RFK, Jr.: Investigate U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin for 2004 voter "caging lists"

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…”

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.
Curiouser and curiouser.

Wait-- scratch that. It’s not ‘curiouser’. It’s a fucking travesty.

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

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 -

which is just plain stupid.

Regards,
Shodan

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”.

OK, I finally got out my copy of Armed Madhouse(2006 edition). Here’s the relevant story, from Chapter 4, “The Con,” p. 199 et seq.:

Continued next post.

Armed Madhouse, p. 202 et seq.:

Continued in next post.

Armed Madhouse, p. 204 et seq.:

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).

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 thread.

I wonder how that lawsuit came out? Does anybody know?

:confused: 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?!

No. A quite recent scientific study commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission found no evidence voter fraud is a problem in America – see this thread. OTOH, voter intimidation, improper vote challenges, etc., are real problems, as you should know by this point in the thread.

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.

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.

“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?

I know the constitutional definition of treason, I ran a thread 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. :wink:

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.

So you would support a Congressional investigation into Soros’ conduct, and Pelosi’s possible involvement, right?

Regards,
Shodan

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).