1
   

Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen

 
 
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:48 am
Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen
Lyn Davis Lear
11.30.2005

I had a chance to talk to my hero, Frank Rich, a few months ago about election fraud and he claimed he didn't know much about it. Perhaps he has his plate full unraveling the administration's lies about Iraq, but with the midterm elections coming up someone has to take this issue on.

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they had some young computer hackers on bragging about how easy, embarrassingly easy, it is to switch votes on the Deibold machines. Bill Clinton once mentioned that India has flawless electronic voting while ours is mired in unaccountability. I hope Frank and other journalists and bloggers of his caliber read this article by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman about the GAO report on the 2004 election. Paul Krugman and the NYTimes editorial board have been good on this issue in the past, but it has been a while since anyone has raised the subject.

The Government Accountability Office is the only government office we have left that is ethical, non-partisan and incorruptible. They investigate and tell it like it is. Thank God for them. This report is very serious and must get more attention. It has taken years for the mainstream press and Congress to finally understand what we in the blogisphere have known since 2000. This administration will distort and cheat about anything and everything to get its way. If this report got the attention it deserves and broke through the static of our 500-channel universe, it could be the coup de grace of the Bush White House.

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

GAO Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems inFranklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear
that's exactly what happened.

----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available via http://freepress.org and http://harveywasserman.com. Their What Happened in Ohio?, with Steve Rosenfeld, will be published in Spring, 2006, by New Press.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,963 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 09:55 pm
If any of this is true, then instead of Hail To The Chief, Bush's song should be The Great Pretender.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:05 pm
I don't like to think that the election was stolen, but I'd feel better if any of these irregularities went the other way, moving votes from Bush to Kerry. That would make it easier to believe that the mistakes were just that.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:15 am
Getting to know you, getting to know ALL about you.
Getting to Diebold is as easy as slease.
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:14 am
Yep. We Republicans have got you Dems nailed.


You are TOAST.

Seriously though.

How will you explain the swing towards Democrats after the next election rounds?

If you run a decent candidate (not Hillary) you'll likely win.

I Cant wait for you people to explain these absurdities when you gain power again. Doubtless you'll fabricate a whole thesis about how the Dems uncovered and crushed the heinous Republican plot. A close call. Thank Christ for Democrats.


Or maybe you will win because Diebold granted it to you, just because; for posterities sake.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:19 am
A hypothetical post. How unique.

Personally I can't wait for you Republicans to explain how a Vatican inquiry exposes George Bush as being the spawn of Satan and the whole Bush family and Rove and the Skull and Bones gang as being Satanists who would make Aleister Crowley blush with embarrassment. Whereupon they are all sentenced to burn at the stake.

Seriously though.

I can wait.
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:32 am
goodfielder wrote:
A hypothetical post. How unique.

Personally I can't wait for you Republicans to explain how a Vatican inquiry exposes George Bush as being the spawn of Satan and the whole Bush family and Rove and the Skull and Bones gang as being Satanists who would make Aleister Crowley blush with embarrassment. Whereupon they are all sentenced to burn at the stake.

Seriously though.

I can wait.


That would be amusing Very Happy

Hypothetical, sure. That is the norm for this thread.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:01 pm
mark
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:08 pm
<suspicious look>
Mark who?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:16 pm
It would be so easy to remove the suspicion in the next go round. A voting machine that leaves a paper trail. If every teller machine can spit one out, why not a voting machine?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 12:00 am
Frank Rich = Frank Dick

NY Times Arts & Leisure = Bush sucks.

Rich/Dick can find reason for Bush bashing in the Broadway rendition of Lion King.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 02:04 am
What a lot of unproven balderdash. Bumble does not explain why Ted Kennedy or others of his mentality are not pounding the rostrum DEMANDING a congressional investigation of the stolen election. Could it be that the last time the Democrats tried it, it was jammed firmly down thier throats?

The New York Times, NOT THE NATIONAL REVIEW, reported that a consortium of newspapers and election experts went to Florida to exhaustively review and in some cases, recount, the votes, in 2001.

The consortium, the New York Times reported, said that President Bush would have won Florida even without the ruling of the USSC.

How tiresome--the bogus--"We Wuz robbed"--Grow up!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 05:06 am
Mortkat - chill pill Very Happy
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 10:01 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Frank Rich = Frank Dick

NY Times Arts & Leisure = Bush sucks.

Rich/Dick can find reason for Bush bashing in the Broadway rendition of Lion King.


I gotta admit I burst out with a laugh at your first line there finn. Not because it was funny, but because it was funny (if you get what I mean).
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 12:11 pm
Mortkat wrote:

The New York Times, NOT THE NATIONAL REVIEW, reported that a consortium of newspapers and election experts went to Florida to exhaustively review and in some cases, recount, the votes, in 2001.

The consortium, the New York Times reported, said that President Bush would have won Florida even without the ruling of the USSC.


Actually, they found that Bush would have won if they recounted only the counties that Gore asked for, but a state-wide recount would have produced a Gore victory.

But anywho, this GAO report is about the 2004 election not the 2000 election.

While I think that there's not enough evidence to say that the election was stolen, I do think there are some oddities that we should not just blow off as sour grapes. If the machines are so easily hacked, they can just as easily be hacked by Democrats if/when they get power. So we should all give a **** about this report for what it says about our election system, not so that we can cry about Bush being president. There's plenty of reason to cry about that which has nothing to do with the election.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 03:12 am
No, Free Duck, you are mistaken and I will quote from the article:

"Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the start of the BEGINNING OF THE FLORIDA STANDOFF--FILING SUIT TO FORCE HAND RECOUNTS IN FOUR PREDOMINANTLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTIES--MR. BUSH WOULD HAVE KEPT HIS LEAD, ACCORDING TO THE BALLOT REVIEW CONDUCTED FOR A CONSORTIUM OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS.


But the Consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decision, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore
M I G H T H A V E W O N if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of al the rejected ballots. THIS ALSO A S S U M E S that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did.


AND THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE OF ALL, FREE DUCK!!

"While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real world situation. THERE WAS NO SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FEVERED DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A HAND RECOUNT OF ALL 17 5,000 overvotes and undervotes"

You do know what the Safe Harbor provision is, don't you , Free Duck?

It COMES FROM TITLE III OF THE US CODE AND SETS A DEADLINE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, THAT PRECLUDES ANY CHALLENGE TO THE APPOINTMENT WHEN CONGRESS MEETS IN JANUARY TO COUNT THE ELECTORAL VOTES.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 10:52 am
No offense, Mort, but you've just proven what I said.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
Edgar, Diebold makes the ATM machines, too. Might wanna take a look at that next ATM receipt....

lol
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 03:09 am
Free Duck

I proved what you said by telling you that the Gore proposal to recount the four counties his lawyers told him he should have recounted resulted in a Gore loss????

I proved what you said by telling you that it was unlikely that the canvassing boards in the central and northern part of Florida WOULD LIKELY NOT HAVE FOUND THE SAME EXACT COUNT AS THE COMMISSION THUS DOOMING ANY CHANCE FOR GORE?

I proved what you said by pointing out the Safe Harbor Law?


Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Look up the Safe Harbor Law and come back. Or if you can't, I'll explain the Safe Harbor Law to you.


You do know, I hope, that Gore's lawyers DID NOT advise him to ask for a recount of the entire state.

I hope you know why.

Because of the Safe Harbor Law which would render any attempt at a recount of the entire state as inadmissible in a court of law.

You really had better read up on the topic, Free Duck!!!
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 03:16 am
And, of course, there is PROOF that the machines were fixed.

If so, I have not seen any proof. Please provide.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:55:54