John Kerry: I won the 2004 Election

John Kerry: "I won the 2004 Election"
by The Angry Democrat
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM PST

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at a soiree sponsored by our local Democratic Party. Come here the startling thing he said to me about the 2004 elections.

Several weeks ago our local Democratic Town Committee held its biennial fund raising dinner. We invited many elected Democratic officials including both our US Senators. However, we never expect the Senators to attend such a small function. Well, on the morning of the event I got this phone call, "This is....from Sen. Kerry's office. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, the Senator would like to attend your dinner tonight." Once I picked my jaw up off the floor, I was able to use it to speak. I wanted to say, "Duh...of course he can come", but what I really said was that we would be honored and delighted if he attended. Not to be cynical, but I am sure the fact that the Senator is running for re-election in 2008 factored into his appearance in our town.

Sen. Kerry and a few staff arrived during the cocktail hour, and he began working the crowd as only an experienced politician can. I was lucky enough to pull him aside, get my picture taken with him, and have a brief conversation. I said to him, "You know, you really won the election in 2004", and his response was...

"I know."

He then continued to work the room, and later in the night he gave a good speech meant to inspire the troops to go out and fight for Democratic ideals. But his simple two word response haunts me. If he thought he had won the election, why did he concede it so quickly? His campaign had set aside several million dollars from his campaign for a Florida-2000 type scenario. Why didn't he fight the tainted results that came out of Ohio? If he had fought the results we might have been spared the disaster of the second Bush administration and the world would be a much better place.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/125844/699/598/435697

Now I'm going to cry.

in the south, and then fought to find out if the vote count was right. Kerry is a looser any time he runs for President.

You lost me at "looser".

:spray: You had me at "you lost me at looser".

The exact same article was written and published on DU a year ago.

I bookmarked it because I found it interesting.

wanted to fight for his country, but Kerry didn't let him. So exactly how did Kerry stop him considering there were candidates from other parties fighting?

Kerry did:

Sorry but he and EE have been asked by a few North Carolina papers to bring forth his evidence he would have used in 2004 to contest the vote and he still hasn't done so.

and a former lawyer knows that as much as anyone.

I wish they, both Gore and Kerry, had fought like hell but....

Party ABANDONED him. Gore demanded ask for a statewide recount -- but in Florida a statewide recount can only happen if both of the candidates in the race ask for it. Gore remained in the Vice President's residence while rabid neo-con freaks yelled over a bullhorn for long, long hours each day - "GET OUT OF DICK CHENEY'S HOUSE!" After the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore -- Al knew that standing up with members of Congress who were protesting the counting of Florida's electoral college votes would lead back to the same dead end - Bush v. Gore.

The ONLY people who could've changed the outcome of what happened in Nov/Dec 2000 was... us.

I was in Indiana. I didn't go to Florida or D.C. I figured that "they" would work it out.

We, the citizens, were too weak, too inattentive, too scared to demand that the election contest be handled fairly. If we had en masse demanded of ALL of our congresspeople and Senators that justice be done then Gore's fight would've succeeded.

Kerry conceded without a fight. No, he did not have the evidence he needed to prove fraud, but if he had allowed the 10,000 lawyers across the U.S. who were awaiting his signal to descend on Ohio, he would have gotten the evidence he needed and then some. But, nope. Kerry didn't fight.

horribly wrong.

The Democrats were wrong for not prosecuting Nixon and Republican associates involved in Watergate after Nixon left office.

Clinton was wrong for not investigating and prosecuting Bush I for crimes related to Iran-Contra and dirty tricks against him in his first election.

The Democrats are wrong for not earnestly investigating Cheney and Bush as needed to see if impeachment hearings are warranted.

Sorry, but cowardice does account for people who wind up saying "we just can't put the nation through it" -- and, yes, I know that there would've been screams and howls and vicious, vicious attacks on Kerry for activating the 10,000 lawyer team to investigate in Ohio. If he wasn't willing to take that kind of heat, WTF were all of his claims about his "having our back" when it came to the possibility of election fraud?

I honestly could believe that he was threatened -- that someone called him the day after the election and threatened his life, Theresa's life, his daughter's lives if he went forward with investigating and contesting the election.

