# RFK, Jr.: Investigate U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin for 2004 voter "caging lists" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333 "2007-05-09T01:09:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/41 "2007-05-11T05:56:24Z")
I suppose its possible that all which we’ve already heard has an entirely innocent explanation, an explanation made up of intricately interwoven coincidences…extraordinary coincidences!..commingled with galactic incompetence…a sort of _doofus ex machina_… It is possible that no single person actually made _any_ specific decisions, that the DoJ has adopted the management style of a workers collective of an organic food co-op. Republicans are widely known for their penchant for such experimentation and their disdain for hierarchical structures. Maybe they just improved the whole thing, or consulted the I Ching. “Nine in the third line means no blame, you’ll get away with it…” ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/42 "2007-05-11T09:58:53Z")
Damaging e-mails seem to be popping up all over. [_The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas._](http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1.htm) Curiouser and curiouser. Wait-- scratch that. It’s not ‘curiouser’. It’s a fucking travesty. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/43 "2007-05-11T13:36:54Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Shodan – don’t waste your time. **ElvisL1ves** has zero interest in the truth. He will simply repeat, over and over, the claims he’s made, like a mantra. It does no good to rebut them. They simply rise again, like the phoenix, in the next thread. It’s a matter of **ElvisL1ves** orthodoxy (which I distinguish from honest liberal orthodoxy, mind you, with the simple tactic of the word ‘honest’ - liberal orthodoxy has honest claims and honest adherents) to claim that Bush deserted. The honest rhetor can certainly find some support for that claim, but would acknowledge at the end of the day that while there is evidence for it, it’s not proven to the level of certainty of a crime, or even a civil claim. The dishonest rhetor never acknowledges the fact that there is doubt or lack of certainty in his claims; he simply repeats them, again and again. [/QUOTE] Well, obviously, but isn’t that the same for the claims of voter fraud? This keeps getting brought up, again and again, and even the honest liberals admit that > [@Frank](#): > > Bricker and I seem to agree on two points here: a Congressional investigation of the evidence is fine, and neither of us have seen any evidence. So I keep hearing calls for a Congressional investigation based on no evidence, or at least a level of evidence that would be instantly dismissed _if it had to do with any malfeasance Democratic_. I’m not honest, apparently, if I don’t agree that these claims need to be investigated. But what about all the other claims with an equal lack of evidence? Shouldn’t we investigate them, too? I’ve made this point in the past. George Soros is as likely to be guilty of bribing voters as the head of Diebold is of voter fraud. Dozens of calls for the investigation of Diebold (or the simple assumption by the Usual Suspects that he is guilty). Not one single call for an investigation of Soros. But I have given up the polite fiction that a good chunk of the Dope gives a tinker’s dam about honesty in elections, because their standard of evidence changes abruptly depending on whose ox is being gored. We saw it here, with the “it doesn’t matter if the documents are forged” if it is CBS but screams of hysterical outrage if it is the Swiftboaters. Sandy Berger steals documents - no problem. Deny that it happened until he pleads guilty, and then ignore and minimize it until you can deny that it happened again. Rove is accused of confirming what was common cocktail party gossip in DC for years, and they couldn’t even come up with enough evidence to get an indictment - and the Usual Suspects will simply repeat that he is guilty of treason until Kingdom Come. Same with the OP. _Of course_ they want investigations - that will confirm guilt in the mind of the lunatic Left no matter what they find (or don’t find). The process of trying to make something be true by repeating it in increasingly louder tones is stupid, and those who attempt it ridiculous. By which I mean this kind of shit - > [@](#): > > Some Dopers won’t admit the plain and obvious fact that it is per se and ipso facto a crime, an instance of treason, and an impeachable offense for the Administration to draft the Justice Department into its service for partisan electoral purposes (which is far, far worse than anything Nixon or CREEP ever did) – even in theory, apart from evidence that has actually been done, as it has. which is just plain stupid. