Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Exclusive with Richard Hayes Phillips' re ground-breaking book about the theft of OH in 04.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 04:02 AM
Original message
Exclusive with Richard Hayes Phillips' re ground-breaking book about the theft of OH in 04.
One of several great books to emerge from the theft of the 04 election. Joan Brunwasser helped him write the book and has written this duscussion of it. Everybody in the ERD forum shd try to get a copy of the book. Here are a few quote from the article

In the sphere of election integrity, Richard Hayes Phillips stands out. For the last several years, he has dedicated himself to investigating the forensic evidence of the 2004 presidential election in the state of Ohio. Why Ohio? Because it was key to the Bush “victory,” and because he saw disturbing anomalies, he threw himself into what would turn out to be a three-year project “to find out for self” (p. 1). Long after most people had reluctantly returned to their normal lives, Phillips soldiered on, studying the election records to a degree that they had rarely, if ever, been studied before. He requested, photographed, and analyzed “126,000 ballots, 127 poll books, and 141 voter signature books from 18 counties in Ohio.”

The result, Witness to a Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of an American Election was just published some weeks ago. The story Phillips unfolds is a fascinating one. This book is an indispensable aid to understanding the 2004 election in general, and Ohio specifically. Because Kent State University Press reneged on its contract, Witness to a Crime almost wasn’t published at all. But, this mild-mannered holder of four degrees, former college professor, talented musician, and seasonal Adirondack trail-clearer simply refused to allow this story to slip away.

snip

Robert F. Kennedy has given his approval of the book:

"This landmark investigation is a testament to what private citizens can accomplish when government officials fail to protect our right to vote and to count those votes as cast. Every American – Republican and Democrat – should read this book, and join the fight for democracy’s most fundamental right."

snip

Phillips describes himself:

I did not have to quit my job because, during most of the year, I have none. I accepted contributions which amounted to less than half of minimum wage, and when it wasn’t enough to pay the bills I borrowed from my own retirement accounts. I am the master of low overhead, and my house is paid for. I live only with a cat, and he is quite independent.

I do not enjoy criticism, but neither do I fear it, because my research is thorough, my knowledge is deep, and I tell the truth as well as I can see it. I cannot be intimidated because I have no fear, which renders courage unnecessary. I cannot be bribed because I am not motivated by money. I cannot be blackmailed, because I have nothing to hide.

I do have four degrees, although I rarely use them, and these are not what qualify me to be an election fraud investigator. The methodology is elementary. I only used four mathematical techniques: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Nothing more is necessary when the numbers don’t add up. And I do have certain attributes that proved well suited to the task: perseverance, ability to focus, attention to detail, the ability to smell a rat, and a detective’s knack for asking the right questions in the right order.

Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Exclusive-with-Richard-Hay-by-Joan-Brunwasser-080612-229.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. The counterpart....HOW TO RIG AN ELECTION Allen Raymond is also a must read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kucinich's articles of impeachment boost our ability to state the
Ohio election of 2004 stolen.

Kucinich indicts Bush, Cheney, Blackwell for their conducting an illegal election in that state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. ?
AFAICS Kucinich's articles express no view on whether the election was stolen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. So saying that an election was not conducted legally, or properly
has no meaning for you in terms of its possible theft??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Pardon?
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 02:30 PM by Wilms
Allow me to assist you.

Is what you meant to say that Kucinich did not offer an opinion as to whether or not the alleged "TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS" and "CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965" was intended to or successful in stealing the 2004 election?

Gee OTOH. Your being a little too literate, even for me.

Wanna have some fun and be generally other handed? Why don't you simply point out that Kucinich makes absolutely no reference to exit poll results? That alone may have given true believers a needed cold shower.

-on edit-

There. I've done it myself. :yoiks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x504287

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wilms, I totally understand that Kucinich did not verbally state
Whether the malfeasances that he read into the record are or are not actions that as their result the possible theft of the election.

But certainly his reading these acts of illegal conduct into the record substantiate the environment of the election - Article 25 takes him a full ten minutes to read.

And whether the exit polls do or don't need consideration is an item for another topic -- I am talking about the background scenarios of that election - which Kucinich is directly implicating as activities violating election laws.

JEESH. I really really understand why several buddies of mine on this issue do not ever respond to OTOH.

It is simply like trying to argue the alphabet!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I appreciate all that.

But you want to be both prosecutor AND jury. I think that's not the best approach.

Show the evidence...like Kucinich did...and let others figure it out on their own. Don't offer a conclusion you can't prove.

I think that is all the non-true believing election reformers are trying to tell the torch and pitchfork crowd.

But I could be wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I did not make any statement that gives an impression that I am prosecutor and jury
You can slant your reading of my statement that way, if you must.

my original statement was this: Kucinich's articles of impeachment boost ...

again the word "BOOST"

our ability to state the Ohio eelction of 2004 was stolen.


Boost - as in "add to" - or to get "boosted" up yet another level.

We have yet another leg to stand on in our attempts to view this election as stolen.

I did not say that his reading the two articles of impeachment into the records allows us to irrefutably announce that the election was stolen.

you can slant it that way, but in doing so -- you are slanting my statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You're slanting the meaning of the words you used. I stand by my observation. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Okay. Whatever... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. That's more like it!
;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. what can I say?
For some reason, I gave Fitrakis and Wasserman a free pass on this. I'm just a bit tired of it.

It's not a subtle distinction; it's not a literal distinction; it's a simple, obvious, and fundamental distinction. For purposes of deciding whether Bush violated his oath of office, it doesn't matter whether the election was actually stolen or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. So Kucinich spent ten minutes reading an article of impeachment into the record
But we are to assume that he thinks the 2004 election in Ohio had non controversial results?

and what the heck is the meaning of your acronym?? IHNHIB, SPLMK, OK??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. fallacy of the excluded middle
Who on earth said that the 2004 election "had non controversial results"?

My post was one sentence long. Could you please either respond to the sentence I actually wrote, or disregard the post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That's a fair response.
LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. sorry, forgot: AFAICS = "as far as I can see" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC