiling.

More such notable tidbits were also dropped in that interview, as linked above.

Great clip. I watched the whole documentary of course.

What bugs me about this thread is that there are people who still think that only close races can be gamed. That simply is not so. If there is a large voter turnout and 100% of the voters vote for Obama in '08, the machines can still say that McCain won. Of course the exit polls wouldn't be able to find a single McCain voter, but nobody bothers about exit polls because the mass media says they are unreliable. So McCain would be installed as President and the election fraud industry would spend the next four years writing books and articles and making documentary films about how nobody voted for McCain and the election was rigged, but would be unable to remove McCain from office unless Congress wanted to, and Congress usually doesn't want to.

The other thing that I find strange watching this clip is how Bob Fitrakis, Greg Palast, and Brad Friedman are unequivocal about how the elections can be stolen, yet are still encouraging people to vote in 100% faith-based elections. I guess that's so that they can collect evidence of yet another stolen presidential election to write more blog posts and articles and books about. And they get to be in all those groovy documentary films.

But at least I'm no longer alone in urging people to refrain from voting until and unless we get honest elections. Check this out:

Abstinence

It may seem un-American of me, but I don't urge people to bet on fixed races, play in crooked card games, buy worthless stock, or vote in rigged elections. Must be some kind of personality disorder.

Yeah, heck, Mark, you can be in Abstinence Documentaries and write to everyone of your virtuous approach to doing nothing about the problem. You rock.

When you've gotten out your pitchfork and torch, then your comments will merit our eyeprints.

This whole talk about prosecution may be null and void. Watch this video which is a two minute "Cafferty Report" excerpt from Blitzer's Situation Room earlier in the week, I don't know which day.

In the house and senate legislation which will redefine hwo enemies are treated is a provision that gives immunity to Bush and all his administration from prosecution for war crimes.

I am cynical enough, with all of the avoidance of impeachment hearings from Democratic leadership, to believe that Nancy pelosi had a hand in writing this legislation as an underhand attempt to immunize herself also (along with the rest of the complicit Democratic leadership.)

Cafferty has the cajones to call "bullshit".

Also, this passage of this legislation would take the heat off of Obama for any criminal prosecution of Bush admin when he takes office. How convenient. How sickeningly shamefully convenient.

Great, this video clip of Cafferty was from 2006. Well, all of my commentary stands except the bit about Obama. And it shows that Bush and Cheney have had this on their minds for a long time. Does anyone know if this particular piece passed house and senate, and that the immunity provision isn't already in play?

thanks a lot.

ARNEBECK INTERVIEWED BY VOTE RESCUE RADIO, July 25th, 2008 - CONTRADICTS PRIOR ASSERTION THAT OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL IS "INTERESTED" IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

A closer examination of Arnebeck's most recent statements, given during two separate radio interviews this past Friday, July 25th, indicate his backpedaling away from July 18th statements that the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Attorney General's office were interested in taking on a narrowly defined criminal investigation.

This story is too damn important for there to be contradictions of the following magnitude uttered by the lead counsel on this case. God knows, I want to see that any criminal behavior is prosecuted. (See my previous posts in this thread.)

But in our zeal for justice, we must be vigilant, whether as journalists, bloggers or simple commentators (ie my words here), to present all of the facts, evidence and testimony relevant to propel the discussion forward, whether it helps or hinders our personal opinions and hopes.

If we do not present a fair and balanced account, we become part of the problem, part of the disease, the cancer of deception sweeping through the anatomy of our political system.

The comments Arnebeck made while being interviewed by Vote Rescue Radio this past Friday, July 25, 2008, with regard to possible interest by Ohio government officials in bringing criminal indictments, are significantly different than the ones he gave in the press conference on July 18th, 2008.

Tune in to "part 1" of the July 25th program. At 34:48, Arnebeck utters the quote which has me very confused and annoyed.

Arnebeck said:

We filed a case in August of 2006 alleging an ongoing Civil Rights conspiracy to deprive African American and young liberal college voters of their voting rights.

We reached a point where the Attorney General's office did not want to commence a criminal investigation. And we indicated that in that case, we wanted to resume our civil case, conduct discovery and complete on the civil side. And if we got to the point where witnesses refused to answer on the grounds that the answer might incriminate them, uh, we would then, again, seek the assistance of the Attorney General to either grant immunity or precede with indictment. That's where we are today.

