Log in

View Full Version : convicted vote rigging in ohio


drizl
01-25-2007, 02:02 AM
CLEVELAND (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.

[Special prosecutor Kevin] 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.


from bradblog.com

By way of reminder, the recount --- the one that was rigged by Ohio Elections Officials --- came by way of the Green and Libertarian Party candidates, not by way of the Democrats or John Kerry. As well, the money to pay for the gamed recount was raised by folks on the Internet, not paid for out of the $15 million or so that Kerry reportedly had left in his campaign war chest after the "Election" in Ohio.

All of that, despite Kerry's continued and then broken promise to "Count Every Vote" in 2004.

These convictions occurred in Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold of some 600,000 voters. Kerry "lost" the state of Ohio, according to the history books anyway, by just 118,000 out of some 5.5 million votes cast in the Buckeye State.

In related news, today Kerry decided to quit the 2008 Election, mercifully this time before it instead of afterwards.

JobDDT
01-25-2007, 04:12 AM
Thats a shame.

Kerry really got shammed out of the 2004 election. A lot of people didn't change their opinions on the war until the constant stream of Republican pro-war material was cut down. Around the beginning of 2005, from what I can tell, people had just about had enough of George W. Bush.

I think if the election would've been held a few months later, or if Bush was facing someone other than a nobody like Kerry, Bush would've lost.

I still say Kerry would make a better president than anyone else currently in the field for the Democrats in 2008.

QueenAdrock
01-25-2007, 12:05 PM
Most of the legislation Kerry's supports, I do too. But with that being said, I think there are better candidates out there for President. I just worry about feasibility.

abcdefz
01-25-2007, 12:17 PM
Rolling Stone had a big ol' article about this some months back. Very, very damning stuff.

Ali
01-25-2007, 12:44 PM
Thats a shame.

Kerry really got shammed out of the 2004 election. A lot of people didn't change their opinions on the war until the constant stream of Republican pro-war material was cut down. Around the beginning of 2005, from what I can tell, people had just about had enough of George W. Bush.

I think if the election would've been held a few months later, or if Bush was facing someone other than a nobody like Kerry, Bush would've lost.

I still say Kerry would make a better president than anyone else currently in the field for the Democrats in 2008. Is it too late for a re-count?

sam i am
01-29-2007, 11:56 AM
Nope.

Let's go ahead and recount it now.....


Oh, wait.....


Nobody wants to pony up the money or time to do so.


Guess you're just stuck with Bush.

Echewta
01-29-2007, 12:14 PM
We boast about how wonderful it is that the new democracy Iraq voted yet after 200 years, we still cant get the basics right. I know, I know, there are bad apples in the bunch but not if you are a kickass gardner, which the government is not.

sam i am
02-01-2007, 06:47 PM
Democracy is highly over-rated.

Glad to live in a Republic.

Schmeltz
02-01-2007, 06:50 PM
... where voting can freely be tampered with while simultaneously horrendous destructive force is employed against poor people across the planet in the name of spreading... democracy.

sam i am
02-01-2007, 07:07 PM
... where voting can freely be tampered with while simultaneously horrendous destructive force is employed against poor people across the planet in the name of spreading... democracy.

Meh with spreading democracy...the US should be spreading republicanism (not Republican party-ism, mind you).

Voting can be tampered with by anyone, in any country, with enough drive and ambition and motivation to do so...no system is 100% secure, honest, fair, and without the ability to be tampered with.

What's more horrendously destructive - the passive destruction seen daily in Darfur and Tibet and Rwanda (none of which are aided and abetted by the US, but rather by the "shining lights" countries of France, Germany, Russia, and China) or the (relatively) few destroyed in pursuit of a better outcome in Iraq...eventually?

Schmeltz
02-01-2007, 07:13 PM
Iraq is. Not even close. What, were hundreds of thousands of French and German soldiers sent to Rwanda? When's the Chinese troop surge to the Sudan going to start? Don't make me laugh. It's not funny.

sam i am
02-01-2007, 07:25 PM
Iraq is. Not even close. What, were hundreds of thousands of French and German soldiers sent to Rwanda? When's the Chinese troop surge to the Sudan going to start? Don't make me laugh. It's not funny.

7,000 Chinese troops (approximately) in Sudan to protect their oil interests while daily hundreds/thousands are killed. More on the way? Is standing idly by protecting one's interests no worse than actively attempting to make a situation better? Use some logic and common sense here.

Chinese troops occupy and repress Tibet.

France, Germany, Russia, etc. stand by while millions are killed in Rwanda, despite their ability to intervene.

Need I say more?

Schmeltz
02-01-2007, 07:31 PM
Is standing idly by protecting one's interests no worse than actively attempting to make a situation better?


Are you being serious? Yes, standing idly by is better than mounting horrifically destructive invasions of other sovereign countries and reducing them to anarchy. The populace of Iraq sure seems to think so, they all want your troops the hell out of their country and I'm willing to bet they wish your trigger-happy President had minded his own goddam business.

It might seem tragic that the Chinese forces in Sudan (which amount to what, 5% the size of your country's occupying forces in Iraq) aren't doing anything to help stop the genocide, but that's not their mandate. They don't have a free hand to intervene as they please and I'm sure China is less than eager to expend its military resources on a situation that could quickly degenerate into a costly and destructive venture.