[Big Mac]

State GOP to county attorneys: probe felon election fraud in '08 | StarTribune.com

Originally Posted by Minneapolis Star Tribune

State Republican Party officials have raised the stakes in a growing controversy over the role of felons' votes in Minnesota's 2008 U.S. Senate race.

GOP Chairman Tony Sutton on Thursday piggybacked on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's assertion a day before that illegal votes by felons "may have flipped the election" between Sen. Al Franken and Norm Coleman that was decided by 312 votes in 2008.

Sutton sent a letter to all 87 county attorneys in Minnesota, asking for a formal investigation into potential voter fraud in their counties.

The letters read, in part, "while there will always be a cloud over the 2008 election, we must get to the bottom of the extent to which illegal voter fraud occurred."

Also Thursday, U.S. Rep. Darryl Issa, R-Calif., waded into the controversy, asking that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie maintain all records from the election, also alluding to the alleged felon controversy.

Issa, ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also invoked the potential involvement in 2008 of ACORN, a voter registration group that became a GOP punching bag during the campaign.

On Wednesday, Pawlenty said that a conservative interest group may have found "credible evidence" that more than 1,000 felons voted illegally in the bitterly contested election.

The claims by the group, Minnesota Majority, have been broadcast by Republicans in Minnesota and elsewhere, reigniting a debate over a cause long championed by Republicans: use of voting safeguards such as photo ID and other measures opposed by most Democrats as restrictive and potentially discriminatory.

Election officials, mostly DFLers, say that illegal voting by felons is relatively rare and hard to prove, but that they are duty-bound to investigate.

Sutton's letter also cited the Minnesota Majority's claims, along with continuing investigations into the issue by the county attorney offices in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.

Given that leftist Stuart Smalley just provided a key 60th Dem. vote that provided for the passage of the financial "reform" 2,000 page monstrosity, the increasing amount of evidence pointing to election fraud in his victory over Coleman should cause all free-thinking Americans great concern. Scratch that, all free-thinkers world-wide should be concerned.

[ort888]

Of course it did, he's a Democrat.

[OldManMac]

And of course free-thinking Democrats don't exist.

[olePigeon]

*double post*

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...the increasing amount of evidence pointing to election fraud in his victory over Coleman should cause all free-thinking Americans great concern.

Ever see the video Stealing Democracy?

[BadKosh]

At least Franken didn't resort to using Black Panthers to intimidate.

[The Final Dakar]

Here's my problem with the Al Franken election:

Let's assume he did win legitimately. In an election for a state with 5 million people, it came down to less than 100 votes to determine who won, meaning no matter who won half the state has been effectively disenfranchised. That's ****ing awful. There's got to be a better way of representing everyone in cases like this.

(Yes, I realize most elected officials don't win by huge margins.... but when an election is this hotly contested, I just don't like it)

[mduell]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's assume he did win legitimately. In an election for a state with 5 million people, it came down to less than 100 votes to determine who won, meaning no matter who won half the state has been effectively disenfranchised. That's ****ing awful. There's got to be a better way of representing everyone in cases like this.

That would be the House. The Senate is for representing the states, not the people.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

That would be the House. The Senate is for representing the states, not the people.

You'll have to clue me in as to what the difference is here. How does representing a state rather than the people of it change how one votes?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

At least Franken didn't resort to using Black Panthers to intimidate.

Yes, those 2 Black Panthers Obama personally sent to that one polling place really swung the difference.

I'm willing to bet that there is a good deal of fraud on both sided for every single election. It's usually just statistically irrelevant. When an election is close, the shenanigans come to the forefront, and have the ability to swing it one way or another and that's sad. I'm sure you could pick through Norm Colemans votes and find a few hundred shady one's here or there.

It's kind of funny seeing people on the right bitch and moan about this just like they criticized the left for doing in Florida in 2000. It really drives home the point that this is all just a game and that we are slaves to our biases.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yes, those 2 Black Panthers Obama personally sent to that one polling place really swung the difference.

The Black Panthers thing is a big deal because it's well-documented, there was a case in motion by the DOJ, and then dismissed by the incoming Obama admin. I have a feeling that this is just one of the eventual nails in the Obama admin coffin, as it's not just going to forever stay swept under the rug and ignored. Ignoring voter intimidation this obvious, has nothing to do with whether it effected the outcome of the election.