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/44 "2007-05-11T14:40:25Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] …We saw it here, with the “it doesn’t matter if the documents are forged” if it is CBS but screams of hysterical outrage if it is the Swiftboaters… [/QUOTE] Small but telling difference: the memos themselves were “forged”, in the sense that they were reproduced after the fact. You will recall, I am sure, that the secretary involved testified that they represented the thinking of GeeDub’s commander, which was the thrust of the argument. GeeDub _did_ receive extraordinarily lenient treatment. GeeDub _did_, indeed, adopt an approach to his military career best described as lackadaisical. The Swifties adventures in alterative reality involved a complete and utter fabrication, accusations that did for lies what Stonehenge did for rocks. All of which was bared in these very pages, before your very eyes. The difference being a foundation in fact. You are familiar, I trust, with the concept of “fact”? Certainly Mr Rather’s approach lacked due diligence, and he was rightly chastized. But while his slack approach violated journalistic standards, it did no real violence to the truth. Whereas the Swifties, by comparison, threw truth to the ground and gave it a jolly good rogering. Please advise if this distinction escapes you, as have so many others, and we will undertake to provide you with remedial education as to the nature of "facts"and “truth”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/45 "2007-05-11T15:18:10Z")
OK, I finally got out my copy of [_Armed Madhouse_](http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Baghdad-Orleans-Sordid-Secrets/dp/0452288312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9877726-4934363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178895598&sr=8-1)(2006 edition). Here’s the relevant story, from Chapter 4, “The Con,” p. 199 _et seq.:_ > [@](#): > > [John] Wooden runs the [WhiteHouse.org](http://WhiteHouse.org) site and [GeorgeWBush.org](http://GeorgeWBush.org). No, he doesn’t have a special White House security clearance, he just owns sites with those names. What’s fun is that all e-mails that end with “@GeorgeWBush._org_” go to him. Unfortunately for the Republican National Committee, a clerk there did not know that confidential missives involving political conspiracy should be sent only to “GeorgeWBush._com_” addresses. The clerk accidentally added dot-org to a name in the “copy to” line instead of dot-com. Wooden got them and giggled, and sent them to our offices. > > \ > > . . . The intended addressees were Brett Doster and Randy Kammerdiner. Brett directed the entire Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida; Randy, in Washington, directed research ops for the Republican National Committee. **Tim Griffin, Research Director and Deputy Communications Director for the Bush campaign,** also received a copy. And attached to the first e-mail was a list of about 2,000 names and addresses on a spreadsheet, in a file named “CAGING.XLS.” What made this list so special that it had to be flashed immediately to the top Bush campaign honchos? > > After our team spent hours going over them, it became clear that virtually every list – [GeorgeWBush.org](http://GeorgeWBush.org) captured over fifty of them, with tens of thousands of names – werfe made up entirely of voters in African-American neighborhoods that we checked against ZIP Codes. The lists included the ghettos of Lauderdale, Pompano Beach and a town with the Gone-with-the-Wind name of Plantation, Florida. Why would the campaign chiefs want that? > > With just a couple weeks to go before the vote, I flew to Tallahassee to show the list to Ion Sancho, the supervisor of elections for Leon County. A real straight shooter who favors no party, Sancho is looked on as the final word on voting procedure in the state. He confirmed my new suspicion. “The only thing that I can think of – African-American voters listed like this – these might be individuals that will be challenged if they attempt to vote on Election Day.” > > Sancho wasn’t happy about the list we showed him. In his entire career of nearly two decades running elections in the capital area, the supervisor had not encountered a single Election Day challenge. He’s made sure of that, pointedly warning political parties not to play that game. Moreover, it was known that legions of Black voters were expected to pour in for the 2004 vote, threatening to swamp polling places and build up lines that could cause hours of waiting. If the Republicans challenged thousands of voters, Sancho said, that would “wreck” the entire voting process. It would sabotage voting in Black precincts. > > Did Republicans plan a giant ambush for Election Day, challenging and blocking citizens when they showed up to vote? > > That would not be nice. And it could be, as well, _a criime,_ a violation of federal voting rights law. BBC laid the lists before Ralph Neas, the famed civil rights attorney, who explained that you cannot challenge the rights of large groups of voters where race is a factor in your targeting, even if individual challenges have some legitimate basis. That’s the law. Continued next post. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/46 "2007-05-11T15:36:35Z")
