<<<< Newsclip Autopsy >>>>

TRUTH NOT TOLD: Blair Admits Guilt

2005-07-26T11:55:00.000-07:00

I was watching a BBC video report of Prime Minister Tony Blair's press conference today because I heard that he had the audacity to make this comment today:

"September 11 for me was a wake-up call. Do you know what I think? A lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again."

No, Tony -- the world didn't turn over and go to sleep. Quite the opposite, in fact. I, for one, do not feel sleepy when I'm...well...outraged. You see, we have even noticed that the world is NOT a safer place since 2001 thanks to YOUR policy of illegally and unjustifiably invading a country which posed no immediate threat to your country -- and then having no plan to win the peace.

Alas, I digress.

The real reason for this post is to communicate to you all that Tony Blair, unreported by the corporate media, has finally admitted that the Iraq war has fueled the so-called "war on terror". That's right, folks. This war criminal has finally revealed to the world that he believes the war in Iraq is helping Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? Read Tony's words:

I'm not saying that any of these things [such as the Iraq war] don't affect their [bombers] warped logic or warped reasoning of what they do or that they don't use these things to try to recruit people. But I do say -- we shouldn't compromise with it...we shouldn't even allow them the vestige of an excuse for what they do.

Funny...those same exact words could be applied towards the U.S. and Britain's actions.

Don't you think it's high time the media call George and Tony on this admission of guilt? What the hell are they waiting for? Maybe they think the Prime Minister will actually handcuff himself at the next press conference? Who knows?!

TRUTH REVEALED: My Take on the Wolfowitz Downing Street Letter

2005-07-18T11:25:00.000-07:00

A copy of the acutal letter has been given to Raw Story revealing a conversation that took place between the former British ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer, and one of the architects of the Iraq war. PNAC member -- Paul Wolfowitz.

The most revealing truth about this document, to me, is the overall consistency in this letter. It can be summed up in one passage. Sir Christopher Meyer writes:

We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.

Remember, this letter was written in Mar. 18, 2002 -- a FULL YEAR before the Iraq War began. Throughout this letter, two high-ranking officials discussed "Regime Change" without the mention of any other options. The only question that was up for debate was "how would this be done?"

The other most revealing aspect of this letter to me is Paul Wolfowitz's insistence on NOT discrediting the INC -- despite warnings from Meyer. Is this evidence that the Bush regime was cherry-picking intelligence? No. But it sure as hell looks like it. At the very least, Wolfowitz is "in denial" about some basic assumptions about when and when not to believe intelligence. Here are 3 passages which pertain to this issue:

..."The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this. They unreasonably denigrate the INC because of their fixation with Chalabi."...

...When I mentioned that the INC was penetraded by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was probably the case with all the opposition groups: it was something we would have to live with...

...Wolfowitz brushed over my reference to the absence of Sunni in the INC: there was a big difference between Iraq and Iranian Shia. The former just wanted to be rid of Saddam..

Raw Story uses a very juicy catchphrase "wrongfoot" to pump this story. It is a curious phrase which should make one wonder (cynically) what was meant by it, however methinks the use and context in the letter is too vague to be used as THE focus for the whole letter. Here is the catchphrase in context:

I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SORs and the critical importance of the MEPP (Middle-East Peace Agreement) as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

Does this mean that they were scheming to deceive Hussein so that he would do something that might cause justification for an attack? Perhaps. But, maybe Meyer simply thought that just having the inspectors there would "wrongfoot" Hussein. Again, I think the more important thing (and the strongest assumption we can make) about this passage (and others in this letter) is that it seems obvious that the decision for "regime change" was a done deal a year before the illegal invasion would begin.

TRUTH NOT ASKED: The Question that's BIGGER than "Who told Rove?"

2005-07-15T14:09:00.000-07:00

In light of important new developments in this story from Pakistani Intelligence, we should be pressing the press to ask some specific questions about the "ORANGE ALERT SCANDAL" that took place in July 2004.

FLASHBACK -- 2004:

A Pakistani security official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that despite failing to capture some al Qaeda suspects after Khan's arrest, the country's security agencies were chasing them and would eventually get them.

The official would not reveal the names or nationalities of the fugitives who evaded arrest.

That's right! The U.S. and Britain KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped due to the GOP leak.

THE QUESTION THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE ASKING RIGHT NOW:

Did any of the fugitives that escaped the 2004 round-up of an Al Qaeda cell in Pakistan take part in the London Bombing?

If this turns out to be the case -- the Rove scandal will look like a walk in the park, folks. Afterall, 50+ British citizens may have died as a result.

---------------------

UPDATE:

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, was a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett in July 2004, four months after he had been identified by intelligence officials as a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operation that had resulted in several arrests.

- Scotsman.com

What else is the British Intelligence not telling us? Not surprisingly, this story is growing legs in the British press.

--------------------

UPDATE #2:

Again, from the Scotsman.com:

Mohammed Sadique Khan was identified on the periphery of a major counter-terrorism operation last year and is said to have been a "criminal associate" of one man arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Yet even after that operation, Khan was allowed to teach young children and visit the Commons.

And Khan, along with the two other bombers from Leeds, was yesterday said to have been banned from three mosques in the city, with a suggestion it was for their "radical" views.

Were there any clues buried in the individual histories of the other bombers - warning signs that should have been spotted, but weren't?

So, just to refresh our memories, here's what we know so far:

* British intelligence, according to the Scotsman.com knew that one of the London bombers, Mohammed Sadique Khan, was a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operation that had resulted in several arrests -- 4 MONTHS BEFORE GETTING A GUIDED TOUR OF PARLIAMENT BY Labour MP Jon Trickett in 2004.

* Tanweer's (another London bomber) uncle, Bashir Ahmed, said from England that his nephew traveled to Lahore, [Pakistan] earlier this year to study Islam. But the officials said they believed he also made a trip in the latter half of 2004, in which he met with Osama Nazir, a Pakistani militant...[AP Report]

* Pakistani intelligence (and I assume, U.S. and Britain) KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped in the round-up of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan due to the U.S. government leak of his name in July 2004.

Inquiring minds should be wondering if the fugitives that escaped the botched round-up in 2004 had any participatory role in the London bombings -- since we apparently know the names and nationalities of these individuals.

Inquiring minds should also be wondering why the British officials and government are saying that they knew nothing about these bombing suspects -- When in fact, British Intelligence DID know LAST YEAR that Khan was a "criminal associate" with an terrorist cell. One should also wonder why a Labour MP (4 months after knowing Khan's association with terrorists) was giving this person A TOUR OF PUBLICLY INACCESSIBLE AREAS OF PARLIAMENT!!!

Inquiring minds should now be wondering why Pakistani intelligence is already, at great speed, connecting the dots about one of the London bombers, Shahzad Tanweer, to areas of Pakistan where he may have received training and marching orders from local terrorist cells there.

Inquiring minds should now be wondering how warning signs -- such as Khan being banned from mosques due to his "radical" views -- were supposedly unknown by British athorities, when British intelligence tagged him as a "criminal associate".

Or how about these warning signs with Tanweer (from The Guardian):

The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.

There may be very reasonable explanations to these questions that I've written above. I still would like to hear them though.

Anyone?

developing...

MISTRUTH: MSNBC Calls Protesters "Unpatriotic"

2005-07-04T11:39:00.000-07:00

MEDIA MATTERS
VIDEO UPDATE!

>>>CLICK HERE<<<

MSNBC Newsanchor, Amy Robach

- Bush Speech Protest, West Virginia, July 4, 2005.

For more OUTSTANDING pics, see: Bush Invaded Morgantown WV
- by WV Democrat

- Protest UNREPORTED by Jeannie Ohm, MSNBC
(see video report here)

As reported by jmelli, Amy Robach told her viewers that there were some protestors at a Presidential speech in West Virginia. BUT MOST WERE PATRIOTIC.

Make no mistake -- there are many like her in "the land of the free".

Don't just wave your flag this July 4th. Show the Amy Robachs of America what patriotism is all about! Today is the best time to protest the war criminals that are leading America to disaster.

You may discuss more and send your pics here.

...proof through the night...

2005-07-04T00:04:00.000-07:00

Help give "truth through the night".

Please do MORE than just wave the flag on July 4th.

SPECIAL: The Bush Flag - Symbol of a Failed Presidency

2005-06-29T01:05:00.000-07:00

(actual photo taken during the speech)

Symbol of a Failed Presidency:
The Bush 9-striped, 33-star Flag

Wave it or hang it (just like he did) at any neocon protest rally!!!

Thanks to MichaelMoore.com for this heads-up.

TRUTH REVEALED: The New York Times is a Master at Deception

2005-06-23T10:16:00.000-07:00

A brilliant article by Sanjoy Mahajan in ZNET analyzes with crystalline clarity and exposes the shameless cover-up tactics used by The New York Times when dealing with the Downing Street Memos (minutes) and briefings.

In Mahajan's words:

The NYT articles -- masterpieces of delay, indirection, distraction, fake rebuttals, and elegant omission -- keep readers ignorant of the lies and the lying liars who tell them. No wonder so many Americans still support this gangster war.

In Mahajan's article he first compares headlines from the British media with the NYT.

British Headlines:

MI6 chief told PM: Americans 'fixed' case for war

Blair planned Iraq war from start

Blair faces US probe over secret Iraq invasion plan

NYT Headlines:

British Memo On U.S. Plans For Iraq War Fuels Critics

Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says

He points out that the NYT headlines -- unlike the British headlines -- glaringly omitts what was actually said in the meeting with the MI6 director, among other things:

The NYT headlines either ignore the memo [2,6]; deny its main point [4], quote others denying it [3], quote war critics or describe the memo's effect on them [1,7], or report the memo as being of mere clinical interest [5]. No headline states what was said in the meeting, a feat the Sunday Times managed back on March 20: 'MI6 chief told PM: Americans 'fixed' case for war'. One Sunday Times headline (22 May), like the NYT, mentions the effect of the memo, but it also reveals important information from the memo, the 'secret Iraq invasion plan'.

(numbers in square brackets refer to the headlines listed in his article)

In each New York Times article, Mahajan does a masterful critique on how the writers fake, dodge and shift the focus of the articles from the important and damning facts found within The Downing Street Memos (minutes).

Here are some NYT headlines with excerpts of Mahajan's analyses of each article:

Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports

The article allows that 'The statements contradicted assertions in the memorandum...', but it spends most of its remaining space discussing merely the effect of the memo. Its contents have 'dogged Mr. Blair...', and he was 'generally unsmiling through the 25-minute news conference'. The first paragraph, again focusing on the effect over the content, says that the memo upset critics who 'see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said.' Like the statement in [1] that military planning began in November 2001, the statement is true but irrelevant: irrelevant because it is not intrinsically terrible to go to war earlier than said. If it were only a week earlier, for example, who cares? The reporting obscures how Bush first decided to invade, then, to grow legal fig leaves for Blair, cooked up a UN ultimatum designed to fail. As reported on the front page of the London Guardian:

Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Careful reading reveals that the article is discussing another document: not the memo but rather the briefing paper prepared for the Cabinet meeting. The briefing paper does explicitly say: 'no political decisions have been taken'. However, the complete sentence is:

Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. ['Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action', 21 July 2002, para. 6, published in the Sunday Times (London), 12 July 2005, and at]

So, contrary to the NYT fake rebuttal enabled by selective quoting, invasion planning is underway. The briefing paper says that 'military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace', however 'it lacks a political framework' [para. 1]. Translated from Foreign Office speak, the US planners had not sold the war to the US public, i.e. had not developed the political framework. That sale would come later because, 'From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August' [White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card in September 2003].

Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says

The most recent NYT coverage [7] leads with:

Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill...to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002...

Its hearing is downplayed as 'unofficial', and besides it is held by opponents of the war, so it is another antiwar event: No news here, keep moving. The article does not explain that the hearing was unofficial because Republicans refused to allow it to take place in the Congressional chambers.

Here is the well-designed second paragraph:

In a jammed room in the basement of the Capitol, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan...presided as witnesses asserted that the 'Downing Street memo'...vindicated their view that Mr. Bush made the decision to topple Saddam Hussein long before he has admitted.

It distances the reader with 'witnesses asserted' that the memo 'vindicated their view', rather than the direct 'the memo says...' The article eventually explains one of the memo's revelations: that Dearlove says Bush has decided on war. But the article omits the evidence for Dearlove's statement: a high-level trip to Washington, probably talking to George Tenet, head of the CIA. As far as the reader knows, Dearlove could just be sounding off.

Sanjoy Mahajan's Anatomy of a Coverup may be found here.

2005-06-16T17:24:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: More than 43,000 responses now tallied. (1:30 p.m. ET June 18, 2005)

HALF-TRUTH: SLATE's Hard & Soft approach to the DSM

2005-06-16T10:32:00.000-07:00

UPDATE:

Click here to listen to Mr. Kaplan discussing his inconsistent analyses on NPR.

------------------------------------

late Magazine weighs in on the DSM:

Let's Go to the Memo
What's really in the Downing Street memos?
By Fred Kaplan

An excerpt from the article states:

This is about as solid as the evidence gets on these matters: By mid-summer 2002--at a time when Bush was still assuring the American public that he regarded war as a "last resort"--the president had in fact put it on his front burners.

Sounds promising, right?

Well, at the end of this article, Kaplan gets a little soft.

It's worth noting that "fixed around" is not synonymous with "fixed." To say that Bush and his aides "fixed" intelligence--as some Web sites claim the memo shows--would mean that they distorted or falsified it. To say "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war.
Either way--"fixed" or "fixed around"--Bush and his aides had decided to let policy shape intelligence, not the other way around; they were explicitly politicizing intelligence.

"explicitly politicizing intelligence"???!!!

Jeezus, Kaplan!! I can't think of a better euphemism. Can you? George W. Bush and the neocons deliberately DECEIVED congress and (tried to) deliberately DECEIVE the rest of the world about the need to go to war at the time. This is not merely "politicizing intelligence". It is a CRIME OF THE WORST KIND.

We're not talking about selling a used car here.

Deliberately leaving out important evidence about the decision to go to war is a high crime.
The "method" of deception is not an issue when determining if Bush & co. are guilty. This is what makes Kaplan's analyses absurd.

Oh, well. I guess we should be happy that it's finally getting some coverage from the MSM.

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Data Indicates a Massive 2004 Exit Poll Whitewash

2005-04-01T19:41:00.000-08:00

Back in January, 2005, I emailed Dr. Steven Freeman about the Mitofsky anaylsis of the 2004 Presidential election exit poll. In that email, I made an observation about a particular detail in the Mitofsky analysis that had not been noticed by any researcher or critic of the report at that time. You may see the original observation I made here.

The Mitofsky hypothesis proposes that "within precinct error" (WPE) is the reason for the exit poll discrepancy that we've all heard about. In his report, he discusses many factors that he said contributed to this WPE. Factors such as: the distance the exit poll workers were from the actual election polling area; the weather conditions; interviewer characteristics (such as age) all contributed to the skew of the exit polls towards Kerry -- so the argument goes.

However, while I glanced over the data that Mitofsky used to justify this theory, something hit me over the head like a 2-by-4. In EVERY ONE of these factors that Mitofsky mentions in his report, THE WPE IS STILL SIGNIFICANTLY NEGATIVE IN THE MOST IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCE!!! That is, in Mitofsky's dream world, where the exit poll workers were:

1. working immediately adjacent to the ballot boxes.

2. interviewing electors where the weather was a nice sunny 70 degrees fahrenheit.

3. interviewing electors from only one precinct in multiple precinct areas.

4. between the ages of 55 and 64.

etc...

there still would be significant WPE, with the 2004 exit poll results.

As I stated in January, I was hoping that Freeman and others would do an analyses on this particular detail. Guess what? They did! In this latest report by Freeman et al., Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies, US Vote Counts looked at all of the factors given by Mitofsky:

First, we notice that even the lowest mean WPE errors for most factors are very high, even in the best of circumstances. We can therefore eliminate most of the above factors from consideration, leaving only population size of town or city, and voting equipment to consider.

For an example of why we can easily eliminate these factors, let us take "distance from polling place". The number of precincts where the pollsters were placed far from the polling station was small. The discrepancies that E/M seek to explain are already fully present even in the precincts where pollsters were optimally placed. Most of this bias is apparent even in the 75% of precincts where the pollster was allowed to conduct his survey just outside or within the building.

Hand counted paper ballots were used primarily in rural districts in only 3% of sampled precincts altogether, so had very little effect on the overall discrepancies. All voting methods produced higher mean WPEs in urban areas with over 50,000 population.

Rural areas constituted 24% of precincts sampled. All other "population size" precinct groups had mean WPE of at least -5.0, with the highest mean WPE of -7.9 in suburbs which constituted 39% of precincts.

No other factors relating to WPE (within precinct error) were given in the Edison/Mitofsky report that would explain the systematic discrepancies between the election results and the exit poll results in the presidential race.

