• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Election Officials, Experts: O'Keefe Implicated In Another Illegal Stunt

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,209
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What a complete idiot, the right wing has their own very special reality show in James O'Keefe. This time he tries to provide voter fraud, but may have committed fraud himself in New Hampshire.

Election Officials, Experts: O'Keefe Implicated In Another Illegal Stunt | Media Matters for America

excerpt said:
In addition to potentially putting his accomplices in legal jeapardy, O'Keefe's video largely shows thelogical incoherence of the right's voter fraud paranoia and the difficulty of pulling off a large-scale fraud conspiracy.This morning, the New Hampshire Union-Leader reported that officials in the towns where the video was shot are calling for the prosecution of the videographers:​


"They should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When I was in the Senate, I always heard, 'This never happens.' This is proof this happens," said Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas.

"People who pull stunts like this should be prosecuted," Nashua City Clerk Paul Bergeron said.
​

Think Progress later reported that 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.'"​
Click to expand...
 
O'Keefe is an ass. If he broke the law, the full force of that law should be brought down upon his head.
 
So says Media Matters :roll:
 
misterman said:
Really? That's your comment?
Click to expand...

Hay stated that 'If he broke the law, the full force of that law should be brought down upon his head.'

I merely questioned what would be his position 'if he didn't' break the law. I'm sure his initial opinion, 'he is an ass', would remain. One could argue that O'keefe is the antithesis of M. Moore but I digress.
 
Dickieboy said:
And what if he didn't?
Click to expand...

then he will not be convicted

what makes you think that the members of his group did not procure ballots using the names of deceased residents
 
misterman said:
Are you saying the story didn't happen? Or those people didn't say those things?

Here, now you can't play this "liberal media" game:

AG probes voter fraud in NH after activists get ballots as dead people because they weren't ID'ed | New Hampshire NEWS0605
Click to expand...

No I posted the video on another thread soon after it came out only to be IMMEDIATELY trumped with ‘shoot the messenger’. I read articles stating that they were careful about how they asked the poll workers for the ballots to avoid breaking the law. Sounded 'fine line' to me but only the courts will decide. Whether legal or not (certainly creepy) ballots were attained for names of the deceased. And I’m sure this will go the ’10 ballots out of 100,000’ doesn’t prove fraud route as typical…so proceed as usual.
 
Dickieboy said:
And what if he didn't?
Click to expand...

If he did not break the law then the law should not come down upon his head.


He still is an ass however. But, fortunately for Mr. O'Keefe, that is not a capital crime.
 
justabubba said:
then he will not be convicted

what makes you think that the members of his group did not procure ballots using the names of deceased residents
Click to expand...

Where did I say they 'did not procure ballots using the names of deceased residents'? To be sure they did per the video. Per the article (and the video) they 'said' they would ask 'do you have xxyy'. This is not specifically posing as said person but merely asking if the deceased person is on the roll (which they already knew were). The poll workers didn't ask if those posing were in fact the deceased but rather handed them a ballot. Only the AG/courts will determine if this 'misrepresentation' is a violation of the law.
 
Dickieboy said:
Hay stated that 'If he broke the law, the full force of that law should be brought down upon his head.'

I merely questioned what would be his position 'if he didn't' break the law.
Click to expand...

The conditional "if" requires no further explanation. It goes without saying that if the opposite independent clause is true, the opposite consequence would follow. Duh.
 
Dickieboy said:
Thank you for confirming my prediction in #8.
Click to expand...

Prediction!??!?!?

You were "predicting" what was already stated. Why would I change that evaluation?
 
haymarket said:
You were "predicting" what was already stated. Why would I change that evaluation?
Click to expand...

To Mister, yes...

I would hope that without a compelling reason you wouldn't...I would think less of you if you did!
 
Dickieboy said:
Where did I say they 'did not procure ballots using the names of deceased residents'? To be sure they did per the video. Per the article (and the video) they 'said' they would ask 'do you have xxyy'. This is not specifically posing as said person but merely asking if the deceased person is on the roll (which they already knew were). The poll workers didn't ask if those posing were in fact the deceased but rather handed them a ballot. Only the AG/courts will determine if this 'misrepresentation' is a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Federal law says that mere procurement is punishable, not whether or not you posed as someone else.

IF they did procure the ballot, as you say, on the surface, under federal law, they would be guilty, IMO.

But I'm not a legal expert and this is a matter that the officials involved would have to pursue and prosecute.


(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

United States Code: Title 42,1973gg–10. Criminal penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...
 
BWG said:
Federal law says that mere procurement is punishable, not whether or not you posed as someone else.

IF they did procure the ballot, as you say, on the surface, under federal law, they would be guilty, IMO.

But I'm not a legal expert and this is a matter that the officials involved would have to pursue and prosecute.
Click to expand...

Not trying to split hairs here but a more full account of the law you cite:

A person who in any election for Federal office knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.

I’m not sure that a primary election qualifies as ‘any election for Federal office’ as the winner of said primary will not attain office directly by this election. But I like you am not a legal expert and really don’t want to get further into this. My post was meant to merely state what O’Keefe’s justifying logic was.

Ultimately the legality of their actions is not the point. They WERE able to get ballots. Whether photo ID would have prevented this is unknown.
 
This is a sideshow. I dont see anyone saying much about the fact he got the ballots at all. ELection fraud isnt anywhere near as difficult as its purporter to be. With an organization or a small group of people it would be easy to create 2% to 3% fraud even in large scale elections. BUt it would be harder to keep it a secret. Election offices dont update their voter rolls enouh, and they have no way to verify identity IF the fraud is perpetuated throughout the year or in advance to get credibility of identity.

This thread is all sideshow.
 
Dickieboy said:
I’m not sure that a primary election qualifies as ‘any election for Federal office’ as the winner of said primary will not attain office directly by this election.
Click to expand...

Oh, it most certainly does qualify.
 
OpportunityCost said:
This is a sideshow. I dont see anyone saying much about the fact he got the ballots at all. ELection fraud isnt anywhere near as difficult as its purporter to be. With an organization or a small group of people it would be easy to create 2% to 3% fraud even in large scale elections. BUt it would be harder to keep it a secret. Election offices dont update their voter rolls enouh, and they have no way to verify identity IF the fraud is perpetuated throughout the year or in advance to get credibility of identity.

This thread is all sideshow.
Click to expand...

The fraud issue may be, but the O'Keefe being stupid and a jerk isn't.
 
misterman said:
The fraud issue may be, but the O'Keefe being stupid and a jerk isn't.
Click to expand...

I think I have a dictionary with his photo next to the word JERK. ;):mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom