Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

[drsmith1072]

I can't find in the study where it states how many felons voted for Franken, versys how many voted for his opponent. Can you please point that out to me?

Perhaps you missed the word "May" in the title....

Reading Is Fundimental

Perhaps you missed the fact that the author of the OP later used that "may" in an attempt to define the democratic party??

the democrat party is a felony.

So yeah, reading is fundamental. Let's see if you can take your own words to heart.

 

[drsmith1072]

The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities.

That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.

Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been "stonewalled."

"We aren't trying to change the result of the last election. That legally can't be done," said Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority's executive director. "We are just trying to make sure the integrity of the next election isn't compromised."


watch TM have a conniption fit.

So now all you have to prove is that 312 out of 341 (91%) ended up voting for Franken

Good luck

I'm not required to "prove" anything turd licking asswipe.

As usual they make accusations in order to try and dishonestly frame the democratic party as felons based on something they can't prove. So of course they claim that they don't have to prove it since the mere claim is enough for some to spread this propaganda to more and more of the gullible right.
Why bother proving it when saying it and smearing the left with lies works just as good with their base?

 

[drsmith1072]

I have been saying all along that Election was a complete fraud. Franken should not be serving in our Senate. He did not win that Election. All those magical & mysterious votes suddenly appearing? How convenient. What a scam.

"What we did this time is irrefutable," McGrath said. "We took the voting lists and matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists, where voters sign in before walking to the voting booth, and matched them by hand.

"The only way we can be wrong is if someone with the same first, middle and last names, same year of birth as the felon, and living in the same community, has voted. And that isn't very likely."



and you would be correct. demonRats are frauds. liars and election cheats. no doubts about it.

According to my records I died in 1995 shortly after joining the army all because a guy with the same name died in a local hospital I had been treated in ONCE. The unfortunate thing is that along with his death certifcate, my credit report showed thousands of dollars in medical bills and this only became known when I tried to buy my house. It took a few weeks to straighten out but in end his debt and death were removed from my records.

Mistakes happen, so please don't talk about how something isn't very likely.


and once again you use your "may" haves in a desperate and dishonest attempt to support your smears when you know that you can't prove it. How typical.

 

[drsmith1072]

About Us


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

a bunch of political hacks

minnesota majority did this "study" they are a hack right woing group.


This study means nothing

If a republican had won this way would you think it was ok?

Interesting view point. However what do you think the rightwingers in this thread would be saying if the republican had won this way??

 

[Truthmatters]

I give them court documents of the republican cheating and they pretend it means that the republicans are as pure as the driven snow and democrats are evil for bringing charges again th the RNC.

The sad thing is in the court documents they punish the RNC for their actions.

It crazy thinking.

 

[Immanuel]

The court did not say it was unsubstanciated Immie.

they ordered the republicans to stop their actions

Hey, she with the second grade reading comprehension, do you know what unsubstantiated means?

It does not mean the court said they were unsubstantiated. The fact that they court never ruled on the case means that they are unsubstantiated i.e. not proven.

Unsubstantiated | Define Unsubstantiated at Dictionary.com

un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed
   /ˌʌnsəbˈstænʃiˌeɪtɪd/ Show Spelled[uhn-suhb-stan-shee-ey-tid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not substantiated; unproved or unverified: unsubstantiated allegations.
2.
being without form or substance.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

THEN explain why the article is titled the way it is?

Because it's describing what happened.

actually it's describing what MAY have happened IF the study is real and IF 90% of those alleged felons voted for franken.

It implies that his victory was propped up by the illegal votes of felons the fact that you right wingers are trying to spin this as you ignore that FACT is quite disturbing.

Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

FACT is that is a biased interpretation of the "study" which talks about felons voting However, since there is NO real way to determine who they actually voted for what was the point in trying to imply that franken benefitted from the alleged illegal votes as the title of the article does??

It's called politics and politcal bias which foxnews has more than enough of and this is just another example.

 

[Immanuel]

I give them court documents of the republican cheating and they pretend it means that the republicans are as pure as the driven snow and democrats are evil for bringing charges again th the RNC.

The sad thing is in the court documents they punish the RNC for their actions.

It crazy thinking.

More damned lies by TM.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that the courts did not find proof of the wrongdoings.

Something you are too damned stupid to understand.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

You claimed there was no evidence, which is blatantly false. You may not accept the evidence as credible, but evidence there is.

You said that in this thread.

You're still claiming it.

As to whether that lie is humping anyone, who the heck knows.

