Would the county clerk in one of the problem areas be good enough?
If that’s not sufficient, how about the Director of Registrations for a completely different county?
Well, in the affidavit the investigator filed in support of the application for a search warrant, there is no mention of this claim, and that was a claim made under oath, as opposed to a claim made in a press release.
A self-serving claim, by the way.
Well, no, since “…he didn’t know offhand how many of the 1,100 were flagged by that group.”
918 flagged? That’s reasonable.
22 flagged? Not so much.
Well, since we’ve all already agreed that the entire ACORN organization is not likely to be involved in any conspiracy, no – the exoneration of a completely different ACORN group is not probative of the issue under discussion here.
How does the investigator earn his pay? Does he have a quota, like traffic cops?
Tell you what: if you really want to submit that link as authority on the subject, OK.
Are you sure, though?
'Cause it leads off with: “Why voter fraud matters. Big time. Why is the media ignoring this? Every voter registered by ACORN should be voided.”
Which seems to me to be a tad intemperate. But, hey, it’s your link. I can only assume you stand by it in toto.
No, he doesn’t have a quota.
And his claims are made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury. The criminal penalty for making a false statement press release … doesn’t exist.
JFC, then how about the fucking Secretary of State that actually initiated the raid?
Why should he?
If the guy said in his article that, “2+2=4” can he not agree with that part without agreeing to the rest? Particularly since the quote is citing, presumably, a fact and the parts you listed sound like commentary.
Here is the actual article about New Mexico and ACORN that seems to be the one quoted in that blog comment upthread. It was originally in the Albuquerque Journal, but reprinted in a couple of different papers.
Absolutely, since it’s just a copy of a newspaper article that requires registration to read directly. Knock yourself out by registering and read it here if you think the quoted text is bogus.
Ooooh, the ominous “Are you sure, though?” gotchaya lead in. Sorry, still sure.
There’s this newfangled thing call a “blog”, short for “weblog”, in which a variety of different articles, opinion pieces, rants, etc. can be submitted. This particular one even allows submissions by various parties.
Oh, almost got me. When you make the same insinuation the third time, I start to rethink my stance. Well, not really.
If Michelle Malkin reprints a newspaper article, I’m probably going to accept that she didn’t change the text of it in the process, and will happily link to it as a location where one might read the article without registering. That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the rest of her blog might be a steaming pile of fried diarrhea pellets.
This point keeps getting skipped and it’s the most relevant point in the whole damned thread.
Oh, yes!
Nevada Republicans got in trouble over this back in 2004:
Nevada investigates voter registration
And I wouldn’t be surprised if these bogus registrations were the work of GOP operatives who got themselves into the ACORN sign-up queue and deliberately filled out bullshit paperwork, knowing that ACORN would be obligated by law to submit the forms, which they could then point to later as evidence that ACORN is trying to defraud the system, because that’s just the sort of shitty tactic the GOP has become known for.
There we are. Poisoning the discussion with empty speculation, offering a scenario that is buffered by a lawyerly blanket of semantic nonsense, and that while just as plausible as the alternative, if not more so, is supported by an equal amount of evidence, that is, none, which therefore means it has has equal weight, and which thus balances the paranoia on the other side. Parity met. Argument over.
Can we go now?
Damn straight. And even if some screwball state does not legally require voter registration organizations to turn in every application, the organization would be foolish not to do so anyway. Much, much better to turn in a few fraudulent applications than to put your non-governmental agency in the position of deciding which applications to accept and which to reject.
Every time there’s a thread on voter fraud, voter suppression, voter intimidation, the requirement of photo ID for voting, Diebold machines, or anything related, I point out that nobody on this Board has yet posted evidence that “voter fraud” is a real problem in America today. And now, after six pages of this thread, that remains the case.
Yes – when you get to define “real problem,” I suppose it’s pretty easy to win those sorts of contests.
Dude. Did you read the remainder of the post that you quoted? Did you understand it – the part you left out, that is?
Of course. And being a lawyer, and being such a stickler for lawyerly precision in the various arguments here in GD (enforced on others, of course, while you fiddle away in the margins), you knew exactly what you were doing. Introduce a note of suspicion, conspiracy, malfeasance. Then wave your hands and wish it away. Dissolve the poison pill in the drink, and then blink innocently: where’d it go?
Give me a break.