Ohio recount indictments (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

Three election officers in Cuyahoga County were indicted on charges of violating the rules for a recount in Ohio.

Workers accused of fudging ’04 recount
Prosecutor says Cuyahoga skirted rules
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter
After the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County election workers secretly skirted rules designed to make sure all votes were counted correctly, a special prosecutor charges.

While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive - and very public - hand recount of all votes cast. Three top county elections officials have been indicted, and Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter says more indictments are possible.

Michael Vu, executive director of the Cuyahoga County elections board, said workers followed procedures that had been in place for 23 years. He said board employees had no objection to doing an exhaustive hand count if needed, meaning they had no motive to break the law.

Internet bloggers have cried foul since 2004 about election results in Ohio, one of the key states in deciding the election. They have been tracking Baxter's investigation with online posts about the indictments.

Baxter's prosecution centers on Ohio's safeguards for ensuring that every vote is counted.

Baxter charges that Cuyahoga election workers - mindful of the monthlong Florida recount in 2000 - not only ignored the safeguards but worked to defeat them during Ohio's 2004 recount.

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1144312870224340.xml&coll=2

 

[KCConservative]

I got all excited and then I read this:

"While there is no evidence of vote fraud..."

Move along, folks.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
I got all excited and then I read this:

"While there is no evidence of vote fraud..."

Move along, folks.

Is that why 3 people are being indicted on felony charges?

 

[jfuh]

I got all excited and then I read this:

"While there is no evidence of vote fraud..."

Move along, folks.

Didn't you learn of the importance of reading the entire article before you make any comments?

 

[aquapub]

Three election officers in Cuyahoga County were indicted on charges of violating the rules for a recount in Ohio.


http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1144312870224340.xml&coll=2

I was going to quote your entire post and then shed some light on how this still gets petty liberal whiners nowhere near being able to explain away yet another major national rejection by the voters (Election 2004) with pathetic conspiracy theories about cheating, but your own post does that for me already. Thanks


"While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive - and very public - hand recount of all votes cast."

 

[KCConservative]

I was going to quote your entire post and then shed some light on how this still gets petty liberal whiners nowhere near being able to explain away yet another major national rejection by the voters (Election 2004) with pathetic conspiracy theories about cheating, but your own post does that for me already. Thanks


"While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive - and very public - hand recount of all votes cast."

Thanks for echoing the truth in this matter. In the words of our own jfuh, this thread is nothing but :spin: Jealous spin.

 

[disneydude]

another major national rejection by the voters (Election 2004) "

I don't think you can call either the 2000 or 2004 a "major national rejection". Approximately 1/2 the voters rejected GWB and that doesn't include those who didn't vote.
It was ridiculous for Bush to call it a "Mandate" (in the same manner). He talked about having "Political capital" to spend. Look how much he was able to buy with that Political capital.

 

[KCConservative]

I don't think you can call either the 2000 or 2004 a "major national rejection". Approximately 1/2 the voters rejected GWB and that doesn't include those who didn't vote.
It was ridiculous for Bush to call it a "Mandate" (in the same manner). He talked about having "Political capital" to spend. Look how much he was able to buy with that Political capital.

And look how much Gore and Kerry were able to buy. Jealousy doesn't look good on you.

 

[disneydude]

KCC:

As usual, you missed the whole point and want to bring this back to being about Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc.
The fact is, yes GWB became President but it certainly was not a MAJOR rejection.
By the way some of you talk you would have thought the elections were a landslide which they were not. These elections were not the type of mandate of Reagan v. Mondale or Clinton v. Dole. These were extremely close elections indicating how polarized our country has become. All I am trying to do is keep in honest.

 

[Captain America]

I am more concerned about the next election. I hope they weed out as many of the bugs as possible. I can't see why anyone would not want that to happen.

Are these people being indicted republicans? OK, perhaps I can see it afterall. :roll: I am sure if they were democrats, these apologists would not be here making excuses and changing the subject, (so I can only assume they are GOP'ers in hot water.)

I don't care what party they belong to. If they manipulate our elections, they need to get spanked.

