Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

kerry to unconcede?

Expand Messages
  • Greg Cannon
    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 further?
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      further?

      http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/KerryPreparingGroundsToUnconcede.htm

      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
      details.

      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
      spiritedness.

      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
      this caveat:

      "...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
      election data.


      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.
    • tonymaloley
      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.
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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...
      • greg
        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
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "tonymaloley" <
          am7788zz@m...> wrote:
          >
          > 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...
        • Ram Lau
          ... Kefauver was a leader in the Senate, nominated as the VP-candidate in 1956 by Adlai Stevenson. He and Al Gore Senior and LBJ were the only Southern liberal
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > 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.

            Kefauver was a leader in the Senate, nominated as the VP-candidate in
            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 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.

            They didn't like each other. Eisenhower hated Truman for desegregating
            the military and actually had a fight on that issue.

            Ram
          • greg
            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
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "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.
              >
              > Ram
            • tonymaloley
              ... desegregating 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
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "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.

                I would pay $50 to see that fight on pay per view. Ike would
                probably be favored, but Harry seems like a scrapper.
              • Ram Lau
                ... Kind of reminds me of this quote: Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. - Barry
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > 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.

                  Kind of reminds me of this quote:

                  "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since
                  at least the time of Julius Caesar." - Barry Goldwater

                  Ram
                • Ram Lau
                  ... Physically speaking, Ike would crush Harry in the first round. But a presidential debate between them two would be amazing, given one decided to drop two
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I would pay $50 to see that fight on pay per view. Ike would
                    > probably be favored, but Harry seems like a scrapper.

                    Physically speaking, Ike would crush Harry in the first round. But a
                    presidential debate between them two would be amazing, given one
                    decided to drop two atomic bombs and another fought a World War.

                    Ram
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.