King put his life on the line for years for a cause in which he believed, so do all great social justice activists.

the American people's probable priorities, and their willingness (or, rather, unwillingness) to fight for justice, even for themselves and their families! Shame on you. I thought that was a Republican talking point.

The electorate wants all of the votes to the counted - it's the race fixers in both parties that don't.

You're repeating a media meme.

I mean if the alternative is a media that flasely claims that Bush won and having that bastard run around claiming to have a friggin mandate, then hell yes. A long drawn out fight over the legitimacy of these elctronic voting machines and how voter caging is the Jim crow of our decade is far prefarable. At least it shines a spotlight on the criminal corporate republican jerks responsible.

He wan't obligated to move under any circumstances till Inaugeration Day. You make it sound like this was a "brave stand".Now he DID demnd the recount.But that was basically it as well as going to SCOTUS.He did what he could at the time.

that were banging on the doors in Florida yelling "stop the count!" -- Thom Hartmann conveys this story much more effectively than I can.

Peace.

The media asked no questons, but I believe they knew these were out-of-state GOP hacks.

I was so disgusted with the Democrats. Rendell included.

... but he still fought for over a month. Kerry didn't even try for two days.

For folks who want the gory details on what Gore had to deal with in Election 2000, read Jeffrey Toobin's book on the subject.

when people criticize Gore for not fighting. And I'm being very sincere here, what could the man have done that he didn't do? His strategy might have been wrong but I just don't get why people are angry with him for not fighting - he did - but once the Extreme Court did what they did there was really no where else to go. I guess he could have protested the electoral college vote in the Congress but that never would have worked. One thing I do fault him for, apparently Barbara Boxer did want to challenge, and he convinced her not to. But in comparison to Kerry Gore did fight like hell. And Kerry needed to fight like hell way more than Gore because by 2004 we knew exactly what a nightmare the freak in chief was/is - in 2000 I'm sure Gore was hoping the freak in chief wouldn't be so bad...I know I was....

...which appeared in a lengthy Rolling Stone article that appeared in October 2006. Here's some of the stuff he writes about:



Now as to whether a prosecutor could make an air-tight case using this evidence -- and much, much more Kennedy discusses throughout the article -- I don't know. Beyond reasonable doubt is a tough standard. But I think that after what happened in 2000, any jury would have been sympathetic to the idea that the GOP steals elections -- certainly more sympathetic than they would have been if Florida hadn't been such an obvious con job and the results so horrible for the country and the world at large.

The fact that Kerry didn't lift a finger, didn't use the millions his campaign had budgeted for just such a challenge, let down about 59 million voters (and probably hundreds of thousands more who thought they had voted for him) and, in the process, inflicted The Commander Guy on us for another four years is absolutely unconscionable and his decisions should have been overruled by the DNC. On the other hand, that's not exactly a trustworthy bunch either, so I'm not sure who could have intervened and forced him to take the fight right to Bush's door. I know he wasn't taking my collect calls that morning. :(


wp

That's the key to me.

We had a ton of information here and typed our little fingers bloody emailing all the congress people, the newspapers, and the Kerry campaign.

If they had taken a day or two to peruse it, that would have been nice.

I have spoken to well educated Dems: attorneys, programmers etc. They do not have a clue and moreover, they refuse to educate themselves about it.

That's very discouraging and depressing.

descended on Ohio and gotten the evidence. Mike Papantonio talks about people he knew being on planes on the tarmac at the airport and getting Kerry's order to stand down, hearing his concession speech.

No, he did NOT have evidence the day after the election when he caved in -- he had 1,000's of lawyers and 10,000's of citizens that would have gotten him the evidence he needed.

Why in the world did he not activate lawyers and citizens to LOOK for the evidence? Why not? He would've been called a bad name like "sore loser"? He would've been embarrassed if teams descended on Ohio and evidence wasn't found? Embarrassment? Being called a bad sport? That is enough to make someone cave when they know that caving could result in the deaths of hundred of thousands of people?

They fought this quietly for months.There was a time limit constituionally and Ohio made sure that the evidence was locked down and would not be relealed.States have a say too and they were corrupt Repugs.Kerry had NO EVIDENCE and as a prosecutor he knew he could not proceed without it.

Is it better for the masses to live a lie, or is it better for the masses to immediately know their elections are frauds?