I am waiting to see what Texas is gonna do. Will they undo the DeLay "redistrictiing" manipulation plan? That was all about voter manipulation too ya know. :shock:

 

[KCConservative]

The fact is, yes GWB became President but it certainly was not a MAJOR rejection.....By the way some of you talk you would have thought the elections were a landslide which they were not.

And so you'll notice I never used the terms "major rejection" or "landslide." So what was your point again?

 

[Mikkel]

I would have to agree with KCC here. I live in Cuyahoga County, and campaigned there in Nov 2004, and can tell you that we had (as usual) one of the highest voter turnouts out of all the counties in Ohio, and that if it weren't for us, Kerry wouldn't have even been close to winning Ohio. He got almost half a million votes here, and to have taken Ohio, would have needed over half of Bush's 221 thousand votes from Cuyahoga County. That would be an extremely high percentage in Boston, let alone Cleveland. If there's no voter fraud, this isn't a national controversy. It's simply a bunch of lazy bums from my county who didn't want to recount the ballots one more time. Hopefully next time they'll learn their lesson and put in the extra legwork, but until then this remains a local issue.

 

[BWG]

I am waiting to see what Texas is gonna do. Will they undo the DeLay "redistrictiing" manipulation plan? That was all about voter manipulation too ya know. :shock:

It's before the SCOTUS.

As a side note.
For a group that professes to hate lawyers, cons sure spend a lot of money with them....

 

[jfuh]

It's before the SCOTUS.

As a side note.
For a group that professes to hate lawyers, cons sure spend a lot of money with them....

Defense lawyers at that. "Defense lawyers are the scum that allow criminals to roam our streets freely"
I wonder how Delay thinks about defense lawyers now.

 

[aps]

Defense lawyers at that. "Defense lawyers are the scum that allow criminals to roam our streets freely"
I wonder how Delay thinks about defense lawyers now.

LOL People will make derogatory comments about lawyes until they need one.

 

[Pacridge]

LOL People will make derogatory comments about lawyes until they need one.

Well look at Rush Limbaugh and what he's had to say about the ACLU. Then he gets into legal problems and runs to them.

BTW- Didn't Delay also state, back in the Clinton years, "you can support the troops while not supporting the POTUS?"

 

[aps]

Well look at Rush Limbaugh and what he's had to say about the ACLU. Then he gets into legal problems and runs to them.

BTW- Didn't Delay also state, back in the Clinton years, "you can support the troops while not supporting the POTUS?"

He sure did, Pacridge! :lol:

 

[tecoyah]

BTW- Didn't Delay also state, back in the Clinton years, "you can support the troops while not supporting the POTUS?"

Yes....as a matter of fact he did, and he said many other things as well:

IN HIS OWN WORDS: WHAT TOM DELAY USED TO SAY…

• “This is [President Clinton’s] war.” Washington Post, 4/14/99

• “The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “Doing good on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “There's no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It's flawed policy and it was flawed to go in. I think this president is one of the least effective presidents of my life time. He's hollowed out our forces while running round the world with these adventures.” The Guardian, 5/17/99

• “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this mission. There is a six-year trend to send American troops anywhere for any reason, but there are no consistent goals that tie all of these missions together.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of [sic] carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution.” Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99

• “It is clear that any deployment to Kosovo will similarly drag on and go enormously over budget.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “It’s very simple. The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.” As quoted in USA Today, regarding Floor votes on Kosovo, 4/30/99

• “For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.” Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo, 7/1/99

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=76

 

[tecoyah]

He has since learned to read new Music:

BUT NOW TOM DELAY SAYS …...

• House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R- Texas) today expressed his lack of surprise at Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's (D-S.D.) second-guessing of our commander in chief on the eve of war with Iraq. “Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?” DeLay asked. “Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle.” – Rep. Tom DeLay Press Release, 3/18/03

• "You still have the Starks of the world, and the Sheila Jackson-Lees, who are trying to have it both ways. They start every comment with 'I certainly support the troops,' and then go denigrate why they're there. That's not supporting the troops, because you are telling that soldier directly he's risking his life for something that's wrong, and that has consequences. It has consequences in morale; it has consequences in soldiers second-guessing orders; it has consequences in soldiers questioning themselves as to what their commitment is." – Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/27/03

• “I think it's hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now."- Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/20/03

• “Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war. George W. Bush, thank God we have him as president right now and thank God that we've got all of the people that he has, really strong individuals that around him, fighting this war…The President’s doing it under great criticism, unfortunately, but hopefully, that criticism will now come to an end, and we we'll all unify and support our troops and support the effort and win the war.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, CNN InsidePolitics 3/19/03

• “This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our commander in chief.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, Press Release, 3/20/03


Hmmm....guess you can teach an 'Ol Dog.....

