The Agonist - USA: Campaign 2004

Tom Ridge: Rumsfeld and Ashcroft pressured me to raise terror level ahead of the 2004 election.

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:24:28 -0700

Oliver Knox | Washington | August 20

AFP - Former U.S. homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election.

Then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and attorney general John Ashcroft pushed him to elevate the color-coded threat level, but Ridge refused, according to a summary from his publisher, Thomas Dunne Books.

"After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector," Ridge is quoting as writing in "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again."

Some of Bush's critics had repeatedly questioned whether the administration was using warnings of a possible attack to blunt the political damage from the unpopular Iraq war by shifting the debate to the broader "war on terrorism," which had wide popular appeal.

Rather’s Lawsuit Shows Role of G.O.P. in Inquiry

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:58:24 -0800

JACQUES STEINBERG | Nov 16

NYT - When Dan Rather filed suit against CBS 14 months ago — claiming, among other things, that his former employer had commissioned a politically biased investigation into his work on a “60 Minutes” segment about President Bush’s National Guard service — the network predicted the quick and favorable dismissal of the case, which it derided as “old news.”

So far, Mr. Rather has spent more than $2 million of his own money on the suit. And according to documents filed recently in court, he may be getting something for his money.

Using tools unavailable to him as a reporter — including the power of subpoena and the threat of punishment against witnesses who lie under oath — he has unearthed evidence that would seem to support his assertion that CBS intended its investigation, at least in part, to quell Republican criticism of the network.

Republican IT consultant subpoenaed in case alleging tampering with 2004 election

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:09:25 -0700

Larisa Alexandrovna & Muriel Kane | Columbus, Ohio | September 29

Raw Story - A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election.

Michael L. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulated.

At the time, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kenneth J. Blackwell, was also chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection effort in Ohio.

American Complicity

Tue, 27 May 2008 14:20:39 -0700

The majority of the people in America today have basically said yes to corporate ownership of the government. The majority of Americans seem to have decided to let the corporate media do their thinking for them. Welcome to the information age in overdrive. You may not get the correct information… but you will get lots of it. The task is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The blame cannot be shifted solely onto the shoulders of our political leaders. The American people cannot claim that they were “misled” by their leaders and don’t know the truth. While they were indeed misled, the truth wasn’t long behind the lies. Whether it its the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the food crisis, the loss of our civil liberties or the sinking of our economy, the American people have been informed and apprised of everything. We know who the people behind the curtain are. We know how they did the things that they did. There are no great secrets that the American people don’t have access to. Everything is in plain sight.

The mainstream media has failed in its responsibility to accurately report the truth, still, the American people have known of its duplicity for years now. The propaganda and outright distortion of the truth has been part and parcel of just about every major network in the United States. The majority of Americans realize that they have been lied to and deceived for a long time. I believe however, that most Americans know how to find the truth behind the lies. There are many independent news sources outside the MSM. The truth as I see it, is that most Americans don’t really want to hear or see the truth. The truth puts responsibility into the hands of the people. Responsibility for the actions of their leaders and the conduct of their government is not palatable to most Americans.

There are many writers and pundits that constantly compare the American people to sheep. Anyone that has read political articles on the internet or in magazines has heard of the word “sheeple”. The word implies that the American people are led around like sheep, and that they are blissfully unaware of their surroundings, and like sheep, being led to slaughter, goes along peaceably to their doom. This is a great comparison, but like many other broad comparisons, it’s far too simplistic and doesn’t even come close to actually describing the mindset of the American people. The truth is that Americans do know what time it is, they do know what is being done in their name and they are very much aware of the erosion of individual liberties, they just don’t want to acknowledge it.

I could stop right here and make a simplistic statement such as the American people are in denial, that it is easier to go along to get along, that ignorance is bliss and hundreds of other statements that say basically the same thing, that it’s easier to deal with a problem if you refuse to admit there is a problem to begin with, if you don’t have a problem, than you don’t need a solution. This type of thinking is essentially the crux of the problem here in America. The simple truth is that many Americans simply don’t want to hear the truth. The admission of a problem is the admission that we need to find a solution. The quest of finding a solution to the problem is more daunting than just living with the problem. Of course this is not the only reason why many Americans stay in a state of denial, there are many reasons, one of which could possibly explain why so many Americans refuse to acknowledge the problem in the first place, and this is that the American model of a representative republic… has failed us miserably. In fact, our federal government is out of control. The truth is that at no time in the history of the United States, has a government so completely ignored the will of its people, as this government has. We have had Presidents ignore the will of the people before, but this President ignores not only the people, but Congress as well.

When faced with a problem of this magnitude, is it any wonder that most Americans hide their heads and pretend there is no problem? I will bring up a few to illustrate my point;

1. The Federal Government’s Lies that led up to the War in Iraq.
2. The Erosion of Our Civil Liberties.
3. The Voting Fraud in the Last Two Presidential Elections.
4. The Refusal of the Executive Branch to Comply with Congressional Subpoena’s and the Lack of Desire from Congress to Enforce Them.

All of these examples are direct challenges to our Constitution. Is it any wonder why Americans play deaf and dumb and plead ignorance? These problems seem almost insurmountable to the average citizen. How can we reign in an executive branch without the support of Congress?

This isn’t the only reason that Americans feign ignorance. The situation that we find ourselves in goes against everything that we have been taught to believe. The very idea that a President of the United States could lie to the American people about the reason we started a war, and then to be caught in those lies soon after, is a hard pill to swallow. That Congress does nothing adds insult to injury. The fact that six years later, after a million people are dead and the war rages on, defies understanding.

The Global War on Terror has also left Americans standing in unfamiliar territory when it comes to our rights under the Constitution. We have been given a new set of rules and ordered to abide by them, even though most Americans don’t even understand what they are, or why they were implemented in the first place. When Americans are told that the Magna Carta has been replaced by the Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act of 2006, most Americans that aren’t criminal defense attorneys have only a vague idea what it all means. The idea that one loses all rights, that the government can search their property and possessions without a warrant, that their phones and computers can be tapped, and that they can be arrested without being charged and held indefinitely without representation and without a trial, most American’s are confused. Is it any wonder why there are so many that pretend that everything is ok?

