Election-Fraud Whistleblower Runs for Congress

To Republicans, Clint Curtis is a traitor; a back-stabbing liar with an imagination that rivaled Jack Abramoff's influence over Congress.

To liberal Democrats, Curtis is a hero; a stand up guy who blew the whistle on computer voting fraud, testifying before a group of U.S. House Committee Judiciary Democrats after the 2004 presidential election.

And to the man himself, the Republican-turned-Democrat is nothing but a computer geek who purports to have found himself smack in the middle of a brazen political plot to tamper with elections in Florida, where fact can be stranger than fiction and politics as shady as swampy underbrush.

Click to expand...

PerryLogan said:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Programmer_who_alleged_plot_to_steal_0324.html

Click to expand...

PerryLogan said:

I wish I could be as easily amused as you, KC!

Click to expand...

PerryLogan said:

I wish I could be as easily amused as you, KC!

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

You have just learned your first important lesson on this board. Dont feed the resident troll. It will only cause your thread to derail.

Click to expand...

PerryLogan said:

Say what you will, this is a most intriguing story.

Clint Curtis is the guy who claims that a Republican Senator asked him to write up some "vote-flipping software." Curtis swore an affadavit to this effect & passed a polygraph test, also to the same effect.

(Why would a party with such an awesome mandate ask for some 'vote-flipping software'? Perry thought to himself. Only the Shadow knows...)

Curtis now sleeps with an AK-47 by his bed. Yet--far from cowed or repentant--the dude has turned Democrat & is running for Congress. Who says we have no heroes today?

Programmer who alleged plot to steal Florida election runs for Congress
Carlos Miller



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Programmer_who_alleged_plot_to_steal_0324.html

Click to expand...

hipsterdufus said:

Election fraud should be a bi-partisan issue. If not, maybe we can get this good man to give us the vote -flipping software and use it against Diebold

Click to expand...

SixStringHero said:

I'm really not buying this either.

Could it be that Kerry was just that weak of a presidential candidate and that is why he lost?

Nah, couldn't be.

Click to expand...

KCConservative said:

Nah. If you hang around here long enough, you'll find that Kerry actually did win both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, but Bush had his cronies at Diebold rig the entire thing. Trust me, Kidrocks and Champs and Hipster and disney will be along shortly to help you see the truth.

Click to expand...

hipsterdufus said:

Uh, Kerry didn't run in 2000...

Click to expand...

KCConservative said:

My fault. I meant Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004. Gore won the popular vote without winning his home state even.

Click to expand...

aquapub said:

Perhaps the media (you know, the same one which tried to bury the Lewinsky scandal) isn't reporting on this because everyone except the most fringe fanatics know this to be the phony charge that it is.

Click to expand...

hipsterdufus said:

1) Lewinsky? Never heard of her. :roll:

You have to be kidding me. This story got wall to wall coverage on a daily basis for what seemed like an eternity.

Who,exactly tried to bury Lewinski story?


2) The country still gave Clinton a 62% approval rating during the height of the scandal, obviously it was more of a tabloid story that the American people loved to follow, but didn't think it was relevant to Clintons performance in office.

BTW add Clinton to this list of Presidents that had affairs:

THOMAS JEFFERSON, GROVER CLEVELAND, WOODROW WILSON, WARREN HARDING, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, JOHN F. KENNEDY

Many would put ABRAHAM LINCOLN on the list as well.

3) Neo-con rule #1 - When all else fails, blame it on Clinton. Remember this thread is called "Election-Fraud Whistleblower Runs for Congress"

Click to expand...

aquapub said:

I've never seen anyone get so many things dead wrong in one statement. :lol:

1) Newsweek and other liberal news sources suppressed the story for weeks until Matt Drudge forced it into the light.

2) The felonies he committed to hide his misconduct were very connected to his career-felon life. Clinton screwed over this economy worse than anyone since Carter. He just didn't get credit for it until it was too late. And if this were about sex (which you and the media love to misrepresent it as) this might all be relevant.

3) Nobody's blaming Clinton for anything in this article. Calm down and think, man. But Clinton DID do a lot to be blamed for.

:rofl I thought you had me on ignore. I guess that was just more phony posturing, huh? Please put me back on it.

I checked out this story. According to the Tampa Tribune, he says he didn't make any copies of the disk, so, shucks, there is no evidence of any kind to back up his conspiracy charge. :roll:

THAT is why only really left wing blogs are talking about this. Even known liberal papers won't bring it up.

This is exactly the kind of crap thread I have come to expect from Perry.

Click to expand...

Such scruples appear unlikely on their face, given that the magazine in question, Newsweek, conducted a brazenly political intervention into the Paula Jones lawsuit and subsequently the Lewinsky affair, working hand-in-hand with the right-wing lawyers and political operatives who were conspiring to destabilize the Clinton presidency. Newsweek hired former Washington Post reporter Michael Isikoff, who befriended Paula Jones and devoted himself full-time to uncovering the alleged sexual misdeeds of President Clinton.

Isikoff did the spadework for a 1997 Newsweek cover story on the Paula Jones case, portraying it as a legitimate effort to combat sexual harassment. He later reported the alleged “groping” of Kathleen Willey by Clinton, and was the first journalist to hear the illegally taped conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Finally he worked closely with Tripp and former Nixon dirty trickster Lucianne Goldberg in the weeks leading up to the detonation of the Lewinsky scandal in January 1998.

There is an obvious contrast between the magazine's manic efforts to expose a private sexual affair in the Clinton White House, and its reticence about bringing to light a mass murder implicating a US senator and presidential hopeful.

Click to expand...