Now compare what Arnebeck said here with what he said at the July 18th press conference. In that presser, he referenced a far more juicy fact pattern wherein the Ohio Attorney General's office was ready to begin a criminal contempt investigation but, due to their "limited resources", they would prefer to go after indictments of specifically defined targets as opposed to a broad sweeping grand jury investigation.

In the July 18th presser, Arnebeck also indicated that the Ohio officials, after reviewing the body of evidence, forwarded by Arnebeck, alleging criminal fraud in the 2004 election, asked Arnebneck, "Who do you want to indict?"

In no way is that consistent with what he said to Vote Rescue Radio on July 25th, one week after the July 18th presser. His Vote Rescue radio interview completely leaves out any mention that the Ohio Attorney General has shown interest in a criminal investigation.

During his interview on the Peter B. Collins radio show later that evening, Arnebeck, in response to accurately worded questions by Brad Friedman about the possibility of Ohio government officials prosecuting a criminal investigation, appeared to be backpedaling away from his prior July 18th statements.

During Brad's questioning, concerning the missing ballots Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner ordered be preserved, the following Q & A took place:

Brad: Now, Cliff, will that be dealt with by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner? I did speak with her about this some time ago and she told me she was very concerned about some of these, in some cases, nonsensical excuses for the destruction of the ballots... Is it gonna be the Secretary of State who brings accountability here, or will that come through the law suit that you are continuing to work on? I know it was Judge Marbley who was the one who is the judge you're dealing with and I know the judge who gave the order to retain those ballots. So what would be the, sort of, the chain of custody for getting accountability from those counties prior to 2008?

Arnebeck: Well, I think that's a responsibility that we have as plaintiffs, we're the ones that asked that the material be preserved and we will discharge our responsibility with, I expect, the Secretary of State being as interested as we are in hearing the answers to the follow up questions as to what went wrong?

This is a far cry from Arnebeck's July 18th statements which portray a far more engaged Ohio Secretary of State and Attorney General.

For example, see Velvet Revolution's analysis of Arnebeck's July 18th press conference:

Arnebeck explained that part of the reason for the stay, at the time, was to allow the Ohio Attorney General to proceed first...

Arnebeck then informed the AG that they were going to file the motion to lift the stay so that the plaintiffs "could proceed with the civil case in order to collect discovery to do that" and create a more focused case.

Arnebeck's latest interviews offer a much more toned down description of Ohio government officials' attitude towards criminal prosecution here.

We need to know why.

If Arnebeck did not give an accurate portrayal of Secretary of State Brunner's interest, and the Ohio Attorney General's interest in seeking criminal indictments then Arnebeck needs to make a direct clarification about this. And if his original statements were accurate, then we need to know why he's backing off of them now.

But let's also keep in mind that Arnebeck's motion to lift the stay contains language supporting his July 18th statements about the Ohio Attorney General's enthusiasm for a criminal investigation as to specifically defined targets. This leads weight to the possibilty that, at least prior to July 18th, Ohio officials were expressing serious interest to Arnebeck in possibly seeking criminal indictments, since it would be very of stupid for Arnebeck to purposely mislead Judge Marbley, who, I'm sure, would verify with the Ohio Attorney General any statements attributed to him by Arnebeck.

We need clarification as to why Arnebeck has toned down his language on this issue.

How about it, Brad?

O.T. Man shot Unitarian Universalist Church Goers Over Liberal Views
http://ap.google.com/art...spFkEAV_ZO65vZAD926V4880

I hope the $ Corporate Mainstream Media $ does this story some justice.

Agent 99 wrote:

Yeah, heck, Mark, you can be in Abstinence Documentaries and write to everyone of your virtuous approach to doing nothing about the problem. You rock.

Are you saying that voting in what Brad calls in this clip, "100% faith-based elections" and then waiting for "the election fairy" to tell you the results, is doing something? Other than throwing away your vote (and your country with it), just what is it exactly that you imagine that you are doing? And why do you think that encouraging others to vote in 100% faith-based elections and let the election fairy tell them who won, is virtuous?

When you've gotten out your pitchfork and torch, then your comments will merit our eyeprints.