People were wondering where all the outrage was... If their leader says, okay you won and walks out of public attention, and he had the media spotlight at the time, then it becomes a lost cause for the people to overwhelmingly demand change and answers from their government. Today, these same damn machines can still corrupt an election, by swaying one state, which could still effect a final result. True, a lot of work has been done to expose and get rid of the machines, but it is still a problem as long as one state is still using them.

Is it okay to slowly work behind the scenes to, eventually years later, get rid of fraudulent elections, and let the official record stand that George W. Bush fairly won both Presidential Elections?

Or is it better to get everything out in the open, so a push is created to overwhelm and expose frauds and traitors in our government, so history can be recorded accurately and criminals are punished and cannot return another day?

I also recall the USSC deciding Florida had to release the names of the purged voters before the election, right before the 2004 Election... Even though evidence was right in front of them, nothing was ever said about the wrong candidate being declared the winner of the 2000 Election. After all, it was right before the 2004 Election, and there was no way Bush was going to win re-election. Then, we got stuck with him for four more years, and something smelled rotten again. Sometimes you have to raise hell and rock the boat to make things right.

*edit - typo

Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed

AlterNet - In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.
Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records, according to letters from county election officials to the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.

http://agonist.org/20070731/ohios_2004_presidential_election_records_are_destroyed


:nuke:

That could have bought some justice for the people who voted for him.

...outrageous lines in democratic precincts due to mis-allocation of voting machines. Plus anecdotal stuff like black people being turned away from polling places for some transparently bogus reason.

However, the exit poll discrepancies alone should have been enough to get Kerry's legal staff to consider the probability that the GOP had done its dirty work again.

Somebody else here mentioned that there were roughly 10,000 lawyers ready to go to war for Kerry. I know three of them and, yes, they would have traded significant time away from their careers and families to play a small part in getting rid of Bush.

I guess the main point is that there was absolutely no compelling reason to concede when he did. He may have thought it's the honorable thing to do but, guess what, we're not dealing with honorable men these days. We're dealing with a crime family intent on holding executive positions in the federal government specifically to enable them to enact policies that intentionally plunder every single penny they can steal from the US treasury -- and damn few pennies there are, after seven years of BushCo piracy.

So what's the harm in delaying the decision for a few hours, or days? Sure, the networks get pissed because they can't do their little coronation ceremonies on schedule. So fuck 'em. Democrats owe them less than nothing. Bush gets his nose bent out of shape? Fuck him, too. He can damn well wait another week before he and his caporegimes resume their massive thievery.

And with 10,000 outside lawyers, plus campaign lawyers and investigators turning up every rock and looking in every gutter for signs of GOP election tampering, I seriously doubt it would have taken too long to compile sufficient evidence to warrant a statewide recount, at the very least, or nullification of the election results and either a new election or a decision to award Kerry the presidency.

But of course, there's always the supreme court ready to issue some insanely illogical decision like the 2000 lunacy about stopping the recount because the results might have been prejudicial to Bush -- which I kind of assumed was the purpose of a recount in that it has to be prejudicial to one or the other by definition. Ah well, who am I to second-guess the great legal minds of our era?


wp

that the President of the United States, George Bush, won this election. I also believe he got more votes in Ohio."

It was reported that he had lunch with Rove sometime after his victory for the senate seat, and before this statement.

whether Bloomberg would run in the dem primaries or as a spoiler, or is he just participating to bash Clinton?

Over half of RFKjr's number of "lost votes" come from an estimate of the people who abandoned the effort to vote because there were lines that had a wait of over 4 hours. These were not votes that could be counted. I think RFKjr was less optimistic than you on making a legal case. In spite of all evidence, the % of people who believe Gore won is likely near 50%.

Another issue is that the time between November 2004 and January 6, 2005, is too short to have the type of trial you describe. Ohio's legislature would likely have had to chose the electors - and they were Republican and the US Congress would have to vote to ratify them - and they were Republican.

I just pulled some random stats because they were conveniently located; there's really quite a bit more evidence of active tampering, rather than the passive sort you point out.

