kerry to unconcede?
- i've been out of town a while (and still am), so i
hadn't heard about this. do you know if it's gone any
BFN WORLD SCOOP!
Coming Up For Air
Kerry Preparing Grounds to Unconcede
Election Challenge likely on Jan 6th
BreakForNews.com, 24th Dec, 2004 23:00ET
by Fintan Dunne, Editor EXCLUSIVE
27 Dec Update:
Kerry Files Motion to Protect Ohio Vote Evidence
MSNBC has released the full Dec. 24th statement by
Kerry lawyer, Daniel Hoffheimer:
" Kerry-Edwards will support the third-party
candidates in asking the Federal Court in the Ohio
recount lawsuit to order the preservation of the
evidence obtained during the recount and to expedite
discovery of the facts. Various problems and errors
have occurred in a number of Ohio's 88 county boards
of elections during the recount, which will conclude
next week. The most publicized of these problems was
the machine manipulation in Hocking County but
developing evidence will reveal other problems as
well. Senators Kerry and Edwards are very concerned
that the law for conducting the recount should be
uniformly followed. They want to be sure that all
circumstances involved in the Ohio election, including
the recount, should be put before the Court and
disclosed to the American people. Only then, can the
integrity of the entire electoral process and the
election of Bush-Cheney warrant the public trust."
If you haven't been following John Kerry closely, get
ready to hear of surprising developments. The
vote-defrauded, potential president-in-waiting has
just indicated through his lawyer that the validity of
George Bush's reelection is no longer a given.
On 23 December, 2004 Kerry's lawyer confirmed to
MSNBC's 'Countdown' that John Kerry will be seeking
(likely on Monday 27 Dec.) to expedite court
proceedings and secure evidence in an ongoing recount
suit by the Green and Libertarian parties. That might
sound like just another "count every vote" exercise by
the Kerry campaign, were it not for two important
Kerry's court filing will conjoin him to existing
allegations that Triad GSI, a Republican-linked
supplier of voting machines to around half of Ohio
counties --"orchestrated" a covert campaign to thwart
a legitimate recount in Ohio. If the allegation proves
well founded, it could invalidate the Ohio recount and
eventually even hand the presidency to John Kerry.
Which probably explains the second critical detail: a
quiet, on the record bombshell statement to
'Countdown' by Daniel Hoffheimer, the Cincinnati
lawyer representing the Kerry campaign in Ohio.
Previously, the Kerry Campaign's intent in Ohio seemed
to be merely an exercise of American civic
Two weeks ago, when Kerry wrote to Ohio's 88 county
boards of election asking to visually inspect some
ballots, Donald McTigue, the lawyer handling the
recount for the Kerry campaign said: "We're trying to
increase the transparency of the election process."
In early December, when the Kerry Campaign joined a
suit by Green and Libertarian party candidates seeking
a recount in Delaware County, Daniel Hoffheimer said
Kerry wasn't disputing President Bush's victory in
Ohio. The aim was to make sure any recount was "done
accurately and completely," Hoffheimer said.
Now MSNBC 'Countdown' reports the same Hoffheimer, in
comments on their imminent filing in the Ohio recount,
concluding their call for a scrupulous recount with
"...Only then can the integrity of the entire
electoral process and the election of Bush/Cheney
warrant the public trust."
That's the first time the Kerry Campaign has impugned
the legitimacy of Bush's reelection.
RECOUNT CHEAT SHEETS
It's a signal move, likely driven by emerging evidence
of suspicious activity by representatives of Triad GSI
during the recount in Ohio. Evidence which has led a
senior Democrat, ranking House Judiciary Cmtee.
member, John Conyers Jr. to accuse Brett A. Rapp, the
boss of Triad GSI of orchestrating a criminal
conspiracy to pervert the outcome of the Ohio recount.
The allegations first surfaced before an extraordinary
Ohio hearing convened by Conyers on behalf of
Democratic Minority members of the House Judiciary
Committee. An affidavit filed by Sherole Eaton,
Hocking County deputy director of elections, stated
that a Triad representative had told her "how to post
a 'cheat sheet' on the wall so the ...count would come
out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand
recount of the county."
That account has been corroborated by other officials
and by extracts from a video documentary in which a
Triad technician admits that the company was in
possession of computer "backup" copies of the official
SIGNAL, THEN MANEUVER
If the recount was fraudulent, does that have
implications for the validity of the first count in
Ohio? The Kerry campaign knows full well that it does.
That's why their latest statement questions the
"integrity" of the "entire" electoral process. And the
election of Bush/Cheney.
For Kerry, a fraudulent recount in Ohio could be an
open door into to the Oval Office. Already, John
Conyers is confident that a few U.S. Senators will
join House members on January 6 to question the
November 2 election. On Thursday, the Chicago Tribune
reported that in a conference call with journalists
Jesse Jackson said that Kerry had conceded the
presidential election "much too soon. Before all the
facts were in."
