ACORN submits fraudulent voter registrations en masse

[guizot]

At least one federal prosecutor (a Republican) feels that this whole issue was manipulated for partisan reasons:

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
One of the stated reasons for Iglesias’ dismissal, by Administration officials, was dissatisfaction in his prosecution of voter-fraud cases. Nevertheless, Iglesias “had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes” and was “one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a ‘voting integrity symposium’ in October 2005… sponsored by Justice’s public integrity and civil rights sections.”[16]

Iglesias said that in October 2006 he received inquiries regarding the timing of a federal probe of a kickback scheme involving local Democrats from two congressmen whom Iglesias refused to name for fear of retribution. He said that they appeared eager for there to be an indictment in time to assist the Republicans in the upcoming November election, and believed that he was ultimately fired for refusing to expedite matters.[17] In comments to the Albuquerque Journal he described them as “two members of the New Mexico delegation”.[18]

The Justice Department said that part of the reason for Iglesias’s dismissal was his frequent absences. In response to this charge, Iglesias stated that the reason for these absences was his mandatory 40-day per year service as part of the Navy Reserve, in which he still serves as a commander.[19] This represents a possible violation of USERRA.

In October 2008, a report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General found that Iglesias had been wrongfully dismissed because he had refused to pursue prosecutions against a Democrat-linked community organization and a prominent New Mexico Democrat. “The real reasons for Iglesias’ removal were the complaints from New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists about how Iglesias handled voter fraud and public corruption cases in the state,” the report says. The Inspector General’s report says that Senator Domenici’s complaints were the “primary” reason Iglesias was fired. [20]
[/QUOTE]

[Bricker]

@tomndebb

Perhaps you would not be surprised. However, the fact that the agency that collected the petitions attempted to warn the election board of problems with the dcuments and the fact that the state officer who initiated the investigation is of the political party that would most likely stand to benefit from such an action would seem to argue against that, so actually providing evidence that an real attempt at voter fraud (at the level of individual voters) would be a help.

Please understand that I said “I would not be surprised if…” and then leveled an unproven allegation only to show that the post I was replying to had ALSO said “I would not be surprised…” and followed with an unproven allegation. It was a rhetor’s device to show the problem with unproven allegations, a fact made explicit in the paragraphs following.

Now, the fact that ACORN claims it tried to warn the election board does not, of itself, convince me. It’s a self-serving declaration by an accused. And frankly, it seems silly: “Look here! I’m submitting these, but they’re fraudulent! Watch out!”

It may be true, of course. But with only ACORN’s self-interested denial, I simply don’t believe it. Yet. Let someone say something under oath, like the investigator did in his affidavit, and then we have a more level playing field of “he said, she said.” Right now it’s “He said under oath; she said in a press release.”

[LonesomePolecat]

@Squink

How so? With an error rate of a few hundred per tens of thousands, it seems to me that we’re talking about not much of anything.

Overly enthusiastic, and illegal purging of the voter roles seems a far larger issue:
States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal

The problem is that these incidents with ACORN keep popping up, which would seem to indicate a pattern of corruption. (And corruption doesn’t have to involve a tightly organized conspiracy.)

[Richard_Parker]

@Squink

How so? With an error rate of a few hundred per tens of thousands, it seems to me that we’re talking about not much of anything.

Overly enthusiastic, and illegal purging of the voter roles seems a far larger issue:
States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal

From that article:

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

Where is the conservative outrage?!

[LonesomePolecat]

@Richard_Parker

From that article:

Where is the conservative outrage?!

Well, the New York Times is partisan.

Okay, here’s the serious answer, quoted from the Times. But I’m going to put it in teeny, tiny eye straining type because I feel like being a bastard this morning:

[SIZE=“1”]The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.

[/SIZE]

[Liberal]

@Gyrate

I,** Gyrate**, do abjure, abrade, accuse, admonish, attack, berate, blackball, blame, boycott, cancel, cashier, cast away, castigate, censure, chastise, check, chide, comminate, condemn, contemn, criticize, decline, decry, defy, delate, denounce, deny, disallow, disavow, discard, discount, disdain, dismiss, disown, dissent, eject, eliminate, excoriate, execrate, forsake, forswear, fulminate, inveigh, jettison, jilt, knock, lambaste, lecture, objurgate, ostracize, rail against, rebuff, refuse, renounce, repel, reprehend, repress, reprimand, reproach, reproof, reprove, repudiate, repulse, restrain, scold, scorn, scrap, slight, snub, spurn, stigmatize, upbraid, veto, and vituperate all those who would seek to register false voters or discourage or disenfranchise legitimate voters, particularly those who do so with deliberate intent and/or malice aforethought.

Yes, but do you reject them? Why have you left them unrejected if you have no agenda?

[elucidator]

@LonesomePolecat

…But this is an opinion piece by an anonymous poster on the Internet. Unlike Garlock’s editorial column, the information presented here is impossible to verify, and strangely enough, the poster never mentioned this before even though the experience would be highly relevant to the discussion. Moreover, the poster is clearly extremely prejudiced. A partisan Democrat, in fact. Obviously this information has to be discounted.