And the GOP dominance of those institutions you cite certainly isn't trivial. I think that's putting the proverbial cart before the horse, though. It's essentially a criminal investigation and there are standard steps to take, despite the certainty of GOP meddling. First, gather the evidence -- physical, anecdotal and circumstantial -- and see what you're dealing with. Those 10,000 lawyers ready to launch an assault on the official election results would have come in particularly handy right about then.

You then create a list of people in the Ohio GOP apparatus who held official positions that would have allowed them to cause certain anomalies -- such as non-delivery of additional machines in dem districts, organizing thugs to intimidate voters in dem districts and so forth.

Then, investigate these suspects from the time they were embryos and either find their pressure points, so they'll roll on bigger fish, or bring them up on charges of treason, or whatever you can make stick for skewing the results of a national election.

And let the legal system take over. The electors can wait, the legislature can wait, Bushie can wait for his second stolen coronation parade -- no artificial time table trumps installing the right guy as president. And, as RFK Jr. points out again and again in his article (which I think is now a book, or soon will be) that guy isn't named Bush.

More than 59 million people got screwed that day by a rigged system -- along with those whose votes were lost, uncounted, flipped, or who didn't get to vote at all because of some GOP caging maneuvers. The principal players ranged from the Ohio SoS to the RNC to the Bush reelection committed to local precinct staffers, along with a host of small time operatives and deal makers and political pimps. These people, and thousands more like them, have made it possible for BushCo's massive theft of the US treasury to continue unabated and unchallenged.

What little time would have been spent investigating, indicting, trying or cutting a deal with some of the criminals who caused this situation seems a small price to pay to avert BushCo's presence in the white house for another term.


wp

Look at the nice summary graphic as to where votes were lost. I am saying three things:
1) Kerry likely did have more people go to the polls to vote for him in Ohio. With a fair system this would have been enough.
2) The lost votes were not findable by a recount.
3) Kerry has spoken of the problem and written and joined legislation.
4) It was clear that Kerry would have no support from the Democratic party and that he could hurt the party for the then near future with a challenge that would be said to have no proof behind it. Clinton likely would have been first in line calling Kerry a traitor.

Elections are not presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on those in positions of public trust handling elections, not on the voters. The officials work for the voters, the voters don't work for the officials.

Government officials work for us. The burden of proof is on them. There is ample evidence of misbehavior on the part of those entrusted with the sanctity and integrity of the vote to warrant questioning and rejecting the official results. It is unacceptable to play this "prove it!" game and to move on and leave the mess for others to clean up in the future, and to force millions of people to endure the terrible suffering over the last 7 years that has been the result.

It would have been simple to prove that at least some voters (vast understatement) were disenfranchised. The vote of each and every citizen is more important than the career or fortunes of any politician.

Besides, if we never investigated or questioned anything until some arbitrary burden of proof were fully met as a prior condition, justice could never be served. We must always act on the evidence whether we can predict the ultimate outcome or not. No criminal investigation starts with the conclusion already known. If no criminal investigation could ever be started until the ultimate outcome were fully known, there would never be any criminal investigations.

Every single person who voted for Gore and for Kerry was deeply betrayed by their failure to fight for those voters. They made the calculated decision that fighting would have been worse than rolling over. They were wrong, if ever two politicians were wrong.

There was also that little matter of the two Ohio election workers being sentenced for tampering with the recount so why are people still claiming a recount never happened. It did, but it was rigged in a state run by Repubs.

Easier than standing there and explaining to whoever wrote this that it takes evidence to overturn an election.

at a small fundraiser for our Governor Granholm, he told me the same thing. He knows. Oh, yes he does.

considerably different. hundreds of thousands of people might be alive who were killed in Iraq, just for a start.

Maybe because he really wasn't a fighter.

That's why I am still supporting John Edwards.

He didn't want to take 2004 lying down. What a shame that Kerry was willing to.

You should've and could've, but you quit without a fight and that is unforgivable.

I AM DEPENDING ON TYPING IN ALL CAPS FOR CATHARSIS.











Oh, wait. Nevermind. John Kerry would've enacted essentially the same policy as George Bush.

SCREAM!!!!!!AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

You saved me from breaking my keyboard....

There is no way that John Kerry would have done so. This crosses a line of decency - and if you had any, you would know it.

I agree, there is no way that John Kerry would have done so. And so I hope that sentence was made in sarcasm.