Are you saying that you believe that the only possible alternatives are the ballot or the bullet? Voting in faith-based elections or violent revolution? Are you totally unaware that when the Irish government tried to bring in electronic voting machines, the Irish people simply refused to vote on them and they had to be warehoused? Are you totally unaware that it was an election boycott that finally discredited the Apartheid regime in South Africa, after which they could no longer claim to be democratically elected or have the support of their people?

In order to demand honest elections, the demand has to be credible.

To say, "We demand honest elections and if we don't get them we will continue to vote in rigged elections," is not a credible demand.

To say, "We demand honest elections and we won't vote until we get them," is a credible demand.

Why do you think a "Decider" and a totally unaccountable Congress bother to hold elections anyway? They want to keep pretending to the world that they are democratically elected and that they have the support of the American people for their violations of the Constition, erosion of civil rights, and wars of aggression. All you do when you vote is give credence to their pretense.

Don't vote --- it only encourages 'em!

If elections could change anything, they'd be illegal.

And as the late, great George Carlin said, "If you vote, you can't complain." You gave away your mandate to whoever the machines elected, and many of us do not appreciate you throwing away our democracy in such a cavalier manner and criticizing us for refusing to do the same.

No in November

You may think that you're doing something, but what you are doing is allowing a third presidential election in a row to be stolen just so that the election fraud industry can collect evidence of the theft and spend the next four years blogging about it, writing books, and making videos, while millions more innocents die in Afghanistan and Iraq. What you are doing is collaborating in war crimes. Are you proud of yourself for doing that?

And by the way, Agent 99, there are no "Abstinence Documentaries."

About 50% of the U.S. electorate doesn't vote and the only time they were asked why not, in a Zogby poll commissioned by Paul Lehto, most said it was because they did not feel that anyone on the ballot would represent their interests.

It is a fact that half of all Americans do not feel represented, and the big money that rules this country doesn't finance documentaries to publicize that fact. It is in their fiscal interests to encourage people to vote in rigged elections and to ignore the half of the U.S. population that is enduring taxation without representation.

The election fraud industry, people like Brad, Greg Palast, Bob Fitrakis, and others, derive their livelihood from exposing stolen elections. I'm a low-income senior on Social Security and I don't get a dime for what I write. My sole interest in advocating an election boycott to discredit an illegitimate government is to attempt to ensure for my grandchildren the democracy that I myself do not have and which was supposed to be my birthright.

Remember the Creekside Declaration that Brad signed on to calling for citizen ownership of transparent participatory democracy? How does allowing a third presidential election in a row to be stolen, for the sole purpose of collecting evidence that a third presidential election in a row was stolen, further that goal?

It doesn't.

Agent 99, take a look at the discussion here and you'll see a guy named John Sanchez who uses the same dismissive tactics you do and also refuses to discuss the issues.

Col. Jenny Sparks believes that some of you are paid internet shills:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12864

She's probably right.

Yeah, Mark, I grok your bit about people making money off yapping about the multifarious offenses of the racketeering plutocrats running this show. I get sick of reading Scott Ritter making a bunch of pages out of an opinion that would have taken a sentence or a paragraph to state. I get sick of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson making hay out of the treason to which they were victim. Ray McGovern is getting to be a goddam bore. He's everywhere, and opining on everything. I rarely visit 911 Blogger anymore because a bunch of people making their living on our misery can regularly be found there. I even get sick of the election integrity "activists" for making more noise than headway. MY POINT IS THAT YOUR SHIT ABOUT BOYCOTTING THE VOTE ISN'T AN IOTA DIFFERENT.

Don't give me this crap about there not being Abstinence documentaries. There weren't election fraud documentaries before decent, bodhisattva, dedicated people started working on the problem. ALL ACTIVISM TURNS INTO IDENTITY POLITICS WITH TOO MUCH INEFFECTIVENESS THE LONGER IT TAKES TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

I happen to know that Brad breaks his butt trying to get legislators and litigators to FIX this. He may have been so sleep-deprived he missed a couple opportunities to be more effective over the years, but he keeps DOING things that would have been effective if criminals weren't running our country. Besides his continued insistence that he's a citizen journalist, reporting this stuff so WE can do something about it, is meaningful too.

Your idea is completely ill-conceived, deserves to be dismissed out of hand, and I'm not following your stupid links until you can explain how not making them steal our votes to get what they want is better than making them steal our votes to get what they want.

And, if anyone were to pay a shill for anything right now, it would be to pay him to advocate we don't vote in November. Your shtick makes me sick.

