Kennedy Pursuing Litigation Over Charges of Election Fraud
by RonChusidThe last couple of days there’s been a lot of talk around the blogosphere regarding interviews in which Robert Kennedy, Jr. has indicated he plans litigation surrounding the accusations of fraud in the 2004 election. For example, here is an interview with PR Week:
PRWeek: Is there a next step?
Kennedy: I’ve been meeting with attorneys… to devise a litigation strategy. And I would say that very soon we’ll be announcing lawsuits against some of the individuals and companies involved.
PRWeek: Who exactly would that litigation be targeting?
Kennedy: I wouldn’t say, right now.
Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone attracted considerable interest but on its own failed to live up to the hype of demonstrating that the election was stolen from John Kerry. (Discussion here, here, and here). Litigation presents a new ball game in which arguments based upon speculation and wishful thinking have no place. This is where Kennedy will succeed or fail. If Kennedy can provide actual evidence that laws were broken then his Rolling Stone article will be seen as simply an opening statement to the public before actually presenting the real evidence. It will be interesting to watch and see both who he targets and the nature of the evidence provided.
Filed under: Elections, In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |
Will the courts install Kerry???I think not at this late date.
Kennedy nees a better case then the one he presented.
If Kennedy wins, Kerry won’t be installed but Bush will be the lamest of Presidents and Dems are guaranteed both houses in November and if they don’t screw it up too bad, the WH in 2008.
And Bush may surplant Nixon or Hoover or Johnson as the worst President in our history.
battlebob no matter how bad Bush might seem,Carter will always be there.:)
Darth,
You got that right…
I don’t want to be mean but Carter’s claim to fame is no one from his administration went to jail. What a highlight film eh?
I told this story on the blog years ago…When I used to travel on business, I would help at Habitat builds on the weekend. At a build in Atlanta, Jimmy and Roslyn show up. No fanfare and as far as I could see no Secret Service. There wasn’t tuff dudes with ear pieces and gun bulges standing around.
I was not a fan of his presidency. He was the wrong leader at the wrong time. But there are few finer human beings on this planet.
Darth,
No, there is no way that the courts will install Kerry. While you might find an isolated blogger as an exception, I don’t think anyone sees this as a possibility.
If it can be proven in court that anyone broke the law and fraudulently changed the vote then legal action against them is warranted.
The point isn’t to change the 2004 election results but to increase the chances that the 2008 election will be honest.
battlebob,
“Kennedy nees a better case then the one he presented.”
Yes, and I’m sure he knows this. The question is whether this is all political posturing, or whether he really has a case against anyone.
We’ll have to wait and see on that. So far he hasn’t provided evidence that he has a legal case, but it is also possible he is holding back on revealing everything he has until actual suits are filed.
There are also conceivable areas of litigation beyond the more controversial claims that fraud changed the election results. For example, he might sue to have more voting machines in minority areas. A victory on this would be of value, but would not prove that this changed the results of the 2004 elections.
Some of the interviews give the impression that he is going after more clear cut fraud, but this can’t be evaluated until we get more information. Obviously suits alleging outright fraud would be far more interesting than the hypothetical case I mention in the previous paragraph.
We’ve always had conflict of interest, bad faith and fraud by the companies overselling the security and capabilities of these machines, never allowing us inside to see just how junky and not worth the money.
We are at a new level of taxpayer fraud from HAVA of billions by Diebold, fully aware of security risks actually built in, and recently discovered. Not even mentioning the criminality of owners, and some foreign-owned.
These are snake oil vendors not placing the same sanctity and seriousness we do on our elections.
Sorry, Ron, every time you punch at the bar of stolen, gleefully, missing the forest through the trees, the aggravation throws out my neck.
Marjorie,
sorry..I missed your links that describe these charges.
Can you post them again?
Just saw your last reasonable post, Ron.