So there you have it. I'll go even further, though. Since Mitofsky completely ignored this important detail -- and I refuse to believe the "father of exit polling" is incompetent -- one has to assume that Mitofsky is trying to explicitly MISLEAD us. For God sakes!!! I'm a simple layman who has no degree in statistics and I was able to spot this glaring detail!!!

Indeed, there is much more evidence offered by US Vote Counts that points to a 2 or perhaps 3-coat whitewash by Mitofsky.

According to this new study, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE showing that Kerry supporters were oversampled. In fact, the evidence given by Mitofsky shows that the number of Bush supporters in a precinct is co-related to the exit poll discrepancy:

The Mitofsky data also shows something which is highly improbable and counter-intuitive. Kerry supporters, according to the data, have a wide range of response rates, compared to the Bush supporters. What's even more improbable is that the Kerry supporters, according to Mitofsky's parameters, dramatically increase their response rate when they are in Republican territory. The same is not true for Republicans when in a Democratic precinct. As US Vote Counts muses:

This data contradicts previous experience and observations of this election that voters finding themselves in the minority in a local venue (and particularly a dwarfed minority) tend to be less willing to respond to exit poll interviewers, not more as this data requires. Certainly we would not expect the Kerry voter response rate to soar to over 84% in precincts where Bush voters outnumber them by at least four-to-one. Conversely, we would not expect the Kerry voter response rate to be at its lowest (53%) in precincts where Kerry voters were most numerous.

This is starting to look like an embarrassment to Mitofsky.

There are numerous different angles this new study analyzes with respect to participation vs. party affiliation. Time and time again, Mitofsky's data reveals that his hypothesis and assumptions are totally contradictory to normal polling behaviour. Here are the summaries of US Vote Counts observations on the data when related to Mitofsky's assumptions on respondent behaviour:

- Higher exit poll response rates and higher exit poll discrepancies occurred in Bush
strongholds. E/M’s own data contradict both the rBr and the rBrmpc hypotheses and support the Bsvcc hypothesis.

- The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the E/M exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.

- Once again, there is an implausible set of required response rates for Kerry and Bush supporters given the Edison/Mitofsky precinct partisanship data in Table 1.

- When Edison/Mitofsky’s explanation is checked against their own data using conservative assumptions, it requires highly suspect Kerry voter exit poll behaviors in "high-Bush" precincts.

- Very surprising patterns of partisan response rates to exit polls are required by both Kerry and Bush voters when we select values to minimize the differences between Bush and Kerry voters' exit poll response rates.

In sum, there are no values of proportions of Bush and Kerry voters which can be chosen that would result in plausible response rate patterns, and that satisfy the exit poll data given by E/M.

Get the picture?

Pretty dramatic stuff! Probably as dramatic as it gets for statistical analyses!!! But wait! There's more!!!

The exit polls for the 2004 election not only tabulated views from the Presidential election. It also received information about the voters intentions for the U.S. Senate races. Gues what?! Yup. Strangely enough, the exit polls were far more accurate at determining who would win for Senator. As history shows us, there is no precedent for widespread "ticket-splitting" in other elections. That is, if you vote democratic for President, there is an overwhelming probability that you would vote democratic for the Senator. US Vote Counts summarizes this peculularity this way:

There is no logic to account for non-responders or missed voters when discussing the
difference in the accuracy of results for the Senate versus the presidential races in the same exit poll.

No logic, indeed. Unless this is a nation where "multiple personality disorder" is present in epidemic proportions!!! To allay that particular fear, this report confirmed another startling finding which was observed in a previous report by the same group. Exit polling accuracy was dependent on whether the election ballots were hand-counted or not!! This is a highly significant finding, considering that, in Ohio, only a non-random 3% of the ballots were hand recounted. Many of these instances had recounts which were different from the machine counts. See this previous Newsclip Autopsy article that discusses this further.

In summary, the US Vote Counts report is damning in every conceivable way to the Mitofsky study. It has been shown that Mitofsky's conclusions completely contradict his own data. Furthermore, the only reasonable hypothesis that still has a leg to stand on is the one that supports the idea that widespread vote counting corruption occurred in the 2004 Presidential election. As US Vote Counts states:

An alternative hypothesis that is more consistent with the data is that corruption of the official vote count occurred most freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds.

If Edison/Mitofsky would release the detailed results of their poll to the public then much more could be said about this hypothesis, and the suspicious precincts could be identified. If E/M does not release its list of sampled precincts, US Count Votes believes it will still be possible to rigorously test the hypothesis that the vote counts were corrupted by assembling and analyzing a precinct-level nationwide database containing detailed election results, voting equipment information and demographic data.

Which brigs us to our last point.

When is the U.S. public going to finally get to see the raw exit poll data???!!!

Something tells me that this latest damning report is going to delay things a bit further. Especially when the MSM continues to refuse to fairly report what could be the biggest scandal in U.S. history.

ONE MILLION Protest China

2005-03-27T04:48:00.000-08:00

March 26, 2005 - Taipei, Taiwan

For those of you who would like to organize a protest -- take notes!! This country of 23 million organized a protest of one million strong in less than 2 weeks!!!

Unbelievable!!

This is a post in honour of those supporting Taiwanese freedom, democracy and continued independence from an increasingly aggressive dictatorship which is delusional with its goal to annex this peaceful nation.

Long live Taiwan!!!

The walk, divided into 10 streets converging into one mass crowd consisted of groups each from a different part of Taiwan.

The young attended.

As well as the elders. It was truly amazing how many seniors were present for this long walk.

In the distance, the Presidential Office -- the final destination. This was as far as our group were able to go. There were too many people to progress any further. Thanks to the Mayor of Taipei (a KMT member and Communist sympathizer), a large section of this public area was restricted. The mayor also estimated the crowd to be a little over 200,000!!!

A very angry sign, although I don't agree with this approach. The Chinese people should not be targeted. It is the government that is responsible.

I participated in the walk for more than 3 hours.

Here, one massive group from a different road converged into another. The police were hardly noticable at all. Despite the anger towards China, no violent incidents occured.

People were waving and cheering everywhere you looked. They even lined the windows of the local Pizza Hut.

A prominent Taiwan politician leads the crowd. The China propaganda machine reported that these 1 million people were bribed to participate (see the lies here). In reality, a T.V. telethon was arranged a couple of days before the protest. People donated close to $1 million (U.S. dollars) in only a few hours. This was to help cover the expenses for this major event which far exceeded expectations.

MISTRUTH: AP Legitimizes Taiwan Wacko Conspiracy Theory

2005-03-18T20:21:00.000-08:00

ABOVE: Campaign photo showing the President & Vice President on the Jeep before the assassination attempt.

Here's another piece of evidence that shows us that the American Press is lazy and uninformed. I found this in a very short "this day in history" blurb (emphasis added by Newsclip Autopsy):

"One year ago:...Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian and his vice president were shot and slightly wounded in an apparent assassination attempt on the final day of Taiwan's presidential campaign."

- AP - March 18, 2005.

Yeah, like President Kennedy was apparently assassinated in 1963.

Let's see -- a shooter opens fire on the Taiwanese President Chen and Vice President Lu while waving to their supporters a day before the election. Yeah, I can see how a reporter has to be very careful when it comes to accurately identifying this as an "assassination attempt".

I imagine this word "apparent" stems from the Taiwan opposition party's loony assumption that Chen actually staged the shooting in order to create a "sympathy" vote in order to win the closely fought Presidential election of 2004. This "theory" (if you can call it that) has been refuted by the evidence and investigation so many times that you have to wonder if the leaders of the opposition (Lien & Soong) are mentally challenged. What's more, they plan to hold a protest rally a full-year after this assassination attempt took place. Talk about being the biggest sore loser of all time!

Here are the facts:

- President Chen and Vice President Lu were shot at (2 bullets) from approximately 15-20 feet away by a shooter(s) using a hand-made gun while in a moving jeep travelling approximately 10 km/hr.

- Two bullet holes, showing the bullet's trajectory were anaylized by Henry Lee (Taiwanese-born forensic investigator, famed for the O.J. Simpson trial) on the front windshield of the Jeep. Chen was grazed by the bullet accross his stomach and was a fraction of an inch from being fatally wounded. Lu was injured on her knee by one of the bullets.

- The bullet casings were found at the crime scene and were eventually matched to an illegal gun factory in Taiwan.

- Recently, the wife of the "apparent" assassinator confessed that her husband was the one who shot the President and Vice President. He was a disgruntled citizen, disturbed about Chen's policies.

- The man's image was captured by a public video camera as he fled the crime scene after the shooting.

- The man officially committed suicide (this is the only aspect that is suspicious) shortly after the Chen shooting. He died by drowning in a river, even though he was said to be an expert swimmer. The wife destroyed the suicide note before confessing.

- The shooter had strong connections to the opposition party who is now protesting the anniversary of the shooting this year.

How the opposition party (KMT) still believes that the President risked his own life by having someone (who is not a marksman) shoot him across the stomach with a non-precision weapon from a distance of 10 - 15 ft away in a moving vehicle for a CHANCE to win an election is simply beyond my imagination. So far, they have not come up with any -- I REPEAT -- any evidence that supports their absurd claim. One simply has to ask a supporter at the rally today, "would you re-enact the scenario if I found the best marksman in the world so that you could prove that this theory has a chance of being credible?"

I doubt you would find many takers.

Perhaps the AP editor who wrote this misleading blurb would do the honours?

MISTRUTH: New York Times Continues to Stereotype Bloggers

2005-03-07T01:41:00.000-08:00

For this post, Newsclip Autopsy will paste the colourful writing of a fellow dissector, Winter Patriot. This original post was written at The Brad Blog and it concerns a recent article by the New York Times entitled, "At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?" by Jonathan Glater.

As you read the NY Times article which is tagged "News Analyses" by the publisher (and found in the "Technology" section of the paper), you'll discover that there are a number of eyebrow raising details found in the quotes and by Mr. Glater himself that makes this piece less than fair to the bloggers point of view.

Here is Winter Patriot's post, in it's entirety. Enjoy.

That's a VERY BIZARRE article, Brad. I mean the NYT piece, not yours. It has some astonishing quotes, such as:

Attempting to draw a distinction based on the medium used by the blogger or reporter is misguided, said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School (also a blogger). "In 15 years, there may be no clear distinction between reporters on the one hand and bloggers on the other," he said. "It won't just be an either-or, where you have a reporter for The Chicago Tribune on the one hand, and a guy sitting in his pajamas drinking beer on the other."

What?? Why pajamas? Why beer? Why does it have to be a guy?

Who says a blogger cannot be a woman sitting in her lingerie drinking chablis?

OK OK I'm kidding again ... but really? Just because you publish your articles on the net does that mean you can't bother getting dressed? Hey, Mister Yale Law School professor, I'm wearing pants and a shirt and drinking tea! What do you have to say about that?

He was also quoted as saying this:

Not all blogs are equally influential and not all blogs even try to report, in the usual sense of cultivating sources, actively gathering information and then organizing and presenting it to the public, Mr. Balkin added. "There are millions and millions of blogs, and most of them are for gossip."

How does he know that most of them are for gossip? In order to know that for a fact, he would have to read at least half of the "millions and millions of blogs". Do you think he did that? Is that what law professors do? What rubbish!! But of course the NYT prints it as if it made sense. More rubbish!! Well at least he isn't trying to start a war with this garbage. Of course even if he were, they would still print it!

Then there's this astonishing sentence, not a quote, but something apparently written by Mr. Glater:

So a blogger who interviews people and spends significant amounts of time gathering and organizing information could claim the privilege; a blogger who wrote about good and bad recipes, and who one day stumbled onto a copy of the Pentagon papers and printed them, might not.

Is this man serious? Does he really think a blogger might be called to identify his sources if he happened to post a copy of the Pentagon Papers? Well at least that's not going to be a problem for me, because I can tell you right now: I got my copy in a used book store. So that one's solved, at least. It had been pretty well-used, too. Some secrets!!

And furthermore, I have never even thought of writing about good and bad recipes on please don't read my blog. So I guess he's not talking about me anyway.

And what's with the word "print"? Doesn't Mr. Glater understand YET that bloggers do not PRINT?? That's what makes them bloggers, Mr. Glater! Hey, no problem. I'm happy to help you out on that one, buddy!

But wait! Here's one more bizarre paragraph, again from Mr. Glater:

Yet if recognizing a privilege for bloggers means that everyone online can maintain that they are journalists, judges may conclude that rather than giving everyone the privilege, no one should have it. That possibility worries reporters, who could find themselves at new risk for what they write or broadcast.

Reporters could find themselves at NEW RISK for what they write?? What is NEW about this risk?? Am I dreaming or are certain NYT reporters already at risk for something they DIDN'T EVEN WRITE? And on the other hand isn't there someone who is NOT at risk even though he was the one who SPILLED THE BEANS in the first place?

Oh what a tangled web we weave! Sometimes I think we must have passed through the looking glass...

Phew! Long deep breath ... yesterday I promised myself I wouldn't post any more long rants here, and already I've broken my promise. What should I do as penance? Maybe I'll put on my pajamas, crack open a beer, and write a hot new piece about how not to make chicken soup.

Oops! Gotta run! Here comes Alice!!

Thanks Winter Patriot!

SPECIAL: Former Canadian Foreign Minister Gives Condaleeza Rice Some Advice

2005-03-03T08:29:00.000-08:00

I've never been more proud to be a Canadian! I just had to post this letter to Condaleeza Rice by our previous and esteemed Minister of Foreign Affairs and current President of the University of Winnipeg. Canadians aren't quietly going to take any of this neocon grade-school bully behaviour anymore!!!

Hat tip to zander at daily Kos

Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy

(Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Boondocks Cartoon Pulled By Hundreds of Newspapers

2005-03-02T20:19:00.000-08:00

As reported by Propaganda Matrix, about 300 newspapers across the U.S. pulled the above strip (or another unedited version) from their papers.

The Chicago Tribune reasoned that the comic “presents inaccurate information as fact”.

O.K., so now the recorded voice confession of George W. Bush smoking pot is not considered fact. This is now part of the growing list of "non-facts" that King George has publically voiced on record. Does that mean that the MSM are now telling us that, implicitly, President Bush is not to be believed anymore?

--------------------

Here's the other Boondocks cartoon on the same topic:

MISTRUTH: Anne Coulter Racist Remark Censored by Syndicator

2005-02-26T18:54:00.000-08:00

On the Jeff / James Guckert / Gannon scandal, Anne Coulter - fresh from being exposed about lying about Canada's involvement in Vietnam (see previous Newsclip Autopsy post here) - is caught making racist comments about Reuters veteran journalist Helen Thomas.

The American media seems to enjoy cleaning up the scum coming from Anne's mind as well, as the news site, Uexpress has done.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars and Moveleft for this dissection.

TRUTH REVEALED? Bush Equivocates About Invading Iran...Again!

2005-02-22T22:51:00.000-08:00

Did you hear King George make the all of the reporters laugh at the NATO press conference today? Here's the transcript of that moment:

Q A question for President Bush. President, you came to Europe with a very constructive speech. And, indeed, you said very few things the Europeans couldn't agree with. But actions speak louder, so do you actually commit to taking more into account the European position on international matters? And do you actually commit to, for instance, prevent from launching action, strikes against a sovereign member state, state like Iran, without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, look, let me talk about Iran; that's a place where I'm getting good advice from European partners. After all, Great Britain, Germany and France are negotiating with the Ayatollahs to achieve a common objective, something that we all want, and that is for them not to have a nuclear weapon. It's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon.

It's also in our interests for them not to continue funding terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which has the desire to stop the Middle East peace process from going forward. And so these are great interlocutors on behalf of the position we share. So there's an example of concrete action.

I'm also looking forward to working with our European partners on the Middle Eastern peace process. Tony Blair is hosting a very important meeting in London, and that is a meeting at which President Abbas will hear that the United States and the EU is desirous of helping this good man set up a democracy in the Palestinian territories, so that Israel will have a democratic partner in peace.

I laid out a vision, the first U.S. President to do so, which said that our vision is two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace. That is the goal. And I look forward to working concretely with our European friends and allies to achieve that goal.

And finally, this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table. (Laughter.)

I have to say, when I watched it on CNN, I am very certain that Bush did not intend for that statement to be a joke.

This is not the only instance where Bush has not given a clear answer about the possiblility that Iran may be invaded UNILATERALLY. Of course, he's not going to come out and say that this is going to happen. However, the fact that he is NOT ruling out the possiblility that he may do another end-run around the UN is a definite warning sign in my books.

MISTRUTH: Bloggers Will Obstruct the Work of "Real" Journalists

2005-02-20T10:06:00.000-08:00

Here's a take from The Toronto Star's Tim Harper (Washington Reporter):

Often witty, sometimes racy, certainly irreverent, frequently sanctimonious, the blogosphere has been bulking up for years.

But the mainstream media have long taken a largely dismissive approach to this world of online political journals: Open. Peek. Chuckle. Close.