This isn't Ireland. This isn't the Ukraine. This is the United States and its government and its media have been taken over by fascists whose dream is for us to stop voting altogether.

I want to chime in here for a minute. Election boycotts or "abstinence" are idiotic. That is all. Thank you.

PMG @ #27 said:

We need clarification as to why Arnebeck has toned down his language on this issue.

How about it, Brad?

I gotta say, PMG, I read your note a couple of times to try and figure out what I was missing, but I'm not sure I understand where you see either a contradiction or a "tone down".

It could be me, but so far, I didn't see any contradictions in the points mentioned. If you can narrow it down to the two points you see as conflicting, I can try to take another look at it.

Would be happy to try and help, just not understanding the question here, I suppose...

Mark S @ #29 & #30 said ridiculously:

Are you saying that voting in what Brad calls in this clip, "100% faith-based elections" and then waiting for "the election fairy" to tell you the results, is doing something? Other than throwing away your vote (and your country with it), just what is it exactly that you imagine that you are doing?

Voting. And fighting to have that vote counted accurately.

You advocate giving up. That's up to you. But it's idiotic, IMO.

And why do you think that encouraging others to vote in 100% faith-based elections and let the election fairy tell them who won, is virtuous?

I presume you're talking to someone else. I don't believe it's "virtuous". I'll fight for your right to not vote, if you wish to, as much as I'll fight to make sure those who do wish to vote get to, and get to see that their vote is counted accurately as cast.

Encouraging people not to vote is idiotic and will serve no purpose other than to make it easier for bad guys to rule the day.

Are you totally unaware that when the Irish government tried to bring in electronic voting machines, the Irish people simply refused to vote on them and they had to be warehoused?

Yes. I am. As I believe I've already told you via email, your Irish anecdote is wholly without substance. Sorry, it didn't happen the way you seem to believe it did. Not even close.

In order to demand honest elections, the demand has to be credible.

Right. And it's our job to make it so. (Or, in your case, apparently, your job to simply give up and let the bad guys win without a fight.)

To say, "We demand honest elections and we won't vote until we get them," is a credible demand.

"Credible"? Or idiotic. When you offer evidence that your brilliant scheme will have any effect on anything at all (other than to make it easier for bad guys to own the day) let me know.

The election fraud industry, people like Brad, Greg Palast, Bob Fitrakis, and others, derive their livelihood from exposing stolen elections.

I don't speak for Greg or Bob, but for my part, I object to your notion on the grounds that, among other things, it's completely wrong in virtually every word.

How does allowing a third presidential election in a row to be stolen, for the sole purpose of collecting evidence that a third presidential election in a row was stolen, further that goal?

If that's what you think is accomplished by voting this year, no wonder you don't care to vote. Fortunately, most folks here seem to know better, as based on actual reality, versus the unsupported nonsense you are posting here.

As a post-script: Agent 99 works her tail off --- for free, out of the kindness of her heart, and her hopes of making this world better --- to try and keep this place both free for open conversation and manageably readable. It'd be nice if you folks would knock off the "paid troll" shit. It's bad enough using that nonsense against me (as others have in this thread), but it's particularly insipid in regards to 99, shy of any actual evidence to support your whacked out premise.

Thanking you in advance for knocking it the hell off. Gracias.

Brad,

In the July 18th presser, Arnebeck made a big deal about the Ohio AG allegedly being interested in going forward with criminal indictments based upon Arnebeck's presentation of evidence. Arnebeck clearly indictaed the AG was interested in seeking indictments once the field of possible defendants was narrowed down by further discovery in the civil case.

But Arneback's interview with Vote Rescue radio doesn't include language to that effectt. Nobody listening to that interview would think the AG was
considering any criminal action.

"We reached a point where the Attorney General's office did not want to commence a criminal investigation."

That's light years away from what Arnebeck said on July 18th.

According to Arnebeck, the only activity left on the table for the AG to get involved would be if a witness in the civil case, should the stay be lifted, refused to testify by taking the 5th amendment:

"And we indicated that in that case, we wanted to resume our civil case, conduct discovery and complete on the civil side. And if we got to the point where witnesses refused to answer on the grounds that the answer might incriminate them, uh, we would then, again, seek the assistance of the Attorney General to either grant immunity or precede with indictment. That's where we are today."

