1
   

Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 01:03 pm
Mortkat wrote:
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????


In the post you were responding to I wrote:
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.


Mortkat wrote:
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?


The likelihood of a statewide recount is irrelevant.


Mortkat wrote:
You really had better read up on the topic, Free Duck!!!


Maybe so, but it looks like you could use a re-read of my post. Especially the second part:

FreeDuck wrote:
But anywho, this GAO report is about the 2004 election not the 2000 election.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 01:04 pm
Mortkat wrote:
And, of course, there is PROOF that the machines were fixed.

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


Who are you requesting this from?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 12:32 am
blatham wrote:
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).


I don't (get what you mean).
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 03:12 am
Very few people understand Blatham lately. He has been rather out of sorts since the Canadian PM was removed because of corruption.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:12 am
Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen
Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen
Lyn Davis Lear
12.02.2005

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 Diebold 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."

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.

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

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.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 03:41 am
I am certain that there will be a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION called for by The Chappaquiddick Kid, Ted Kennedy, the highly moral scumbag who allowed a poor girl to drown and fixed the local Massachusetts DA so that he was not convicted of manslaughter. Moral leaders like Ted Kennedy, who was ignominiously kicked out of Harvard for cheating, will lead the investigation, followed by the Plagiarist, Joe Biden and the KKK leader, Robert Byrd.

The House members will undoubtedly chime in..Barney Frank( I didn't know he was a prostitute) will surely claim that the Ohio Republicans are homophobic; Maxine Waters and John Conyers will show that racial discrimination is endemic in Ohio and Jim McDermott from Washington will certainly go on a fact finding trip to Germany to see if Diebold really had secret ties to Nazi Germany.

Every single one of BBB's list is a hypothetical. I do hope that BBB is aware that you really must do more than to state- "It could" and "It might have been possible" and
"More than 57,000 complaints were received"

BBB is apparently not aware that after the 2000 election was over, the left wing moaned and groaned about the stolen election. BBB is apparently not aware that a consortium of newspapers and polling experts(WHY HASN'T THAT BEEN DONE IN OHIO IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM?) descended on Florida to look at a "broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisionsm 175,101 in all and came to the conclusion that

quote

a comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won EVEN IT THE USSC HAD ALLOWED THE STATEWIDE MANUAL RECOUNT OF THE VOTES THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED TO GO FORWARD

END OF QUOTE


Source- NY TIMES- November 12,2001

Headline- Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder.


Maybe BBB can get Rich and Krugman to ask the NY Times to send another team out as they did in 2001---I am mystified as to why they have not already sent out a team to check the Ohio vote--What could they have been thinking????????????

I am also sure that BBB notes that the article about the USSC not casting the deciding vote came NOT from National Review but rather from THE NEW YORK TIMES.


What will BBB say in three months when nothing comes of these unproven charges?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 06:41 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
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).


I don't (get what you mean).


I mean, it isn't funny in the manner of Mark Twain or Jon Stewart. It actually isn't funny at all, as commentary.

But it was funny in the manner of a little mallet hitting a knee.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 11:14 am
blatham wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
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).


I don't (get what you mean).


I mean, it isn't funny in the manner of Mark Twain or Jon Stewart. It actually isn't funny at all, as commentary.

But it was funny in the manner of a little mallet hitting a knee.


Oh. Well hopefully it left a bruise.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 12:26 pm
I'll have Fifi check next time she's down around the there.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2006 02:11 am
Headline- Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder.


Maybe BBB can get Rich and Krugman to ask the NY Times to send another team out as they did in 2001---I am mystified as to why they have not already sent out a team to check the Ohio vote--What could they have been thinking????????????

I am also sure that BBB notes that the article about the USSC not casting the deciding vote came NOT from National Review but rather from THE NEW YORK TIMES.


What will BBB say in three months when nothing comes of these unproven charges?
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2006 08:59 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
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?


Because they were designed with fraud in mind.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2006 09:16 pm
NAtional: What's All the Fuss About Diebold in FL & CA?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00303.htm

NM: A ban on electronic voting machines?
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4354785,00.html

WA: King County - All-mail voting may cut fraud
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002713287_voting31m.html

NAtional: Fake voting rights activists and groups linked to White House
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2005/1289


Ghosts in the Voting Machines
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2452/

Concerned about reports of election fraud and vote suppression in the 2004 election, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, to examine the allegations. In September, the GAO released a report that found electronic voting systems "have caused local problems in federal elections--resulting in the loss or miscount of votes." In the 2004 general election, about 64 percent of voters cast ballots on one of two types of electronic voting systems: optical scan systems, which read marked paper ballots, and direct recording electronic systems (DRE), which have a touchscreen that voters use to make their choice.