No more.

The growing army of American cyber-pundits hunched over their search engines has begun to wield strength that no one predicted.

A promising truthful reflection from a mainstream reporter (albeit a Canadian mainstream reporter).

However, his remarks below these comments focus more on the right-wing blogs. Never does he mention "votergate" or the left-wing blogger achievement of getting a Senator to delay certification of the Prez the first time in over 100 years. Never does he mention the Prez's rectangular back bulge which was brought to the mainstream thanks to left-leaning blogs (and later killed by the so-called "liberal" media).

(sigh) The article, in the end, turns into another preach-piece on how blogs should be "handled-with-care".

Tim Harper leaves us with a warning (from columnist Kathleen Parker - a self-proclaimed "fan" of the blogosphere):

For all their attractive swashbuckling and bravura, bloggers also can become a cyber-mob that acts, as mobs do, without conscience or restraint.

But wait, there's more...

Parker worries that — if bloggers continue to believe everything is fair game — "off the record" will no longer apply and the ability to speak freely will become a thing of the past.

Now there's a new one I haven't heard before!! LMFAO!!! By accurately reporting what was actually said, bloggers are now going to indirectly cause people not to speak freely. Bloggers are now going to "obstruct" the progress of the mainstream media from doing responsible work. You have to ask yourself, why can't the MSM put some of that creativity into their actual work, instead of using it to come up with ridiculous excuses for why they aren't going to continue to do their job.

The fact is, bloggers are becoming notorious because THEY are the ones doing the journalism that the MSM refuses to do. THEY are the ones connecting the dots that the MSM refuses to connect and/or see. And the majority of these dots so happen to be ON THE RECORD -- lies and all.

A journalism professor in this article says,

"We [bloggers] see 'red meat' and we swarm."

When these bloggers refuse to eat the same sanitized corporate-approved pablum every day, you're damn right these hungry wolves are going to swarm when we see prime-rib continue to be thrown into a mile-high pile of manure. We, after all, are not afraid to get a little dirty.

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Who Was That Iraqi Woman During The State of The Union Address?

2005-02-06T21:11:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder who that Iraqi woman was during the State of The Union Speech?

"Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight."
- President Bush

Well, it turns out that her father was assassinated in Lebanon and perhaps, because of the U.S. government's lack of trust in this man. As this article describes, a coup attempt in 1993 was apparently compromised by the American government when her father's covert accomplices were exposed to Saddam.

Why did she attend Bush's speech if this is true, you may ask? The article hypothesizes that this "special" treatment may be payback in order to continue the cover-up.

For more details, see:

Who Was the "Iraqi Woman" Paraded Out for GW Bush's Inaugural Speech

MISTRUTH: Anne Coulter Believes Canada Sent Troops to Vietnam

2005-02-04T22:17:00.000-08:00

Fox News . Where more and more Americans get their information.

(video link provided by MichaelMoore.com)

TRUTH LEFT OUT: MSM Fail to Report an Important Exit Poll Study By Prominent Experts That Invalidates Mitofsky's Explanation

2005-01-31T18:41:00.000-08:00

UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA

UPDATE #2:

I have found the first comment made by Mitofsky since the damning report by USCountVotes.org refuting his conclusions.

Ready?

It's really short.

Here it is:

The Edison/Mitofsky report was not investigating election fraud. We were looking at how to guarantee the accuracy of exit poll data.
- from Research-Live.com - February 2, 2005

(more blank space for dramatic effect)

I really don't know what to say. That comment says it all. Either Mitofsky is:

1. Completely off his rocker

or

2. Being forced to say these things, which defies all logic and reasoning.

I'll just state the obvious and be as brief as Mitofsky.

How the hell can you guarantee the accuracy of exit poll data if you don't even consider if there was counting error or not????!!!!!

How the hell can you guarantee the accuracy of the exit poll data if your conclusions contradict the data????!!!!

And what's more -- "the integrity of the election process" (what USCountVotes.org is about) does not necessarily equate to "vote fraud".

Or does Mitofsky know something more?

--------------------------------------

UPDATE #1:

Word is slowly, and I mean slowly, getting around about this important report. An article by Judy Bertelson at the Berkeley Daily Planet has made a very astute observation about the Mitofsky / Edison report. She states:

...Furthermore, the Edison/Mitofsky report elides from hypothesis to assertion of fact, without the benefit of confirming data.

Edison/Mitofsky are quoted as saying, “While we cannot measure the completion rate by Democratic and Republican voters, hypothetical completion rates of 56 percent among Kerry voters and 50 percent among Bush voters overall would account for the entire Within Precinct Error that we observed in 2004.”

(Within Precinct Error is defined as “an average of the difference between the percentage margin between the leading candidates in the exit poll and the actual vote for all sample precincts in a state.”)

However, this hypothesis is treated as fact on page four of Edison and Mitofsky’s Executive Summary, “It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.” The hypothesis has morphed into asserted reality.

Are we to believe that a highly respected researcher, such as Mitofsky, has made such an egregious error in logic by mistake? What is the "probability" of that?!

------------------------------

ORIGINAL POST:

I waited a few days to see if any of the MSM would pick this story up. Surprise, surprise -- NOTHING! This report by prominent statiticians and mathematicians across the U.S. has concluded that Mitofsky is simply WRONG with his own exit poll analyses. Based on the numbers provided by Mitofsky in the "investigative" report entitled "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004", the professors and researchers report that Mitofsky has no evidence to support his claim that the exit poll participation rate was skewed in Kerry's favour. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the exact opposite was true.

As Newsclip Autopsy has mentioned multiple times before, there are only 2 explanations that could account for the exit poll discrepancy:

1. Significant Systematic Exit Poll Bias

2. Counting Error (benign or malicious)

According to Mitofsky's research, there does seem to be a few variables which points to number 1. However, as I've noted below, the discrepancy still exists when the ideal conditions are met. Unfortunately, the USCountVotes.org report does not address this particular point. It is my belief that this systematic bias was NOT significant enough to account for the overall discrepancy. I have emailed Dr. Freeman (one of the contributers of the USCountVotes.org report) about this particular query, but I have received no response as of yet.

Nonetheless, this new evaluation of the Mitofsky data makes it clear that FURTHER ANALYSES OF THE RAW DATA is needed in order to address this issue and others. So far, none of the media outlets will allow this information to be released.

As for "counting error" of the actual votes, statistician Josh Mitteldorf explains that:

Now we have statistical evidence that these reports were the tip of a national iceberg. The hypothesis that the discrepancy between the exit polls and election results is due to errors in the official election tally is a coherent theory that must be explored.
(from Scoop - January 31, 2005)

Furthermore, the USCountVotes.org report goes on to say that the hand counting of paper ballots showed NO STATISTICAL DISCREPANCY with the exit polls, as was the case with the counting and tabulating with the other machine methods. Mitofsky DID emphasize in his investigation that there was no error difference between e-voting and voting using paper ballots, but he did not compare "hand counting" against "machine counting". Why he did not do this is odd -- considering he had the data for comparison. Afterall, this difference was of major importance during the Ohio recount in December when only 3% of the votes were actually recounted by hand. There were multiple instances when the the hand recount did not match the machine count. By state law, a full hand recount should have taken place. However, with orders given by SOS Ken Blackwell, the machines were replaced with new ones and a full hand recount did NOT take place.

This report proves that Mitofsky DID NOT do his homework properly and HAS NOT adequately explained why a significant discrepancy exists between the exit polls and the official results of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. It also begs other basic questions not queried by Mitofsky -- supposedly "the father" of exit polling. The USCountVotes.org report is an extremely important piece of work done by highly respected professional and credible mathematicians and statiticians.

When are we going to see this critical analyses in mainstream media???!!!

Indeed, when is the mainstream media even going to release the raw data so that further objective analyses may continue???!!!

HALF-TRUTH: CNN Headline at Odds With The Actual Story About "Iraqi Democracy"

2005-01-25T19:55:00.000-08:00

This newsclip -- screensaved from CNN.com -- is worthy of a piece on a late night comedy talk show. Hmm: 1) Iraqis don't know who the candidates are; 2) Iraqis don't know where to vote; 3) Iraqis "...are not as interested in talking about the elections as they are about the lack of petrol, gas, electricity and work."

However, the headline screams "Democracy Finds Hope...". LOL!!!

TRUTH REPORTED: CNN Gets it Right -- AGAIN!!!

2005-01-20T09:55:00.000-08:00

Here's the update:

HALF-TRUTH: Mitofsky Solves The Mystery of the Exit Poll Discrepancy

2005-01-19T20:01:00.000-08:00

Finally, on the eve of the Presidential inaugauration (timely, wouldn't you say), Mitofsky's conclusions for the much anticipated initial investigation into the exit poll discrepancy for the 2004 election have been released to the public (see his full report here).

As reported by CNN, here are his main assertions as to why Mitofsky believes there was a significant discrepancy between the exit poll numbers and the actual results:

Distance restrictions from polling places imposed upon the interviewers by election officials at the state and local level.

Weather conditions, which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations.

Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in the exit poll sample.

Interviewer characteristics, such as age, which were more often related to the errors last year than in past elections.

The numbers in the report are, indeed, interesting. For example, look at the numbers for the "interviewer distance from the polling exit":

NOTE: WPE = Within Precinct Error. A negative number indicates that the exit poll differed by the main results in Kerry's favour. Similarily, a positive WPE would indicate that the exit poll overestimated the Bush numbers.

There definitely seems to be a co-relation between Republican voters not completing exit polls due to how far the exit poll interviewers are away from the polling building. What does this mean? What are we to assume is going on here? Do Republicans overwhelmingly park their cars closer to the polling building? Are Democrats more likely to take a bus after voting (the bus stop being in the general location of the exit poll station)? No explanation is given by Mitofsky as to why this phenomenon occurs. Further examination is definitely needed here!

With respect to interviewer age, there also seems to be a slight co-relation with the WPE. That is, the older the interviewer, the less the exit poll discrepancy:

So, here Mitofsky insinuates that Republicans are less likely participate with younger exit poll workers (The "contempt for youth" effect). If Republicans tend to discriminate based on "youth", I would love to see the stats co-relating the WPE against whether the exit poll worker was "black" or "white". Alas, Mitofsky did not provide that analyses -- since only 7% of the workers were African-American.

All in all, do these numbers indicate that there was a "shy Republican" effect with the variables looked at in the Mitofsky analyses? It seems that way. However, the most obvious detail of every variable looked at in this study has been completely ignored by Mitofsky and the mainstream media.

THE WPE IS ALWAYS SIGNIFICANTLY NEGATIVE IN THE MOST IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

That is, even if Mitofsky implemented all of the changes he recommends, there still would be a significant discrepancy.

Don't believe me? Look at all of the systematic bias variables looked at above and then look at the most "ideal" situation:

1. Distance Restrictions -- PROBLEM: THE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, THE LESS LIKELY REPUBLICANS WERE TO RESPOND

There was still a -5.3 and -6.4 discrepancy with the mean WPE even when the exit poll workers were "inside" or "right outside" the entrance.

DISCREPANCY STILL EXISTS!

2. Weather Conditions -- PROBLEM: BAD WEATHER MADE REPUBLICANS LESS LIKELY TO RESPOND

There was still a -6.2 discrepancy with the mean WPE when the weather was NOT a factor.

DISCREPANCY STILL EXISTS!

3. Multiple Precincts -- PROBLEM: i) the interviewer was not able to interview voters only from the sample precinct; ii) either the reported vote or the exit poll is not only from the sample precinct alone.

There was still a -6.3 discrepancy with the mean WPE when there was ONLY 1 precinct.

DISCREPANCY STILL EXISTS!

4. Interviewer Characteristics -- PROBLEM: THE YOUNGER THE AND MORE EDUCATED THE INTERVIEWER, THE LESS LIKELY REPUBLICANS WOULD RESPOND

There was still a -7.0 discrepancy with the mean WPE when the age of the interviewer was between 55-64. A similar discrepancy still exists when education and gender is taken into consideration.

DISCREPANCY STILL EXISTS!

Has Mitofsky proven that a co-relation exists between these above variables and the Republicans willingness to participate in the exit poll? It seems that way.

HOWEVER, the big question is this:

Has Mitofsky proven that these variables account for the significant discrepancy between the exit poll numbers and the actual results of the election?

That answer is a BIG RESOUNDING "NO".

According to Mitofsky's results, there would STILL be a significant discrepancy even if all of his recommendations were followed. Why no mention of this extremely important detail? The silence, as we say, is deafening.

A crude analogy would be to say that a bowl of sh*t would taste bad because one put too much pepper on it. However, I think we would all agree that if we take away the pepper, it would still taste bad. (I hope no one argues with me on that particular detail).

So remember: When the editorials from the mainstream give you the pablum that it has been proven by Mitofsky that the exit poll discrepancy was a result of Republicans not wanting to participate (due to the variables listed above) -- please write them and set them straight!!! THERE IS STILL AN "UNACCOUNTED FOR" DISCREPANCY.

I would love for Dr. Freeman to do another follow-up to his yet unrefuted research, showing that these variables listed by Mitofsky do not adequately account for the overall significant discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results. I'm sure we will hear from him soon!

Mitofsky (and the mainstream media) still assume that there was no significant COUNTING ERROR (malicious or benign). The evidence of widespread irregularites across the U.S. and, most notably, in Ohio, paints Mitofsky (and the press) as being a bit naive (or careless) in this regard. As he states in his report:

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey.

How about this reason: More people voted for Kerry than what was officially recognized.

TRUTH REPORTED: CNN Finally Gets it Right!!!

2005-01-18T19:23:00.000-08:00

TRUTH LEFT OUT: House Judiciary Committee asks for Criminal Investigation into Ohio's SOS, Ken Blackwell

2005-01-14T19:43:00.000-08:00

UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Don't hold your breath (for it to be reported or followed up on by the DOJ), but Congressman John Conyers et al. are now pressing for a criminal investigation against the Secretary of State for Ohio.

...Among other matters, the referral is to request an investigation into voter intimidation, improper voter purging, perjury, possible misuse of Help America Vote Act funds, tampering with voting machines during Ohio’s recount and Blackwell’s misuse of the Great Seal of the United States in a campaign letter...
(from The Blue Lemur, January 14, 2005)

Also noted in this article is the fact that Attorney General John Ashcroft

...has not appointed a special counsel during his tenure...

American democracy(?) continues...

HUGE MISTRUTH: Alternet Lowers American Investigative Journalism to a New Low

2005-01-10T19:54:00.000-08:00

WARNING: The following blog-post contains crude uncensored angy words to emphasize the obscene nature of the article reported on here.

You know journalism in America is in dire straits when the non-mainstream alternative so-called "left-wing" sites are churning out utter crap like the stuff I discovered today. This Alternet piece has inspired me to take what free time I have today and dedicate it to exposing it's glaring non-sequiturs. There is a problem, though. I don't know where to begin. The ol' "so much to write about, so little time" axiom comes into play here. So what I will do here is expose the mistruth in one section of the story and let you (and other bloggers) comment about the others. The section of the article I will cover is on a particular topic Newsclip Autopsy has been following closely since November 2. Russ Baker, the so-called "investigative journalist" of this report calls this particular subject "the central issue".

The exit polls.

Election 2004: Stolen or Lost

By Russ Baker, TomPaine.com. Posted January 10, 2005.

Charge: Exit poll results were more accurate than actual ballots
Finding: False
Explanation of Problem: Imperfect nature of polls

Now to the central issue: the claim that exit polls, which never lie, showed Kerry winning. Our understanding of this – and the argumentation in the Contest – is based largely on an analysis by Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. But Freeman is not an expert in polling. According to his affidavit, he is a visiting scholar in the Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania Center for Organizational Dynamics.

O.k. First off, Baker tries to discredit the exit polling analyses based on Freeman's credentials. Notice he does not mention the fact that no "expert" has ever disputed his conclusions since the report first came out in mid-November. He also conveniently neglects to mention the most recent analyses by STATITICIAN Ron Baiman who confirms Freeman's findings.

To get some insight into this issue, I spoke with a source who, in the common parlance, is "familiar with the thinking of" Warren Mitofsky, the "father" of the exit poll.

Baker's UN-NAMED source is "familiar with Mitofsky's thinking"! How's that for covering one's journalistic back!! Well done, Baker!!!

Asked about Freeman's analysis, my source told me that it is "all wrong." We spent several hours going through Freeman's specific claims, and reviewed how exit polls – and Mitofsky's in particular – work.

Much of the belief that the election was stolen was based on "screen shots" of raw numbers provided by CNN. In exit polling, raw numbers mean almost nothing – since the essence of a successful exit poll is to interview a sampling of voters, and then apply a variety of methods in order to adjust to the most probable accurate assessment. "To say you want the raw data is ludicrous," said the source. "You can't use it until you do something with it. You're talking about a bunch of naïve people that had [only] the first course in statistics."