You're telling me you don't see a shift in policy here?

Arnebeck says nothing about the Ohio AG being interested in bringing criminal contempt charges or any criminal charges at all.

Later that night, when you asked Arnebeck about who's responsibility it was, plaintiffs or the Secretary of State, to seek justice for the ballots going missing, he said it was plaintiff's responsibility, and he never mentioned the AG or SOS having any interest in seeking indictments.

First, I don't agree with him at all that it's plaintiff's responsibility to seek justice as to the ballots having gone missing. The ballots were the subject of an official order by the Secretary of State.

The ballots are gone.

This involves blatant disregard for an official order.

It's prima facie contempt and it's up to the government to enforce that order, not plaintiffs.

THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING ITS OWN ORDERS. Plaintiffs have paid a fee, filed a case and are entitled to prove their case. They asked that evidence be preserved. The Secretary fo State ORDERED the evidence be preserved.

THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESERVED.

What kind of kangaroo court is this where plaintiff's must find a way to nring the culprits to justice for breaking the law?

There's nothing in these radio interviews which indicates the Government is taking any further action to seek criminal indictments.

But the July 18th presser included multiple statements that the AG was very interested in seeking specific indictments based upon evidence already presented.

Why was this language left out of the radio interviews? It's a fair question.

Brad,

The short answer to your question is, their damn well better be an official criminal investigation by an Ohio Attorney Generalwhether or not anybody takes the 5th amendment in the civil case.

The Vote Rescue interview makes it seem as if that's the only way it will happen.

Paladin @ 16, sorry if you misunderstood what I was getting at, but I wasn't joking. Let me address your second critisizm first and work backwords.

As for your second proposition, I'll assume you're just joking and not really suggesting anybody break the law and stoop to the level of that which is wrong with the USA today. The joke isn't funny.

The people that steal elections for real, due so with the intent of siezing office. It's not stooping to any level if the intention is not actually to hold the office, but rather to point out the lack of integrity of the system. That was the point of choosing McKinney, but I realize now that was perhaps too subtle, so how about as an alternative, stealing the election for the Ficus tree that Michael Moore was trying to get elected. That would sure razz O'Lielly and Limbaugh if the results came in on election night came in with the Ficus ahead of Obama and McCain.
I feel it's the only thing that will force the public to confront the problem and dump the machines and start looking at the evidence of past stolen elections.

To address your first critisism, that I'm defeatist because of what happened in Mexico, well that was just one example of the international struggle for election justice, but it's not the sole basis for my concluding that we should steal the election for McKinney the Ficus. I'm not a defeatist, but a realist because I've been paying attention to history, including this Blog and and Bev's, and the media in general. I've also chronicalled prohibition laws in this country, especially in regards to cannabis, which had me acknowleding the fascist tilt of the Government well before the False Flag 9/11. I'm a realist because admit that treason and warcrimes have been overlooked by our government for political reasons long before the Cheney administration.

In the face of a criminal government, it is a strategical error to dismiss out of hand, tactics that are "illegal." Should ill people not use medical cannabis simply because to due so would be to violate federal law? If the criminal government set up cages called "Free Speach Zones," should people refrain from speaking their mind outside of them? Would you have advised Rosa Parks and her fellow activist against conducting their bus protest because it was "illegal?" I am reminded of the words of MLK

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries.

Stealing the election for the Ficus would force the country to IMMEDIATELY recognize the work of "spoon" and Brad and Bev and others, help to get rid of the riggable machines, and due so without sitting another "unelected" President. That is, of course you still don't get it and would actually try to swear into office a Ficus.

PMG -

I didn't get the sense from the original info from the press conference (I was on the road at the time, so didn't hear it directly, but edited Steve Heller's piece on it) that Arnebeck indicated indictments were imminent, as you suggest.

It might be his reference to prior discussions with the OH AG concerning who should be indicted, that gave you that impression. That seems to have been, from my understanding, what was asked previously when the AG was leading the investigation.

Sense I get from speaking directly with Arnebeck and Fitrakis (behind the scenes, as well as in the radio interview you referred to) is that it was because the AG failed to do the investigation they were supposed to do that now the plaintiff attorneys wish to take the task back from the, and seek clearance from the court (lift of stay) to do so.

Apologies if I'm still misunderstanding, but I still do not see a contradiction or backing off from Arnebeck, following the presser.