Voting fraud on a massive scale in the 2000 and 2004 elections leave many wondering where American principles that were taught to them in school have gone. The lack of a verifiable paper trail that records each and every vote and the government’s lack of concern or their desire to fix the problem, lead to many citizens asking why. The refusal of the Executive Branch to allow their people to be questioned by Congress also leads to insecurity. If Congressional subpoena’s can be ignored by the White House, if the President can order the NSA to wiretap anyone without a warrant, what form of government have we replaced our representative republic with?

These are the questions I have. I believe that I am no different than most people and that if I have these questions, than many Americans have the same questions. Is it any wonder that Americans don’t really want to open Pandora’s Box and delve into what’s wrong with our nation? There is only one thing I would like to add. Feigning ignorance, while it may lead you to being able to cope better emotionally, will not actually make you feel better, but it will make you complicit.

Stealing Ohio - the Case Heats Up

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:11:36 -0800

Ohio citizen sending a message right after 2004 election Image

"Letters from the Edge" Part 2

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC (Part 1)

April, 2007. Columbus, Ohio. 56 of 88 Ohio counties defied a federal court order and failed to return some or all of the 2004 presidential ballots that they were ordered to retain indefinitely. Over 1.5 million ballots were destroyed or lost, key evidence for major federal law suit charging election fraud and voter suppression in the 2004 presidential contest. For example: "fraudulent votes … cast for George W. Bush; inflating of vote tabulations in areas that tended to vote for George Bush."

What impact will the massive destruction of evidence by Ohio counties have on the federal case charging criminal election fraud in the 2004 presidential election? Some, but the case is still viable. Devastating findings by researchers for the plaintiffs are reviewed and a motive the destruction is provided. But first here are two more outstanding "Letters from the Edge" courtesy of Ohio elections officials trying to explain the mishandling and destruction of evidence.

Chaos and Outright Defiance after Losing and Destroying Evidence

Montgomery County Ohio was the scene of numerous election problems in 2004. The home of Dayton, this county was positively defiant when it reported deliberate destruction of all 2004 ballots. Why?

Election records were requested by the Secretary of State on April 9, 2007. Elections director Steven Harsman took until May 15, 2007 to produce this letter (Page 172)

"…we contacted our county prosecutor for further authorization.

In addition, we experienced an extra ordinary situation having 4 elections during a 90 day period. We literally ran out of space to prepare, stage, and retain material for those elections. It was imperative we process the 2004 materials for destruction under the guidelines of the 22 month retention.

Therefore, all materials were properly destroyed in a timely manner and we are unable to comply due to those circumstances.

We did not receive formal notice from the courts prior to preparing the certificate of destruction."

How often does a county executives contact the DA to get approval for shredding?

A prosperous county with a $750 million budget and an "A1" Moody's credit rating couldn't rent some storage space for vital records? Harsman should have used Google to find storage in Dayton.

Why is space even an issue if Montgomery was in full compliance with the law, as Harsman and the DA say they were?

But the last sentence takes the prize. The county didn't get "formal notice" before "preparing the certificate of destruction." The county was sent a fax from plaintiff's attorney Arnebeck's office eight days before the destruction certificate. It contained the federal court order and a clear explanation. Wasn't this formal enough?

Montgomery County did a lot of shredding and it was deliberate.

Along with the rest of Ohio, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was under court order to retain all 1.1 million records from the 2004 presidential election. Newly appointed acting elections director Jane Platten walked into a mess left by her predecessors.

Platten complied within just days of the April 9, 2007 request for ballots and other records. It was hard to tell if the April 17 shipment contained only the 700,000 voted ballots or if it included Cuyahoga's 1.1 million ballots of all types (voted, unvoted, provisional, and soiled).

Then the county sent a second shipment after a revealing discovery.

This is a detail from the May 1, 2007 form that accompanied the second shipment of ballots from Cuyahoga County. It reported that the vital unvoted ballot evidence was "found ~~hidden~~" in a warehouse (line 4). (Page 58)

On May 1^st, Platten sent 400,000 additional unvoted ballots to the state capitol following the instructions in the federal court order. These ballots are critical evidence to determine if unvoted ballots were marked and substituted for voted ballots. These "ballots had been found ~~hidden~~ in Cuyahoga's Canal Street warehouse," she wrote. She goes on, "It was thought that they were delivered on April 17^th." Why was hidden crossed out? Why was it there in the first place?

Were the ballots "~~hidden~~" evidence that Ms. Platten "found" because she had to look? If so, why hadn't her predecessor's secured this notable amount of evidence?

In the past, the county stalled those requesting the legal right to review unvoted ballots. Patten's predecessor, Michael Vu, "resigned" in controversy during February, 2007. Bob Bennett chairman of the county board of elections was asked to resign by the new Secretary of State a few weeks later. In 2004, he was both chairman of the elections board and head of state Republican Party. Bennett is a named defendant in the suit charging election fraud. Maybe one or both of them can explain why these ballots were hidden.

They'll Get Away with It Right?

Wrong, at least not if the law is enforced. The destruction of evidence, while not currently pursued at the state level, has a remedy in the federal court system. It's called contempt of court. In addition, the federal district judge, Algenon Marbley, can refer the case to a federal prosecutor.

But there's no reason to give up on the most significant election fraud trial in modern history: King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association (KLBNA) v. Blackwell et al. Among others, the suit charges the following individuals with election fraud and voter suppression in the following capacities during the 2004 election: Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State and Ohio Bush campaign chairman; Bob Bennett, both a senior state Republican party official and also chairman of the Cuyahoga County board of elections; and a technician from Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

The case was filed on behalf of Ohio citizens by trial attorney for plaintiffs Clifford O. Arnebeck and Henry W. Eckhart, with Robert J. Fitrakis of counsel. The original and amended complaints were filed in federal district court, on August 31 and October 9, 2006 respectively. It continues in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:06-cv-00745-ALM-TPK).