 

[cnredd]

He has since learned to read new Music:

BUT NOW TOM DELAY SAYS …...

• House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R- Texas) today expressed his lack of surprise at Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's (D-S.D.) second-guessing of our commander in chief on the eve of war with Iraq. “Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?” DeLay asked. “Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle.” – Rep. Tom DeLay Press Release, 3/18/03

• "You still have the Starks of the world, and the Sheila Jackson-Lees, who are trying to have it both ways. They start every comment with 'I certainly support the troops,' and then go denigrate why they're there. That's not supporting the troops, because you are telling that soldier directly he's risking his life for something that's wrong, and that has consequences. It has consequences in morale; it has consequences in soldiers second-guessing orders; it has consequences in soldiers questioning themselves as to what their commitment is." – Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/27/03

• “I think it's hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now."- Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/20/03

• “Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war. George W. Bush, thank God we have him as president right now and thank God that we've got all of the people that he has, really strong individuals that around him, fighting this war…The President’s doing it under great criticism, unfortunately, but hopefully, that criticism will now come to an end, and we we'll all unify and support our troops and support the effort and win the war.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, CNN InsidePolitics 3/19/03

• “This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our commander in chief.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, Press Release, 3/20/03


Hmmm....guess you can teach an 'Ol Dog.....

And I'll ask the same question I've asked members of this forum previously...

Did you believe Delay was wrong in those statements THEN just as those who are making the same statements NOW?

Or did you post those statements believing Delay was right on target THEN just as those who are making the same statements NOW?

You can't listen to what some from the other side of the aisle said in recent times and just say, "Well the other side said it before!"...

It only shows the hypocracy of politicians...But it doesn't show where you stand on whats being said...

What's your stand?

 

[tecoyah]

And I'll ask the same question I've asked members of this forum previously...

Did you believe Delay was wrong in those statements THEN just as those who are making the same statements NOW?

Or did you post those statements believing Delay was right on target THEN just as those who are making the same statements NOW?

You can't listen to what some from the other side of the aisle said in recent times and just say, "Well the other side said it before!"...

It only shows the hypocracy of politicians...But it doesn't show where you stand on whats being said...

What's your stand?

I remember his stance during the Clinton Years.....and agreed with much of what he said. But I must admit I didnt care much for Mr. Clinton as a person at the time....even before he got caught doin' an intern. Though I felt Clinton was a descent president, I wanted more from the leadership, and felt his descision to attack was misguided. I agreed with Mr. DeLay at the time (and many others) that we needed to unite behind the mission, but express dissatisfaction if we felt it, at the failure of diplomacy (plus I secretly felt we should have gone the assasination route).
My issue here is not with what was said then, nor with the resolve and dissent republicans expressed at the time. My issue is with the Lack of it now....so much so I have completely left the party, and am at a loss to understand how ANYONE can be blind to these flipflopping, decietful, blatant and in many ways...intellectually insulting attempts to justify errors in judgement. Primarily because the effects will be long lasting and painful to this country, and in some ways the world at large.

To put it bluntly......Bush Sucks as a President, and I am a little pissed off that his party has taken so long to act on it.

 

[cnredd]

I remember his stance during the Clinton Years.....and agreed with much of what he said. But I must admit I didnt care much for Mr. Clinton as a person at the time....even before he got caught doin' an intern. Though I felt Clinton was a descent president, I wanted more from the leadership, and felt his descision to attack was misguided. I agreed with Mr. DeLay at the time (and many others) that we needed to unite behind the mission, but express dissatisfaction if we felt it, at the failure of diplomacy (plus I secretly felt we should have gone the assasination route).
My issue here is not with what was said then, nor with the resolve and dissent republicans expressed at the time. My issue is with the Lack of it now....so much so I have completely left the party, and am at a loss to understand how ANYONE can be blind to these flipflopping, decietful, blatant and in many ways...intellectually insulting attempts to justify errors in judgement. Primarily because the effects will be long lasting and painful to this country, and in some ways the world at large.