Brad wrote:

Mark S @ #29 & #30 said ridiculously:

You always resort to ridicule when you can't respond with logic.

I wrote:

Are you saying that voting in what Brad calls in this clip, "100% faith-based elections" and then waiting for "the election fairy" to tell you the results, is doing something? Other than throwing away your vote (and your country with it), just what is it exactly that you imagine that you are doing?

Brad responded:

Voting. And fighting to have that vote counted accurately.

Brad, by demonstrating your willingness to vote in elections where you CANNOT ensure that your vote is counted accurate, you are not fighting. When your vote was switched and you caught it, you made sure it was corrected and then allowed it to be TALLIED by a central tabulator using undetectably mutable software that could easily flip your votes again. And you'd have no way of knowing it. But you don't seem to care.

Brad:

You advocate giving up. That's up to you. But it's idiotic, IMO.

Again the ridicule instead of logic or reason. I won't give up and vote in rigged elections. I won't vote until I can vote in honest elections. You're the one giving up and saying that, well, if you can't have honest elections this year, you'll vote anyway and maybe try to prevent the fourth and fifth presidential elections in 2012 and 2016 from being stolen, but you've given up on 2008 and will vote however they allow you to in November.

I wrote:

And why do you think that encouraging others to vote in 100% faith-based elections and let the election fairy tell them who won, is virtuous?

Brad responded:

I presume you're talking to someone else. I don't believe it's "virtuous". I'll fight for your right to not vote, if you wish to, as much as I'll fight to make sure those who do wish to vote get to, and get to see that their vote is counted accurately as cast.

Well, since you describe not voting in rigged elections as "idiotic" and "ridiculous" how can you blame me for assuming that you believe that voting in rigged elections is smart and sensible? And exactly how to you intend to see that votes cast in faith-based elections are counted accurately by the election fairy?

Brad wrote:

Encouraging people not to vote is idiotic and will serve no purpose other than to make it easier for bad guys to rule the day.

The bad guys ALREADY rule the day, Brad. They own the voting machine companies. And they've stacked the courts and the Justice Department. When you prove that an election was stolen there is no place to take your proof except right here on your own blog because Mukasey isn't going to prosecute even if Bush allowed Pelosi to let Conyers ask him to.

I wrote:

Are you totally unaware that when the Irish government tried to bring in electronic voting machines, the Irish people simply refused to vote on them and they had to be warehoused?

Brad replied:

Yes. I am. As I believe I've already told you via email, your Irish anecdote is wholly without substance. Sorry, it didn't happen the way you seem to believe it did. Not even close.

Well, that's what Catherine Ansbro had told me. But there is no way that you will get honest elections by continuing to demonstrate your willingness to vote in rigged elections.

I wrote:

In order to demand honest elections, the demand has to be credible.

Brad replied:

Right. And it's our job to make it so. (Or, in your case, apparently, your job to simply give up and let the bad guys win without a fight.)

So what is your credible demand?

I wrote:

To say, "We demand honest elections and we won't vote until we get them," is a credible demand.

Brad replied:

"Credible"? Or idiotic. When you offer evidence that your brilliant scheme will have any effect on anything at all (other than to make it easier for bad guys to own the day) let me know.

Brad, since you know that by continuing to vote in rigged elections you are making it easier for the bad guys to own the day, as they have for the past seven years, why do you think that continuing to vote in what your yourself called 100% faith-based elections is such a brilliant idea?

I wrote:

The election fraud industry, people like Brad, Greg Palast, Bob Fitrakis, and others, derive their livelihood from exposing stolen elections.

Brad replied:

I don't speak for Greg or Bob, but for my part, I object to your notion on the grounds that, among other things, it's completely wrong in virtually every word.

Then what other possible reason is there for you all to be encouraging people to continue to vote in rigged elections which will continue to let the bad guys rule the day as they have for the past seven years?

I wrote:

How does allowing a third presidential election in a row to be stolen, for the sole purpose of collecting evidence that a third presidential election in a row was stolen, further that goal?

Brad replied:

If that's what you think is accomplished by voting this year, no wonder you don't care to vote. Fortunately, most folks here seem to know better, as based on actual reality, versus the unsupported nonsense you are posting here.