These are highly significant election fraud and voter suppression charges. We're dealing with the election fraud and voter suppression that enabled the theft of the 2004 United States presidential election.

Specifically, the defendants:

have conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to vote … by undermining the bipartisan supervision of elections prescribed by Ohio law and avoiding any election audit so as to permit the following: fraudulent votes to be cast for George W. Bush (“Bush”) (“election fraud”); the double-counting of absentee ballots (“vote dilution”); the suppression and/or spoiling of votes in areas that tended to vote for John Kerry (“Kerry”) and the inflating of vote tabulations in areas that tended to vote for George Bush (“vote suppression”); the failing to follow Ohio’s law for the proper recount of votes (“recount fraud”); and other violations of federal and state laws. KLBNA v Blackwell et al.

There are at least two factors that should allow this case to move forward. First, there's a legal doctrine called "spoliation." Defendants are denied a reward for destroying evidence that may point to their guilt or culpability in a pending law suit, either announced or anticipated. The destruction of evidence can be taken as a sign of guilt. Second, much of the evidence has been documented through the meticulous research of Richard Hayes Phillips, PhD.

Proving Election Fraud with Hard Evidence: The Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips and the Federal Law Suit

Phillips has an intense involvement in documenting and analyzing election fraud with over 40 articles on the subject. He analyzed data from 9,343 of Ohio's 11,323 precincts conducting research for this case. The Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips was the opening document filed in federal court. It is a powerful narrative of election fraud and voter suppression. (Summary of the declaration evidence)

When Phillips visited Deleware County to examine ballots and other evidence (his right under Ohio law), election officials must have been terribly upset. They called the police five times and the county prosecutor twice seeking to stop the legal request for ballot review. Why?

Hamilton County shredded all of its unvoted and soiled ballots making it difficult to determine if any of those unvoted ballots were marked and substituted for voted ballots. Then there's the practice of the illegal pre-punching ballots and the impact on election results in Cincinnati. The county offered an incomprehensible excuse which included "inadvertent" ballot shredding. "Inadvertent?"

Clermont County lost all of its unvoted ballots, every single one. Were any of those unvoted ballots marked and substituted for voted ballots? We may never know that or why Phillips found absentee ballots stuck under phone books; or why the county failed to segregate voted spoiled and unused ballots as required by law; or why Phillips' repeated requests to examine unused ballots were turned down. What else should we know about Clermont County?

Phillip's analysis uncovered the fact that Miami County's ballot count was off in each and every one of its 82 precincts. A return of soiled ballots might have helped sort this out but they were destroyed. Why?

Three counties, Stark, Summit, and Warren, failed to return any unvoted ballots making it difficult to determine if unvoted ballots were marked and substituted for voted ballots. Stark and Warren said it was standard procedure to destroy unvoted ballots 60 days after an election. Summit didn't bother to offer an explanation.

Trumbull County claimed to have returned all of its ballots. This contradicts a report that Phillips received during his field work indicating that Trumbull's unused ballots were destroyed. Who would you believe?

Montgomery County failed to return one single ballot from 2004, including more than 290,000 voted ballots from 2004. That was most unfortunate since Montgomery County was responsible for a disproportionate number of the 1.5 million destroyed or lost ballots.

Phillips documented reports that technicians from voting equipment vendor ES&S visited county election divisions, in some cases programming vote tabulators. ES&S technician Sam Hogsett is a named defendant in the federal law suit. He stands accused (p. 21) of "adjusting computer software in tabulators and by other means to officially count more votes for Bush in predominantly Republican suburban and rural counties than were in fact cast for Bush in those counties in the 2004 general election in Ohio." The Free Press reported Secretary of State Blackwell dispatched Hogsett by name to help with the 2004 Fairfield County recount. Why?

A critical theme that runs throughout the evidence gathered is the attack on minority citizens, specifically those who chose to vote. Successful suppression of the Democratic vote requires a concerted attack on the voting rights black citizens. The evidence gathered and documented lends credence to the immoral and unconstitutional practice in Ohio.

Of the 11 counties in the Phillip's declaration, 10 reported that some or all destroyed or lost Election Day 2004 ballots. Not one of these counties indicated any regret for the loss. Not one of them took any responsibility for failure to obey the law on secure storage of election materials. And several either lost or destroyed ballot evidence while Phillips was conducting his research. Why?

Due to the evidence gathered by Phillips and associates, the amended filing for KLBNA v. Blackwell et al documents even more instances of election fraud and voter suppression. Of 27 counties where election fraud and voter suppression took place according to the suit, 19 failed to return all or some of the ballots and other evidence that they were ordered to produce. Why? (See summary of the KLBNA v. Blackwell et al evidence)

Maybe this was just a series of coincidences. It happens all the time. Right? Defendants routinely destroy evidence while they wait for trial. There's nothing to see here. Move along.

What were they hiding and why?

The destroyed and lost ballots, hidden forever, were key elements in the KLBNA v Blackwell suit claiming election fraud in Ohio

The specific evidence examined by Phillips was presented in September, 2006. It was a road map to the case that seeks to prove criminal acts of election fraud and voter suppression. It was also a road map of another sort, one that offered the path to undermine charges and potentially end the case in a definitive and final way.

Given all this, what's one logical response if you're guilty? Destroy the specific evidence supporting Phillips' claims and more. Destroy, lose, and hide as much evidence as possible, let's say about 1.5 million pieces of ballot evidence. They'll never prove anything without the ballots. We'll cry 'sour grapes,' 'sore loser,' and our favorite, 'conspiracy theory.' The media won't even carry the story.