...with someone who is close to the Kerry family and had been with them recently. I was ranting about the Kerry concession. This person told me that Theresa was angry about the theft of the election, and was told to just let it go. This was just days afterward.

Apparently, and unfortunately for America, a higher allegiance called to Kerry. A gentleman's club. They are elites. We are suckers.

At least there are no Skull and Bones members this time around.

too too many questions out there yet. It is too fresh for many.

And, hey, the billionaire mayor got a free lunch out of it to boot. Obama picked up his tab. That speaks volumes to me.

I wonder if Obama then kneeled and kissed his ring ?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-30-obama-nyc_N.htm

My stomach dropped when I read the OP heading.

But now I'm just furious.

This should piss everyone off!

KERRY KNOWS, HE KNOWS, HE KNOWS!!!

And he endorsed Obama!

:wtf:

Well, you know what?!

FUCK KERRY!!!


:rant:

maybe if you'd fought back and contested the election, I might have some respect for you, but since you basically let those GOP ratbastards walk all over you--AND US--I don't care what you think.

You're a HUGE part of the reason this country is in the dumper right now.

it does.

You've got to have some sympathy for Kerry though, trying to live with himself.

How many THOUSANDS have died for all their lies and deceptions?! :cry:

My sympathy is with them and their families. NOT Kerry.

Senator Kerry has a slight hearing problem in his one ear. And, I bet the room was noisy.
And, as for not fighting the results. I believe there were some other Democrats 9behind the scene) that were making it difficult for him to challenge the election.

"You know, you really won the election in 2004",
sounds a lot like "You know, you should really shun an erection in front of a door."

..and who dosnt shun erections in doorways?

I ask a reasonable question and I get a stupid response.

We were ALL in on it.

We were ALL responsible.

Why the f do we expect one man to be able to overturn years of corruption and neglect?

Our election integrity is our responsibility -- unless you believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy or the white hatted cowboy. We are the grown ups now.

yes, we are

He had the national voice, he had the money, everyone here was lobbing him the information.

I would not have been angry if he had tried and was treated unfairly by the press and the supreme joke, like Gore. It would have been written for history to judge.

John Kerry is not solely or singularly responsible for the decrepit state of our elections.

a candidate who conceded. media was 98% silent. Conyers was relegated to the basement. All these things happened because he conceded. I am not responsible for that one. he, on the other hand was responsible to his voters.

would have only generated a media circus with the same result. Remember the tsunami of ridicule Al Gore was subjected to? With little support from his own party, too.

In any case, the election belonged to us, not to Kerry. His candidacy was simply a feature of our election. The stewardship of our vote is ours because we are the constants.

I was very, very, very angry with John Kerry at the time, robbedvoter. And possibly for years after.

Gore was down 537 votes, Kerry over 100,000. Gore had a chance via a recount. With Kerry's numbers, a recount could not succeed. (and when they had one because of teh Green party it came nowhere close.)

It was not a matter of closeness of votes but widespread "glitches," 99% of which favored Bush.

That's @ss backwards.

Why should I accept results that aren't transparent?

Show me the votes.

Ohio was filthy. And it was only one among many states that were filthy.

When did we accept filthy elections? I never did. {/i]

The one thing that I agree with though is that the results MUST be verifiable, which is not the case when paperless e-voting is used. But there is NOTHING Kerry could have done about that. And those who could, did not.

But he, just like the rest of us, could have gathered a great deal of information should he have been so inclined. I know because I did and from my kitchen table.

watch it, lady.

in 2004. Sometimes I forget my place.

:hi:

because they KNOW me.

lol

:)

he was treated last time, or how he was treated when he won the Nobel Peace Prize, or the Oscar.

all the more reason to vote for W-H-O-M-E-V-E-R the Democratic nominee, cuz I can't fathom the thought of another Republican in the fucking White House...

:banghead: :banghead:

do something, see the result is the opposite of what you intended, then keep doing the same thing expecting the intended result?

Kerry has answered this question many times. The answer boils down to not having proof. This was not something that a recount could rectify. It was not that there were votes that were counted wrong or not counted. Those could be handled in the time period between Nov and January 2005.