I'm willing to bet that there is a good deal of fraud on both sided for every single election. It's usually just statistically irrelevant. When an election is close, the shenanigans come to the forefront, and have the ability to swing it one way or another and that's sad. I'm sure you could pick through Norm Colemans votes and find a few hundred shady one's here or there.

It's kind of funny seeing people on the right bitch and moan about this just like they criticized the left for doing in Florida in 2000. It really drives home the point that this is all just a game and that we are slaves to our biases.

Otherwise, decent points.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The Black Panthers thing is a big deal because it's well-documented, there was a case in motion by the DOJ, and then dismissed by the incoming Obama admin. I have a feeling that this is just one of the eventual nails in the Obama admin coffin, as it's not just going to forever stay swept under the rug and ignored. Ignoring voter intimidation this obvious, has nothing to do with whether it effected the outcome of the election.

It's not a big deal, because nothing was ignored. The significant thing that happened was that the Justice Department dropped the case against the national New Black Panther Party organization, as there was absolutely no evidence that they had any involvement in this (IIRC, the national organization actually punished the local chapter for it), and all evidence pointed to this being an isolated incident committed by these particular thugs. The case was pursued against the individual actually holding the weapon, presumably because of whatever burden of proof allowed them to do so. How is any of that unreasonable to you?

[OldManMac]

Funny stuff, here. A prominent conservative has even admitted that this Black Panther thing was way overblown and that there isn't much to it, other than a couple of individuals who decided to take action on their own (one of them didn't even like Obama). Let'd do try to find something else to make into a mountain from a molehill, shall we?

A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

[BadKosh]

"A prominent conservative" could also be wrong in her opinions. The Panthers clearly broke the law. It was a slam dunk case. That the case was forced to be dropped speaks of the racism in the Obama admin.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's assume he did win legitimately. In an election for a state with 5 million people, it came down to less than 100 votes to determine who won, meaning no matter who won half the state has been effectively disenfranchised. That's ****ing awful. There's got to be a better way of representing everyone in cases like this.

If the guy you voted for didn't win, then you're disenfranchised?

[The Final Dakar]

The word choice may not be the most accurate but the "marginalized" definition of it works well enough for me. (And in this era of partisan politics I'd say, yeah)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"A prominent conservative" could also be wrong in her opinions. The Panthers clearly broke the law. It was a slam dunk case. That the case was forced to be dropped speaks of the racism in the Obama admin.

There was nothing "slam dunk" about it. The only clear-cut aspect of the case was the individual holding the baton, and he was charged. Further, from the link that OldManMac provided:

The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008. One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda — though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic "puppet" candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct.

Three Republican poll monitors filed complaints of intimidation — itself a federal crime — but no voters attested to being turned away. The Justice Department, while Bush was still president, investigated the incident and later, after Obama took office, decided that "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" the claims against the party and against a second, unarmed man, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

[BadKosh]

This is the same Obama that opened his big stupid mouth when his radical college professor made a fool of himself? Obama didn't know the facts then either.

[SpaceMonkey]

Are you suggesting that Obama leaned on the Justice Department? Show some evidence of that.

[BadKosh]

Or is it that he had others lean on the Justice Dept? Bush Admin would have charged the Panthers. Obama admin said don't.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

Career lawyers overruled on voting case

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.

The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

[Chongo]

Repeal the 17th amendment

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Or is it that he had others lean on the Justice Dept? Bush Admin would have charged the Panthers. Obama admin said don't.

The civil suit was filed on January 7. The Obama administration took office on January 20. According to the article you posted, the case continued to be pursued "by career lawyers" until early May. Now, it's unclear who specifically might have been involved in voluntarily dismissing the suit and when they were actually appointed within the Justice Department, but the fact is that the suit was actively pursued by the Justice Department under the Obama administration. There is no evidence yet that whatever caused the decision later on to drop the Black Panther Party and the non-weapon-wielding individual from the civil suit would not also have caused the Bush administration's Justice Department to make the same decision. That's what I'm talking about. Evidence, please.