just listening To Mark Crispen on Majority Report

He keeps telling the story of when he met Kerry and the Senator said he needed proof that the election was stolen, and went on to say he couldn't be the one to yell theft without proof. He also said that Dodd didn't want to hear it(denial) To me it sounded like a confidential conversation not meant for the world to hear.

Next think Mark is on Democracy Now and various other shows Claiming Kerry says the election was stolen, (not to cool)

Now I can see the precarious position Kerry was in, his only option was to deny meeting him. If he needs proof or was going to conduct some sort of investigation, wouldn't he want to be a little covert about it?

I like mark, just started reading his book today, and thank god he wrote it.But I guess I personally would of used allot more discretion.

And you'll never convince me that MCM didn't do it for the express purpose of manufacturing a scandal just to help sell his book.

nation, to take the risk that maybe Kerry would deny the story in a less point-blank fashion - all the Kerry spokesperson had to say was, "It seems that MCM misunderstood what the Senator was saying." -- instead the response was too abrupt, IMO.

Mark is the energizer bunny of election reform - the *only* national name who puts his neck out again and again and again to get the truth out.

There are lots easier ways to make money.

But given the thickness of the cover-up and the lack of credibility we have -- thanks to the whoring U.S. corporate press -- we really NEED someone like Kerry to say, "Yes, the vote was rigged and your votes were stolen," in no uncertain terms.

Instead we get a bunch of political games that serve to discredit us further.

And, since I believe a huge crime has been committed(well, one of many huge ones committed by this administration but let's start with the first one), I would really like to see justice served and the criminials hung by their thumbs!

So, thank you Mr. Crispin and others who seem to think it's more important to speak the truth than save their political sss.

Although, Mr. Kerry, in all fairness, thanks for standing up against Alito - that does take some guts....

about his first meeting with Kerry - somewhat soon after Ohio. Then, he met Kerry again two+ months ago and Kerry changed his mind (according to what Miller reported). Miller told the story about his meeting with Kerry practically the next day. Kerry then came out and denied it. I think the timeline is important to knowing who you want to believe.

Having heard Miller on radio and in person (lecture) and knowing that his credentials are pretty impressive, I think we have a flip-flop or an on/off the record problem. Perhaps Kerry thought it was a private exchange and wasn't prepared to have it blasted over the radio waves followed by every other media.

I tend to believe Miller. I don't think Kerry was ready to face the interviews and say why (for legal reasons or not).

Kerry's office person did a poor job in her statements afterwards that went too far in being snarky towards Miller.

Sure Kerry didn't want it known that he believes the election was stolen until he has some PROOF IN HAND, just as any prosecutor would hope. The office person did a crap job and was unnecessarily snarky in her statements afterwards.

board with Election Reform and Kerry was worried he'd sound like "sour grapes." Or, a "Conspiracy Theorist."