Evidence is mounting that the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio.
Evidence Mounts That The Vote
by Thom Hartmann
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.
And evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.
The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm , and noticed something startling.
While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios matched the Kerry/Bush vote, and so did the optically-scanned paper ballots in the larger counties, in Florida's smaller counties the results from the optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - seem to have been reversed.
In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.
In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.
The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.
Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.
More visual analysis of the results can be seen at RESULTSand
And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the "anomalous" numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big.
Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day.
Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.
But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.
Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.
Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."
BLACK TUESDAY NewZ
Grokking Real Eyes Articles
Learn more about American History
David Hackett Fischer
Historian, Brandeis University
Book TV Interview
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America
The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History
Fischer's Favorite History Books
Herodotus - Histories
Francis Parkman - Works
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America
Perry Miller -
The New England Mind
Fernand Braudel -
Winston Churchill -
The Second World War
Most Important People in American History
John Winthrop (1588-1649)
William Penn (1644-1718)
George Washington (1732-1799)
John Adams (1735-1826)
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945)
Brian Donahue -
The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord
Richard Rath -
How Early America Sounded
Books We Love
More related links:
Free Trade is War
Psychopathology Of America
Hippie Crap Saves the World!
The Enemy Within
War on Terrorism
Patriot Act I & II
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.
How could this happen?
On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.
That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.
"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"
Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."
"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"
Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.
Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.
"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.
But, it's running on a Windows PC.
So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel.
In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.
"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."
They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election."
As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.
Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds."
On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv.)
Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.
Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to. It makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.
And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.
So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.
But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show.
His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."
High Court Clerks Bemoan 'Bush v. Gore' Revelations
Tuesday September 28, 3:02 am ET
Tony Mauro, Legal Times
More than 90 prominent lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks including former Attorneys General Richard Thornburgh and William Barr have joined in a statement sharply criticizing the law clerks who gave behind-the-scenes details about the 2000 case Bush v. Gore to Vanity Fair magazine.
The statement, submitted to law.com affiliate Legal Times, says clerks who spoke to Vanity Fair contributing editor David Margolick for the piece in the magazine's October issue engaged in "conduct unbecoming any attorney or legal adviser working in a position of trust."
The anonymous clerks' disclosures also violate the clerks' Code of Conduct and their "duty of confidentiality" to their justice and to the Court, the joint statement asserts.
Entitled "The Path to Florida," the article reviews the dramatic events of four years ago and depicts sharp divisions within the Court over whether the Florida recount should proceed or be ended. Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and, eventually, Anthony Kennedy are portrayed as determined to reach a result that would hand victory to George W. Bush.
Several law clerks are named, though they are not necessarily among the clerks Margolick was able to interview. Margolick says roughly one-fourth of that term's 35 clerks spoke with him.
In a footnote published with the article, Margolick, a former legal affairs reporter for The New York Times, acknowledges the confidentiality rule and says none of the clerks he spoke to disclosed internal documents or conversations with their justices. But he indicates that the clerks who were willing to give him other details did so because they felt strongly the Court had acted improperly in the election case. "We feel that something illegitimate was done with the Court's power, and such an extraordinary situation justifies breaking an obligation we'd otherwise honor," Margolick quotes one clerk as saying.
The joint statement responding to the article says the clerks' breaches of confidentiality "cannot be excused as acts of 'courage' or something the clerks were 'honor-bound' to do." Later it states, "Personal disagreement with the substance of a decision of the Court ... does not give any law clerk license to breach his or her duty of confidentiality."
In one episode reported in the story, Scalia clerk Kevin Martin visited the chambers of Justice John Paul Stevens to discuss the case with Stevens' clerks. The conversation "turned nasty," Margolick reports, and Martin stormed out. Martin could not be reached for comment. On another occasion, Kennedy was said to have visited Justice Stephen Breyer's chambers, where he stated aloud that he hoped Breyer would join his opinion against continuing the recount. "We just kind of looked at him like he was crazy," a clerk is quoted as saying.
Andrew McBride, a 1988 O'Connor clerk who helped draft and circulate the statement, says it was launched after "seven or eight former clerks of various years read that footnote and said, 'This is unbelievable.' " He says clerks of all political stripes were upset that some clerks were willing to violate their Code of Conduct because of their disagreement with Bush v. Gore. Signers were solicited nationwide, McBride says, adding that none of the 2000 clerks were asked to participate.
McBride, a partner at Wiley Rein & Fielding, says disclosures like those made by the clerks in the Vanity Fair article damage the functioning of the Court. "It has to chill communications" between justices and their clerks, he says.
Erik Jaffe, a 1996 Clarence Thomas clerk who also signed the statement, says confidentiality is a crucial obligation. "Clerks have unprecedented access and are granted unprecedented candor," says Jaffe, who compared what the clerks did in Vanity Fair with "stealing my diary." He adds, "If any attorney did that, he'd be disbarred."
McBride, speaking for himself and not the other signers, also says the magazine's use of the information provided by the clerks was "not good journalism." He reasons that the views of any clerk who was willing to violate the Code of Conduct were inherently suspect and, in this case, were one-sided against the Court majority. "The reliability of the statements cannot be verified, and other clerks can't respond because they feel bound by the code," McBride says.
In an interview, Margolick agrees that "people on one side of the decision were much more likely to talk than those on the other side." But he acknowledges the imbalance in his story and does not feel that the clerks who spoke to him were political advocates. "They were offended as lawyers by what the Court did."
Margolick adds, "We don't have the complete story of what went on, and it's not completely balanced. But it is important for the public to have as much of the story as possible and not wait for 30 years to get it."
Artemus Ward, author of a forthcoming book on the high court's clerks, says he found clerks sharply divided over the confidentiality issue. As he sought to interview dozens of clerks -- not about specific cases but about the functioning of the clerks and the Court -- some were glad to speak to him, while others, including some who clerked for long-dead justices, were angry at him for even asking.
Ward, a political science professor at Northern Illinois University, notes that many clerks were interviewed for the 1979 book "The Brethren," some of them apparently upset with Chief Justice Warren Burger and other members of the Court. Some spoke to the authors, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, with the permission of their justices.
Efforts to solicit responses to the article and to the statement from the clerks who were at the Court during the 2000 term were largely unsuccessful. Most did not return phone messages, and those who could be reached would only speak as long as they would not be identified.
One 2000 clerk says he has gotten interview requests from journalists over the years seeking comment about Bush v. Gore, but never returns their messages. "There should absolutely be no breaches of confidentiality," he says.
Another 2000 clerk says, "Because I take the obligation of confidentiality seriously, I wouldn't talk to Margolick, and I won't talk to you."
The bastards stole our democracy and the media let them get away with it.
Vanity Fair magazine. October 2004
Vanity Fair magazine. Full Story I
Vanity Fair magazine. Full Story II
High Court Clerks Bemoan 'Bush v. Gore' Revelations
Crying over exposed corruption
To add address to the GRE List. Send email with ADD in Subject
& HUG A FRIEND
To remove address from the GRE List, email with REMOVE in Subject
& HAVE A FRIEND HUG YOU
*** Spirit Journey ***