Yet the case proceeds in federal court. Despite the destroyed evidence, there are still extensive records of voting patterns and election practices that denied Kerry supporters their right to vote and have their vote counted. There remains the meticulous record in the form of data, analyses, photographs and video tapes. The people of Ohio and the United States demand a rational process to examine our flawed election system. It's time for the truth about Ohio's 2004 presidential election. No subsequent election can have meaning and legitimacy without that truth.

ENDS

Useful links:

Table of contents and collection of county filing and letters concerning the federal law suit and the Phillips declaration.

Graphic summary of the Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips evidence

Graphic summary of the KLBNA v. Blackwell et al evidence

Appendix

Defendants in KLNBA v. Blackwell et al

"Defendant Blackwell and those acting in concert with him under the color of law, including but not limited to

the Ohio Republican Party;
Robert T. Bennett, Chair, Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and State Chair, Republican State Central and Executive Committee of Ohio;
Matthew M. Damschroder, Director, Franklin County Board of Elections;
Samuel Hogsett, Technician for Election Systems & Software; and
Daniel Bare, former Director, Clermont County Board of Elections, have conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to vote…"

Permission to reproduce in full or part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Destruction of Evidence - Ohio's 2004 Presidential Ballots

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:56:52 -0700

Letter from an Ohio Board of Elections (Holmes County) on missing 2004 ballots.

“Letters from the Edge” - Part 1

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

Overall this blatant destruction of evidence only reinforces the widespread belief that the 2004 election was stolen.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman,
Free Press August 2, 2007

The 2004 presidential election was mired in controversy all over the country. Candidate Kerry’s legion of volunteer lawyers was ready to fight anticipated election fraud. Serious challenges were defused when Kerry conceded the election in the early morning of November 3, 2004. Failing to recognize that candidates cannot concede the votes of citizens, the news media and political parties called it a night.

Ohio was ground zero for charges of election fraud. These are ably detailed in several articles and won’t be repeated here. One post election event is worth mentioning. The March 13, 2007 Toledo Blade ran this headline at the end of a major trial in Cleveland:

2 election workers get 18 months for rigging presidential recount.

The crime took place in the largest voting district in Ohio, Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland. Election workers created the recount that wasn’t thus denying the public of vital information about charges of election fraud.

The tale of the lost ballots and destroyed evidence begins with a law suit brought by citizens against Ohio officials: King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association (KLBNA) v. Blackwell. The suit charges Blackwell and other Ohio officials with: “election fraud, vote dilution, vote suppression, recount fraud and other violations.”

Specific charges include: “withholding unused (unvoted) ballots” in response to legitimate requests to review these ballots; violation of Ohio law by “breaks in the bipartisan chain of custody;” and “tampering with ballots” by marking Bush’s name on ballots with no presidential vote and switching ballots from Kerry to a third party candidate. Amended Complaint October 9, 2006

In order to prove their case, plaintiff’s counsel, noted voting rights attorney Cliff Arnebeck, needed all of the ballots from the 2004 election. Federal law stipulates a 22 month retention period for all federal elections, as does Ohio law for state elections. The presiding judge in the case, Algenon L. Marbley, issued a court order on September 6, 2006 extending the retention requirements for an additional 12 months. Blackwell was instructed to distribute the order to Ohio’s boards of elections.

The Judge then ordered that the ballots be turned over to the new Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner on April 7, 2007. Brunner sent a request out for the ballot evidence two days later

When the Ohio Secretary of State sent requests for delivery of the ballots, 56 of Ohio’s 88 counties replied that they no longer had some or all of the ballots requested. Only 41 bothered to provide an explanatory letter as to the missing ballots. Fifteen counties offered no reason at all for noncompliance. Counties failing to return complete sets of ballots accounted for a majority of Ohio’s 2004 presidential votes.

Federal and State Law on Preserving Ballots

In the section on “Federal Election Records,” federal law (United States Code) clearly states the rule:

Section 1974. Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation:

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve (“records and papers”) for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election (involving federal candidates)

Ohio law requires that “the board shall carefully preserve all ballots prepared and provided by it for use in that election, whether used or unused, for twenty-two months after the day of the election.”

July 2004 Secretary of State Blackwell issued a reminder to all of the county boards regarding the 22 month retention standard for election records.

*************

Through the Secretary of State, a federal judge, and the lead attorney in a law suit, the 88 counties received multiple notices that they were to retain all ballots from the 2004 election for federal office, president in particular, for at least 22 months and after that “until such time as otherwise instructed by the court.”

*************

But look what happened.

Destruction of Ballot Evidence

The five types of ballots requested were: (1) voted; (2) unvoted; (3) absentee; (4) provisional; and (5) spoiled. All ballots are required to determine if fraud took place. Unvoted ballots are no exception. There are several key points to remember when reading the explanatory letters from the boards:

Federal law requires retaining all “records and papers” for 22 months.
Ohio law requires retention of “all ballots” for a similar period.
Federal and Ohio laws offer no exception for unvoted ballots.
There is an assumed standard of care for ballots that includes concerns like chain of custody and secure and safe storage.

The first letter in the collection is from the Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney. Why would the prosecuting attorney write this letter when all the other explanatory letters were written by election board members? Perhaps someone in that county understood the gravity of destruction of evidence and the penalties involved.

Unfortunately, the actual ballot cards were inadvertently discarded and destroyed by the Ashtabula County Board of Elections just prior to the receipt by the Board of Judge Marbley’s Order and subsequent directive to your office.

Thomas Sartini, Prosecuting Attorney, Ashtabula County Apr. 16, 2007

There is a clear intent to use the term inadvertently or somehow imply unintentional destruction of ballots in many of the letters. Webster’s defines inadvertent as: 1: not focusing the mind on a matter: inattentive. 2: unintentional.

In Athens County, for example, the board said “they feel that these unvoted ballots were inadvertently discarded.” These must have been very special feelings since they were powerful enough to intuit inadvertent discarding of ballot evidence. No further explanation was offered.

On April 11, 2007, Clermont said that they didn’t know where the ballot evidence was but that “no one remembers specifically discarding the ballots.”