_Armed Madhouse,_ p. 202 _et seq.:_ > [@](#): > > If we were going to show the Republican’s Black-voter caging lists on BBC Television we’d better make sure they were not planted with false material. Were the documents bogus? The corpse of Dan Rather’s career was still swinging from the Bush campaign’s front gates after he used a questionable document in a basically solid story on the President’s Vietnam war days. > > So we went to the horse’s mouth. Two weeks before the election, our BBC crew flew up to Washington to ask about the lists, but the Republican National Committee slammed the door on us. Back in Florida, we thought we’d ask Brett Doster, supreme commander of the Bush campaign in that state, straight up. . . . > > In Tallahassee, the path to Doster’s door was blocked by a thick-armed blonde slurping on a supersize Coca-Cola: Mindy Tucker Fletcher, chief spokesmistress for the Bush campaign in Florida. > > Brett, she said, couldn’t speak for himself; he’d canceled our appointment. She would do the talking on his behalf. . . . > > After a little Q&A dance, I finally asked her if the Republican Party kept something called a “caging list” of voters. > > Mindy: “I don’t know what a ‘caging list’ is. I don’t – I’m not part of that strategy.” > > _That strategy?_ Hmm. I showed her the list. I can’t say she started snorting cola out of her nose, but clearly, she was flustered. > > She took the list inside the brick citadel, the George Herbert Walker Bush Republican Center, while I maintained a low-speed chase with her assistant, lobbing questions as he ducked into a stairwell. > > Half an hour later, Mindy, painted with fresh makeup, a retinue of jumpy PR men in tow, asked to speak to our cameras. > > Suddenly, she was an expert on caging lists. She began, “Clearly you don’t know a lot about politics if you don’t know this term ‘caging.’” > > With the list in her hand she could not deny its authenticity, but there was an _explanation._ There is always an explanation. > > Joseph Agostini, the Republican’s Director of Communications, nervously sputtered that the lists were made up of _potential donors_ to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Really? On the one list we gave them were several residents at the Sulzbacher Center, a shelter for the homeless. “Do you get a lot of major donors from poor, African-American neighborhoods?” > > Mindy cut Agostini off with a “shut it, fool” glare and stepped in with a different line altogether: “These are newly registered voters we mailed to, where the letter came back – bad addresses.” > > No kidding. No one sends campaign junk mail first class; it’s too expensive – unless you had a reason to pay for a very expensive set of return addresses. Mr. Agostini, you wouldn’t be preparing to challenge the votes of Black folk, would you? > > Agostini started jabbering: “You see, we wanted to save on the cost of postage for our campaign mailings so we wouldn’t be sending to the wrong address . . .” > > “You’re telling me, Mr. Agostini, that you send clerical information, mailing address changes, to the chiefs of your state and national campaigns? You don’t have an office clerk handle it?” > > Mindy shut him down with another “shut your gap” look. It was time for the boss lady to take over. > > _“This is not a challenge list,”_ Mindy said. “That’s not what it’s _set up_ to be.” > > “So you won’t use these lists to challenge voters on Election Day?” > > “Uh, that’s not what they were _created_ to do.” > > Three points for Mindy: well-crafted words. _Using_ the list might be legal, but _creating_ the list to bleach the voter rolls white is not. > > “Will you challenge the voters on Election Day?” > > Mindy: “Where it’s stated in the law, yeah.” > > She saw my eyes widen, so she added, “Every one does it, both parties, all the time. You can check.” > > We did. Everyone does _not_ “do it.” Certainly not in Florida. Our investigators called a dozen county election offices. Not one of them could recall a single Election Day challenge in their career, especially since the enactment of the federal law in 1965. Continued in next post. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/47 "2007-05-11T15:57:48Z")