I think he is trying for a whistleblower to show pattern, also, which would wake up some people. Kerry also tried, and then they didn’t show. Maybe now a different climate, but still a mob in control, and self-incrimination to think about.
BB, you mean the latest revelations about Diebold knowingly selling defects known since 2003? Anything you want to know about e-voting, go to Bradblog.com, or votetrust.org/com for a compilation of problems throughout the county.
Despite Ron not liking him, Brad does a great job of following problems the regular media doesn’t even mention.
Marjorie,
I’m not missing the forest through the trees. I’m trying to restore focus on the real and provable problems. You are failing to pay attention to what I’m really saying, and therefore failing to realize that I am the one who is calling for real election reform while Kennedy has been harming such efforts.
It is Kennedy and Rolling Stone which put the bar at stolen election, which was a mistake as they failed to meet this bar. (If he can prove this in court, that would be a different matter).
It is not necessary to claim that the election was stolen in order to push for changes to improve transparency. However whenever people like Kennedy center the argument around stolen elections it discredits the cause.
By making claims which are much harder to prove (unless he actually comes up with the proof) Kennedy makes it easy for others to dismiss calls for election reform. All that is necessary is to show that Kennedy has failed to show evidence that Kerry really won and people will then ignore calls for reform.
If claims of a stolen election were dropped (unless this could really be proven) then we could call for greater transparency and other reforms out of general principles of fairness without regard to whether the election was stolen.
Marjorie,
“Just saw your last reasonable post, Ron.”
We were both writing at the same time. My 8:52 post was written after your 8:39 post but before seeing your 8:44 post.
I’ll look at Bradblog again. There were lots of innuendos but few facts.
For instance, the insider from Diebold turned out to be stating that Diebold was buying extra insureance in case they were sued. This is not information that prooves voter fraud.
I don’t want to make poele mad but we need hard evidence. That has been lacking but I’ll look again tomorrow.
blackboxvoting has people that certify the Diebold stuff is sloppy and not very technologically advanced and can be tampered with. That does not proove vote fraud.
battlebob,
“here were lots of innuendos but few facts.”
That’s what I found looking at the site.
Bradblog totally lost any credibility with me when he tried to stir up talk that the California Congressional election wasn’t legit within a couple of days, lacking anything to back this up with.
Battlebob
I’ll vouch from BradBlog. I’ve spoken with Brad on the phone many times. He’s been on this issue for a long time and considered to be an expert on the issue in the liberal blogosphere. He has a wealth of info in his archives – a person needs to take the time to go through – like any blog with a lot of stuff.
My opinion is that most liberal bloggers don’t write about because it’s 1) complicated, 2) it’s not in the news daily, and 3) some don’t want to see that this could be a real threat to our democracy.
Ron
The PDA and another org in CA (name slips my mind at the moment) have come out against the results of Busby/Bilbray, FYI. That might not have happened if it were not for Brad.
So much missing here from the interview. I hope everyone reads it before judging, because again I feel as though points are missing…
It certainly sounds as though Kennedy himself could have written a book and the Rolling Stone article, like any magazine article, just touched on the various info he’s put together.
Again, I’ll state for the record, Manjoo – Kennedy’s prime debunker has no credibility in my book. He made a predetermined judgement within days after the election that there was no fraud and sorry, but even the Kerry people and the DNC were still investigating at that point.
Oops I didn’t link the quip from the article but the link is above in Ron’s post and I also posted in the Dem Daily Forum – http://forum.thedemocraticdaily.com/viewtopic.php?p=505#505
Oops and one more thing before I am off to find something to post front page that I saw earlier…
RFK, Jr – political posturing? People have begged him to run for office and he won’t ever consider it. He has sworn he never will and I for one wish he was posturing. I have the utmost respect for him as a lawyer and investigative journalist. We need a few more RFK, Jr’s in the world in my book.
Important to keep out there the extent of the problem and how easy to tilt elections. We need to fix everything about our party organizations and our elections.
Ron, our one election commissioner who cares about careful elections in NY, and stopped DREs in the 90s, thought the article wonderful because he knows all the things that go wrong with the machines and election apparatus. Stolen was not soemthing he cared about proving, but he knows the possibilities, also going beyond machines.
The Diebold problem and site
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1360&Itemid=51
Verified Voting’s Preliminary Summary Shows Diebold Equipment Vulnerabilities Affect 27 States
Brad and others pushed the Busby race because officials and media always find reasons other than lack of transparency. No real reason the Max Cleland should have lost that race given the numbers, but the official line was that lack of patriotism was believed. How do we know?
When Secty McPherson in CA recertified Diebold as a favor to Ahnold, he then allows these machines to go home unattended before the Busby race, after all the recent publicity of the flaw and hack test. We have to push the PR of how not to accept the storyline of the result just because vested interests or laziness say so.
Marjorie
On the Diebold issue – it seems tio me that companies like Diebold that have a hand in our election system should NEVER be allowed to donate to ANY Politician. $10,000 to Blackwell in OH. The implication stinks – just like the rest of the little implications stink.
Ron, sorry, but I never seem to give you any peace on this. I do appreciate your pursuing the issue!
Marjorie
Did you see what I posted in the comments of another thread last night about you posting some of the info you have front page. It’s fairly easy and I can help you get started. Let me know and take care of your neck. Those neck knots can be a b*tch – I get them from stress too.
On the Bilbray/Busby issue from BradBlog:
They broke State law here – and we shoud just say it’s nothing? I’m a resident of CA. It matters to me.
Pamela,
“Again, I’ll state for the record, Manjoo – Kennedy’s prime debunker has no credibility in my book.”
As I’ve said many times, this is not about Manjoo. He is not Kennedy’s “prime debunker.” He is just one of many people who have writen on this.
The facts need to be judged on their merrit–not based upon whether you like the author. The facts support Manjoo’s arguments while many have debunked the claims in Kennedy’s article.
“My opinion is that most liberal bloggers don’t write about because it’s 1) complicated, 2) it’s not in the news daily, and 3) some don’t want to see that this could be a real threat to our democracy.”
Liberal bloggers write about things that are complicated, not in the news, and a threat to democracy frequently. None of these reasons explain the real reasons most liberal bloggers igonre these cliams. It’s a matter of maintaining credibility by not making arguments which do not holod up and which many people, including liberals, have shown are incorrect.
There is no hope for election reform if articles like Kennedy’s, and sites full of bunk like Bradblog, are provided as the arguments for election reform. It is necessary to separate the legitimate arguments from nonsense such as this.
Pamela,
I remain very disappointed in the dishonesty you show every time this issue comes up. Rather than responding to my actual points you insist upon playing these games such as in your comment on Bilbrahy/Busby. If you read my comments on this it is very clear that this is not my objection.
I expect such dishonesty in attacking strawmen to make a point from the right wing bloggres. I would expect better from you.
Marjorie,
“Ron, sorry, but I never seem to give you any peace on this. I do appreciate your pursuing the issue!”
My goal is to provide relativey nonbiased coverage of the issue, separating the real evidence from the nonsense.
I say “relatively nonbiased” as there is an underlying bias in terms of hoping for more transparent elections in wich the result can be clear to all observers and in which tampering is easily detectable. I also have a “bias” in terms of having elections in which those who desire to vote are not prevented from voting by intentional or unintentional roadblocks.