Like Clermont, Brown County couldn’t find all the ballots but they were sure that they “were not intentionally destroyed.”

Guernsey County says that unvoted ballots “were destroyed in error due to the county maintenance worker.” This is inadvertent destruction of evidence by proxy. The janitor did it. Several counties blamed retired elections officials without indicating any effort to contact those officials for an explanation.

*************

As you look at the examples of ballot evidence destruction, keep in mind that destruction of ballots is the one way to be 100% certain that the charges in KLBNA v. Blackwell are never verified. Ironically, that destruction of 2004 ballots seems to break the very same laws charged in the civil action.

*************

Allen County had a “migrating water” problem that flooded their vault holding the ballots. This caused them to be “compromised by water damage and subsequently destroyed.” The dry ballots were also lost when a contractor threw them out, inadvertently no doubt. The ballot wipe out in Allen combined both inadvertent destruction (of damaged ballots) and destruction by proxy (all the rest).

Let’s look at two of Ohio’s largest voting districts, those including Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Cincinnati is part of Hamilton County, population 823,000. Election board director John Williams had this to say:

In January of ’06, the staff was engaged in a sizable effort to make room for the Hart voting system. To the best of my knowledge, the above ballots (unvoted precinct ballots) were inadvertently shredded between January 19^th and 26^th of ‘06 in an effort to make room for the new Hart voting system.

John M. Williams, Director of Elections, Hamilton County Board of Elections, May 16, 2007

So Hamilton had to make room for new voting machines but they shredded the ballots inadvertently; in which case the given reason for the destruction of evidence had nothing to do with the anticipation of new machines since it was inadvertent, “not focusing the mind on matter” or “unintentional,” meaning the absence of specific intent, i.e., moving them to make way for new machines.

Or possibly Hamilton destroyed the ballot for an unspecified reason and found that the shredding made room for the new voting machines; in which case they confused the unspecified reason with inadvertent shredding and used the new machine arrival as a convenient excuse.

Or possibly the staff of the board of elections was so concerned with clearing up storage space that they failed to notice the ballots, the key product of their role as election workers, and set them aside resulting in the shredding; only later rationalizing their negligence with the excuse of needing for extra space for e-voting machines.

Is there a fourth option? The statement by Hamilton as written makes no sense at all. What really happened in this huge voting district?

Hamilton County could produce a receipt for the inadvertent ballot shredding. That might provide clues that would make sense out of their nonsensical letter. But as we will see shortly, before even investigating, Secretary of State Brunner and Attorney General Dann applied a benign motive for what seem to be blatant violations of federal and state law.

Cuyahoga County, population 1.3 million, was unable to determine how many unvoted ballots it had in its possession. It took records for “ballots ordered” for 2004 and subtracted the total ballots cast, assuming the difference was sufficient instead of actually counting the unused ballots.

From Cuyahoga County transmission to Ohio Secretary of State,
April 17, 2007. Collection of Letters and Reports, (p. 222)

The unused ballots are of grave importance for Cuyahoga. The county was the site of a wide range of election problems. One would think they’d want to explain why they needed 1,135,265 ballots for 1,007,187 registered voters when turnout is rarely exceeds 60%. That’s a lot of extra ballots floating around in a county that produced a “rigged” presidential recount. There were several other counties with large quantities of extra ballots.

Cuyahoga County acting elections director Jane Platten was so concerned about the state of the ballots delivered that she amended her certification statement to the Secretary of State.

Statement of Jill Platten, April 17, 2007
Full Collection of Letters and Reports, (p. 223)

Platten wrote in an email regarding the issue on April 17, 2007: “I did not know the chain of custody and storage of those ballots since the November 2004 election. None of the persons responsible for those ballots … work at the BOE any longer.” (Full Collection, p. 225) Did those persons cease to exist altogether? Surely they could have been reached by phone, paid a visit, or asked for a sworn statement or deposition. Was any such effort made? Apparently not.

Platten had no doubt seen this report on the board’s activities dated January 17, 2007, three months before her amended certification above. The Center for Election Integrity at Cleveland State University did a study of the board and reported the following:

The key system as currently structured permits any one staff member, or even a contractor or consultant, to gain unauthorized an unsupervised access to voted and unvoted ballots, memory cards holding votes, and other sensitive materials. Structuring the key access in these ways may violate Ohio statues an SOS directives that required “sealed containers.” E.G. OCR SS 3501.27 (protections for recounts). We raised this problem with several Ballot Department managers and Administrator Irizarry, who expressed interest in resolving it.

Center for Election Integrity, Cleveland State University, January 17, 2007, (p. 7)

This finding is presented as an understatement when it should be a headline. The essence of the gross security lapse in Cuyahoga is obvious: just about anyone associated with the board could have gained access to the 2004 ballots. Both ballot security and chain of custody were compromised. How would anyone know that the ballots delivered to the Secretary of State were the actual 2004 ballots with so many people allowed unsupervised access over time? Inefficiency and poor record keeping on the part of public officials trump the search for justice.

What regard do you have for ballots when you fail to produce them and then don’t even bother to explain why? Fifteen counties never bothered to explain their failure to obey federal law and a federal court order. For those who wrote letters, why not simply say “we’re very sorry to report…” or “we deeply regret to inform you?” How many expressed regrets? There were only two or three by my count.

Did any of those who had already destroyed ballots by the time of Judge Marbley’s order bother to write the Secretary of State explaining that fact when they received the order? If not, why not? Did any of those who had already destroyed ballots after the 22 month federal retention period but prior to the request for delivery in April 2007 bother to report this to the Secretary of State? If not, why not?

Reaction by Ohio’s Secretary of State and Attorney General

Both Attorney General Dann and Secretary of State Brunner made clear promises to pursue 2004 election fraud investigations during their campaigns. Their words on this subject are well documented. Once elected and faced with the massive destruction of evidence from the 2004 election, they may have experienced an inadvertent memory lapse.