Forgive my extreme bluntness here, but that is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLS**T, HORSES**T, PIGS**T -- WHATEVER -- THIS IS THE MOST VILE EXTREMENT THAT I HAVE EVER COME ACCROSS DURING THE POST-ANALYSIS OF THIS ELECTION. Raw numbers don't mean anything?????!!!!! Is this guy on crack????!!!! "You can't use it until you do something with it????!!!" NO FREAKIN' SH******T!!!! Both Freeman and Baiman both adjusted the sample to compensate for gender bias, etc. In fact, it is the final numbers produced by the networks which bear no resemblance to reality. These "final" numbers were adjusted so that they would agree more with the actual results. It's the statistical equivalent to "adjusting the bell curve" when a professor finds that the majority of the students did poorly on their mid-terms. And Baker has the gall to smear Freeman's name a second time by calling him "naive". This is incredible!!!

Bill Leonard, a former CBS News VP who was a polling pioneer, has called exit polls "blunt instruments." The widely circulated notion that they are always right is dead wrong.

BULLS**T, HORSES**T, PIGS**T....MORE UTTER VILE EXCREMENT!!! Exit polls are used by UN organizations all over the world to determine whether an election is fair. The most recent and a most obvious example was the exit polling done in the Ukraine. This exit polling, by the way, was managed by the U.S.!!!! It was also the number one reason why the U.S. disputed the first Ukraine election results, immediately following the outcome. Furthermore, NOONE IS POSTULATING THAT THE EXIT POLLS CAN NEVER BE WRONG!!!! Freeman et al. are merely pointing out that THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCY -- which cannot be explained by sampling error. PERIOD

The notion that a single definitive number showing Kerry winning ever existed is also wrong. "We never had unadjusted unofficial totals," said the source. "As we get more data, we're always adjusting."

In this case, what most likely happened was that more Bush supporters failed to complete exit poll surveys than Kerry backers. The reason for that can be as trivial as a sampler skipping someone who looks unfriendly or voters not liking the race or demeanor of the sampler.

Nowhere in this putrid piece of journalistic bunk has it been mentioned that Mitofsky -- "THE FATHER OF THE EXIT POLL" -- is doing an investigation into this discrepancy. In fact, Mitofsky was first reported to be doing an investigation into his exit polling in November. I have not heard whether he has reported any findings yet or indeed, whether his investigation is continuing (perhaps someone can provide me with more information about that?). Mitofsky's hypothesis -- which is mentioned above -- is what blogger Joseph Cannon calls "the chatty democrat" theory. Although, the explanation painted above throws a twist on it. Baker mentions that the one doing the sampling could be skipping unfriendly looking voters -- which all happen to be Republicans, of course!!!! Not only is this a politically racist comment (is that a term?) -- it is highly unlikely. In order for this particular theory to hold water it would have to be SYSTEMIC. That is, a significant number of the exit poll personnel would have to have been not only judging the way people look in a similar fashion -- they would all have to be breaking the rules of the "random sample" procedure. The random sample procedure implemented in this exit polling selected people based on a certain number (eg. every 10th person is chosen).

(For what it is worth, I learned that Mitofsky is a lifelong liberal and apparently holds no brief for Bush. But a job's a job, and a professional is a professional.)

Yes, and you, Russ Baker, are doing nothing to strengthen the integrity of your profession in your country.

I will state it again as I stated it before. Freeman and Baiman's analyses state that either:

1. There is a systematic bias (not statistical error) which has skewed the exit polling.

or

2. There was counting error (benign, malicious, or both)

It should be duly noted (which Baker has not) that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT number 1. The same can also be said for number 2, however, there was not a proper complete random and fair recount done in Ohio.

Mr. Baker -- if there was a journalistic equivalent of being "disbarred" -- you should be be a prime candidate for this dishonour!! Shame on you!!!

Now, does anyone else have any comments about the rest of the crap found in this article??!!

ADDENDUM:

I picked up this little excerpt from www.russbaker.com:

"...Baker is involved in the development of the Fourth Estate Society, a new not-for-profit organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism in America..."

Good luck, America!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Only a Non-Random 3% of The Votes Were Re-counted in Ohio

2004-12-29T18:43:00.000-08:00

Well, it has been almost 2 months now since Ohio voters first punched out their chads and trusted a computer program to count their ballots and now we have verification that George W. Bush clearly won the state by a significant margin. Democracy is alive and well in America.

WRONG!

However, that's how the New York Times and the Washington Post are covering it:

Ohio Recount Gives a Smaller Margin to Bush
By ALBERT SALVATO

Published: December 29, 2004

CINCINNATI, Dec. 28 - A recount of the presidential election in Ohio that was finished on Tuesday showed that President Bush won the election here by about 300 fewer votes than initially recorded.

The recount of Ohio's 88 counties showed that Senator John Kerry gained 734 votes, with Mr. Bush picking up 449 after elections officials allowed more than 1,100 previously disqualified ballots to be counted in the second tally...

Here's the AP story posted in the Washington Post:

...Kerry gained 734 more votes in the recount, and Bush picked up 449, mostly from disqualified ballots that were counted in the second tally because hanging chads had come loose when ballots were handled again or rerun through counting machines. That put Kerry 285 votes closer to Bush. The president's victory margin declined by about three dozen more votes when some counties adjusted their certified vote totals...

Again, there's just one wee little teency-weency bit of information left out of these two reports.

ONLY 3% OF THE BALLOTS WERE RECOUNTED!!!!!!

According to Ohio State law, if 3% of the votes counted by hand -- selected from random precincts -- match the machine counts, then that county does not have to recount the remaining ballots.

Guess what?

In Fairfield and Monroe counties, the machine / hand recount did not match. Did they do a automatic full recount (according to state law?). No. They suspended the recount and brought in another machine a few days later.

Furthermore, the votes were NOT recounted from RANDOM precincts. 86 out of the 88 counties did not select their ballots randomly.

...nearly all of the 88 Ohio counties may be in violation of the Ohio recount law because they did not choose the precincts to be manually recounted in a random manner. For example, in Vinton County, a unilateral decision was made to pick a county for the 3% manual recount test simply because its vote total was closest to 3% of the county total. In Morrow County, a decision as to what is “random” was made without input from recount observers after a county election official called Secretary of State Blackwell’s office and was told that her interpretation of “random” was the correct one, despite Green recount observer protests.

Ohio Election Law is very clear on this point. Section 3515 of the Ohio Revised Code says:

The board must randomly select whole precincts whose total equals at least 3% of the total vote, and must conduct a manual count.

If the tabulator count does not match the hand count, and after rechecking the manual count the results are still not equal, all ballots must be hand counted. If the results of the tabulator count and the hand counted ballots are equal, the remainder of the ballots may be processed through the tabulator (for optical scan and punchcards).

Lack of random samples threatens to undermine the entire recount process, as it does in other situations where random sampling is critical. Would you, for example, be willing to play a hand of poker if the cards were already dealt when you got to the table?

Relating this back to the recount procedures, when you read in the newspapers that recounts were done and no discrepancies were found, it could be because the election officials chose to do test recounts on precincts where there were no problems. There may still be problems or there may not be, but no one can know for sure. What we do know is that lack of random recounts does not follow either the spirit or letter of the law, and may necessitate further action, including a second statewide recount...
(from ICLA Online, December 23, 2004)

The Ohio recount process was rife with irregularites. As Newsclip Autopsy has reported in the last month, there were counties that had ballots already sorted before the recount(Cuyahoga county); A Triad technician was found accessing a computer (unsupervised by any experts) which tabulates votes. He admitted to doing the same at other counties as well. The Secretary of State has (illegally, some would say) prevented observers from looking at the poll registration books until well after the the electoral votes are counted on January 6th, officially pronoucing George W. Bush the winner of the 2004 election.

The list goes on.

However, the mainstream press fail to go into much detail about all of these significant developments which have occurred over the past 2 months. Instead, we get a weak generalized summary, which can only evoke a big yawn from most of its pablum addicted readers. Observe:

Daniel Trevas, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said Democrats supported the recount but found that county elections officials sometimes ignored requests by recount observers to see rejected absentee and provisional ballots, and were not informed about procedures used to recount and reject ballots.

"Some of these boards did not give us full access during the recount," Mr. Trevas said.

He said that in one county, Clermont County, in southwest Ohio, numerous complaints were filed by Democrats and the two independent parties when access to recount procedures was ignored.

Wow! That's the best the New York Times could come up with? Here's the quote that ends the piece:

"We have to continue to be more persistent so we bring satisfaction to the voters of Ohio," Mr. Trevas said.

Uninformed reader: "Yawn!"

Merry Christmas!

2004-12-25T02:48:00.000-08:00

Original image by: BartCop (edited by STOP_George)

BIG HALF-TRUTH: No Evidence of Election Tampering from Computer Repair

2004-12-21T02:44:00.000-08:00

UPDATE #2:

Keith Olberman is now rethinking his conclusion: "Thus the evidence of a “fix” in Hocking is almost nil." He has also provided us with a juicy bit of new information which helps make up for his sloppy reporting earlier (emphasis added by Newsclip Autopsy).

First, the juicy bit:

Mr. Kalo also points out details that make the recount situation in Hocking County, Ohio, seem far less closed than the County’s Assistant Prosecutor led me to believe. I guess I’m still a little naïve on such things, but it would seem to me that in telling his story of a “comedy of errors” involving the inspection of the main vote tabulator there by a representative of the voting machine manufacturer, Triad Systems, David Sams might have been mentioned that in addition to being Assistant Prosecutor, he is also (per Mr. Kalo) the legal representative of the Hocking County Board of Elections during the recount.

Now, the details begin to emmerge and the loose logic displayed by these unbiased "experts" and "prosecutors" seems to be, well, less unbiased.

Ahhhh! And now Keith has had another very important (if not the most important) detail of the story delivered to him on his journalistic silver platter by the Minority General Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, Ted Kalo and the Green Party’s recount coordinator for Southeastern Ohio, Orren Whiddon. (My goodnes, Keith, I know you're on vacation again, but that affidavit by Sherole Eaton is not that long a read!!!)

Kalo, and the Green Party’s recount coordinator for Southeastern Ohio, Orren Whiddon, both point out that the issue in Hocking is not so much what was or wasn’t done to the machine, but the efforts of the Triad man to find out which of Hocking’s precincts was to be subjected to the mandatory 3% hand recount.

One of our producers had asked Deputy Prosecutor Sams about how the subject of the unusual inquiries was dealt with at the informal “board meeting” Sams conducted Monday. Asked why the Triad employee would’ve asked about precincts at all, Mr. Sams replied, “I don’t remember, to be honest, what he answered to that. But it was really just a comedy of errors. There was no impropriety.”

So what does MSNBC get when they start (and I emphasize, "start") asking tough questions? Amnesia problems from the assistant prosecutor of Hocking county!!! It's worthy to note that the president from Triad, himself, didn't have an answer for this either. The New York Times reported this on December 15:

But Brett Rapp, the president of Triad, said that although it would be unusual for an employee to ask about a specific precinct, preparing the machines for a recount was standard procedure and was done in all 41 counties where Triad handles vote counts. He added that he welcomed any investigation.

He welcomes an investigation -- however, it seems he doesn't have to worry about getting one. Hopefully, John Conyers and the FBI prove me wrong on this one. Also, isn't it funny that the MSNBC producer (or anyone else for that matter) didn't bother asking the Triad employee himself about this particular matter.

It seems, however, that Olbermann is still ignoring the possibility that vote-rigging could have taken place at Hocking county. He still provides no answers as to why we are supposed to implicitly believe that the computer technician actually "RECREATED" what he did on December 10th. Furthermore, Olbermann still does not probe affidavit details like:

- "He said that he could put a patch on it and fix it."

- "I hung his coat up and it was very heavy."

But, hey! He's on vacation, right? We shouldn't be too hard on him.

------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE #1 (first time readers, see original post below):

Keith Olbermann has been hot on the heels of this story. In his most recent blog posting, he posted a first-hand account of the Assistant Prosecutor in Hocking, David Sams. Olberman writes (bold type emphasis added by Newsclip Autopsy):

The locals moved quickly. David Sams, the Assistant Prosecutor in Hocking, happens conveniently enough to be a Countdown viewer. He met with the Board of Elections, and the Triad representative, yesterday. “There were some things that seemed ‘irregular,’ which raises the possibility of impropriety,” he told our office. “It bore looking into.” Sams said he had Triad’s man recreate what he did to the computer tabulator that so disturbed the County’s Deputy Elections Director, Sherole Eaton. “The gentleman in question took apart the computer in front of us, and our patrolman, who has worked many computer-related crimes, assessed what he did.

“He was fixing the system,” Sams continued. “Whatever happened that day, happened today. It’s a fourteen-year old computer. We had another gentleman, a local systems analyst, who verified this information for us… We were prepared to disassemble the machine and have it dissected. But we didn’t think this was necessary. The election in our county was completely proper.”

Keith Olbermann, like the reporter from AP below, again fails to answer a question crucial to the stability of this logic. How do you know he "RECREATED" what he did??!!! Here's a summary of what AP and Olbermann told us in their reports:

1. The computer technician properly replaced a battery and reinstalled a hard drive before prosecutors and computer experts.

2. The computer experts confirmed that he knows how to replace a battery and reinstall a hard drive

3. These prosecutors are assuming that the computer technician is telling the truth and is actually recreating what took place on December 10, 2004.

AP or Keith Olbermann have not discussed number 3 at all. (And, by the way, it is unknown how many people were actually witnessing the December 10th disassembly. From what I can tell from the Sherole Eaton affidavit, he wasn't really being watched at all -- let alone by anyone knowlegable to know what he was doing at the time.) Fine, maybe Olbermann or AP weren't able to get those details about how they trust this technician, for whatever reason. However, it is inexusable for Olbermann to make this absurd conclusion at the end of his piece:

...Thus the evidence of a “fix” in Hocking is almost nil...

It is even more absurd to know that Olbermann wrote this conclusion after writing this:

...But the real impact in Hocking is the simple fact that a computer technician had access to the voting equipment in violation of the Ohio Secretary of State’s controversial extension of the “canvassing period.” Simply put, according to Kenneth Blackwell, nobody should’ve been allowed to dust the machine, let alone replace a battery or parts, except under extremely controlled circumstances...

So let's see. Keith believes that alarm bells should be sounded after knowing that a technician illegally disassembled a computer counting machine. However, he is completely comfortable with the fact that noone is questioning that what the technician did yesterday is what he actually did on December 10th. At the very least, Keith Olbermann apparently doesn't think that this is an important detail to discuss.

I would hate to eat the bread from Keith Olbermann's farm, if this is what he calls "separating the wheat from the chaff."

---------------------

ORIGINAL POST:

This latest piece by AP (and I use that term, as I would when mentioning "a really bad piece of abstract art") has me absolutely baffled:

Prosecutor: No evidence of election tampering from computer repair

Associated Press

LOGAN, Ohio - Prosecutors and local police found no evidence of election tampering when they watched Monday as a technician repeated a repair to a tallying computer that led a congressman to request an FBI investigation.

Pay close attention to the words "repeated a repair". It's almost like "replicating the results" in a scientific expieriment. Enough said!! Nothing more to see here!!!

What kind of whacked out logic is this???!!! How the hell do they know he did the same thing as he did on December 10th? THERE WERE NO EXPERTS WATCHING HIM ON DECEMBER 10TH!!! In fact, Sherole Eaton had her back turned to him some of the time. In her affidavit, she states, "I had my back to him when he turned the computer on." And even when she was watching him, how is she going to know what to look for?

The rest of the story is moot, from an investigative point of view. For example:

Observers including Green Party representatives who requested a presidential recount agreed the procedure did not alter the hard drive where data are stored, Hocking County Prosecutor Larry Beal said.

Again -- HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROCEDURE WAS CARRIED OUT ON DECEMBER 10th???!!! Have they examined the hard-drive to make sure that it was the same one that was in the computer before December 10th? Is there evidence of manipulation of programming or data on the software itself? Etc., etc., etc...

But, not to worry says AP for:

"The actual votes are stored on the punch-card ballots," Rapp said. "The machine simply counts the votes. During this whole process, the ballots were locked up."

Oh, well that makes it much better then!! The computer "simply counts the votes". THAT'S THE FREAKIN' PROBLEM!!! We have a technician manipulating a "machine that simply counts the votes" on December 10th (before the recount) -- with no expert non-partisan supervision.

Furthermore, AP still does not address the comment made by this technician about posting "cheat sheets". Again, here is the statement made in Sherole Eaton's affidavit:

He advised Lisa and I on how to post a "cheat sheet" on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county.

WHY DID HE SAY THIS???!!!

In addition, Eaton's testimony also mentioned that:

I hung his coat up and it was very heavy. I made a comment about it being so heavy.

This could be nothing, but does this not beg the question that, perhaps he had another hard drive stashed in his jacket? No mention of this detail or any queries concerning the possibility that the hard drive was replaced. This seems like a remote possibility, but one that should be investigated.