Go get his evidence?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/122976-republicans-repetedly-keep-blacks-from-voting.html

Immie

It seems to me that you are talking about a civil lawsuit

A lawsuit, or "suit in law", is a civil action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff's favor, and a range of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose an injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

There are no criminal charges in a civil suit however, when you choose to settle the suit and pretty much give the plaintiff what they want then you are pretty much admitting that you were wrong based on how you chose to avoid the court's judgment which could have been harsher than the settlement.

 

[bucs90]

About Us


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

a bunch of political hacks

minnesota majority did this "study" they are a hack right woing group.


This study means nothing

Ah yes, page XXX of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Attack the source, not the content.

So, if a source is partisan, but they have the facts to prove their argument, then their partisanship excludes the factual findings?

 

[drsmith1072]

Immie they did nothing intimidating in the tape.

that is just a fact

Must have done something...they were asked to leave and an investigation insued and it went to trial...and then it got thrown out by their buddy Holder. Lucky for them...huh? There might have been court documented records left behind.


I can't help but wonder what your position would have been if two guys wearing sheets and hoods and carrying sticks had been standing there instead.

Oh I can only imagine how different your take would be.

It was a civil suit and unless you settle it before it goes to trial, it will go to trial and if one of the parties doesn't show up the judge usually finds in favor of the one that does show up. In the instance of the nbpp the civil suit was dismissed against all defendents except one who had an injuction filed agaisnt him to prevent him from continuing his actions which is part of a civil suit.

In the end, you rightwingers are once again trying oh so desperately to make something out of nothing that happened and was dealt with a year ago, right before an election all so you can try to make people angry enough to vote republican.

 

[drsmith1072]

Isn't interesting that everyone can see that TM lies through her teeth, except her.

It seems to me that you guys are spending far more time attacking TM that you are dealing with the actual content or the topic of the thread. Is this type of gang mentalitly what passes for actual debate on this board??

 

[Dr.House]

"attacked"....

 

[drsmith1072]

The Truth About Fraud: Case Studies by Issue


Case Studies by Issue
Photo ID
Much of the hue and cry about voter fraud is accompanied by calls for restrictive ID requirements, like laws requiring voters to show particular photo ID documents at the polls. Some of this may be a sincere, if mistaken, belief in the need for restrictive ID measures. But this clip from a May 17, 2007, Houston Chronicle article suggests another rationale:


Among Republicans it is an 'article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,' [Royal] Masset[, former political director of the Republican Party of Texas,] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

I have asked you these questions twice before yet you simply attack me rather than answer the question.

Why do you have problems with removing invalid names from the voters roles?

personally I don't have a problem with removing INVALID names but the problem you end up running into is that sometimes VALID names are removed by accident and for that people are denied their right to vote all because their name was SIMILAR to that of a felons name.

Why do you oppose requiring that a voter present a photo id when voting?

So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Are the answers to those two questions related?

Immie

NOPE they aren't.

 

[drsmith1072]

I can't find in the study where it states how many felons voted for Franken, versys how many voted for his opponent. Can you please point that out to me?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

My question is where was this "report" when there were all sorts of challenges (including a court challenge, as I recall) which put the seat on hold for so long? Good grief, some of these new conservative "groups" are becoming laughing stocks, they're just so fucking frantic over loss of control.

It's all politics, as usual, as republicans bring up year old disputes right before an election out of desperation and in the hopes that it will have an impact on the upcoming election in their favor.

 

[Immanuel]

Go get his evidence?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/122976-republicans-repetedly-keep-blacks-from-voting.html

Immie

It seems to me that you are talking about a civil lawsuit

A lawsuit, or "suit in law", is a civil action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff's favor, and a range of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose an injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

There are no criminal charges in a civil suit however, when you choose to settle the suit and pretty much give the plaintiff what they want then you are pretty much admitting that you were wrong based on how you chose to avoid the court's judgment which could have been harsher than the settlement.

I believe you are correct regarding the civil suit, but the evidence that she was talking about had nothing to do with the case.

She has been spreading lies for months and in this regards for weeks. Willow called her on her lies and she told Willow to go find evidence of her lies. I was simply helping willow out.

If you have been lucky enough to not read through this entire thread yet, might I make a friendly suggestion and state that most of it is simply not worth it and admit that part of the fault in that regards is my own?

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

My question is where was this "report" when there were all sorts of challenges (including a court challenge, as I recall) which put the seat on hold for so long? Good grief, some of these new conservative "groups" are becoming laughing stocks, they're just so fucking frantic over loss of control.