_Armed Madhouse,_ p. 204 _et seq.:_ > [@](#): > > More confidential RNC caging lists poured in: hit lists of African-American voters, including students of Edward Waters College, an African-American school, and the Jacksonville State Street Rescue Mission (more Bush campaign donors, Mr. Agostino?). Voters in Black precincts made the list if a first-class letter sent to them was returned – they could then be challenged based on an address change. We checked one list that included fifty Black soldiers. We called one, Randall Prausa. His wife indicated that his address had changed because he was shipped overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Nice. A Black soldier’s vote gone. Mission accomplished. > > On October 26, 2004, a week before the election, we broke the story on BBC Television’s _Newsnight._ According to the network, it was the most-watched story around the globe that week. But not in the USA. Only one single U.S. television network mentioned what looked like a massive attack planned against Black voters. ABC Television’s website informed its patrons that “The entire BBC story was more or less entirely false.” Really? ABC’s source: Mindy Tucker Fletcher. For the USA, it was story over and buried. > > On November 2, they did as we had feared. The Republican Party, despite the consent decree signed twenty-five years earlier, launched a massive multimillion-dollar campaign of mass challenges of voters in Black precincts, concentrating on Ohio, where the GOP worked from a list of 35,000 names. NAACP lawyers attempted to stop the party’s racially weighted challenges were frustrated by Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. The Republicans claimed, with some justification, that the Ohio Republican Party didn’t break the law: The court order only barred racially targeted challenges by the Republican _National_ Committee. In Florida, prudently, Republican operators did not carry the lists, because Democratic lawyers, who saw our broadcast, said they would file suit. But the Republicans challenged thousands nonetheless in Florida, was well as in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The United States hadn’t seen such a mass challenge to dark-skinned voters since Martin Luther King was jailed in Birmingham. > > The caging memo distribution list makes clear the Republican National Committee was into it up to their necks notwithstanding the 1981 no-race-baiting consent decree and the Voting Rights Act. Protecting the “caged” was the job of Attorney General John Ashcroft. But Ashcroft did nothing. I should note that before Mindy became flak-catcher for the Bush campaign, she was press spokesperson for Attorney General John Ashcroft. > > In fairness, I acknowledge that Republican lists did not target only Black people. In Palm Beach, they hit retirement areas for elderly Jews, another ethnic demographic that cussedly insisted on voting for Democrat. On p. 207 is an image of the header of the original e-mail Wooden snagged – Tim Griffin is the sender – plus excerpts from two of the caging-list spreadsheets (one listing names from a homeless shelter, the other names of deployed soldiers). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/48 "2007-05-11T17:00:02Z")
BTW, the RFKJr. in the OP is the same one who in 2004 filed a whistleblower suit against Diebold for defrauding the state of Florida – see [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=380034) thread. I wonder how that lawsuit came out? Does anybody know? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/49 "2007-05-11T17:03:44Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] George Soros is as likely to be guilty of bribing voters as the head of Diebold is of voter fraud. [/QUOTE] 😕 How did Soros bribe voters? The point of the secret-ballot system is to make bribing or bullying voters pointless – because you have no way of knowing, afterwards, whether they voted the way you paid them to or threatened them into. Soros has found a way around this?! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/50 "2007-05-11T17:07:26Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Well, obviously, but isn’t that the same for the claims of voter fraud? [/QUOTE] No. A quite recent scientific study commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission found no evidence voter fraud is a problem in America – see [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418643) thread. OTOH, voter intimidation, improper vote challenges, etc., are **real** problems, as you should know by this point in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/51 "2007-05-11T17:23:23Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 😕 How did Soros bribe voters? [/QUOTE] He did not say Soros bribed vcoters. He said that bribery by Soros was as likely as Diebolt running amok. In the midst of the rest of this sparring, let us not misunderstand what has actually been said. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/52 "2007-05-11T17:24:43Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] He did not say Soros bribed vcoters. He said that bribery by Soros was as likely as Diebolt running amok. In the midst of the rest of this sparring, let us not misunderstand what has actually been said. [/QUOTE] Ah. I thought he was alluding to some specific meme that had been floated in the past – “Soros bribed voters” sounds familiar somehow, though I can’t place it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/53 "2007-05-11T17:55:14Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Well, that’s just the problem. Some Dopers **won’t** admit the plain and obvious fact that it is _per se_ and _ipso facto_ a crime, an instance of **treason,** and an impeachable offense for the Administration to draft the Justice Department into its service for partisan electoral purposes (which is far, far worse than anything Nixon or CREEP ever did) – even in theory, apart from evidence that has actually been done, as it has. See, e.g., comments by **Airman Doors** in [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=419267) [/QUOTE] “Treason,” is either ridiculous hyperbole or an outright lie. We have discussed treason before, in the context of certain hyper-nutcase conservative commentators charging that liberals were treasonous for various actions, and I said the same thing then: treason consists of giving direct aid and support to declared enemies of the United States. Does your position requires lies or absurd hyperbole to support it? Do you have any arguments which you can offer in good faith? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/54 "2007-05-11T18:06:22Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] “Treason,” is either ridiculous hyperbole or an outright lie. We have discussed treason before, in the context of certain hyper-nutcase conservative commentators charging that liberals were treasonous for various actions, and I said the same thing then: treason consists of giving direct aid and support to declared enemies of the United States. Does your position requires lies or absurd hyperbole to support it? Do you have any arguments which you can offer in good faith? [/QUOTE] I **know** the constitutional definition of treason, I ran a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=201367) on it once. But, as **Martin Hyde** pointed out in post #29, the official definition of a term is not always the only acceptable definition for rhetorical purposes. 😉 More to the point: Who undermines the integrity of our electoral system undermines the very foundations of our system of government and our civic faith. I dare call that treason. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/55 "2007-05-11T18:45:59Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Ah. I thought he was alluding to some specific meme that had been floated in the past – “Soros bribed voters” sounds familiar somehow, though I can’t place it. [/QUOTE] So you would support a Congressional investigation into Soros’ conduct, and Pelosi’s possible involvement, right? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/56 "2007-05-11T18:50:28Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I **know** the constitutional definition of treason, I ran a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=201367) on it once. But, as **Martin Hyde** pointed out in post #29, the official definition of a term is not always the only acceptable definition for rhetorical purposes. 😉 More to the point: Who undermines the integrity of our electoral system undermines the very foundations of our system of government and our civic faith. I dare call that treason. [/QUOTE] Look, your entire style of what I will generously and loosely call debate has been to toss out partisan garbage, never acknowledging the other side of the issue may have any merit whatsoever. This is a perfect example. You characterize this as “undermining the integrity” of the electroal system. Yet the purpose is to prevent those who are not qualified to do so with casting votes – you seem oddly comfortable with the idea that people not legally entitled to do so may cast votes; apparently this does no harm whatsoever to the integrity of the system. “But wait,” I hear you bleat. “Studies have shown this is not a problem!” No, they haven’t. Studies have shown that few prosecutions arise from it, and that many cases are simply of mistakes, not of evil intent. From this you would have your readers infer that there is no problem. That, too, is dishonest – or, to bend over backwards in giving you the benefit of the doubt – simply poorly reasoned. Why is it that on my side, I am able to acknowledge that instances of attempts election tampering undoubtedly exist, while you seem genetically unable to acknowledge that vote fraud exists? Why must you support your argument with lies, half-truths, and specious reasoning? If your view is, in fact, the right one, surely it could survive presentation in an honest fashion? It irks me beyond belief that the standard-bearer for legitimate complaints is drowned out by posturing like yours. Fraud against the votring system should be investigated and stamped out. But to pretend that it doesn’t occur in a variety of ways, and isn’t intended to innure to the benefit of each party involved, is absurd on its face. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/57 "2007-05-11T19:44:46Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] So you would support a Congressional investigation into Soros’ conduct, and Pelosi’s possible involvement, right? … [/QUOTE] Well, sure! With the understanding, of course, that when it proves to be pure horseshit, we get to point at you and laugh. Looking forward to it! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/58 "2007-05-11T19:52:30Z")