2006 general election winner, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D), was quick to respond to the destruction of evidence. The Cincinnati Enquirer of August 11, 2007 reported Brunner’s remarks: “If I had evidence of a cover-up, I would investigate. For me, the bigger question in 2004 was how many people were prevented from voting (something) you can’t quantify?” Attorney General Marc Dann (D), also elected in 2006, responded quickly by seconding Brunner’s position. So much for campaign promises.

*************

While the two Democratic officials were quick to absolve those who destroyed evidence, both have refused to meet with voting rights activists to receive and discuss extensive data and analysis that supports election fraud in the 2004 presidential election.

*************

How Do We Interpret the Destruction of Ballot Evidence?

There are a number of ways to look at the vanished ballots. Let’s consider two broad approaches.

This could just be a series of coincidences Explanations for the missing ballots include: (a) inadvertent shredding or other forms of unintended ballot destruction; (b) aggressive maintenance personnel removing what was taken to be trash; (c) retired officials blamed by their replacements; (d) ignorance of the law; and (e) this is just the way we do things. The benign interpretation of the destruction or loss of evidence would accept each and every explanation is accurate. Furthermore, the benign interpretation would also include an assignment of coincidence to 56 of 88 counties performing these acts, many in areas where charges of election irregularities were raised. The explanation might go something like this:

We’ve got a loose patchwork of election boards who’ve become accustomed to doing things their own way. The summary sheets are sufficient since there was no ill intent. It’s not really destruction of evidence. It’s just what happened. Nothing to worry about here. Lets move on to a new election cycle in 2008.

A less benign interpretation is expressed in the following analogy:

Your neighbor is charged with assaulting you and stealing all your money. The neighbor vigorously denies this. The police know that the neighbor has a security video camera and taping system that covers his front yard, the scene of the assault. The police tell the neighbor to preserve the tape and bring it down town to police headquarters. The neighbor sends the police a fax saying, “I no longer have the tape. I spilled coffee on it and then my cleaning crew threw it out. As proof of my innocence here is the tape summary I compiled which says: Summary of video - No unusual events noted. “

Now imagine how you would react when the police chief appeared on television and announced, “I’m sure that the destruction of evidence was unintended. If I thought there was a crime, I’d conduct an investigation. There’s no reason to think a crime took place. Besides, I’m more interested in car theft anyway.”

The explanations shouldn’t matter at all. The federal statutes are clear. Ballots are to be preserved for 22 months following elections. Those counties that destroyed them prior to that deadline violated both federal and state statutes and should be considered for prosecution under federal and state law. Ignorance of the law, particularly for public officials, is no excuse.

The court order for ballot preservation was delivered by the plaintiff’s attorney, by the Secretary of State, and was the subject of media coverage. The counties who still had ballots after the federal deadline had adequate notice to retain them from plaintiff’s attorney. County personnel should be held accountable to federal and state laws on ballot preservation and destruction of evidence.

All counties had a responsibility to know and obey federal law and the court order. All counties had a responsibility to store safely and with care all of the 2004 ballots and any other ballots they had in their possession. All counties had a responsibility to have a chain of custody procedure in place to assure that the ballots stored could be accounted for as the original set from the election. This is standard operating procedure for any organization. Why wasn’t this done?

Will there be justice and accountability? Will the possible theft of a presidential election cause the newly elected Secretary of State and Attorney General to reconsider their quick dismissal of destruction of election evidence? Will the federal courts take note and provide a consequence for those who inadvertently or intentionally destroyed evidence?

America has been robbed of its history here. The public has a right to know the true outcome of the 2004 election, and to have its laws about preservation of critical records honored.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Free Press August 2, 2007

END

Letters of explanation from counties that provided them, including those referenced in this article. (1.02 MB)

The full collection of letters and records for the provision of ballots from the 2004 election can be found here (at the Free Press). (19.1 MB)

Index for full collection of letters and records (at the Free Press) (6.75 KB)

Explanatory letters only (1 MB)

Permission to reproduce this article in whole or part with a link to the original article in “Scoop” Independent News and attribution of authorship to Michael Collins.

Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:19:23 -0700

Steven Rosenfeld, | July 30

AlterNet - In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.

Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records, according to letters from county election officials to the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.

The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus.

The destruction of the election records also frustrates efforts by the media and historians to determine the accuracy of Ohio's 2004 vote count, because in county after county the key evidence needed to understand vote count anomalies apparently no longer exists.

"The extent of the destruction of records is consistent with the covering up of the fraud that we believe occurred in the presidential election," said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney representing the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, which filed voter suppression suit. "We're in the process of addressing where to go from here with the Ohio Attorney General's office."

'Vote caging' allegations arise in probe of U.S. attorney firings

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:19:46 -0700

Greg Gordon | June 25

McClatchy - Critics say top Justice official's '04 letter to Ohio judge was a partisan maneuver.

Four days before the 2004 election, the Justice Department's civil rights chief sent an unusual letter to a federal judge in Ohio who was weighing whether to let Republicans challenge the credentials of 23,000 mostly African American voters.

The case was triggered by allegations that Republicans had sent a mass mailing to mostly Democratic-leaning minorities and used undeliverable letters to compile a list of voters potentially vulnerable to eligibility challenges.

In his letter to U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati, Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta argued that it would undermine the enforcement of state and federal election laws if citizens could not challenge voters' credentials.

h/t Think Progress

Just goes to show . . .

Wed, 23 May 2007 18:53:39 -0700

. . . how incestuous DC really is, like a holiday weekend in Arkansas or something it's so bad.

Denver 3 name Bush staffers

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:51:41 -0800

Bruce Finley | Denver | March 2

Denver Post - White House staffers directed two men serving as bouncers at a 2005 Denver appearance by President Bush to eject three activists from the public event, the bouncers said under oath today.

It was the first time in the long-running controversy over the barring of the so-called "Denver Three" from the Bush event that specific White House officials have been named as having been involved in the ejection.