Also, why did the technician state that "he could put a patch on it and fix it (about the battery problem)". Eaton is certain that he said this, for she does not know anything about computer terminology.

Another question I would like answered is why he was working for 3 hours on the computer, if only the battery needed to be replaced and the BIOS settings determined?

The AP article mentions that there were computer experts observing this "re-enactment", however, did they actually read Sherole Eaton's testimony? If they didn't, then they would not know to question the technician about the "patch" comment. Funny that AP did not interview or quote THESE experts.

The AP headline to this story is the biggest Half-truth I have witnessed in awhile.

"No evidence of election tampering from computer repair"

No shit, Sherlock.

Do a proper investigation!!!!!!!!!!!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Triad President Denies Vote Rigging But isn't Asked About "cheat sheet" Comment

2004-12-20T13:08:00.000-08:00

Wired News just posted a pretty good follow-up article to the possible vote-rigging story (with the suspicious Triad computer technician). See the original post here. However, they missed an important detail in this story, as I'll point out below.

In the Wired News article, Brett Rapp, the president of Triad, commented about the December 10th incident.

He said that when the computer experienced "a CMOS error," indicating that the rechargeable battery on the motherboard had died, the computer had lost stored information about the hard drive's specifications, which it needed to make the computer boot up. No other data on the machine was lost.

He said Barbian took the case off the computer to identify the hard drive's make and model.

"He called our office, told us the model and we obtained the hard drive parameters by looking them up on the internet," Rapp said. "That's the information we gave him over the phone. He installed no patches on the computer system. He did not tamper with it. He simply fixed a piece of equipment that was broken." He said that Eaton must have misheard Barbian say he was going to put a patch on the machine.

However, Eaton adamently denies that she misheard the computer technician. She states:

"I wouldn't just come up with that. I don't use that term or know what it means," she said. She added that Barbian used the same word with the 70-year-old chair of Hocking County's elections board, who she said also wouldn't have come up with the term on his own.

The president of Triad also had a answer for why he thought the technician asked about where specifically the recounting would be taking place:

Rapp said he believed Barbian asked about the hand-counted precinct because he was trying to make sure the election officials, who had never conducted a recount before, understood what they were doing and which precinct they were going to count.

"He was trying to help them make sure the process went smoothly," Rapp said.

Now, wasn't that nice of the computer technician?! Let's not forget that the computer technician asked that question and then went back into the computer room to make some final adjustments.

No comment was made by Brett Rapp about an important additional comment made by the technician, as written in Eaton's affidavit about the incident:

He advised Lisa and I on how to post a "cheat sheet" on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county.

A little bit of damning "truth left out" by Wired News, wouldn't you say? Even still, Eaton still believes that no wrong-doing occurred:

Still, she does not believe that Barbian tampered with the machine.

"I have had, and still do have, complete trust in Triad," Eaton said. Eaton, who is 65 and by her own admission not computer-savvy, did not understand much of what Barbian did, and said that when he asked if he could take apart the computer, he had to ask for a screwdriver from one of the office workers. "He brought no tools with him," Eaton told Wired News, "which indicates to me that he wasn't planning on working on the machines."

She also said that Barbian's office visit wasn't out of the ordinary since Triad "ran" the county's primary and general elections this year.

Bless her soul for alerting everyone about this incident, but doesn't Sherole Eaton strike you as being a bit naiive?

HALF-TRUTH: AP Fails to Report Diebold Vote-Tampering Testimony & Moyers Conflict of Interest

2004-12-16T23:06:00.000-08:00

MMLP = UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM NEWS

UPDATE #1:

AP is reporting the refiling of the case to contest the Ohio presidential election results.

COLUMBUS, Ohio A voter group challenging the results of the November second election in Ohio has refiled its complaint with the state's highest court.

They've had another day to review everything from the previous story, but alas, again no report about the conflict of interest or the Diebold vote-tampering testimony. Tsk-tsk.

--------------------------

ORIGINAL POST:

Well, plastered all over the mainstream media today is the story that the Supreme Court of Ohio has thrown out the Arnebeck case (joined with the Rev. Jesse Jackson), contesting the Ohio presidential election results. Why? Because in their suit, they also contested the Ohio Supreme Court election results as well. Judge Moyers threw out this important case because of a technicality.

Ohio Justice Throws Out Election Challenge

ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results...

...Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that the request improperly challenged two separate election results. Ohio law only allows one race to be challenged in a single complaint, he said.

What the AP report fails to mention is that Chief Justice Thomas Moyer is in an egregious CONFLICT OF INTEREST here. You see, the "Supreme Court election results challege" involves Moyer himself and another municipal judge. AP even states this, but fails to take interest in the "conflict of interest" issue.

...The allegations are based on an analysis comparing the presidential race to Moyer's Supreme Court race against a Cleveland municipal judge.

But nothing in state law or any previous court decision allows challenges to be combined, Moyer said...

AP also makes another bold assertion (bold type added by Newsclip Autopsy):

...Without listing specific evidence, the complaint alleges that 130,656 votes for Kerry and John Edwards in 36 counties were somehow switched to count for the Bush-Cheney ticket...

What AP fails to mention is that the "somehow" part is clearly indicated in the papers filed for an emergency motion in this lawsuit.

Furthermore, a report by RAW STORY has found that this emergency motion was made to "...prevent voting companies and Ohio officials from further tampering with voting machines in the state during the recount". In this motion, an alleged witness, Catherine Buchanan, has given sworn testimony that she was told that Diebold had reprogrammed computer voting machines during the recount procedures.

"They told us that Diebolt [sic] was coming to reprogram the computer, which doesn't make any sense. I mean, if you're going to calibrate a machine, you calibrate it before you're going to do testing to make sure it's going to be okay," Buchanan asserts.
(from RAW STORY - December 17, 2004)

Again, AP fails to mention the whole story -- printed in thousands of news publications across the world. I encourage everyone to check out the papers filed by Arnebeck to the Supreme Court here and here.

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Ohio Hand Recount Suspended After Exposing Tabulator Malfunction

2004-12-15T20:46:00.000-08:00

MMLP = UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM NEWS

UPDATE #2:

The Ohio Green Party reports that Bowen County had suspended their recount after the machine tabulator and 3% hand recount did not match. Again, they have apparently violated Ohio law by suspending this recount until later, at which time another machine will be used to recount this initial set of ballots. Ohio law states that if there is a discrepancy between the machine count and hand count, then a FULL HAND RECOUNT must be done. Here's an excerpt from the Green Party's website:

Monroe County, Ohio, December 14, 2004

Summary - The 3% hand-count failed to match machine count, a repairman from Triad was summoned to bring new machine, and recount was suspended & reconvened for Wednesday at 9:30 AM

Here's a recent article from the Cincinnati Post, reporting an update from the recount efforts. Here are some excerpts:

...Franklin and Cuyahoga counties were among the many reporting little or no change from the recount...

...Election officials said the 3 percent hand-counts matched in virtually all the recounts done so far...

..."We're feeling pretty proud of ourselves, to prove to some of these people how wrong they were," said Margaret Hansen, director of the Monroe County Board of Elections in Woodsfield...

Well isn't that just tickity-boo! I see there's no mention of Fairfield or Bowen counties. Surprise-surprise!

------------------------------

UPDATE #1:

The Ohio Green Party has now posted two eye-witness accounts of what happened in Fairfield County on December 15, 2004. Both reports confirm what was previously posted below. I have edited together a "merged" version of the two stories. Each witness' account is designated by a different colour.

...Some troubles occurred with the tabulator. It seemed to stop frequently, giving invalid tally on a card messages (basically a jam). After many starts and stops, both precincts were finally tabulated. The explanation for the troubles was the handling of the cards for the hand count and humidity. There were several dehumidifiers clearly visible in the area.

Lancaster 2C tabulations matched up with the hand count. However, Pickerington C did not. Many of us felt that the hand count did not show the no-votes in the totals (4 cards) and could explain the four-card grand total discrepancy….the hand count showed 4 votes less than the tabulator count...

...At that time we had some discussion about the next step, with the Republicans and the board resisting a second manual count. Secretary Blackwell’s directives were very clear that a second recount was necessary, so our next step was a manual count with a backup tabulator that had never been used...

...it was decided by the BOE that a spare machine should be used after the original machine (the first machine was actually the machine that tallied the vote the evening of 11/2/04). The spare machine was removed from the box, hooked up, and promptly failed completely. The first machine was then hooked back up, and the tabulation commenced again...

...Once again the totals did not match.

I called for a full manual recount on behalf of the Green Party. The members of the board asked all witnesses to wait while they talked with the county commissioners to make arrangements for staffing the count. The observers waited approximately one hour, during which time, I felt the Republican’s lawyer was trying to intimidate me...

...At this time, the BOE asked if we would waive their rights, and they were told no. The BOE then suggested contacting their machine vendor to get another machine in to retabulate. The BOE was then told by us that this would be unacceptable – the law was very clear, they would now have to perform a mandatory hand count of the entire county. The BOE then stated they would have to contact the Secretary of State’s office. The Board members then asked us to wait, and they left the area...

...at exactly 4:00 PM, the Board members returned to the area, convened a Board meeting, moved and seconded to suspend the recount until 9:30 AM Saturday, December 18, 2005. On that date, the recount would be conducted again, same exact precincts, with a new machine from their vendor. It was claimed that the tabulator had suffered “equipment malfunction” and a new tabulator would arrive and be in place. All voted AYE, motion carried...

...The BOE also then stated that only one observer from each party would be allowed at each of the two hand count tables, and no other observers would be allowed in the counting area at all. The BOE was informed they were violating the law, and the Green Party legal team was contacted...

...We were then told that it was 4:00 PM, the building was closed, and all had to leave. The Republican contingent, however was allowed to stay in a conference room for an additional ten minutes or so for a private discussion.

The MMLP clock has begun!!!

-------------------------

Previous Post:

This is an alleged first-hand eye-witness account of what happened in Fairfield County, Ohio during the recount. So far, no media outlet has reported this. Keep your eyes peeled! I'll start the MMLP clock when I get a media report of some kind.

Ohio, Fairfield County, suspends recount

At 4 pm today, after failing to get a match of hand counted ballots with punch card tabulator (ESS), two hand counts and two times through machine, after stating they were awaiting a call back from that company to have a new machine delivered, less than 30 seconds later convened a board meeting, voted to suspend recount, to await a new machine from ESS, and recount will be re-done Saturday, same exact precincts, the building is now closed, you are to exit the facility. BOE blaming issues on "machine failure" in order to avoid the now required entire county hand count. Precints were not random, they were selected by BOE, one from the Dem and one from the Repup.

This after their call to SOS Kathy Blackwell.

Greens will be going for a TRO. They are fully aware of entire circumstances of this report.

BOE’s trying to get around mandotory handcounts of entire counties by calling it machine failure rather than follow clear statute. This will be breaking I am sure before long.

First hand witness to events above....myself
(from Democratic Underground Forums, December 15, 2004)

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Ohio Votergate Video and Audio Links

2004-12-15T20:07:00.000-08:00

I've been running across a few websites providing video of the Ohio situation. Newsclip Autopsy thought it would be nice to have all these links together on one post:
--------------------------

AUDIO:

House Judiciary sub-committee forum on Ohio vote irregularities held in the city council chambers in Columbus, Ohio, on December 13, 2004 from 10:30 AM - 2:00 PM.

Featuring John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bob Fitrakis, Jesse Jackson, David Cobb, Cliff Arnebeck, Ron Bowman, Ronnie Dugger, Greg Moore, and John Binifaz.

Thanks to Evan Davis, with help from Terry Taylor, Linda Burket, Penny Little, Eugene Beer and Steve Rosenfeld all of whom assisted and or contributed substantially to the production of these recordings.
(from Pacifica Radio)

--------------------------

VIDEO:

David Cobb testifies before Congressional Forum, Dec. 13, 2004
(from Ohio Green Party website)

--------------------------

VIDEO:

John Conyers interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, December 15, 2004
(from Crooks and Liars)

--------------------------

VIDEO:

John Conyers interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, December 15, 2004
(from Democracy Now!)

--------------------------

VIDEO:

Cliff Arnebeck discusses Ohio voting problems on Hannity and colmes, December 15, 2004
(from Crooks and Liars)

--------------------------

AUDIO:

Andy Stephenson, formerly of Black Box Voting, speaks about the evidence they've found -- Clinton Dunn interview found on BreakForNews.com.

--------------------------

Enjoy!

If you have problems viewing / listening to these main links, try the alternative links at the original website.

MAJOR UPDATE: Ohio's Secretary of State May Have Committed Election Fraud

2004-12-14T22:33:00.000-08:00

MMLP = UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM NEWS

This is an update which, I thought, stands on its own -- so I am creating a new post for it. The original Newsclip Autopsy article to this story can be found here.

Katrina Sumner, one of the Ohio recount activists who was leading the recount effort in Greene County emailed Teresa Amesse, Former Chair of Montgomery County Kerry Edwards Phone Bank. In the email (posted here), she states a troubling encounter (you can also see a transcript of her Judicial Committee testimony at that link, as well).

...Last night I was returning from Columbus and was scared out of my mind. First I’ve been getting calls from a man that has been able to tell me each and every place I’ve been or roads I’ve been traveling on (a group of 3 other women heard this while driving me to meet Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck last night, having the call on speaker). Then while driving back I was ran off the road by two dark blue Suburbans(?), bigger than 4 runners anyway, with dark tinted windows. They came up behind me with their brights on and then one came to the side of me and ran me into the ditch off I-70. I saw as they sped away that one had a Maryland license plate, but in the heat of it all I couldn’t get the plate number or even see the plate of the other one. It’s becoming apparent to me that someone is not liking what I’m doing. So thank you much cause I truly need the encouraging words.
Katrina Sumner

TRUTH REPORTED: Computer Vote Count Tampering Occurring -- Eye-Witness Report

2004-12-14T22:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATE #2:

Wired News just posted a pretty good follow-up article to this story. In the article, Brett Rapp, the president of Triad, commented about this incident.

He said that when the computer experienced "a CMOS error," indicating that the rechargeable battery on the motherboard had died, the computer had lost stored information about the hard drive's specifications, which it needed to make the computer boot up. No other data on the machine was lost.

He said Barbian took the case off the computer to identify the hard drive's make and model.

"He called our office, told us the model and we obtained the hard drive parameters by looking them up on the internet," Rapp said. "That's the information we gave him over the phone. He installed no patches on the computer system. He did not tamper with it. He simply fixed a piece of equipment that was broken." He said that Eaton must have misheard Barbian say he was going to put a patch on the machine.

However, Eaton adamently denies that she misheard the computer technician. She states:

"I wouldn't just come up with that. I don't use that term or know what it means," she said. She added that Barbian used the same word with the 70-year-old chair of Hocking County's elections board, who she said also wouldn't have come up with the term on his own.

The president of Triad also had a answer for why he thought the technician asked about where specifically the recounting would be taking place:

Rapp said he believed Barbian asked about the hand-counted precinct because he was trying to make sure the election officials, who had never conducted a recount before, understood what they were doing and which precinct they were going to count.

"He was trying to help them make sure the process went smoothly," Rapp said.

Now, wasn't that nice of the computer technician?! Let's not forget that the computer technician asked that question and then went back into the computer room to make some final adjustments.

No comment was made by Brett Rapp about an additional comment made by the technician, as written in Eaton's affidavit about the incident:

He advised Lisa and I on how to post a "cheat sheet" on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county.

A little bit of important "truth left out" by Wired News, wouldn't you say? Even still, Eaton still believes that no wrong-doing occurred:

Still, she does not believe that Barbian tampered with the machine.

"I have had, and still do have, complete trust in Triad," Eaton said. Eaton, who is 65 and by her own admission not computer-savvy, did not understand much of what Barbian did, and said that when he asked if he could take apart the computer, he had to ask for a screwdriver from one of the office workers. "He brought no tools with him," Eaton told Wired News, "which indicates to me that he wasn't planning on working on the machines."

She also said that Barbian's office visit wasn't out of the ordinary since Triad "ran" the county's primary and general elections this year.

Bless her soul for alerting everyone about this incident, but doesn't Sherole Eaton strike you as being a bit naiive?

-----------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL POST:

Lawmaker Seeks Inquiry Into Ohio Vote
By TOM ZELLER Jr., New York Times

Published: December 15, 2004

The ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, plans to ask the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a county prosecutor in Ohio today to explore "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering" in at least one and perhaps several Ohio counties...

...But Brett Rapp, the president of Triad, said that although it would be unusual for an employee to ask about a specific precinct, preparing the machines for a recount was standard procedure and was done in all 41 counties where Triad handles vote counts. He added that he welcomed any investigation...Let the investigation begin!!!