Pamela and Marjorie,
I couldn’t agree with you both more as I also have been following this issue with Brad, Bev Harris, Conyers, and on quite a few voter rights’ sites. It is always easy to remain skeptical until all the facts are in, Ron. But it does not help when you denigrate those who use their inborn sixth sense to forge ahead when they “know” something big is amiss. These are the forerunners in society. They break lose and bravely begin to gather the facts, often amidst incredible flack from the “intellectuals” who refuse to use the other portions of their brain, the three fifths no one seems to know what to do with. We don’t have the luxury of sitting back safely until all the facts are in. Someone has to have the courage to venture out into the muck the repubs have created around their criminal activity. It is infuriating when you take that haughty position of being the only rational, meaning clear thinker here, Ron. The rational mind is a wonderful thing, but without the rest of the vast mind, which does use the three fifths of the brain no one seems to know what to do with, the almighty rational mind couldn’t keep its own body going for even 30 seconds. It most certainly is not the seat of inspiration, as any creative person will tell you. It is the great gathering, assembling, analyzing, after -the -fact portion. But don’t look to it for revealing what is not currently available to the five senses. It’s not its function and it is out of its element.
Ron, your coverage is not relatively nonbiased. Your bias is very evident. Own it!
Pamela, I was thrilled with the CEPN stand.
Connie,
These issues need to be analyzed based upon facts, not based upon a “sixth sense.” When weak cases are made based upon a sixth sense, and then easily disputed, the entire argument for election reform will not be taken seriously.
Kennedy made specific claims, and presented what he states as evicence. The evidence does not support the claims made.
My coverage has been fair and relatively unbiased other than for the aspects I note above and a concern for the quality of evidence. You are confusing disagreeing with yourown biases for being biased.
Before the Kennedy article came out I had a couple of posts announcing it favorably. I then evaluated the article on its own merits and honestly reported on its failure to prove what is claimed. Now I am reporting on Kennedy’s plans for litigation and evaluation of that will be on the meritis of the legal case–not based upon what I want to believe.
Ron
I disagree with a lot of what you have been saying on this subject. I hardly think stating I would vouch for Brad of BradBlog, or saying that Brad was instrumental in the PDA and CEPN stand on Busby/Bilbray or posting a quip from their press release via BradBlog is dishonest.
Furthermore, I would NEVER say that I feel any of your arguments on this are dishonest because they are your opinions.
The point that we all have opinions and they differ continually is missed.
Differing opinions do NOT make a person dishonest or show dishonesty on their part.
Kennedy is a lawyer – he knows the in’s and out’s of the legal system – you are Dr.
Quite frankly, I’ll hold my fingers from the keyboard before I respond to any further discussion on this.
I may be a person of a strong conviction and opinion like you – but calling me dishonest over this is out of line.
Pamela,
I’m not objecting to differences in opinion. I’m objecting to your habit in these discussions of not honestly responding to what I have said. To create strawmen to respond to, rather than responding to what I actually say, is not a very honorable debating practice.
Ron
This is my last reply here to you on this subject. If I can not state my opinions and feeling with out being labeled DISHONEST by you, I have nothing further to ever discuss with you on this subject.
You told Battlebob you didn’t find bradBlog to be credible, although Marjorie G named him as a resource. I told Battlebob that I “vouch for Brad” and have spoken with him in depth about this subject. Strawman? No I stated a fact.
I am resident of CA and care about the Busby/Bilbray controversy because it affects the voting rights of fellow residents of CA. Strawman? No fact and concern about my rights and the rights of others where I reside. The quote I posted from CEPN is real – that I got the quote from BradBlog is irrelevant. Follow the links there to their full press release.
No matter what anyone says here in disagreeing with you — over and over again — you still insist on pushing your views and “facts and opinions” you believe. Everyone who disagrees with the facts and opinions you believe, is made to feel inferior and told their opinions don’t count in so many words repeatedly.
What is so honorable in being condescending to members of this blog who disagree with you?
Talk about disappointment – I’m beyond disappointed at this point. I’m heartbroken that I can’t state things here on this subject with out being labeled dishonest for whatever reason.
Pamela,
The problem with Bradblog, as battlebob and I discussed, is that they take a little bit of informaiton and stretch it to make claims far beyond what their facts demonstrate. Taking an isolated item from Bradblog which may be valid does not in any way refute this assessment.