The paid White House staff members were identified in sworn depositions as Jamie O'Keefe, who was lead advance staffer for the appearance, and Steve Atkiss, White House trip director, attorneys said after the depositions today in federal court in Denver.

The bouncers were being questioned in a lawsuit claiming three activists were kicked out of the public event for political reasons.

According to attorneys for both sides in the lawsuit, the bouncers said that the two White House staffers directed one of the bouncers, Michael Casper, to please ask them to leave, referring to the three activists, and Casper did so.

The bouncers said the two White House officials were on the scene of the event

The White House had no immediate comment on the testimony.

Casper and the other bouncer, Jay Bob Klinkerman, were giving their court-ordered depositions today in connection with a lawsuit filed by two of three people known as the Denver Three ejected from Bush s forum. They were asked who told them to block the three from the event.

The plaintiffs are IT consultant Alex Young, 26, and corporate attorney Leslie Weise, 39. Temp worker Karen Bauer, 38, who was ejected along with the others, decided not to participate in the lawsuit.

The suit, filed with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, claims Bush volunteers violated their free-speech constitutional rights.

We found what we were looking for all along, Martha Tierney, attorney for the ejected guests, said after the depositions.

And now our goal is to find out if this is a White house policy, she said.

Attorneys for Casper and Klinkerman had motioned for the case to be dismissed, saying they operated under orders from federal officials and are therefore immune from lawsuits over the 2005 incident.

But U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel has said he wanted more information about who they were working for and how closely supervised they were, and in an order last October said lawyers for the plaintiffs could question Casper and Klinkerman under oath.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a motion to block the depositions.

The incident happened on March 21, 2005, shortly before Bush arrived for a town hall meeting at the Wings Over the Rockies museum in east Denver. The event was a public, taxpayer-funded forum about Social Security and Bush administration plans to privatize that system.

Young, Bauer and Weise, who describe themselves as progressives, obtained tickets from the office of then-U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez to attend the event. They arrived in a vehicle that had a bumper sticker on the back: "No more blood for oil."

They also wore T-shirts under their jackets that said "No more lies." They had considered revealing the T-shirts but decided not to. They staged no protest.

They claim that Klinkerman pulled them out of a line and told them to wait, called Casper, and then Casper and other Republican Party volunteers removed them from the event before Bush arrived.

The three said Secret Service agents told them they were ejected because their vehicle displayed an anti-Bush bumper sticker.

"It's unclear whether they were acting as private individuals or federal officials," attorney Tierney said.

The Secret Service later investigated whether a Republican volunteer committed a crime of impersonating a federal agent. The U.S. Attorney's office declined to press charges, giving no explanation.

Democratic lawmakers requested an investigation.

2 election workers convicted of rigging '04 presidential recount

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:36:34 -0800

M.R. KROPKO | Cleveland | January 24

AP - Two election workers in the state's most populous county were convicted Wednesday of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.

A third employee who had been charged was acquitted on all counts.

Jacqueline Maiden, the elections' coordinator who was the board's third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee.

Maiden and Dreamer also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty. Both were acquitted of five other charges.

Rosie Grier, assistant manager of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board's ballot department, was acquitted of all seven counts of various election misconduct or interference charges.

The felony conviction carries a possible sentence of six to 18 months.

There was a gasp in the courtroom gallery, which included some relatives and friends of the defendants, when a "not guilty" verdict was announced on the first charge. The courtroom went silent when a "guilty" verdict was returned.

The defendants sat near each other silently as the 21 verdicts were read.

Ohio gave Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the close election and hold on to the White House in 2004.

Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter, who was brought in from Erie County to handle the case, did not claim the workers' actions affected the outcome of the election — Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six in the county's recount.

But Baxter insisted the employees broke the law when they worked behind closed doors three days before the public Dec. 16, 2004, recount to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand so they could avoid a lengthier, more expensive hand recount of all votes.

Ohio law states that during a recount each county is supposed to randomly count at least 3 percent of its ballots by hand and by machine. If there are not discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be recounted by machine. A full hand-count is ordered if two random samples result in differences.

Grier, the worker who was acquitted, was the only defendant who commented following the verdicts.

"It has all been very stressful," said Grier, 54. "Yes, I'm very relieved. But, none of us should have been in this courtroom today. These charges should not have been brought against any of us."

Defense lawyer Roger Synenberg said in his closing argument that the 2004 presidential election was the most publicly observed ever in Cuyahoga County and the workers were simply following procedures as they understood them.

Baxter said he intends to speak with Maiden and Dreamer before their scheduled sentencing on Feb. 26 to see if they wish to make any statements that might influence the sentence.

"We'd like to listen to them if they had anything to say, if anyone else was involved with this. We still haven't been able to determine that," he said.

A message was left Wednesday with elections board director Michael Vu.

The board released a statement saying the convictions highlight the importance of changes it has made since 2004 "and the critical need to aggressively pursue additional reforms."

"The board's goal is to fully restore the public's confidence in the election process in Cuyahoga County," the statement said.

Maiden's attorney, Robert Rotatori, said he expects appeals will be filed for his client and Dreamer.

The case comes as elections have fallen under greater scrutiny since the 2000 presidential election. That's when recounts of paper ballots in Florida dragged on for weeks and the U.S. Supreme Court became involved. Cuyahoga also has been under the microscope following numerous problems with elections in bellwether Ohio.

Cuyahoga County is a Democratic stronghold where about 600,000 ballots were cast in 2004.

Statewide, Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik sought the recount and complained about its procedure.

Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:16:34 -0700

Washington | April 10

Associated Press - Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:48:36 -0700

Barton Gellman & Daffna Linser | April 9

WP - As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:01:33 -0800

Thomas B. Edsall | March 6

Washington Post - The surging number of campaign contributors in 2004, especially the small donors who gave online, changed the character of one of the most important constituencies in U.S. politics, the people who finance presidential elections. This key group has become more reflective of the middle class, has a higher percentage of women and is far more willing to contribute without being directly solicited.