--------------------------

Previously posted:

Here's a stunning allegation by David Cobb (Head of the Ohio Green Party & the initiator for the Recount):

Witness says voting company tampered with machines after vote and tried to plant false information into Ohio recount
By John Byrne

David Cobb, the unsuccessful Green Party presidential candidate, aired startling allegations at the Democratic House Judiciary Committee’s Columbus hearings Monday, alleging that a voting company representative tampered with voting equipment in Columbus last Friday and attempted to plant false information into the Ohio recount.
Cobb says that a witness who had requested anonymity watched a representative of Triad Systems enter the Columbus Board of Elections unannounced and tamper with a vote tabulator which then lost all data.

The representative then, Cobb said, tried to convince employees to post false information so that it would appear as if the data was valid and had never been lost.

This following is RAW STORY ’s transcript Cobb’s speech as recorded by Inside Track News’ broadcast (mp3 file), an independent media outlet that covered the event. The story has been followed in detail at The Brad Blog.

“A representative from Triad Systems came into this county’s Board of Election’s office unannounced, that is on this Friday. He said he was just stopping by to see if they had any questions about the upcoming recount.

“He then headed into the back room where Triad supplies tabulators, that is the machine that counts the ballots, is kept. This Triad representative told them that there was problem with the system, that the system had a bad battery and it had ‘lost all its data.’

“He then took the computer apart and started swapping parts in and out of it. And in another [incomprehensible] in the room. And he had spare parts in his coat, as one of the people moved in [sic] remarked how very heavy it was.

“He finally reassembled everything and said it was working but not to turn it off. He then asked which precinct would be counted in the 3 percent recount test and that one which had been selected as if it had the right number of votes was relayed to him he then went back and did something else to the tabulator.

“The Triad Systems representative suggested that since the hand recount had to match the machine count exactly and since it would hard to memorize the several numbers which would be needed to get the count exactly right, that they should post this series of numbers on the wall where they would not be noticed by observers such as to make them look like employee information or something similar.

“The people doing the hand count could then he said just report those numbers no matter what the actually

counted in the ballot. This would then ‘match’ the tabulator report for this precinct exactly.

Minority leader of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) replied, “David Cobb, I need to you to arrange a meeting with our staff immediately.”

Cobb asserted that such practices were “going on across the state.”

The Cleveland Free Press’ Editor David Fitrakis also submitted a list of documented Ohio voting irregularities Dec. 8, which Conyers’ office has posted online in pdf format.

Be sure to click on the "mp3" link. The energy in the room over this is electrifying!!!

You can see the Green Party's press release about this story here.

Currently, on CNN, I'm hearing about the elections in the Ukraine and Iraq. Day by day, the U.S. mainstream media is becoming more and more irrelevant.

UPDATE: Brad Blog 2 has posted an update to this story from a inside source who was at the Judicial Committee on Monday (in Ohio).

...The eyewitness, who was unnamed in the public hearings, was later identified and interviewed privately by staffers from the office of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary committee.

Reliable sources have informed The BRAD BLOG that the investigation into this matter by Conyers is currently "ongoing" and the conclusion of staffers so far is that the eyewitness and information presented is "100% real and credible".

Cobb noted today in emotional testimony that "this is going on all over the state of Ohio."

Newsclip Autopsy has provided an email list of the Mainstream Media in the sidebar of the main page. Cut, paste, write, and send. Help keep the MMLP as small as possible!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Republican Rep Asked Programmer to create Vote-Rigging Software

2004-12-14T08:34:00.000-08:00

MMLP = UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM NEWS

UPDATE #1:

As reported on the Brad Blog, this story is on the verge of breaking into the mainstream. Ironically, it has made it to Feeney's hometown paper,The Seminole Chronicle. The story is also making waves in international publications as well. Notably, Brad Freidman is reporting that there is a major T.V. network in the U.S. which is seriously investigating the story. No further details are mentioned, however.

---------------------------------------

ORIGINAL POST:

I wanted to wait to see what developed with this story before posting it here. It's a story about a programmer who was asked (in 2000) to develop a hidden code that would clandestinely switch the vote from one candidate to the other -- to be used in the Florida elections in 2002. The programmer, Clinton Curtis, was allegedly asked to do this by Republican representative, Tom Feeny. Mr. Curtis has signed an affadavit detailing these allegations, which can be read at the Brad Blog here.

Most recently, Clinton Curtis has appeared at the Ohio Judicial Committe, adding more weight to the idea that the Ohio computer vote counting software could have been rigged. A summary of the testimony at this hearing is given here. A video link and transcript of his testimony can be seen at Cannonfire. The video, like the David Cobb audio link below, is riveting!

Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, is not convinced. However, she is willing to listen. Her analyses can be found here.

The reason I was hesitant to post anything about Curtis (apart from the decision whether he's legitimate or not) was due to the fact that:

1. His case is about a vote-rigging allegation in 2000.
2. He never actually put the code into a machine that was to be used during the election.

However, his testimony at the Ohio hearing shed some light on the issue of electronic vote rigging and how easy it can be achieved. Of course, if his story holds up, it should send shock waves to Americans everywhere.

At the very least, the big media should be investigating this story further -- especially now that he has presented testimony at the Judicial Committee in Ohio.

Last time I checked, surprise-surprise, none of the mainstream has reported this story.

ADDENDUM: An anonymous poster to Newsclip Autopsy has given us some excellent information and suggestions:

By going to http://judiciary.house.gov/ you can see the names of all 35 members (5 more Rep. than Dem.). On the front page is a list of hearings, etc.: Conyers' hearing is not mentioned here!

From there, you can easily click on the "contact us" button and email them a message.

The minority (Democratic) members have their own page, which does include reports of the hearings. You can also email a message to the minority members.

I have sent emails to both. I would like to suggest that everyone do likewise -- I would think this approach might be helpful to do in addition to contacting the MM. (Thanks for those email addresses, btw.)

Interestingly, the name of Rep. Feeney is included in the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee! See for yourself! No wonder all the other Republican members are staying away from this!

I should also add that on the minority website,

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html

you can get pdf's of pertinent communications. Today they have added the letter from Blackwell to Conyers in "response" to Conyers earlier letter. Then read the letter Conyers wrote in response to Blackwell: "I find your response...unacceptable and I am dismayed that it took nearly two weeks for you to proffer a letter that does not respond to a single one of our 36 questions"!

And, "If these allegations are as obviously baseless as you have claimed, it would seem that you could perform a public service by dispelling them."

Thank God for Conyers.

AMEN!

Newsclip Autopsy has provided an email list of the Mainstream Media in the sidebar of the main page. Cut, paste, write, and send. Help keep the MMLP as small as possible!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Computer Vote Count Tampering Occurring -- Eye-Witness Report

2004-12-13T21:38:00.000-08:00

Lawmaker Seeks Inquiry Into Ohio Vote
By TOM ZELLER Jr., New York Times

Published: December 15, 2004

The ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, plans to ask the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a county prosecutor in Ohio today to explore "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering" in at least one and perhaps several Ohio counties...

...But Brett Rapp, the president of Triad, said that although it would be unusual for an employee to ask about a specific precinct, preparing the machines for a recount was standard procedure and was done in all 41 counties where Triad handles vote counts. He added that he welcomed any investigation...

Let the investigation begin!!!

--------------------------

Previously posted:

Here's a stunning allegation by David Cobb (Head of the Ohio Green Party & the initiator for the Recount):

Witness says voting company tampered with machines after vote and tried to plant false information into Ohio recount
By John Byrne

David Cobb, the unsuccessful Green Party presidential candidate, aired startling allegations at the Democratic House Judiciary Committee’s Columbus hearings Monday, alleging that a voting company representative tampered with voting equipment in Columbus last Friday and attempted to plant false information into the Ohio recount.
Cobb says that a witness who had requested anonymity watched a representative of Triad Systems enter the Columbus Board of Elections unannounced and tamper with a vote tabulator which then lost all data.

The representative then, Cobb said, tried to convince employees to post false information so that it would appear as if the data was valid and had never been lost.

This following is RAW STORY ’s transcript Cobb’s speech as recorded by Inside Track News’ broadcast (mp3 file), an independent media outlet that covered the event. The story has been followed in detail at The Brad Blog.

“A representative from Triad Systems came into this county’s Board of Election’s office unannounced, that is on this Friday. He said he was just stopping by to see if they had any questions about the upcoming recount.

“He then headed into the back room where Triad supplies tabulators, that is the machine that counts the ballots, is kept. This Triad representative told them that there was problem with the system, that the system had a bad battery and it had ‘lost all its data.’

“He then took the computer apart and started swapping parts in and out of it. And in another [incomprehensible] in the room. And he had spare parts in his coat, as one of the people moved in [sic] remarked how very heavy it was.

“He finally reassembled everything and said it was working but not to turn it off. He then asked which precinct would be counted in the 3 percent recount test and that one which had been selected as if it had the right number of votes was relayed to him he then went back and did something else to the tabulator.

“The Triad Systems representative suggested that since the hand recount had to match the machine count exactly and since it would hard to memorize the several numbers which would be needed to get the count exactly right, that they should post this series of numbers on the wall where they would not be noticed by observers such as to make them look like employee information or something similar.

“The people doing the hand count could then he said just report those numbers no matter what the actually

counted in the ballot. This would then ‘match’ the tabulator report for this precinct exactly.

Minority leader of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) replied, “David Cobb, I need to you to arrange a meeting with our staff immediately.”

Cobb asserted that such practices were “going on across the state.”

The Cleveland Free Press’ Editor David Fitrakis also submitted a list of documented Ohio voting irregularities Dec. 8, which Conyers’ office has posted online in pdf format.

...The eyewitness, who was unnamed in the public hearings, was later identified and interviewed privately by staffers from the office of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary committee.

Reliable sources have informed The BRAD BLOG that the investigation into this matter by Conyers is currently "ongoing" and the conclusion of staffers so far is that the eyewitness and information presented is "100% real and credible".

Cobb noted today in emotional testimony that "this is going on all over the state of Ohio."

Newsclip Autopsy has provided an email list of the Mainstream Media in the sidebar of the main page. Cut, paste, write, and send. Help keep the MMLP as small as possible!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Ohio's Secretary of State May Have Committed Election Fraud

2004-12-12T21:36:00.000-08:00

MMLP = UNREPORTED BY MAINSTREAM NEWS

It has now been 24 days now (and counting) and this MAJOR newsbreak has not been made public by the mainstream:

Yesterday, it came to the attention of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff that efforts to audit poll records in Greene County, Ohio are being obstructed by County Election officials and/or Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. According to Joan Quinn and Eve Robertson, two election observers researching voting records, Greene County officials initially gave Quinn and Robertson access to poll records, and then abruptly withdrew such access. Greene County Director of Elections Carole Garman claimed that she had withdrawn access to the voting records at the direction of Secretary Blackwell. Regardless of who ordered the denial of this access, such an action appears to violate Ohio law. Later, at the same office, election observers found the office unlocked, and what appeared to be locked ballot boxes, unattended. Prior to the withdrawal of access to the books, observers had found discrepancies in election records, and possible evidence of minority vote suppression.
(from Congressman John Conyers News Release -- posted on The Brad Blog Too)

Not one peep from the big guys. Incredible, right? Well, listen up! There's more to this story. As OpEdNews.com writes:


Now, here is the kicker. Blackwell not only did not have the authority to take this action, he is actually in violation of the law. Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26 that requires all election records to be made available for public inspection and copying. ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections. Lastly, ORC Sec. 3599.42 states: “A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title.”

Did you get that America ? The Secretary of State of Ohio, who has an obvious conflict of interest by being the State Chair for the reelection of George W. Bush, has now violated the law to stop a recount that could prove that Bush actually lost Ohio, and thus the entire presidential election. Where in the hell is the media? Where is the outrage? Why is this not the TOP story on every network? Why is this not the HEADLINE in every paper? Again, even if you think the fraud allegations will not amount to overturning the election, isn’t the potential of real voter fraud in this country worth reporting? When a man who is so obviously compromised and ethically bankrupt such as Blackwell actually VIOLATES THE LAW, isn’t that considered news? Is it not even more relevant when you consider the ONLY possible reason for Blackwell to illegally stop the recount is that he is afraid of the results?

As I understand it, there will be a Congressional meeting in Ohio about the vote fraud issue on Monday. Joan Quinn, highlighted above (in the first excerpt) by Newsclip Autopsy, has been requested to attend this meeting:

Because of the urgency of the Greene County matter, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has requested that Ms. Quinn testify at a hearing scheduled Monday in Columbus, Ohio. Ms. Quinn has agreed to do so and will also present sworn statements from corroborating witnesses. Conyers issued the following statement:

"The Recount effort is simply a search for the truth of what happened during the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. We have now repeatedly seen election officials obstruct and stonewall this search for the truth. I am beginning to wonder what it is they are trying to hide."

Not one mainstream news media outlet has published this statement (that I can find anyway). Not one big news outlet has mentioned that there is now proof that the Secretary of State in Ohio has committed fraud (according to the state's own law). Let's see how much coverage it gets after the Congressional meeting on Monday.

UPDATE #1: Carlo LoParo, a spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, has responded to the Greene County lockdown -- to this news website.

...According to Mr. LoParo, these actions were not the result of any edict from the state, but were initiated at the county level as a normal part of securing and preparing all materials and records for a recount which has been requested and will be performed in accordance with Ohio law. LoParo said that the Secretary welcomed the scrutiny of the recount...
(from Elites TV, December 13, 2004)

It will be interesting to see what the counter-response will be from Joan Quinn and Eve Robertson. The author of this article seems to be warming up to the explanation provided by the Blackwell spokesperson -- without any further reasoning, I might add.

UPDATE #2: Keith Olbermann has broken the silence in big media land. However, since he has been dedicated to following the fraud issue since November 2, I think I'll need at least one more major news organization to report this story before I stop the MMLP clock (now at 3 days). In Olbermann's blog, he says:

...And here is Blackwell, having insisted on 'Countdown' that there would be a re-count and his office would take no steps to prevent it, stepping on his own feet in Xenia, Ohio. Last Friday, Greene County election officials there tossed out two Green Party observers who had been given access to the examine the voting records there, attributing their actions to Blackwell’s directives that the so-called ‘canvassing period’ which follows every election be extended from ten days to more than a month because of the fact of the recount. Those county records, Blackwell’s people reasoned, needed to be sealed and handled with the “utmost care” until the recount was completed.

Just to round out the absurdity, those same two Greens returned to the Election Board building in Greene County (and what script editor would’ve permitted that coincidence?) on Saturday morning to find, they say, the facility unlocked, and all those ‘sealed’ voting machines and records out in the open where any passing vandal or political memorabilia junkie could’ve walked off with them (heck, I own two Broward County 2000 Voting Machines, if anybody would like to do a private recount). Greene County responded by insisting that while it was true that someone appears to have left the building unlocked, overnight, on Friday, and that nobody locked it up until Saturday afternoon, the other stuff — about the machines and records being unprotected — wasn’t true; they were inside locked rooms.

Well, that’s all right, then.

My MSNBC colleague and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman shares my amazement at the Inspector Clouseaus of the Ohio Secretary of State’s office. If there’s nothing wrong in Ohio, it sure won’t be because Secretary Blackwell didn’t try to make it look like there was.

I'm still waiting to hear what the Green Party has to say about all of this. David Cobb has not mentioned a word about it on his website yet.

UPDATE #3: Katrina Sumner, one of the Ohio recount activists who was leading the recount effort in Greene County emailed Teresa Amesse, Former Chair of Montgomery County Kerry Edwards Phone Bank. In the email (posted here), she states a troubling encounter:

Last night I was returning from Columbus and was scared out of my mind. First I’ve been getting calls from a man that has been able to tell me each and every place I’ve been or roads I’ve been traveling on (a group of 3 other women heard this while driving me to meet Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck last night, having the call on speaker). Then while driving back I was ran off the road by two dark blue Suburbans(?), bigger than 4 runners anyway, with dark tinted windows. They came up behind me with their brights on and then one came to the side of me and ran me into the ditch off I-70. I saw as they sped away that one had a Maryland license plate, but in the heat of it all I couldn’t get the plate number or even see the plate of the other one. It’s becoming apparent to me that someone is not liking what I’m doing. So thank you much cause I truly need the encouraging words.
Katrina Sumner

Newsclip Autopsy has provided an email list of the Mainstream Media in the sidebar of the main page. Cut, paste, write, and send. Every little bit helps to keep the ball rolling on votergate!

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Exit Poll Raw Data Would be Useful to Notable Experts, Which USA TODAY Fails to Mention

2004-12-09T08:33:00.001-08:00

Congressman wants 'raw' exit poll data
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
...Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that he doesn't know whether the information would answer questions about whether problems at the polls led to miscounts in the presidential election. Most polling experts who have studied exit polls doubt the data would be of use.