To put it bluntly......Bush Sucks as a President, and I am a little pissed off that his party has taken so long to act on it.

Don't think anyone could say you're being obtuse...:2wave:

I look at it the other way...Everything you accuse the President of are opinions...nothing more and nothing less...

Irrelevant of the political affiliations of the person in office, I respect the office itself...As I've mentioned numerous times before, there's an old piece of parchment that states that the big cheese makes the decisions...That's the way it works. To believe the President is wrong is one thing...To just beat him down over and over because of every minute decision is just crap.

I believe that what Delay(and other Republicans) said during the Bosnian War was wrong...and stupid...and nothing more than partisan trash...

But that doesn't give the other side a greenlight to be just as wrong...and stupid...and do nothing more than partisan trash...

I don't believe in the rule "Someone was an idiot, so that means I can be an idiot."...

But that's just me...:shrug:

 

[tecoyah]

Don't think anyone could say you're being obtuse...:2wave:

I look at it the other way...Everything you accuse the President of are opinions...nothing more and nothing less...

Irrelevant of the political affiliations of the person in office, I respect the office itself...As I've mentioned numerous times before, there's an old piece of parchment that states that the big cheese makes the decisions...That's the way it works. To believe the President is wrong is one thing...To just beat him down over and over because of every minute decision is just crap.

I believe that what Delay(and other Republicans) said during the Bosnian War was wrong...and stupid...and nothing more than partisan trash...

But that doesn't give the other side a greenlight to be just as wrong...and stupid...and do nothing more than partisan trash...

I don't believe in the rule "Someone was an idiot, so that means I can be an idiot."...

But that's just me...:shrug:

Well Redd....I suppose if there is anyone on this board I am OK dissagreeing with, its likely you. Though you are a polar opposite in many views I hold, you do seem to respect that opinions differ, and intellect is not diminished because of this alone. I guess I'm alright with the fact you are wrong....heh.

 

[cnredd]

Well Redd....I suppose if there is anyone on this board I am OK dissagreeing with, its likely you. Though you are a polar opposite in many views I hold, you do seem to respect that opinions differ, and intellect is not diminished because of this alone. I guess I'm alright with the fact you are wrong....heh.

Thanks...I think...

Sometimes it's just not an issue for "Us vs. Them"...

It's a shame there are a few here who don't understand that...:shrug:

 

[Mikkel]

Don't think anyone could say you're being obtuse...:2wave:

I look at it the other way...Everything you accuse the President of are opinions...nothing more and nothing less...

Irrelevant of the political affiliations of the person in office, I respect the office itself...As I've mentioned numerous times before, there's an old piece of parchment that states that the big cheese makes the decisions...That's the way it works. To believe the President is wrong is one thing...To just beat him down over and over because of every minute decision is just crap.

I believe that what Delay(and other Republicans) said during the Bosnian War was wrong...and stupid...and nothing more than partisan trash...

I think there is a key distinction that needs to be made concerning the accusations made either party towards an acting president. To a certain extent, you are right that pretty much all criticism of the President is an opinion. We criticize his morals, we criticize his judgement and we criticize his motives, but the one key think we generally DON'T do is challenge his authority.

No anti-war protesters challenges the president's authority to invade iraq, just his judgement to do so. No one is questioning his authority to declassify documents concerning valerie plame, only his motives behind doing so. Even in the wiretapping issue, in which the issue is ambiguous as to whether or not he had authority to do such a thing, the public will generally give him the benefit of the doubt, and this issue has already begun to fade away.

I think dissent is healthy: I expect Republicans to criticize a Democratic President for his/her actions just as much as Democrats criticize a Republican one. When we stop criticizing the judgement of our president's decisions, and start questioning his power to make those decisions, then we have truly paralyzed the government.

Unless we reach that point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Even if we criticize every minute decision a president makes, as long as he still has the power to make decisions, our democratic system remains healthy.