The new small donors, who played a much bigger role in 2004 than in the past, are polarized on ideological, cultural and economic issues in much the same way that large givers are, according to a survey by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University of all donors, both those using the Internet and those who did not.

None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:47:50 -0700

Mark Crispin Miller | July 24

Harper's Magazine via FreePress.org - (summarized by Mary Anne Saucier). While commentators, prompted by Republicans, claimed Bush won the 2004 election through the votes of a silent majority concerned with "family values," Mark Crispin Miller writes that when voters were asked to state, "in their own words the most important factor in their vote,"only 14 percent named "moral values." He details how the press (except for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC) ignored "the strange details of the election--except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them...It was as if they were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire."

Then he lists the copious evidence pointing to a stolen election, easily available on the web or in paperback, from Michigan Representative John Conyers' report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. More than dirty tricks, it covers "the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up," listing "specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act."

The Conyers report details the disenfranchisement of Democrats through "intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio."

.There was unequal placement of voting machines.

.County boards of elections were ordered to reject all Ohio voter-registration forms not printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight.

.Access was limited to provisional ballots.

"Caging"was used to challenge 35,000 individuals who did not sign for registered letters sent to new voters.

.There was restriction of media from covering the election and conducting exit polls.

.There was a prearranged FBI terrorist attack warning in Warren County which kept reporters from observing a post-election ballot-counting.

.There was restriction of foreign monitors from "watching the opening of the polling places, the counting of the ballots, and, in some cases, the election itself.

.Numerous statistical anomalies all deducted votes from Kerry.

.In Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties, "the arrows on the absentee ballots were not properly aligned with their respective punch holes, so that countless votes were miscast."

.In Mercer County, 4000 votes were mysteriously not in the final count.

.In Lucas County a polling place never opened because no one had the key.

.In Hamilton County, many absentee voters could not vote for Kerry because his name was not on the ballot.

.In Mahoning County 25 electronic machines changed Kerry votes to Bush.

.Dirty tricks told voters to go to false polling places; that Democrats were to vote on November 3; volunteers offered to take absentee ballots to the election office; voters were challenged to prove eligibility to vote. The "Texas Strike Force" (25 people registered at a Franklin County Holiday Inn, paid by the Republican Party) threatened targeted people from a pay phone, if they voted.

.Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell created rules for the Ohio recount (requested by the Green and Libertarian Parties) which would prevent "countywide hand recounts by any means necessary." The end result was "the Ohio vote was never properly recounted, as required by Ohio law."

.On December 13, 2004, it was reported by Deputy Director of Hocking County Elections Sherole Eaton, that a Triad GSI employee had changed the computer that operated the tabulating machine, and had "advised election officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that [the] preliminary hand recount matched the machine count." This same Triad employee said he worked on machines in Lorain, Muskingum, Clark, Harrison, and Guernsey counties.

"Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law--to randomly ascertain if the vote counting apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not to conduct a full hand recount."

.In Union County, Triad replaced the hard drive on one tabulator.

.In Monroe County, "after the 3 percent hand count had twice failed to match the machine count, a Triad employee brought in a new machine and took away the old one. (That machine's count matched the hand count.)"

.Green and Libertarian volunteers reported that in Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Morrow, Hocking, Vinton, Summit, and Medina counties, "the precincts for the 3 percent hand recount were preselected, not picked at random, as the law requires."

.Even though the 3 percent hand recount in Fairfield County was different than the machine count, there was no hand count as required.

"In Washington and Lucas counties, ballots were marked or altered, apparently to ensure that the hand recount would equal the machine count."

"In Ashland, Portage, and Coshocton counties, ballots were improperly unsealed or stored."

At great cost, Belmont County had an independent programmer change the counting machines so they would only count votes for President.

"..Democratic and/or Green observers were denied access to absentee, and /or provisional ballots, or were not allowed to monitor the recount process, in Summit, Huron, Putnam, Allen, Holmes, Mahoning, Licking, Stark, Medina, Warren, and Morgan counties.

Miller writes about the January 6, 2005 Electoral challenge from Ohio Representative Stephonie Tubbs-Jones and California Senator Barbara Boxer. He decries its rejection by the Congress and the press, with the Republicans calling the Democrats "troublemakers and cynical manipulators", etc., etc.

According to Miller, "all this commentary was simply wrong" and "went unnoticed and/or unreported;" and with Bush's re-inauguration "all inquiries were apparently concluded, and the story was officially kaput." Miller emphasizes that, even after the National Election Data Archive Project, on March 31, 2005, "released its study demonstrating that the exit polls had probably been right, it made news only in the Akron Beacon-Journal," while "the thesis that the exit polls were flawed had been reported by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Columbus Dispatch, CNN.com, MSNBC, and ABC.."

In conclusion, Mark Crispin Miller does not expect to reverse the 2004 election, but to make it possible for us to move on, and achieve real electoral reform.

...The point of our revisiting the last election.. is to see exactly what the damage was so that the people can demand appropriate reforms... for there has never been a great reform that was not driven by some major scandal.

...In this nation's epic struggle on behalf of freedom, reason, and democracy, the press has unilaterally disarmed--and therefore many good Americans, both liberal and conservative, have lost faith in the promise of self-government. That vast surrender is demoralizing, certainly, but if we face it, and endeavor to reverse it, it will not prove fatal. This democracy can survive a plot to hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded.

The piece on which this summary is based was originally published in Harper's (http://harpers.org). Mark Crispin Miller is a professor at New York University, a political/media commentator, and author of his latest book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the Election of 2004, and Why They Will Keep Doing It Unless We StopThem, which will be published by Basic Books this October.

And here is the link to Harper's Magazine. "What Went Wrong In Ohio":

http://harpers.org/WhatWentWrongInOhio.html

As well as an MP3 link to hear the discussion about, "What Went Wrong in Ohio"

http://harpers.org/art/mp3/OhioVoteForum-2005-07-21.mp3

Posted as Fair Use