Well, Mr. Memmot, there was, in fact, one expert who spoke at the congressional hearing yesterday who you have failed to mention. His name is Dr. Steven F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania. He had managed to collect some raw data -- only because of a computer glitch which allowed his collegue to screen save this data on the CNN website. It was soon changed on CNN.com to more accurately reflect the actual results. As Freeman states:

For this report, I use data that apparently are based solely on subjects surveyed leaving the polling place. These data were reportedly not meant to be released directly to the public, and were reportedly available to late evening Election Night viewers only because a computer glitch prevented NEP from making updates sometime around 8:30 p.m. that night. They were collected by Jonathon Simon, a former political survey research analyst, and are corroborated by saved screen shots. I happened to have sixteen exit poll internet pages stored in my computer memory, and in each case, his figures are identical to mine. The numbers are also roughly consistent with those released elsewhere...
(from The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy: Part I
- November 10 & 23, 2004)

Another pollster, Mark Blumenthal has also stated that the raw data would be very useful. In response to Freeman's research, he writes (yellow bolding added by yours truly):

I believe Freeman's data are worthy of our attention for two reasons: The most important is the suggestion by Warren Mitofsky (here and here) and others associated with the exit polls that the discrepancy may result from what survey methodologists call "differential non-response." That is, Republicans were theoretically more likely to refuse to be surveyed than Democrats. That hypothesis, if proven true, could have important consequences for all political surveys.

Another reason is the continuing speculation about problems in the actual count. Whatever we think about the plausibility of the various conspiracy theories, a fuller presentation of the uncorrected exit poll should shed more light on the issue. It might even help restore some confidence in the actual count. I would think that the news organizations that own the data would see the public good that might result in putting the relevant tabulations and analyses into the public domain.

Finally, if Freeman's tabulations are wrong or misleading, the NEP can easily clear up any confusion by releasing the correct "before-closing-time" tabulations. Similarly, if Freeman is in error in his estimates of the statistical significance of the discrepancies, NEP can tell us more about the appropriate sampling error for the results in each state. Remember, Freeman's data are derived from results that were publicly released by CNN. Providing more information about the data CNN released and the sampling error associated with it would conform to the spirit (if not the letter) of the principles of disclosure of the National Council of Public Polls (NCPP): "to insure that pertinent information is disclosed concerning methods that were used so that consumers of surveys may assess studies for themselves."
(from Mystery Pollster - November 29, 2004)

Let's not forget, Mr. Memmott, that a representative to Zogby International was at the congressional forum as well. Shawnta Watson Walcott, communications director for Zogby International, stated at the hearing that:

"... it has become increasingly clear that this election has produced unprecedented levels of suspicion regarding its outcome, and we join this panel discussion in an attempt to find a resolution to these issues,"
(from CNSNEWS.com - December 9, 2004)

Something tells me Zogby would love to look at that raw data as well.

MIS-TRUTH: AP Report Suggests Ohio Courts Won't Overturn The Results if Kerry Wins The Recount

2004-12-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

I keep seeing this same excerpt repeated over and over again in all of the mainstream press reports. It is an Associated Press release:

Two major challenges were expected to unfold today even as the secretary of state was ready to certify the final results.

First, lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the ballot on Election Day plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court. They will cite documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighborhoods.

In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favorable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio's 88 counties.

Observers don't give either effort much hope.

"It's an incredible long shot," said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor. "Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome."

First of all, the professor from Ohio State University is referring to the possible "invalidating" of the Ohio election results by the courts. However, AP continues to link this comment with the recount effort. That is a glaring mis-truth.

If the Ohio recount shows Kerry pulling ahead of Bush, then the Ohio courts (as far as I understand) have nothing to do with overturning the official results certified on December 13. This would be a matter for congress to deal with.

In fact, Keith Olbermann had a constitutional law professor, named Jonathon Turley, on his show way back on November 9 talking about such a scenario (a reader has provided a link to a part of the U.S. constitution that explains this process here). This is his Turley's response, as written on Keith Olbermann's blog on November 21:

He [Turley] noted the election process is a little slower— and has one more major loophole— than is generally known. It begins on December 7^th, the date “when you essentially certify your electors… it gives a presumption to the legitimacy to your votes. And then, on the 13^th, the electors actually vote.”

But, Turley noted, “those votes are not opened by Congress until January 6. Now, if there are controversies, such as some disclosure that a state actually went for Kerry (instead of Bush), there is the ability of members of Congress to challenge.” In other words, even after the December 13^th Electoral College Vote, in the extremely unlikely scenario that a court overturns the Ohio count, or that the recount discovers 4,000 Gahanna-style machines that each recorded 4,000 votes too many for one candidate, there is still a mechanism to correct the error, honest or otherwise.

“It requires a written objection from one House member and one senator,” Turley continues. Once that objection is raised, the joint meeting of the two houses is discontinued. “Then both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.”

In these super-heated partisan times, it may seem like just another prospective process decided by majority rule instead of fact. But envision the far-fetched scenario of some dramatic, conclusive new result from Ohio turning up around, say, January 4^th. What congressman or senator in his right mind would vote to seat the candidate who lost the popular vote in Ohio? We wouldn’t be talking about party loyalty any more - we’d be talking about pure political self-interest here, and whenever in our history that critical mass has been achieved, it’s been every politician for himself (ask Barry Goldwater when Richard Nixon trolled for his support in July and August, 1974, or Republican Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas when his was to be the decisive vote that would have impeached President Andrew Johnson in 1868).

The point of this dip into the world of political science fiction is that the Ohio timeframe is a little less condensed than it seems. The drop-dead date is not December 13, but January 6.

FOOTNOTE: Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire found some interesting information about AP, written by Lynn Landes:

Who is the AP? The Associated Press was founded in 1848. It is a not-for-profit news cooperative, some would say ‘monopoly’, that rakes in about $500 million dollars a year. The AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. Their board of directors is elected by voting ‘bonds’. However, it is not clear who controls the bonds. AP spokespeople would not give out information on who sits on their board, however AP leadership appears quite conservative.

Burl Osborne, chairman of the AP board of directors, is also publisher emeritus of the conservative The Dallas Morning News, a newspaper that endorsed George W. Bush in the last election. Kathleen Carroll, senior vice president and executive editor of AP, was a reporter at The Dallas Morning News before joining AP. Carroll is also on the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME)’s 7-member executive committee. The APME "works in partnership with AP to improve the wire service's performance," according to their website. APME vice president, Deanna Sands, is managing editor of the ultra conservative Omaha World Herald newspaper, whose parent company owns the largest voting machine company in the nation, Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

MIS-TRUTH: What Planet (nevermind what state) is Ohio's "The Plain Dealer" on?

2004-12-05T07:17:00.000-08:00

In the last week, the U.S. mainstream media has finally caught up to a story that's about 3 weeks old, but better late than never -- right? Finally, we're starting to see headlines with the words "Ohio" and "recount" actually beside each other (without a qualifier, like "possible"). Speaking of which, the big media is actually getting it's facts right -- especially the fact that there were "400" protesters in front of the Ohio Statehouse on Saturday. Maybe I'm being a little bit too sensitive, but does anyone else get the feeling that by putting the number "400" in the headlines, these papers are doing a little nudge-nudge wink-wink business?

And then there's an article that has given me inspiration to write another post:

Conspiracy theories on Ohio vote refuse to die

It's over, but election still centers on Ohio

Sunday, December 05, 2004
Bill Lubinger
Plain Dealer Reporter

Voters up to here with election overload thought Nov. 2 would finally end the trashing, bashing and bluster.
They thought wrong.

It's been just over a month since George W. Bush eked out a second presidential term, but accusations of election fraud and conspiracy cram e-mail in- baskets and fill Internet "blog ger" pages, air time on radio talk shows and cable TV and newspaper columns daily.

Yeah, I'm really starting to get sick of all of that wall to wall coverage of votergate 2004 on CNN, CBS and all of the other networks. I tell you, if I see another interview with Bev Harris, David Cobb or Dr. Freeman -- I'm going to scream! All of those references to a double standard with respect to the U.S. and Ukraine exit polling in the Washington Post and New York Times is growing sooo tiresome.

Bill Lubinger -- What planet are you on?

CBS was writing that a judge had rejected the Ohio recount altogether on November 24th (just scroll down to see that post).

AP didn't even realize that the Green party had raised enough for a recount MORE THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE FILING FOR A RECOUNT (you'll see that little nugget with the CBS clip below).

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, once the hope of many for mainstream journalistic integrity, has been getting flack for the last month for reporting about voting irregularites and recounts.

Bill Lubinger continues with a quote from an academic, probably taken out of context and given a couple of weeks ago (judging by what he said) -- but I'll give Bill the benefit of the doubt.

"I would say it's unprecedented," said Ned Foley, director of the election law program at Ohio State University. "It's taken on a life of its own. And the fight is going on even when Kerry said, 'No, it's not there.' People were just not ready to give up."

Newsflash, Bill! -- Kerry is backing up the lawsuit against the county in Ohio that refuses to participate in the Ohio recount about to take place in about a week. Ohio election procedures allows for a recount, does it not? Ohio allows a recount to take place to ensure that every vote is counted, does it not?

The Plain Dealer, like all of the other big media in the last month, over- emphasizes the "conspiracy" issue with simplistic and invalid logic. Here's a conclusion which noone has made:

Early exit polls showed challenger John Kerry ahead in key states that he eventually lost, proving the fix was in.

No, Bill. This does not prove that "the fix was in". Again, Dr. Freeman is not mentioned or referenced in this article (whom I imagine he is referring to at this point). However, he is mentioned briefly in a completely separate summary article written by Mr. Lubinger (et. al) -- entitled, "Untangling the Voting Controversies". In this lop-sided summary, the information about Dr. Freeman's research is more than 2 weeks old (apparently, Bill wasn't aware that Dr. Freeman updated his research) -- but no matter. Here's an excerpt:

And a University of Pennsylvania professor calculated the odds of exit polls being off in all three states at 250 million to 1 (now updated to 662,000 to 1).

NOTE: According to Dr. Freeman, "Being off" (in more technical terms) means the chance of there being a statistical error. In other words, that means that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual results in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Ohio (combined) could not have been due to it simply being "within the margin of error" -- as is often mentioned. Also, as Dr. Freeman notes in his research, he used THE LATEST exit poll data provided during the election day -- IT WAS NOT THE EARLY DATA you keep reading about (which was leaked across the web).

I could get into more about Richard Morin's comments about Dr. Freeman, but that falls outside of the scope of this blog.

So no, Mr. Lubinger, it wasn't just the EARLY exit polls in Ohio and Florida that showed a discrepancy. As Dr. Freeman shows us, there is something strange in the combined exit polls of these three states with the most UP TO DATE exit poll numbers. Either there was a systematic influencing factor (overwhelmingly skewing the exit polls towards Kerry), or there was a COUNTING ERROR. Proof has not been found with either hypothesis. Now, combine this research with the irregularities being reported and the serious software security holes detected by computer programmers with the central voting tabulating system and Diebold touch-screen system, etc, etc. Anyone concerned about the future of democracy in America should be pounding their fists demanding an investigation and, at the very least, a recount.

But of course, according to Bill Lubinger, this "fervour" that we're seeing with "conspiracy theorists" IS PARTLY TO DO WITH THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ITSELF!!!! (LOL)

And there were Election Day problems widely reported by the news media - voting machine malfunctions, long lines at the polls, the rejection of provisional ballots - most of which Green and other political observers consider "run-of-the-mill" stuff.

So what exactly is he saying? Should we turn off and tune-out the mainstream media?

Wait a minute! I actually agree with that implicit assertion!!!

MIS-TRUTH: Is General Electric Knocking on Keith Olbermann's Door?

2004-12-02T20:20:00.001-08:00

For those of you who saw light at the end of the proverbial tunnel for the mainstream media with respect to the U.S. votergate issue -- that tunnel is now a bit longer and a bit darker, thanks to Keith Olbermann. On his blog, dated December 1, 2004, he writes:

Each and every day since our coverage of all this began on November 8, I have received a set of emails, some times a few, some times many, asking “Why don’t you have Bev Harris on Countdown?,” “Why don’t you run the Bev Harris videotapes?,” “Why don’t you show the voting tapes Bev Harris found discarded in the trash in Florida?”

Because she won’t let us.

Wow!! Really?! Sounds like Bev, herself, is hiding something, doesn't it? Olbermann continues:

I have not dealt with Ms. Harris directly, but my staff has, and though we have asked her on a regular basis to let us show these tapes on national television, she has declined.

O.K. it has now been asserted by Olbermann that Bev Harris has replied to MSNBC that she will not release "the tapes". I assume Olbermann is talking about both the video and voting tapes.

Well, I guess we should hear the other side of the story, shouldn't we? On BlackBoxVoting.org (Bev Harris' site), a completely different truth emmerges:

Contrary to Olbermann's assertions, neither he nor his staff have ever spoken with Harris to ask her to show anyone the Volusia County tapes. Producers now admit that they have not spoken to Harris at all since November 8, when they cancelled a scheduled appearance on Countdown. Harris did not come to Florida until November 12, when investigations in Volusia County began. Both Executive Producer Izzy Povich and producer Katy Carp admitted they have not been able to get hold of Harris at all since Nov. 8.

Are Olbermann and Harris in different parallel universes?!! Two accounts of the same story couldn't be any more different than that! Huh?!.........What's that, Keith?.........Oh, you want to clarify something for us (excerpt from Keith's December 2 blog):

My staff is not certain that any of our messages to Ms. Harris inviting her on the show since the week of November 15 have specifically asked her for permission to play the videotapes of her work trying to audit the Florida vote. We think so, but I’ve got only three people booking all the guests on this program, and they each probably make about 100 calls a day.

Looks like ol' Keithy-boy is doing some professional mainstream backtracking on his comments -- I'm surprised he didn't erase his previous blog entry (you DO know you can do that -- eh, Keith?) But....but....I've only got three people booking! But....but...there are a lot of guests!! But...but....100 calls a day is a lot of calls!!!! This, ladies and gentlemen, is a professional American journalist making these comments.

Here's another couple of comments by an "informed" professional American journalist:

...She burst into LePore’s retirement ceremony, her cameraman rolling tape as she did so, and she raced to the podium to announce to the shocked room full of supervisors that she was “serving” LePore with papers as part of her lawsuits over what she claims are LePore’s evasions in providing records of the 2004 vote...

...she may also have an interest in making her own documentary, on her own schedule, for her own purposes...

With those comments, it is clear that American journalists are clearly NOT well informed. Oh, I forgot, Keith has at least 400 calls to make in one day!!

BlackBoxVoting.org -- please set the record straight:

Also contrary to Olbermann's claims, Harris is not making a documentary, but the makers of the Votergate documentary, an independent team who captured the Volusia County trash incident on film, are eager to interview Keith Olbermann on camera to ask him why he produced this report.

Is that right? O.K., how about the "grandstanding" issue?

When Harris asked about Olbermann's mischaracterizations of the LePore incident (which he characterized as "crashing" "rushing" and "screaming.") Izzy Povich said that they took those details "from other news sources." When asked by Harris, she declined to name any of the news sources. When Harris stated that she has always been, and was still willing to come on the show, Povich said they are not interested in having Harris as a guest, but only in getting copies of the videotapes.

Olbermann has never referenced those "other news sources" on his blog yet. However, he seems to be very sensitive lately:

Only today did she even get back in touch with us, and was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown.

He failed to mention this little detail, however:

Harris arranged for the owner of the Volusia County videotapes to call Povich and offer her the tapes. Povich admitted that producers had never tried to call the owners of the tape. The tape was offered to Povich by its producers, who called to make the tape available, but Olbermann's producers have so far not returned the call.

or this little nugget:

The NBC local affiliate in Palm Beach County asked for the LePore videotape, which Harris promptly provided. The LePore tape was aired on both Orlando and Palm Beach County NBC affiliates on Dec. 1.

So it seems that the NBC affiliates don't see Bev Harris as "belligerent" or "threatening". Olbermann is offended that Harris said that Countdown has withdrawn her invitation to appear or haven't made an effort to have the videotape shown. Why is he so offended? IT'S TRUE!!!! Even by his own account!!!

I leave this post with Keith Olbermann, who now sees himself as the only honourable mainstream American journalist out there (God help us!!!):

Threats against myself or my staff will not be tolerated. We are not only busting our humps on the voting irregularities beat, but we remain the only mainstream news organization to continue to cover this vital story. These are my people — they are running professional risks I can’t begin to describe — and I will stand up for them, first, last, and always.

I wonder what these "threats" by Bev Harris were? Perhaps, a demand for an apology? That's my guess. All I can say is that when a professional journalist LIES about Bev Harris "declining" to show the poll tapes and videotapes (which are not hers to begin with), then "standing up" for the ideals of journalism also means making a public apology to a person who has been "busting her humps" to truly investigate an issue which means so much to American democracy. You have lied, misinformed and smeared one of the most important investigators dedicated to finding out the truth in the 2004 election. I'm sure General Electric is thanking you for that effort.