I’ve criticized Bradblog for specific items in earlier discussions of him. Your response does not address what I have criticized them for. Similarly, I could find accurate news accounts at Fox New’s web site. Quoting this would not be a meaningful response to someone who claims Fox has a right wing bias.
Ron
A lot of people, beyond Marjorie G, Connie and I feel BradBlog does a great job presenting the facts. You and Battlebob have your opinion of BradBlog – we have ours.
Beyond that, in the interest of maintaining a good relationship for all on this blog I don’t see the merit in bashing this over and over again.
Furthermore – since you felt compelled to call me dishonest here, I will state to you that I feel you owe me an apology for misjudging my motives.
If you can’t state that those of us who disagree with you and Battlebob are entitled to our opinions and apologize, there’s nothing left to discuss on the issue.
Pamela,
You still misquote what I have said. I never said you are not entitled to your opinions.
Ron
What you miss is that you make people FEEL that they are not entitled to their opinions.
I’ll qoute this directly from you — “I remain very disappointed in the dishonesty you show every time this issue comes up.”
I remain disappointed that you don’t see that this is hurtful to me and the work we are trying to do here as team.
I would never publically question the honesty of your motives here or the motives of any member of this blog. If you are unwilling to say perhaps you were to harsh, don’t reply to me and save us all the further unpleasentness.
Pamela,
“What you miss is that you make people FEEL that they are not entitled to their opinions.”
That’s a rather nonsense argument considering how many times I have tried to separate feelings and opinions from what has been established as fact I have specifically said several times you are entitled to your opinion.
On the other hand, while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Things thrown out as fact which are untrue are fair game to be argued.
You repeatedly respond to my arguments by claiming I have said something differnet from what I said, and then responding to such straw men. That is dishonest.
Ron
Yes, I’m dishonest. You are right. I’m dishonest. I purposely presented dishonest facts.
I’m the type of person that when someone tells me that I offended them – I own that. So you feel that I presented dishonest facts – I own that.
Hope you’re happy. Sorry I don’t measure up to your intellectual level and all I can do is present straw men.
BradBlog may be commited to a fair voting process. Everything they do is circumstantial.
For instance:
The voting machines security is suspect.
The machines were taken home
The election results are being challenged.
The problem is there is nothing that says fraud was actually completed. Each one in itself is questionable but together are still questionable.
What I am saying that nothing has been proven. There are serious suspicions but nothing that proves voter fraud existed.
I wish Bradblog would state the disclaimers instead as stating these as facts that prove fraud.
They cause questions to be asked and possible investigations to take place and maybe strap lie-detector machines on a whole lot of folks; but prove nothing.
battlebob,
Agreed. Bradblog also has a habit of making claims based upon what they have shown which go far beyond what their data shows.
Voting machines were taken home. If they left it at this, then they would have a valid argument that voting machines should never be taken to someone’s home.
However, even if they were taken home, this doesn’t prove that the contents were tampered with. When they suggest that the machines being taken home is proof that an election was stolen, people lose track of the underlying question of whether it is ok to take machines home. I also wonder if the episodes they report are the only ones, or have Democrats also taken home machines in similar circumstances.
Battlebob
“BradBlog may be commited to a fair voting process. Everything they do is circumstantial.
For instance:
The voting machines security is suspect.
The machines were taken home
The election results are being challenged.”
It’s a fact that the voting machines were taken home. It’s also a fact that it’s illegal to do that in the state of CA.
I stated here on election day that I knew this was common practice here, as many precincts vote in the garages of people’s homes.
The argument on this issue – taking the machines home is that there can be reasonable doubt that the machines could have been tampered with — which is why the practice was made illegal.
Reasonable doubt can in a court of law prove fraud sometimes.
How do we know if this is the case with out a hand count and an investigation in to the actual machines.
Is that too much to ask for? I guess it is.
Circumstantial evidence does not create reasonable doubt that can be used in court to prove fraud. A case based upon circumstantial evidence will likley be thrown out of court.