A sneer is not an argument.

You missed a part, that part where I explicitly (means “openly”) state that this is an anecdote (a “story”), having no evidentiary value (“not offered as proving anything”).

Right here…

[QUOTE=Me]
…(Anectdotal aside, bearing no evidentiary import…)…
[/QUOTE]

See, that’s what that means, I’m offering an aside, just something that happened to me. (“Aside” = not actually part of the argument). Its kind of like an opinion piece, but writ small.

If you find the big words daunting, don’t be afraid to ask. We’re here to help!

[HookerChemical]

@Bricker

Now, the fact that ACORN claims it tried to warn the election board does not, of itself, convince me. It’s a self-serving declaration by an accused. And frankly, it seems silly: “Look here! I’m submitting these, but they’re fraudulent! Watch out!”

They may not have a choice about submitting them. Some states, including Nevada, require that registration gathering groups submit all registrations. Some orgs got in trouble for destroying registrations last election cycle.

ACORN is not qualified to judge whether the registrations are truly fraudulent, but the registrar is. ACORN can say “Hmm…Troy Aikman. I’m dubious,” but they’re in no position to know positively that there isn’t really a person with a famous name at the address in question. If anything, they’re going above and beyond what they’re required to do by flagging the registrations.

[LonesomePolecat]

@elucidator

You missed a part, that part where I explicitly (means “openly”) state that this is an anecdote (a “story”), having no evidentiary value (“not offered as proving anything”).

Right here…

See, that’s what that means, I’m offering an aside, just something that happened to me. (“Aside” = not actually part of the argument). Its kind of like an opinion piece, but writ small.

If you find the big words daunting, don’t be afraid to ask. We’re here to help!

Well, you’re still wanking it, I see. I dare say I know a good many more big words than you. And unlike you, I understand that being snide is not the same thing as being clever. You still having refuted the facts that I presented.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Now, the fact that ACORN claims it tried to warn the election board does not, of itself, convince me. It’s a self-serving declaration by an accused. And frankly, it seems silly: “Look here! I’m submitting these, but they’re fraudulent! Watch out!”

It may be true, of course. But with only ACORN’s self-interested denial, I simply don’t believe it. Yet. Let someone say something under oath, like the investigator did in his affidavit, and then we have a more level playing field of “he said, she said.” Right now it’s “He said under oath; she said in a press release.”

Yet you find it reasonable to believe they intended to commit fraud in such a spectacularly inept manner?

That they risk jail to get 300 names out of 80,000 on the voter rolls (which in and of itself achieves nothing…they must follow-up sending voters to commit the fraud)? That’s 0.375%.

That they put names down like “Jive Turkey” (really) among other goofy names just hoping no one would notice?

:rolleyes:

[RTFirefly]

@Whack-a-Mole

Yet you find it reasonable to believe they intended to commit fraud in such a spectacularly inept manner?

That they risk jail to get 300 names out of 80,000 on the voter rolls (which in and of itself achieves nothing…they must follow-up sending voters to commit the fraud)? That’s 0.375%.

That they put names down like “Jive Turkey” (really) among other goofy names just hoping no one would notice?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, well, when some guy waltzes into a Nevada polling place 26 days from now, says his name is Jive Turkey, and demands a ballot, it’ll wipe that smirk off your face, bucko!

[elucidator]

@LonesomePolecat

… You still having refuted the facts that I presented.

You haven’t offered any. An opinion is not a fact, and an opinion piece is not a cite. It may very well be an analysis as to why a fact is a fact, but it is not a fact in and of itself

Now, it is my opinion that for the vast majority of the Boards, an opinion piece does not count as a factual citation. I stand by that, you (apparently) deny that.

So, how about this? We start a thread asking that question: Does An Opinion Piece Count as a Cite? We will guage the reaction, which I am confident will support my position by a wide margin. We will then regard the issue as settled.

Fair?

I will request Mod assistance on placement: is that a IMHO, being very much like a poll, or is it a GD (assuming there is, in fact, any debate on the blazingly obvious…) or does it belong in the Pit, where we can call names?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Yet you find it reasonable to believe they intended to commit fraud in such a spectacularly inept manner?

That they risk jail to get 300 names out of 80,000 on the voter rolls (which in and of itself achieves nothing…they must follow-up sending voters to commit the fraud)? That’s 0.375%.

That they put names down like “Jive Turkey” (really) among other goofy names just hoping no one would notice?

:rolleyes:

Ahh, yes, the “This crime is so stupid, my client could never have committed it!” defense. In fact, many crimes are pretty stupid.

Your post parses the facts conveniently. We KNOW about 300, yet you say they submitted only 300, as though the upper limit had been definitively shown, and then point out triumphantly that it’s a fraction of a percent.

But my main point is well-illustrated by your follow-up comment. Yes, to complete the fraud, they’d have to send out voters. Which, if a voter ID law were in effect, would have very little chance of working. Hence my argument that this incident suggests a value to the various voter ID laws.