The GAO highlights one major problem with electronic voting systems: They can be hacked because of woefully inadequate security systems.

Computer security experts working with a Florida local elections supervisor demonstrated that someone with physical access to an optical scan system can use altered memory cards, falsifying election results without any record of the deed.
In one DRE model, the same personal identification number was programmed into all election supervisor cards nationwide--meaning the number was widely known.
Several reviews reported smart cards (which activate touch screens on DRE's) and memory cards (which program an optical scan system's terminals) were not secured by some voting systems. Reviewers exploited this weakness by altering such cards to improperly access administrator functions, vote multiple times, change vote totals, and produce false election reports in a test environment. (Full article at above link)


12-13-05: Devastating hack proven
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html


Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious "hack" demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes. This comes on the heels of the resignation of Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell, and the announcement that a stockholder's class action suit has been filed against Diebold by Scott & Scott. Further "hack" testing on additional vulnerabilities is tentatively scheduled before Christmas in the state of California.
Posted Dec 14, 2005 12:43 PM PST
Category: VOTE FRAUD
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 02:41 am
Free Duck--Please re-read - I will highlight-

Paragraph l- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead under the strategy that Mr.Gore pursued at the start of the Beginning of the Florida Standoff.





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.


The consortium found that Mr.Gore MIGHT have won if the court had assumed a FULL STATEWIDE RECOUNT of all the rejected ballots. BUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARDS WOULD HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS THE INDEPENDENT CONSORTIUM IS RIDICULOUS TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT FLORIDA POLITICS.

Only the four Southern counties would have people, who, if there was a decision to be made about various questionable ballots, would lean towards Gore. THE UNCOUNTED CENTRAL AND NORTHERN BOARDS WOULD DOUBTLESSLY( and this can be proven by reference to disputes in those areas as recorded during the counting times) HAVE LEANED TOWARDS BUSH. This is not a matter of fraud, This would have been a matter of intepretation by County Canvassing Boards, undoubtedly supervised by the army of lawyers who were present in Florida from both sides.


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.

You neglected to address the Safe Harbor Provision, Free Duck.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 02:45 am
Would someone be so good as to inform me when the US Senate is opening the investigation of Diebold's felonious tampering with the voting machines so as to steer the election in various states to President Bush? I have seen no schedule of any hearings on that matter either in the House or the Senate. If these charges and allegations were true I am certain that our elected representatives would do their duty and investigate.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:10 am
Mortkat wrote:
Would someone be so good as to inform me when the US Senate is opening the investigation of Diebold's felonious tampering with the voting machines so as to steer the election in various states to President Bush? I have seen no schedule of any hearings on that matter either in the House or the Senate. If these charges and allegations were true I am certain that our elected representatives would do their duty and investigate.



As soon as we get rid of the Republican Senators who were installed with the help of the paperless machines.

Your last sentence shows just how brainwashed you are Massagatto. No one who is a party to the crime is going to investigate himself.

I cannot imagine living the life of self imposed ignorance that you have been demonstrating the past 5 yrs.

By the way several Democrats did conduct some hearings but the corrupt, crooked, lying ,cheating, murdering thugs on the other side of the isle brushed it all aside. Some Democracy eh?
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 04:09 am
Would someone be so good as to inform me when the US Senate is opening the investigation of Diebold's felonious tampering with the voting machines so as to steer the election in various states to President Bush? I have seen no schedule of any hearings on that matter either in the House or the Senate. If these charges and allegations were true I am certain that our elected representatives would do their duty and investigate.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 06:31 am
I do know that the USA has a different law and juridical system than e.g. we have.

Here, such an investigation would be carried out within the court system, at first with investigations by a prosecution office.

Some might have the idea that it could be similar in the USA as well, namely that such investitgation should be done by the juridical branch.

Thus, law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP had that a class action lawsuit was filed, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold" or the "Company") DBD between October 22, 2003 and September 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, against defendants Diebold, Walden W. O'Dell (former CEO, Chairman), Eric C. Evans (former President and COO) and Gregory T. Geswein (former CFO).

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed via Milberg Weiss's website here.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.43 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:05:37