I support a hand count. That is not the issue. The problem is claiming there is evidence of fraud when none has been established.
Pamela,
You are correct when you say fraud could have happened. The fact that illegal stuff was done doesn’t mean election fraud took place.
Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t.
That is all I am saying.
Ron, Battlebob
Oh my bad – I was dishonest again – there has never ever been any instances that court cases have been won on circumstantial evidence.
Ron of course is right no evidence of fraud has been established.
I don’t care to discuss this any further – which I have stated more than once.
No one likes to be discounted or invalidated.
The members of this blog all have feelings and it’s always been the agreement amongst the core group here to value the opinions and feelings within this group.
It’s a sad day for me, given that, that I could state that I did not appreciate being labeled dishonest and have that discounted.
Pam,
No one is labeling anyone so please stop it.
If someone is going to be accused of voting fraud, it had better be more then circumstantial evidence.
Legitmate questions have been asked which bear looking into but nothing has been proven yet.
Bradblog should be commended for looking and raising awareness of the problem.
Someone did take the machines home. Prove they tampered with them.
The system is not very secure. Prove someone hacked in and changed the results.
The software is easily compromised. Prove someone did it.
These are great questions which point to something possibly being done.
They do not prove anything was done.
Battlebob
No one is labeling anyone?
“I remain very disappointed in the dishonesty you show every time this issue comes up.”…
“I expect such dishonesty in attacking strawmen to make a point from the right wing bloggres.”
WTF? No, I guess you are right – it’s not labeling. I was outright called dishonest.
I stated I did not appreciate being called dishonest and asked for an apology and that reqest was disregarded.
I’m sorry Battlebob, but I think all of this is uncalled for.
People have feelings, whether they count in an agrument is not the point. What is the point, is that it was disresctful to call me or anyone here who regularly particpates, dishonest.
Can we not agree to disagree here without calling each other dishonest and hurting feelings?
Pam,
I view this is stickly a logic and data analysis issue. I don’t know why anyone has to inject feelings into this.
When we claim voter fraud with only circumstantial evidence, we ruin any chance of any investigation into voter fraud being taken.
There are serious issues that demand an investigation to see if fraud occurred.
But claiming fraud took place based on information from Bradblog or the references in the Kennedy paper only hurts the chances of fraud being investigated.
Their efforts warrant a closer look to see if fraud took place. They do not prove fraud took place.
Battlebob
Again I don’t why anyone has to call anyone dishonest. We’re even.
End of discussion for me. You two knock yourselves out, nothing the rest of us say matters here.
Again I’m very disheartened. But I get neither of you care.
These seem like they are bassackwards
“It is necessary to separate the legitimate arguments from nonsense such as this:
There is no hope for election reform if articles like Kennedy’s, and sites full of bunk like Bradblog, are provided as the arguments for election reform.”
Are these the only arguments being presented?
How many times has the GOP done something on pure lies?
I am not advocating lies. Just observing that this OPINION that Kennedy and Brad are going to derail election reform
is ludicrously out of touch and over the top.
If anyone gets back here, we should be more concerned that can’t get proof because of the PRIVATIZATION, laziness about doing recounts, and many cases, not enough of a good backup except some paper ballots.
We’ve never seen inside of the GEM tabulator by Diebold used for central counting. We can’t get discovery.
That one instance of finding 100,000 errors in an internal audit log in Palm Beach took years by an activist group. Certainly not timely enough for election results to matter.
If Kennedy and Brad are the sources for election reform, it isn’t going to happen.
Their data is too easily seen to be not about election fraud but bad and even criminal practices.
Is that enough to get the problem looked at by the feds?
If taking the machine home is a federal crime then that seems like a way to get an investigation started.
It certainly is not the smoking gun.
It isn’t about lieing and I have never called anyone names in this thread; it is about logic and data analysis.
I think Brad tries to be sensational and tends to make mountains out of mole-hills.