[elucidator]

And how do you collect enough “ringers” to make the plan practical, even if, as you cunningly infer without stating, the actual numbers of bogus registrations is much higher, high enough to have an actual practical effect? In fact, the problem gets worse, doesn’t it?

Lets give your innuendo far more credit than it deserves. Lets say that the scoundrels of ACORN have successfully implanted 100,000 bogus “voters” in the system. (I am just guessing here, is that enough in a statewide context, wherein millions of people will legitimately vote? Frankly, I doubt it, but, moving on…)

Where does ACORN get 100,000 reliable “ringers” without getting narked? IF they have 20,000 only, how do they work that out so that each of them votes 5 times, with the correct bogus registration, in the correct pricinct? (Its a bit like the “traveling salesman/50 cities” problem given to budding programmers to acquaint them with the limitations of “brute force” problem solving…but I digest…)

And your objection to the “too dumb” defense doesn’t work. We would be required to believe that *each and every *ACORNista be this dumb, without exception! Because it just takes one to say “Hey, guys, this won’t work!”

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Bricker

Ahh, yes, the “This crime is so stupid, my client could never have committed it!” defense. In fact, many crimes are pretty stupid.

That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s using the “This crime is so stupid, and has such a huge downside, and virtually no upside, and carries such a huge potential of getting caught, that nobody would ever consider committing it” defense. That’s different than what you’re saying.

The “this crime is so stupid my client could never have committed it” defense only makes sense once you have established that a crime occurred. And you, despite many many requests to do so, have not established that voter fraud has occurred.

[Bricker]

@Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley

That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s using the “This crime is so stupid, and has such a huge downside, and virtually no upside, and carries such a huge potential of getting caught, that nobody would ever consider committing it” defense. That’s different than what you’re saying.

The “this crime is so stupid my client could never have committed it” defense only makes sense once you have established that a crime occurred. And you, despite many many requests to do so, have not established that voter fraud has occurred.

This is absurd. Of course voter fraud predicated on these registrations has no occurred because voting day is not yet here. And absent a Delorean reaching 88 miles per hour, there’s no way today to show that someone attempted to vote fraudulently on these just-submitted registrations.

However, a crime has still occurred. And anyone can plainly see that fraudulent voter registrations are a valuable first step in the crime of voter fraud.

I would love it if you owned a bank, Don’t Call Me Shirley. Because after I rented the store next to your back, procured tunneling equipment, and dug a tunnel under your vault, I can only assume that you’d merely nod vacantly and smile benignly at me as I pointed out that no bank robbery has been committed, so there was really no reason to worry.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

This is absurd. Of course voter fraud predicated on these registrations has no occurred because voting day is not yet here. And absent a Delorean reaching 88 miles per hour, there’s no way today to show that someone attempted to vote fraudulently on these just-submitted registrations.

However, a crime has still occurred. And anyone can plainly see that fraudulent voter registrations are a valuable first step in the crime of voter fraud.

I would love it if you owned a bank, Don’t Call Me Shirley. Because after I rented the store next to your back, procured tunneling equipment, and dug a tunnel under your vault, I can only assume that you’d merely nod vacantly and smile benignly at me as I pointed out that no bank robbery has been committed, so there was really no reason to worry.

Well…unless they put in tens of thousands of names such that it could actually barely begin to start swinging the election then we are back to woefully inept criminals masterminding a conspiracy.

To extend your bank analogy it’d be like you dug a tunnel under DCMS’s bank that was 0.1" in diameter. Maybe you are still on about committing a crime but I doubt the bank would be in serious fear of their money.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Well…unless they put in tens of thousands of names such that it could actually barely begin to start swinging the election then we are back to woefully inept criminals masterminding a conspiracy.

To extend your bank analogy it’d be like you dug a tunnel under DCMS’s bank that was 0.1" in diameter. Maybe you are still on about committing a crime but I doubt the bank would be in serious fear of their money.

You know, we’re not just electing a president – we’re electing the whole House, a third of the Senate and various local officials, all races that might well be tipped by some of the numbers discussed here.

I love how cavalier this is – “Hey, it’s only a few hundred (or a few thousand) fake votes. It won’t change anything!”

So in the bank analogy – yeah, OK, my tiny tunnel might not siphon off the stacks of hundreds. But are we really going to sit still while roll after roll of coin vanishes?

And, hey – would have been nice to have ACORN registering voters in Florida in 2000, though, eh?

[askeptic]

@Bricker

You know, we’re not just electing a president – we’re electing the whole House, a third of the Senate and various local officials, all races that might well be tipped by some of the numbers discussed here.

I love how cavalier this is – “Hey, it’s only a few hundred (or a few thousand) fake votes. It won’t change anything!”

So in the bank analogy – yeah, OK, my tiny tunnel might not siphon off the stacks of hundreds. But are we really going to sit still while roll after roll of coin vanishes?

And, hey – would have been nice to have ACORN registering voters in Florida in 2000, though, eh?

nah Jeb and kathrine could have ( and did) cover any spread…

[elucidator]

Trouble being, you might buy a mongoose to git that there snake, but when he’s done eatin’ the snake, he’s gonna start in on yer chickens!