EXCLUSIVE: BOBBY KENNEDY JR. TO QUESTION 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN MAJOR ROLLING STONE FEATURE ARTICLE!
Says 'Evidence Shows High-Level Republicans Suceeded in Scheme to Steal Election in Ohio'!
Mag to Hit Stands Friday, Internet on Thursday, Publicity Push to Accompany
Says 'Evidence Shows High-Level Republicans Suceeded in Scheme to Steal Election in Ohio'!
Mag to Hit Stands Friday, Internet on Thursday, Publicity Push to Accompany
A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit...
A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit newstands this Friday, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm. The online version of the article will be posted tomorrow (Thursday) morning.
The article -- headlined on the cover as "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election?: How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" -- has been several months in development and will contend that a concerted effort was undertaken by high-level Republican officials to steal the Election in Ohio -- and thus the country -- in 2004!
Kennedy told The BRAD BLOG this morning that "the best evidence says the Republicans succeeded" in their plan.
He writes in the 10-page long article, and confirmed to us today, that evidence shows Ohio Sec. of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was "certainly in on" the scheme, and there are indications that the effort went all the way up to the White House.
Kennedy, who is co-host of Ring of Fire, a weekend show on Air America Radio, is an environmental attorney and the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy. This is his first public foray into the realm of Election Fraud, Election Integrity, Electronic Voting and, in particular, the questionable results of Election 2004.
A major publicity push is currently in the works to accompany the feature story which is sure to get the attention of more than a few D.C. and Buckeye State pols in addition to the mainstream media who have, of late, begun reporting more frequently on the litany of concerns and now-documented evidence that new electronic voting machines are hackable through a number of means.
Several public appearances are currently being scheduled for Kennedy in the coming weeks, including an appearance on The Colbert Report currently scheduled for Monday, June 12.
...MORE...
Sources have told The BRAD BLOG that Kennedy "does not hold back in this article."
One of the election integrity advocates involved in research and development with Kennedy on the story told us a number of weeks ago that "[Kennedy] essentially says everything that those of us who have been contending there was massive chicanery in the '04 election were right, and the media and politicians who ignored it at the time were wrong."
We'll have more details and information shortly from the story which includes quotes from Democrats such as Howard Dean and John Kerry, as well as pollster Lou Harris who also questions the validity of the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio according to the article...
...MORE...
A sidebar included with the article calls for an investigation into Electronic Voting machines prior to upcoming elections...More soon...
...DEVELOPING VERY HARD...MORE SHORTLY...
Exactly why I started this thread.
blueflame1 wrote:A sidebar included with the article calls for an investigation into Electronic Voting machines prior to upcoming elections...More soon...
About g*ddamn time.
If there is anything that should get ALL Americans of EVERY political slant together and outraged is the Diebold disaster and it's influence on the polls.
I mean Jesus Christ- These are the very things that COUNT OUR VOTES!
mysteryman wrote:dlowan wrote:Just an outsider's genuine question:
Since the machines appear to have created occasion for much sturm und drang, why use them?
Most Americans arent concerned about them.
But,the left simply cannot believe that Americans chose Bush over their candidate last Presidential election,so they need to have something to blame it on.
If every voter had been required to publicly announce who they were voting for,and then required to vote in public,the left would still find something to blame it on when their candidate lost.
Its the nature of politics.
Jesus, mysteryman - please tell me you are not so hopelessly dense and partisan that you actually believe the 2000 vote was above board. Please?
snood wrote:mysteryman wrote:dlowan wrote:Just an outsider's genuine question:
Since the machines appear to have created occasion for much sturm und drang, why use them?
Most Americans arent concerned about them.
But,the left simply cannot believe that Americans chose Bush over their candidate last Presidential election,so they need to have something to blame it on.
If every voter had been required to publicly announce who they were voting for,and then required to vote in public,the left would still find something to blame it on when their candidate lost.
Its the nature of politics.
Jesus, mysteryman - please tell me you are not so hopelessly dense and partisan that you actually believe the 2000 vote was above board. Please?
I have no reason to believe the VOTE was not above board.
I have seen no evidence that the vote was rigged,or that anybody cheated.
Mystery,
If you don't trust the liberals that the electronic voting machines are much more prone to fraud than paper ballots-- you should listen to the people who know.
Ask a software engineer.
Most of us feel strongly that an audit trail is a key part of any important electronic transaction. This is the best way to prevent fraud.
The problem with electronic balloting is that there is no audit trail. If someone wants to "hack" votes electronically, a good programmer can do it in a way that leaves no trail.
This is why paper-based balloting is far superior-- to ensure a fair election you need to put the ballots in a secure container, make sure that people from both parties are watching so that no ballots disappear or are added.
Best of all, if there is a disagreement or charge of fraud... you have tangible evidence right there.
ebrown_p wrote:Mystery,
If you don't trust the liberals that the electronic voting machines are much more prone to fraud than paper ballots-- you should listen to the people who know.
Ask a software engineer.
Most of us feel strongly that an audit trail is a key part of any important electronic transaction. This is the best way to prevent fraud.
The problem with electronic balloting is that there is no audit trail. If someone wants to "hack" votes electronically, a good programmer can do it in a way that leaves no trail.
This is why paper-based balloting is far superior-- to ensure a fair election you need to put the ballots in a secure container, make sure that people from both parties are watching so that no ballots disappear or are added.
Best of all, if there is a disagreement or charge of fraud... you have tangible evidence right there.
I have NEVER said that electronic voting is superior,I have NEVER said that it is better then paper ballots.
I dont know why you seem to think I have.
Read what I wrote earlier.
I have said that paper ballots are just as prone to fraud as electronic machines are supposed to be.
If an election official doesnt like what they think is happening,they can hide,destroy,or otherwise tamper with the votes.
Neither system is foolproof,and neither system is without its flaws.
The ideal system is a combination of both,but I dont know how you would go about it.
mysteryman wrote:If an election official doesnt like what they think is happening,they can hide,destroy,or otherwise tamper with the votes.
Of course such can happen - I've been on counting duty since 20 years or so now, on all levels of elections, from local to European.
But it's really the system, as you said: 5 (at least) people from different parties and a couple of civil servants had to be convinced to act together, plus the public which watches all this ...
(That's how it works here in Germany.)
Quote:
The ideal system is a combination of both,but I dont know how you would go about it.
Again... you should ask a software engineer. We do know how you would go about it.
The Software Engineering community is strongly advocating for a system of electronic balloting
that leaves a paper trail. This answers many of the problems with electronic balloting by providing a hard audit trail.
This is not that difficult to implement.
After you vote, the machine prints out two copies of a receipt which you can check to make sure is correct. One copy of the receipt you can keep... the other you put into a locked box when you leave. You treat that box the way we always have... it isn't opened except in the presence of people trusted by both parties.
This gives you the advantages of electronic balloting with a audit trail to answer the security issues that trouble many of us.
It is just that simple. All it takes now is lighting a fire under some politicians.