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Dr. Freeman's Important Analyses AGAIN Ignored by Mainstream

2004-12-01T22:59:00.000-08:00

With a headline like this, the Boston.com article seemed, at first, promising. However, my hopes were dashed as I immediately began to read it. A half-truth and a "truth left out" are exposed here.

Voting errors tallied nationwide
By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | December 1, 2004

Those who believe that either or both of the past two presidential elections were manipulated by a vague conspiracy to elect Bush have done statistical analyses of voting patterns in Florida and argued that the voting discrepancies were much larger and systemic, but their studies have not stood up to scrutiny from academics and other analysts.

It has been around 2-3 weeks since an important and truly insightful work has been done by Dr. Freeman from the University of Pennsylvania. He shows that the discrepancy found between the exit polling and the actual results in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania cannot be attributable to statistical error. The odds are 665,000 to 1. He states that "counting error" is just as valid a hypothesis as "systematic bias" with exit polling. Very few mainstream news organizations have cited this research. Boston.com is one of them. In the case of Dr. Freeman, his conclusions HAVE indeed stood up to the scrutiny from other academics and analysts!!! Perhaps that's why he is not mentioned in this piece? C'mon guys!

None of the recounts or inquiries is expected to affect the results of the presidential election, which Bush won by more than 3.3 million votes.

I've seen this frayed logic many times by the mainstream and, quite frankly, it's starting to get me a bit peeved. THE POPULAR VOTE IS IRRELEVANT WHEN DETERMINING WHO IS PRESIDENT. If Kerry manages to reverse the outcome in Ohio, he is President. With the amount of irregularities that we've seen in this state, couple with Dr. Freeman's research -- this is entirely possible!!!

MIS-TRUTH: Major Newspapers STILL Not Telling The Whole Story About Ohio Recount

2004-11-29T20:50:00.000-08:00

Take a look at these short excerpts from major newspapers:

...The Green and Libertarian parties asked a U.S. District Court judge to order an immediate recount. The judge agreed with the state that a recount cannot begin until Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the statewide vote, sometime between Dec. 3 and 6. The two parties are raising the $113,600, or $10 per precinct statewide, needed to force a recount...

- The Cincinnati Post, November 29, 2004

...The Green and Libertarian parties are raising money to pay for a recount that would be held once the results are certified...

- Yahoo News, November 29, 2004

...Since then, there have been demands for a recount and complaints about uncounted punch-card votes, disqualified provisional ballots and a ballot-machine error that gave hundreds of extra votes to Bush...

- The Guardian, November 29, 2004

Now, take a look at an excerpt from this November 22nd article:

...The formal demand for a recount in Ohio was filed on November 19, along with a bond for $113,600 to cover the cost of $10 per precinct needed to request a recount. This money was raised in four days thanks to thousands of donors from around the nation...

- Scoop, November 22, 2004

The three mainstream newspaper excerpts I listed above all lead one to believe that there may or may not be an Ohio recount. The Cincinnati Post excerpt is blatantly false. The Cincinnati Post -- COVERING NEWS IN THEIR OWN STATE!!! The Green / Libertarian party are NOT "raising" the money. It has already been raised. That's past tense guys -- BEFORE NOVEMBER 19, 2004!!!!

I have also NOT come across any mainstream news article so far that reports that this $113,600 was raised IN FOUR DAYS THROUGH INTERNET DONATIONS!!! That is an incredible detail noticeably missed by the big news organizations. Not only that. The tally is now more than $250,000!!! How the hell can these so-called journalists be so blind?!! All they have to do is click this link: www.votecobb.org/

Perhaps they want the public to believe that this was a last-minute effort by a third party to avoid the issue that Secretary of State Blackwell is stonewalling on a speedy certification of the votes in Ohio. Perhaps the big media want readers to ignore the fact that a judge has blocked the chance for a proper and fair recount from being done in Ohio because there simply is not enough time to do it after the December 6 certification takes place.

Whatever the reason, the mainstream media has failed once again to provide a truthful and accurate report to the public. To egregiously ignore facts that have been known for more than 10 days now is unacceptable and is further proof that the mainstream media is a major factor when it comes to the ignorance of many Americans.

2004-11-25T21:50:00.000-08:00

Check out award-winning journalist David Lindorff's comparison of the U.S. & Ukraine elections:
Nation of Sheep, Turkey of an Election: Ukrainians Show the Way

MIS-TRUTH: The Ohio Recount May Not Take Place: CBS

2004-11-25T21:05:00.000-08:00

There's good news and bad news. The good news(?): the first network T.V. news outlet has mentioned the Ohio recount story (over 2 weeks old now). The bad news: they're suggesting that the recount may not happen at all.

Election 2004: Still Not Over

...Third party requests for a recount were rejected by a federal judge on Tuesday. (Their .26 percent of the vote didn’t buy them much of an argument.)...

This is a completely false statement!!! The judge didn't reject a recount! The judge rejected requests for AN EARLY recount (before official results are tabulated). The reason for this request is ignored, as well, by CBS. The electoral votes for Ohio must be cast by December 13th. The certification for the official results is expected December 6th (or later). A state-wide recount within 7 days is impossible.

And what's with the snide .26% comment? One of the judges reasons for rejecting an EARLY recount was that the requesting party was not realistically in contention to win Ohio. They raised over $150,000 through internet donations IN 4 DAYS!!! Perhaps the judge should have considered that dramatic outpouring in support from the people -- you know, the ones who actually do the voting!!

CBS Chief Political writer David Paul Kuhn continues:

Like Washington state, both political parties have raised enough money in Ohio to cover a recount. If the specter of a recount comes to Ohio, so will the ghosts of elections past. Hanging chads anyone?

IF!!! IF!!! IF....THE SPECTER...!!!! IF...THE SPECTER...OF A RECOUNT COMES TO OHIO!!! Sounds like David Paul Kuhn considers a recount on the same level as a dirty nuclear terrorist bomb. "The Specter" -- OOOOOOH!! Scary stuff!!!

News flash, David. It's not "If", it's "when". Get your prepositions right, dammit! "Senior" chief political writer?! Sheeeesh! Perhaps you should just go to the web site of the party who you are belittling.

...the recount will proceed on the schedule dictated by the Ohio Secretary of State's office. Mr Blackwell is currently stating certification will not take place until Dcember 6th...

- from the Cobbe/LaMarche website (one of the 3rd parties involved) under the title "What's The Latest on the Recount?".

HALF TRUTH: 2 Statements Which Deserve Another Quote

2004-11-25T09:07:00.000-08:00

Here's a passage I've seen at least a couple of times in articles:

Election numbers still leave questions for some
By Larry Eichel
Inquirer Staff Writer

...While the investigation is not complete, Warren Mitofsky, whose company designed and helped conduct the poll, has suggested more Republicans than Democrats refused to be polled, skewing the numbers. Such refusals, the theory goes, might stem from distrust some Republicans feel toward the so-called mainstream media, whose logos the pollsters wore on Election Day. Exit polls have overstated the Democratic vote in other recent elections as well.

Freeman, who said the theory had "some plausibility," expects to post the revised version of his paper today on his Web site, www.appliedresearch.us/sf/.

In a publication called "mysterypollster.com", Dr. Freeman says a little bit more.

"Thinking coolly and scientifically: Is it delusional to question the Bush-voter-refusal hypothesis as conclusive without independent evidence? On the other hand, considering the scores of allegations, the history (especially in Florida), the lack of safeguards with electronic voting, the conflict-of-interest in election oversight, etc…, etc… (and now the Berkeley study) is it delusional to consider that, just possibly, even part of the discrepancy might be due to the possibility of miscount?"

In a letter to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Mitofsky compares the leaked exit poll data (not the data used by Dr. Freeman) as “the score at half time at a football game”.

Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire wrote a killer rebut to that statement:

"No, Mr. Mitowsky. They should be compared to the score at half time at fifty football games. Better analogy: Fifty tosses of a coin. Error should skew in both directions; if the coin keeps coming up heads, something is wrong with that coin."

Yeah, I can see why bloggers get their bad reputation..................not! Way to be on the ball with that one, Joseph!

MIS-TRUTH: Exit Polls in America Are Wrong. No Proof Needed.

2004-11-24T21:26:00.000-08:00

Faulty exit polls puzzle experts, feed conspiracy theories

By Julia Malone
Cox News Service
Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Excerpt 1:

...Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research and one of the directors of the exit polls, conceded that the surveys, which aimed at questioning every 10th voter leaving 1,480 precincts nationwide, had missed the mark.

"A superficial reading of the data would have indicated that Kerry had a slight lead," he said in a telephone interview. But he defended the survey's final result, calling it "well within the sampling error," which ranged between 2 and 5 percentage points..

O..K., we've heard this explanation many times before, however the fact that is ALWAYS left out is that the error OVERWHELMINGLY skews towards Kerry. Look at the graph illustration above -- these are 4 p.m. exit poll numbers. Joe Lenski does not address this important piece of evidence.

Excerpt 2:

...Exit surveys, by their nature, always vary somewhat from the actual vote count. In recent years, they have tended to over-estimate the support for Democratic presidential candidates...

Excerpt 3:

...The difference this year was that the Internet made it easier for the world to see the unadjusted numbers in an election that was already very close and in a survey that was, apparently, even more skewed toward Democrats...

This whole article assumes that the exit poll numbers are wrong. Why is this? What evidence does it have? None. The exit polls are guilty until proven innocent, in other words -- regardless of the widespread voting irregularities that have been documented (also absent from this article). Why is there no hypotheses about vote fraud, given these irregularities?

Excerpt 4:

..."There's also an issue of whether Democrats were more willing to talk than Bush voters," Frankovic said. She added that experience shows that older voters are generally less willing to participate in exit polls than younger people...

Oh, yeah? Where's the evidence? Why is the author of this piece not asking for numbers that prove this to be the case? Here's a rebut to this variation to the "chatty democrat" theory from Bob Burnett, a computer scientist and one of the executive founders of Cisco Systems:

"...On the PBS News Hour Mitofsky stated, “we suspect that the reason [Kerry was ahead in the exit polls] was that Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters.” Of course, this excuse doesn’t explain why the exit polls were inaccurate only in swing states.

And it ignores the fact that the exit polls are carefully constructed samples weighted by factors such as party affiliation and gender. In other words, it is not the case that pollsters grab the 20th voter coming out of the polls and mark down their vote preferences regardless of what party they belong to; polling protocol dictates that if they have too many Democrats, or women, they don’t take anymore in that particular category until the sample is balanced..."

Excerpt 5:

..."Polls are pretty blunt instruments," Frankovic said. "They are not as precise as I think some people would like to think."...

Try telling that to Collin Powel, who refuses to accept the Ukraine election results due largely to -- yes, you guessed it -- EXIT POLLS. The fact is, exit polls are very accurate. Notice how the article lumps "exit polling" with other "polling" with this quote. This distinction should not be confused. Polling someone after they have voted is much more accurate than polling someone (on the phone) a week before they vote.

HALF TRUTH: U.S. Aknowleges that Vote Fraud Occurred ............................... in Ukraine

2004-11-24T10:59:00.000-08:00

Powell says USA does not accept Ukraine vote results

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate, because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," Powell said.

Nowhere in this article does it say what international standards were broken. Also absent from this newsclip is any mention that the recent U.S. election has had numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse which has also failed to be properly investigated.

As David Lindorff stated in his most recent article, "Double Standard on Exit Polling and Voter Fraud"

"...telling the Ukraine to hold off on declaring a winner until allegations of fraud can be investigated and resolved is hard to swallow.

Almost as hard to swallow as the media that report this without even a passing note about its irony and hypocrisy."

HALF-TRUTH: A Full Recount in Ohio May Now Be Impossible Because of a Judge

2004-11-24T09:35:00.000-08:00

Judge Denies Demand for Ohio Recount

Wed Nov 24, 8:35 AM ET

U.S. National - AP

TOLEDO, Ohio - A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished...

What AP fails to mention is that it will be impossible to complete a recount by the time the electoral votes are given to Bush on December 13. Democracy in America is again proven to be a joke.

TRUTH LEFT OUT: A Florida Vote-Rigging Story the U.S. Mainstream Media Still Ignores

2004-11-24T07:42:00.000-08:00

Volusia County resident Susan Pynchon, with the help of Volusia County attorney Daniel R. Vaughen, P.A., filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, Nov. 23, seeking to set aside the Nov. 2, 2004 Volusia County election due to irregularities.

Summary of allegations

a. The Supervisor of Elections has unreasonably delayed providing information.

b. The certification was based on inadequate and incomplete information regarding the election results.

6. Some or all of the information requested on Nov. 2, 2004 by Black Box Voting is still missing from 59 of the 179 voting precincts, including portions of or all of the voting machine tapes for those 59 precincts, which are a vital part of official paper record of the election results from those precincts.

7. Complete information on problems with the voting machines prior to and during the election has not been provided.

8. Complete information relating to memory card failures during the election has not yet been provided.

9. Only a partial list of the transmission logs from the Accu-Vote optical scan server has been provided. Despite repeated requests, the Elections office has refused to provide to the Volusia County Democratic party the official election results, now stating that those results will not be available until December 1, 2004.

10. The Elections office has provided incomplete data regarding Early Voting and Absentee ballots. The Supervisor of Elections, for example, reported that the total number of absentee ballots and Early voting ballots, combined equaled 89,999 votes, yet the published figures for those totals is 84,100 votes, leaving over 5,800 votes unaccounted for.

11. In addition to the pattern of delay in providing the requested information, the true election results are in doubt because of numerous violations of election law procedure and unanswered questions concerning the results.

12. The polls were opened early and closed late during Early Voting.

13. Many public records, including one signed results tape from a voting machine were found in the trash. Many of the requested records not furnished by the Elections office have been found in the trash. Results from the tapes found in the trash do not match the results of the copies of tapes furnished.

14. An email from Mark Earley, of Diebold Elections Systems, Inc., to the Elections office was provided which asked the recipient for an explanation of why Volusia County had more memory card failures than all of their other Florida customers combined, and then asked why the 17 memory card failures which the Elections office reported on November 3, increased to 25 before November 12, 2004.

15. The reported memory card failures were significant and troubling and included reporting zero votes after one week of voting, requesting permission to upload votes before the voting began, and messaging whether the card should be reformatted.

16. According to a statement by the Supervisor of Elections on November 17, 2004, the GEMS computer is not networked, and is "stand alone." The furnished computer logs show evidence of at least two attempts to remotely access the GEMS central tabulator, which is claimed to be secure. A computer screen shot printout on November 17, 2004 (found in the trash) shows that the GEMS computer at that time had two networked hard drives.

- from BlackBoxVoting.org

HALF-TRUTH: Exit Poll Double Standard

2004-11-23T01:40:00.000-08:00

Graph showing the "red shift" between 2004 US General Election exit polls & the actual 2004 US Election results

VS.

"...One [exit] poll, conducted by anonymous questionnaires under a program funded by several Western governments, including the United States, said Western-leaning reformer Viktor Yushchenko had collected 54 percent of the vote and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych trailed with 43 percent..."

- By Aleksandar Vasovic, AP - November 22, 2004

"...Several reliable exit polls had Mr. Yushchenko winning the vote by a comfortable margin..."
- Washington Times Editorial, November 24, 2004

O.K., so the exit polling discrepancy in the U.S. is due to flaws with the exit polling (which has not been proven at all to be the case). However, in the Ukraine, exit polling is significant proof that the election is a fraud.

I think this double-standard in relying on exit polls should provide a boost for the vote-fraud investigation in America. At the very least, it should put pressure on the U.S. election officials (et al.) to provide evidence to back up their theory that the exit polls are flawed.

After all, it's hard to believe that the exit polling in the Ukraine is more reliable than that in the United States, is it not?

Newsclip Autopsy - Remember the Term: "Information Superhighway"?

2004-11-22T23:49:00.000-08:00

The corporate mainstream media has called today's bloggers all sorts of names.

"tin-foil hat wearers"
"crazy conspiracy nuts"
"paranoid flame-fanners"

Walter Cronkite even spoke of the internet as being, if I may paraphrase, "the water-cooler of this generation".

No longer is the internet referred to as "the information superhighway".

Well, now is your chance to prove that the blogger phenomenon is due, for the most part, to the lack of responsible journalism these days.

Please follow the directions as stated in the "site description" above. Keep your excerpts short and always remember to include a link and an explanation as to why you posted that excerpt. Also, please only post excerpts from established news sources (e.g. CNN, ABC, BBC, CBC, The New York Times, etc.). Political slant does not matter, for truth rises above politics.

In addition -- from time to time -- this site will dedicate itself exclusively to stories that demand attention. Please DO NOT post any other UNRELATED newsclips when this site is so focused exclusively on such a story. For example, currently I only want newsclips related to the U.S. election voting fraud / recount issue.

I look forward to reading and discussing the "forensic" analyses you will provide. Please feel free to provide me with any feedback on how to improve the format of this site as well.

I thank you.