Like a Grand Jury Investigation? With some of them there subpoenas and search warrants and everything?
Please?
And notice that our friends the Democrats have failed to condemn him, thus showing their hypocrisy for vote fraud. I haven’t heard so much as one call from Democrats for a Soros investigation!
But, Your Honor, nobody has sex with goldfish!
My house is locked, I sleep lightly, and I am a firm upholder of the second amendment. Furthermore, thanks to the traditional horizontal storage philosophy of the adult geek, attempting to gain access to my bed is hazardous with the lights on, let alone in the dark. And I have no goldfish… wait, no, I do, and they’re snacks. Ew. Creamy pizza goldfish crackers.
You don’t have the means or the opportunity. You do have a motive (to prove me wrong)
Mr. Diebold has a means (owns the company) a motive (deliver the election to Bush) and an opportunity (owns the company).
These are significant differences in the situations.
Oh, this doesn’t mean he’s done it, but as a computer professional, his company’s behavior is all kinds of untrustworthy.
Sure. I wouldn’t object to a grand jury investigation.
No.
Merely having means, motive, and opportunity are NOT enough to accuse someone of committing a crime. You have to have evidence that they actually DID something.
Wouldn’t a good first step being showing that an actual crime was committed?
-XT
Um, yes they are. They’re enough to ACCUSE; you have to have evidence to CONVICT. The standard for indictment/accusation/whatever is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” THat’s up to a jury or a judge.
Sheesh, don’t nobody watch “Law & Order” any more?
IANAL and IDWL&O, but unless I am mistaken, you need evidence to convene a grand jury.
Got any?
Regards,
Shodan
Will you please quit misrepresenting what you’re being told? There is no (credible) accusation of a crime here, there’s simply a demand for a credible investigation. The standard is probable cause. Do you deny it’s present?
All of whom, assuming that were true, could still vote as they damn well pleased, in the true tradition of democracy. There likewise is no cause, probable or otherwise, to think he did so. Not the case with Diebold.
You’re trying awfully hard for this tu quoque, gotta give you credit for persistence.
Evidence: for starters –
An article from Harper’s Magazine
link There are many links to other articles about vote fraud in Ohio in 2004 on the side column.
Gentlemen, start your investigations!
The cites I provided claim that almost all of the “mistakes” that were made in the Ohio count took votes away from Kerry. That alone would be convincing evidence that a crime was committed, AFAIC.
Those poor, poor, goldfish! You fiends!
Most likely, he hasn’t read the GAO report. Or skimmed it. Or seen it. Or even looked for it. He’s probably read the news story, which appears to be from a quite biased source, but I’d bet dollars to donuts, that is the extent of his readings. Hell, he may not have even read the damn thread.
Start as many investigations as you want. Knock yourself out. Take this to the courts, get Congress to jump all over it. Just quit bitching about it!
Exactly how many Democtatic Senators are calling for an investigation again?
Where was this “wait and see” skepticism from the right when we were talking about Saddam’s WMD stockpiles?
Dunno about the Senate, but the House Democrats haven’t been sitting idly:
Conyers, particularly, seems to be the front guy on this effort.
Yes. It is not present. Except in your imagination.
And the standard is not “probable cause”; it is “some level of reasonable evidence”. That’s the standard you have failed to achieve.
Well, obviously it is just as likely that Soros committed election fraud as that Diebold did, based on the standards as you apply them.
And I am not using a tu quoque; you are attempting to use a case of special pleading. Election fraud doesn’t always count; only when it is not committed by Democrats.
Manufacturing an accusation based on no evidence, and then meeting every request for real data with logical fallacies and hand-waving.
Business as usual on the fringes.
Regards,
Shodan
Where’d that list come from-- a who’s who of the nuttiest Congresscritters?
I specifically said Senators because the House has so many wingnuts that I don’t pay attention to much coming from that body. And, IIRC, there is one particular Senator who would have a very strong interst in knowing the truth. Remember him?
Horse, water.
:rolleyes: Got any examples of Democratic fraud you’d like us to discuss here? What, you don’t? Okay, fair enough, it’s not tu quoque if you can’t even point to a quo.