Even now, we know that the machine are susceptible to being hacked, that many potential votes were lost to suppression via means that were unethical, but violate no law - like the long lines, and there was a caterpillar ballot that led to many votes, intended for Kerry, being marked for third party candidates or the blank line that would have been Nader, who was taken off the ballot. The latter two could have added up to more than the margin of victory for Bush - reasonable estimates suggest they do.

The problem is that we can not prove the machines WERE hacked, or if they were how much the difference was. We can estimate the number of people who would have voted but were deterred by a 4 hour plus wait, but you can't count votes not cast. We can look at precincts, where the "ghost" votes show up where Kerry's name was in the co-located precinct, but we cannot count them any more than in 2000, Gore could have asked for the "Jews for Buchanan" votes that were clearly intended for him.

The Conyers report, RFKjrs analysis, and the recent articles on the investigation by the new SoS all suggest that the election process lacked integrity and that more legal voters may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Kerry. But, it is three years later, and there is still not even a solid case for specific people having engaged in fraud, much less a case that there was fraud and it was pervasive enough that it is provable beyond a doubt that Kerry won. Under the Constitution, the election is ratified in early Jan 2005. The electors must be defined before then. From many accounts, Kerry did continue to quietly investigate in November, but there was no smoking gun. Even if they could have made a case that there was fraud and won - all in 2 months - it could have thrown the selection of the electors to the legislative branch in Ohio. Kerry was prepared for a recount, but that couldn't work against the methods used.

Kerry did speak about the problems and wrote a bill with Feingold that could prevent the long lines or no working machine problem in the future. They said it wouldn't pass, but the intent was to provide a model bill for states. Kerry also ennumerated in detail many of the observed problems in a Senate speech. In the last year, we have all seen accounts of how Edwards wanted to fight back. Yet his last previous statement before that was when he spoke for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, on the night of the election. There are at least 10 Kerry speeches dealing with it starting on MLK day in 2005, none of Edwards'. He did make many other speeches on many other topics, but not this. It was Kerry and his wife, who were ridiculed for speaking of it in 2005 before Bush's popularity imploded. Even then, Edwards as NEVER said what the basis of his case would have been.

Ross Perot let everyone know that his family had been threatened. It was the only thing I could think of that would have made him not challenge that vote.

We don't win every election we lose.

But won he did - I bet by far more than Gore - considering the turnouts, the enthusiasm, the hatred for Bush.

I watched the election results of 2004, and once I saw that Congress had been basically re-elected I knew we were screwed even if Kerry won. He would not be able to do much without Congressional help. The press and the Republicans would be all over him for anything that went wrong either here or in Iraq. He would not have been able to pull out. Although he would have that power as Commander In Chief he would not dare use it. Any subsequent turmoil would be used to bludgeon him and his party for decades if he tried.

I found it really depressing since Bush and Republicans were so bad, before that night I had faith that they would get thumped. Not just Bush losing in a landslide, but the whole useless plutocratic party that he represents. It should happen in 2008 too, but I am afraid it won't with Clinton as our standard bearer.

My understanding there is a feeling among the Democratic party elite - that to seriously investigate
our voting system would discourage people from voting, especially young people??

I personally don't endorse that opinion, but I have heard it more than dozen times.

It

then he is a pos for not fighting for democracy. his quick capitulation made me literally cry. that was the moment I gave up any hope, any longer, for this nation. if someone is willing to walk away from the most important election in my lifetime, I really don't care what he says afterward.

it's so easy for the rich and powerful to play it all as a game. just like war. the rich and powerful never die for KBR's profits.

:shrug: :eyes:

private remarks he made - was it marc Crispin Miller - or Palast? - who published a story on it...When I saw the title of the thread, I thought I might say "halleluja!" Better late than never. But a private remark - he'll take it back anyway

Shut the fuck up, John.

:banghead:

RFK, jr. filed fraud/whistleblower charges in Ohio.

I googled up a mention of it from Bradblog, but it's six months old:

I heard Mark speak years ago about this. Kerry would admit off the record that the election was rigged in ohio, but conceeded anyway.

NT

Bush crew knew they would do Iraq before election results we're in, but that was the reason for installing Bush from day one.

Right after NH in Edwards birth pIt was about election fraud!

I read it and replied to it the first time I saw this thread
months if not years ago. Do your fact checking.