Proportion, **Bricker** , proportion! The half dozen or so examples of voter registration fraud may be fairly described as a “problem”. Not much of one, but if you insist on semantic parity, only too happy to oblige. But it is a puny problem, at most, so you gain an entirely symbolic victory, devoid of substance. Whereas the kind of voter intimidation and de-registration alleged (see? said “alleged”!) may very well have thrown off the results of serious and important elections. Surely you can see that a matter of scale and significance enters into the discussion? If the Dems steal a dollar and the Pubbies steal a million, you are safe to say that both are equally thieves, you will simply look rather foolish doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/59 "2007-05-11T20:08:58Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, sure! With the understanding, of course, that when it proves to be pure horseshit, we get to point at you and laugh. Looking forward to it! [/QUOTE] This is a tough question, sadly. (Not the pointing and laughing – the other). What should the minimum standard for an investigation be? In the criminal world, we have the model of a grand jury. It investigates based on… well, no standard, really. Whatever the prosecutor, the convening court, or the members feel like – most of the time, it’s the prosecutor who drives the bus, of course. But each prosecutor begins and maintains an investigation answerable only to himself. Past the grand jury, though we (theoretically) must have at least “probable cause” – that level of suspicion necessary to raise in a man of reasonable caution the belief that a crime has most likely been committed, and that the accused is complicit. And the grand jury’s saving grace is its secrecy. When the grand jury investigates someone or something, its deliberations are shrouded in secrecy. This is wise, because it hears cases that do not reach the level of probable cause, and to publicize the investigation would unfairly tarnish its target. After the grand jury has found probable cause to exist, the interests of justice permit the investigation to be public; before, it remains private. I like this model, even though the reality of how it works is not always as cut and dried as I’ve painted it. Nonetheless, it’s a fair target to pursue. When we get to a Congressional investigation, though, the playing field changes. First, we lose the secrecy. Someone targeted by a baseless accusation investigated by Congress suffers harm even if Congress determines that the accusation was, in fact, baseless. Secondly, we inject a note of politics that is (or ought to be) absent from the prosecutor and grand jury model. (It isn’t always, of course, and we learn how disastrous this can be for those involved, see, e.g., Nifong, Durham D.A.) For these reasons, I am hestitant to always leap on the spectre of a Congressional investigation and cry, “Yes!” In this case, I am persuaded the harm would be outweighed by the good. But my approbation here should not be seen as a blanket approval of the process. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333/60 "2007-05-11T20:18:00Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Whereas the kind of voter intimidation and de-registration alleged (see? said “alleged”!) may very well have thrown off the results of serious and important elections. Surely you can see that a matter of scale and significance enters into the discussion? If the Dems steal a dollar and the Pubbies steal a million, you are safe to say that both are equally thieves, you will simply look rather foolish doing so. [/QUOTE] I agree with you that the election of 2000 may well have reached a different result because of voter intimidation. But that’s simply because the margin of victory in that event was so razor thin that many different things could have tipped it. I don’t agree that 2002, 2004, or 2006 victory results were affected by voter intimidation or de-registration, even though vote totals in each of those contests obviously were. It seems to me obvious that I should support reaosnable plans to ensure that the vote counts are secure, and I think I do. It also seems to me to be obvious that I should support plans to ensure that those seeking to cast ballots are legally qualified to do so. Here’s where the question gets thorny. You would draw the line in a different place than I, bending over backwards not to disturb the would-be voter. Merely asking for ID, you say, is intrusive enough to count as intimidation, or places an undue burden on the voter. I cannot agree. (I do agree, however, that states should issue these IDs on a sliding cost scale, free to those who are indigent). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rfk-jr-investigate-u-s-attorney-tim-griffin-for-2004-voter-caging-lists/403333.md?page=4)