The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.

Can't get any more obvious than that.

Minnesota Majority has experienced the DOJ’s refusal to investigate these kind of cases first-hand. On November 17th of 2008 (immediately following the 2008 General Election and while the Coleman-Franken recount battle was getting underway), Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis sent a certified letter to then Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, requesting an investigation into apparent failures to comply with HAVA by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. No response was forthcoming.

Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis’ complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority’s findings. At that time, he said, “based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint.” He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up. .....

Hot Air Audio: How the DoJ allowed voter fraud in Minnesota

Rick

So in other words and based on how it occured on W's watch then your problem is with W's DOJ and not obama's?

 

[drsmith1072]

No when the case is done then we can have teh evidence.

Now if they are convicted that would mean something , if they are found innocent will at least get to see the evidence huh?

What I gave you were court documents from a trial that never took place because the Rs decided to let their hands be tied during an election so tehy could avoid being tried.

Now if they thought like you that the evidence meant nothing I would think they would not have let the court tie their hands for years to come.

Why did the RNC not just clear their name if it was all bullshit?

That is a very valid point. Why would they settle if they were doing nothing wrong? It seems to me that the DNC got what they wanted and that the RNC gave it to them especially when you consider how the RNC has continually tried to get out of the decree. If the RNC got what they wanted then why would they try to get out of the decree??

 

[Immanuel]

The Truth About Fraud: Case Studies by Issue


Case Studies by Issue
Photo ID
Much of the hue and cry about voter fraud is accompanied by calls for restrictive ID requirements, like laws requiring voters to show particular photo ID documents at the polls. Some of this may be a sincere, if mistaken, belief in the need for restrictive ID measures. But this clip from a May 17, 2007, Houston Chronicle article suggests another rationale:


Among Republicans it is an 'article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,' [Royal] Masset[, former political director of the Republican Party of Texas,] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

I have asked you these questions twice before yet you simply attack me rather than answer the question.

Why do you have problems with removing invalid names from the voters roles?

personally I don't have a problem with removing INVALID names but the problem you end up running into is that sometimes VALID names are removed by accident and for that people are denied their right to vote all because their name was SIMILAR to that of a felons name.

Why do you oppose requiring that a voter present a photo id when voting?

So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Are the answers to those two questions related?

Immie

NOPE they aren't.

personally I don't have a problem with removing INVALID names but the problem you end up running into is that sometimes VALID names are removed by accident and for that people are denied their right to vote all because their name was SIMILAR to that of a felons name.

Good answer and thank you. I believe you are in line with most Americans with that reply. However, TDM is not.

She refuses to answer.

So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Another good answer and for the most part, I would agree with you, however, not completely.

Most people even the poor have to have some id. They have either a driver's license or a state id or some kind of id to prove who they are.

I do not believe that it would be all that expensive to provide id for the few that don't have them.

We throw away hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the war, the Stimulus Plan, and so many other plans, hell, if someone is on Welfare, if they don't already require it, then make that part of Welfare.

NOPE they aren't.

These three questions were written specifically for TM who seems to have a different perspective on things than you and I do in this regard. If... and that is a very big if, she were honest, I think she would say yes they are.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

No when the case is done then we can have teh evidence.

Now if they are convicted that would mean something , if they are found innocent will at least get to see the evidence huh?

What I gave you were court documents from a trial that never took place because the Rs decided to let their hands be tied during an election so tehy could avoid being tried.

Now if they thought like you that the evidence meant nothing I would think they would not have let the court tie their hands for years to come.

Why did the RNC not just clear their name if it was all bullshit?

This has already been answered by more than one poster in the other thread where you were proven to be a liar and you ran away to this thread because you don't want to face FACTS.

Why did the Democrats let the Republicans off the hook if the evidence was do "damning" as you've said over and over and over and spammed this board with repeatedly?

There are nothing but ALLEGATIONS in your "court documents." There is NO FINDING OF GUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, you know this, and choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Rick

How is the DNC (plaintiff) winning a settlement from the RNC (defendant) which ties the RNC hands and that the RNC has continually tried to get out of an example of the DNC letting the republicans off the hook?? Based on what I have read the DNC got what they wanted where as the RNC is still fighting the decree that was a result of the settlement.

No the court did not find in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant settled the case and gave the DNC what they wanted. Yes, the plaintiff could have refused the settlement however, since it was in their favor why would they??
It still doesn't explain why the RNC would have settled IF they weren't guilty of what they were accused of? Why wouldn't they have fought to clear their name?