That may work for starters but eventually there must be some solid data.
Battlebob
Have you seen ALL of their data? I’m just curious… Did RFK, Jr sit down with you and show you everything?
If he did not then that is your opinion and not fact.
Again – I have talked to Brad, I’m not one swayed by sensationalist stories and I sure as hell don’t write them. He’s credible and respected by many including some in Congress, FYI.
Kennedy’s work needs to be judged based upon what he actually put in print–not based on imaginary data.
Ron
Thank you for sharing.
Pam,
I looked at the references…looked at Bradblog…looked at blackboxvoting.
Every claim I looked at is circumstantial. Some are real stretches. Each describes a possibly that could be a problem. None that I saw describe a problem that proves vote fraud.
The rebuttal on Salon is interesting and I have some questions based on sample size and assumptions. If I get a chance, I’ll study it closer.
I will probably buy the book.
Before the earth cooled, I had to do some polling for a college political science class.
I polled a shopping center exit after the 1980 elections. Obviously the participants are skewed depending who enters the mall at that exit for that reason at that time. It was not a random mix.
I just asked who the person voted for and gathered age, maritial status, income, number of kids and sex data and then ran the stats.
Carter lost roughly 56-44. My numbers showed 58-42. There was no weighting and I can’t figure out why that is necessary. This seems like a fudge factor added to make the numbers from one sample agree with another.
I’ll have to read more carefully but I am not sure if the authors of any book written to prove some scenario or another are honest. Each has a point to make and is truth a casualty?
babblebob,
If you want to look further at exit polls, as check out The Mystery Pollster’s site. It’s a Democratic pollster who debunked the claims that exit polls prove fraud long ago, and has had a new series of posts on this in response to the Kennedy argument.
“I’ll have to read more carefully but I am not sure if the authors of any book written to prove some scenario or another are honest”
It is also curious that those who use the exit polls as some sort of proof rank them so highly ahead of the final pre-election polls which predicted a narrow Bush victory. The exit polls were leaked information which the pollsters said was raw data which did not predict the winner, and have historically over-estimated Democratic votes. On the other hand, the final pre-election polls were more intended to be for public release and be valild predictors.
Battlebob
I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind on BradBlog – I said I would vouch for him on the merit that he & I have spoken many times about voter rights, election reform and the 04 election.
Yes, a lot of the evidence is circumstantial and yes much of it would be hard to prove in a court.
That said, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a lawyer — a well respected lawyer, who has for decades championed the cause of the environment and civil rights.
If he feels he has a case on this, my instinct tells me he knows things that he is not making public. We all know that a good lawyer does not make evidence public so as to protect their case.
On the exit polls, I don’t recall stating that I believed that the exit polls were a deciding factor in any of this.
Quite frankly, I have simply contended all along that rather than judge Kennedy’s article on a question asked — look at the big picture — his goal is to get people involved in the fight for protecting voter’s rights.
In the battle to protect civil rights through out history, most times it takes a serious amount of loud civil discontent and unrest to make a difference.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and the entire Kennedy family have long championed civil rights and the rights of the little people.
Given that I see Kennedy pursuing this cause as another extension of the great tradition within his family to champion civil rights. Like his father, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is not a man afraid to fight for the rights of others.
Hooray for men and women of noble heart who are not afraid to stand up against corruption.
We all know that the Bush administration is the most corrupt administration since Nixon, if not worse, yet some refuse to think that so much fraud could have been perpetuated that it could have changed the election results.
We can not go back, but we can move ahead.
That is what Kennedy says in the end of his article.
Rosa Parks said, “It is better to protest than to accept injustice.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. said, “Justice delayed is democracy denied.”
For every person, who feels that their democracy was denied in the 04 election due to voter suppression and the possibily of tampering with voting machines — their cause has a champion in Robert Kennedy, Jr, who is seeking justice that has been delayed due to apathy on the part of our elected officials and the media.