You left out the goal that I was asking you about. You signed on to the Creekside Declaration. It calls for citizen-owned transparent participatory democracy. I asked how continuing to vote in faith-based elections furthers that goal. You had said that you were going to judge your action by that standard. You did not respond to the question.

You also left out the demand that YOU make, which is, "We demand honest, transparent elections or else we will continue to vote in faith-based elections."

THAT is not a credible demand.

I remember when you called me a fool for saying that Bowen hadn't decertified the voting machines. Well, she hadn't.

It isn't just the faith-based election process. Even if Bush and Cheney were impeached and tried for war crimes, even if first Pelosi and then Obama became President, the bad guys will still rule the day, if by bad guys you mean those guilty of torture, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The war crimes have been funded until 2010, so no matter who becomes President, the genocides in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue unabated.

If by "bad guys" you aren't referring to war criminals guilty of crimes against humanity, just who do you mean by bad guys?

According to the Nuremberg Principles, wars of aggression are the worst crimes against humanity. Was the Nuremberg Tribunal wrong. Are there worse crimes than that? Do we need to vote for war criminals because otherwise there might be somebody in power who could do something worse than vote for and fund crimes against humanity?

Who are these bad guys and what is it that I'm supposed to be worried about that is worse than crimes against humanity?

Believe me, Brad, if there are people worse than war criminals and crimes worse than wars of aggression, I'd do anything in my power to try to prevent them. It isn't just the faith-based elections --- I won't vote for war criminals or give my mandate to a government guilty of crimes against humanity that had already funded them until 2010 and is committed to them no matter who becomes President or who is in Congress.

What is it that you think it is so important to vote against that you'd even risk voting in a 100% faith-based election to try to do it? Tell me, because if there is something that important, I'll vote too.

Who are the bad guys who might take power? Obama and McCain both voted to fund the war crimes until 2010 no matter which of them becomes President. They don't seem to care, so why do you?

Could you for once refrain from ridicule and just answer a simple question? Who are the bad guys and what is it they might do that is worse than what the bad guys in power are already doing?

In 2000 were told told that if we didn't vote for Gore, the bad guys would win. So we voted for Gore and the bad guys won. In 2004 we were told that if we didn't vote for Kerry, the bad guys would win. So we voted for Kerry and the bad guys won. What has changed since then? Did we get rid of the voting machines? No. Did we get rid of the corrupt elections officials? No. Did we bar the mainstream media from announcing the "results"? No. Did we change the composition of the Supreme Court? No. We did change the composition of Congress, but it hasn't changed the way they vote.

If there are any good guys on the ballot, in a two-party system without proportional representation, they can't win anyway.

Both partieis have both voted for crimes against humanity. Both parties have funded crimes against humanity. Both parties are committed to continuing the crimes against humanity. The Republicans support the crimes against humanity fervently. The Democrats claim to support the crimes against humanity only reluctantly (they say that if Bush or Ralph Nader hadn't held a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for crimes against humanity, they might not have done so, at least not after learning they were based on lies), but they say that since we are already deeply entrenched in crimes against humanity, we can't stop committing crimes against humanity now. Perhaps some time in the future they might consider it.

To talk to a Republican is like talking to somebody who is bashing an infant's skull against a wall and smiling. To talk to a Democrat is like talking to somebody who is bashing an infant's skull against a wall and telling you to go away and stop bothering them because the Republicans made them do it or Ralph Nader made them do it, and in any event, since they're already doing it, they can't stop now, so shut up and go away, and if you'll just shut up and go away and remember to vote for them, they might consider someday stopping what they're doing--long after the infant's skull is shattered and it is dead, of course. Only it is millions of infants, not just one.

"There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree."

http://blog.cleveland.co...tro/2008/07/post_11.html

county offices raided, any connection?

But if Ken Blackwell is as corrupt and nefarious as this clip implies, why did he LOSE his race for Governor of Ohio? Couldn't he have just flipped the result?

I don't care for black-box votes, myself. But the Blackwell loss (which isn't mentioned in the clip) is evidence against the thesis. STRONG evidence, IMHO.

David Charles said:

the Blackwell loss (which isn't mentioned in the clip) is evidence against the thesis. STRONG evidence, IMHO.

Then apparently you don't know anything about the "black-boxes", and how they work, or don't. Similarly, you seem to be unfamiliar with what transparency and Election Integrity means.

Obviously, you have already shown you have no respect for rules.