But don't expect Kerry to quickly rush to a microphone
in order to unconcede. He doesn't have to. His
unconcession will take effect by default.
If the Ohio recount is shown fraudulent, the domino
effect could carry him through that door without
claiming victory or even unconceding.
Simply by allowing Bush's claim on the Office of
President to fall --piece by fraudulent piece. Nudging
the dominoes to topple in the right way.
Thus leaving Kerry, poised to step into office over
the Bush debris.
- Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Supreme Court or God or somebody
stepped in and made Kerry the new president?
I'm afraid we would then have a little civil war. At this point it's
probably best to let the babies have their way.
And next time, can't we shell out a few billion for pencils, paper,
and boxes, and maybe hire some people for counting, and a warehouse
to keep the ballots? And have people put their name and phone number
on the ballots, so we can verify legitimacy if we have to?
Too much cost? I say it would be a small price to pay. Takes too
long? Let the election take place a year before swearing in, what
would it hurt? Might make it harder for a president to do his job
and campaign at the same time, but that ought to be illegal anyway...
- You're right, we need a lot of reform in how we do our elections.
There's so many of us ordinary people who think that, but not
many people in Washington who seem to agree.
Yeah, there's no way Kerry will be president next year or probably
ever I'd guess. I've noticed there's a lot of new yahoo groups to
support various candidates in 2008, and I don't think there's a
single one for Kerry. There's groups for Russ Feingold, Evan
Bayh, Hillary Clinton (and some anti-Hillary groups), Bill
Richardson, Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian), and some
Republican groups that are 2008-focused but haven't picked a
specific candidate. But none for John Kerry. Another interesting
thing about 2008: it will be the first time since 1928 when neither
party nominated a sitting president or vice president (unless
Cheney decided not too old after all, or unless Cheney and/or
Bush resign, die, or are removed from office before then, or
unless the 22nd Amendment is repealed and George stays in
office for the rest of his life).
A correction: in 1952 neither party nominated a sitting president
or vice president, but President Truman did apparently seek
renomination for a short time. He dropped out after losing
support to someone named Estes Kefauver, if I'm not mistaken.
And, as others have pointed out, Eisenhower was practically a
president-in-waiting by 1952 anyhow. I've even heard that
Truman tried to convince Eisenhower to run as a Democrat in
1948, but Eisenhower declined.
About waiting a year after the election for the inauguration, that
sounds kind of like how it used to be. Until the 1930s, the
inauguration was in March. If we waited a year after the election
for the inauguration these days, then September 11 would have
happened on Clinton's watch, not Bush's.
--- In email@example.com, "tonymaloley" <
> Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Supreme Court or God or
> stepped in and made Kerry the new president?warehouse
> I'm afraid we would then have a little civil war. At this point it's
> probably best to let the babies have their way.
> And next time, can't we shell out a few billion for pencils, paper,
> and boxes, and maybe hire some people for counting, and a
> to keep the ballots? And have people put their name andphone number
> on the ballots, so we can verify legitimacy if we have to?too
> Too much cost? I say it would be a small price to pay. Takes
> long? Let the election take place a year before swearing in,what
> would it hurt? Might make it harder for a president to do his jobanyway...
> and campaign at the same time, but that ought to be illegal
> A correction: in 1952 neither party nominated a sitting presidentKefauver was a leader in the Senate, nominated as the VP-candidate in
> or vice president, but President Truman did apparently seek
> renomination for a short time. He dropped out after losing
> support to someone named Estes Kefauver, if I'm not mistaken.
1956 by Adlai Stevenson. He and Al Gore Senior and LBJ were the only
Southern liberal Democrats in the fifties.
> And, as others have pointed out, Eisenhower was practically aThey didn't like each other. Eisenhower hated Truman for desegregating
> president-in-waiting by 1952 anyhow. I've even heard that
> Truman tried to convince Eisenhower to run as a Democrat in
> 1948, but Eisenhower declined.
the military and actually had a fight on that issue.
- Kind of reminds me of the current policy on gays in the military. But
of course 'don't ask, don't tell' wouldn't work for skin color.
I wonder if Eisenhower ever thought about resegrating the military?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@y...> wrote:
> They didn't like each other. Eisenhower hated Truman for desegregating
> the military and actually had a fight on that issue.
- --- In email@example.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@y...> wrote:
> They didn't like each other. Eisenhower hated Truman fordesegregating the military and actually had a fight on that issue.
I would pay $50 to see that fight on pay per view. Ike would
probably be favored, but Harry seems like a scrapper.
> Kind of reminds me of the current policy on gays in the military. ButKind of reminds me of this quote:
> of course 'don't ask, don't tell' wouldn't work for skin color.
"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since
at least the time of Julius Caesar." - Barry Goldwater
> I would pay $50 to see that fight on pay per view. Ike wouldPhysically speaking, Ike would crush Harry in the first round. But a
> probably be favored, but Harry seems like a scrapper.
presidential debate between them two would be amazing, given one
decided to drop two atomic bombs and another fought a World War.