Surprsingly, allegations of "massive voter fraud" don't pan out

[Red Dawn]

Vote fraud claims were wrong

Deters' charges didn't pan out, special prosecutor says


Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he had allegations last fall of widespread voter fraud - allegations a special prosecutor reported Tuesday were wrong, noting the only voter fraud found was from a Connecticut man who told on himself.

"Ultimately," Special Prosecutor Michael O'Neill wrote in a report, "the investigators discovered 'get-out-the-vote' practices, sponsored by community organizations, which took full advantage of this unique absentee-voting period, but no evidence these practices violated Ohio law."

Deters claimed his office had concrete allegations that people were offered booze and cigarettes to vote specific ways, suggesting they were voting for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"He said he had all of this evidence. He was fairly specific about some of his charges," Burke said of Deters. "Where the hell is it?"....

The only criminal case stemming from Deters' allegations of widespread voter fraud last fall was against a Connecticut man.

Kevin Duffy, 24, pleaded guilty Dec. 29 to attempted false voter registration and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $1,000 fine and 250 hours of community service. Duffy was in town Oct. 4 to visit his Xavier University sister, but went to the University of Cincinnati where he registered to vote and voted on the same day.

A week later, Duffy felt guilty and called Hamilton County elections officials to tell them what he did and ask that his vote not be counted. It wasn't.



Vote fraud claims were wrong | Cincinnati Enquirer | Cincinnati.Com

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh the Horror.

I'm so surprized it all turned out to be rubish.

Sarcasm off.

 

[Ravi]

Aw, come on Red Dawn...you aren't surprised at all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah, cant imagine why investigation into Democrat voter fraud would turn up nothing with Democrats in charge.

 

[Meister]

There wasn't voter fraud in this election to much extent, just as there wasn't much in the 2000 election. The only party who cries it is the "dumbocrats" when they lose.

 

[KittenKoder]

Hate to say this (because I usually like the Dems more than Reps) but: Turn about's fair play.

 

[no1tovote4]

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

 

[Gun Clingin']

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

Indeed.

 

[KittenKoder]

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

While you make a few good points I don't think it's that simple, the why part. Look at the Florida Fiasco (FF, how cuuute) that happened when Jr got elected, no matter what you do the system is not perfect. I agree that ID's should be checked and votes verified more (at least in some way), however this will never stop it. Like all illegal activity the perpetrators just evolve and change to evade the newer security measures in place. Our own state had a problem recently (can't remember exactly when) where they found a lot of votes from dead people, and not just people who recently died, but LONG dead, which is why I like the ID requirement myself. The part of voting that still bothers me is that only two candidates EVER get the spotlight, and always of the same two parties. Many times I can't even find out about all the candidates, and in our day and age this shouldn't be an issue at all. I didn't vote for either of them, because I didn't like one more than the other and the candidates I would have voted for (was still undecided to the end) had no chance of winning. To me, the whole system is corrupt anyway so one tiny flaw isn't enough to worry about.

 

[no1tovote4]

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

While you make a few good points I don't think it's that simple, the why part. Look at the Florida Fiasco (FF, how cuuute) that happened when Jr got elected, no matter what you do the system is not perfect. I agree that ID's should be checked and votes verified more (at least in some way), however this will never stop it. Like all illegal activity the perpetrators just evolve and change to evade the newer security measures in place. Our own state had a problem recently (can't remember exactly when) where they found a lot of votes from dead people, and not just people who recently died, but LONG dead, which is why I like the ID requirement myself. The part of voting that still bothers me is that only two candidates EVER get the spotlight, and always of the same two parties. Many times I can't even find out about all the candidates, and in our day and age this shouldn't be an issue at all. I didn't vote for either of them, because I didn't like one more than the other and the candidates I would have voted for (was still undecided to the end) had no chance of winning. To me, the whole system is corrupt anyway so one tiny flaw isn't enough to worry about.

We need to fix them all.

I agree that the immediate dismissal of other qualified candidates to concentrate on the "big two" actually perpetuates the problem of the two-heads one party.

It is essential that we work towards all of these at once, otherwise we maintain the status quo where the only issues that ever get "fixed" are those that will help maintain the majority of either of the big two that happen to have the power at the time.

There are many, many Americans that simply do not vote because they do not feel sympathy toward either of the big two and are convinced that their voice is otherwise insignificant. Imagine if all those who lean libertarian actually voted that way. Or those who lean socialist for that matter... It would turn an election. Yet most never will.

 

[KittenKoder]

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

While you make a few good points I don't think it's that simple, the why part. Look at the Florida Fiasco (FF, how cuuute) that happened when Jr got elected, no matter what you do the system is not perfect. I agree that ID's should be checked and votes verified more (at least in some way), however this will never stop it. Like all illegal activity the perpetrators just evolve and change to evade the newer security measures in place. Our own state had a problem recently (can't remember exactly when) where they found a lot of votes from dead people, and not just people who recently died, but LONG dead, which is why I like the ID requirement myself. The part of voting that still bothers me is that only two candidates EVER get the spotlight, and always of the same two parties. Many times I can't even find out about all the candidates, and in our day and age this shouldn't be an issue at all. I didn't vote for either of them, because I didn't like one more than the other and the candidates I would have voted for (was still undecided to the end) had no chance of winning. To me, the whole system is corrupt anyway so one tiny flaw isn't enough to worry about.

We need to fix them all.

I agree that the immediate dismissal of other qualified candidates to concentrate on the "big two" actually perpetuates the problem of the two-heads one party.

It is essential that we work towards all of these at once, otherwise we maintain the status quo where the only issues that ever get "fixed" are those that will help maintain the majority of either of the big two that happen to have the power at the time.

There are many, many Americans that simply do not vote because they do not feel sympathy toward either of the big two and are convinced that their voice is otherwise insignificant. Imagine if all those who lean libertarian actually voted that way. Or those who lean socialist for that matter... It would turn an election. Yet most never will.

True.

 

[Gun Clingin']

Usually I agree, a bit of karma at play... Unfortunately, karma is not the way to select leaders, and this is our elections at stake.

I've always been astounded at how quickly people dismiss these types of worries when it is illegal to collect the evidence that would enable us to tell if these things were happening. Instead they just say, "See? There is no evidence therefore there's nothing to worry about." and attempt to dismiss it with sarcasm in some way. It's weak.

If the cops were unable to collect fingerprints, ask for identification that means something, etc. there would be very little crime solved because there would be "no evidence" it wouldn't mean that nothing happened, only that we could never "prove" it. There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

A good solid bipartisan effort to clean up elections would be necessary, but both sides attempt to protect the places where it benefits them and point fingers at the places that benefit the other side. It's disturbing really.

While you make a few good points I don't think it's that simple, the why part. Look at the Florida Fiasco (FF, how cuuute) that happened when Jr got elected, no matter what you do the system is not perfect. I agree that ID's should be checked and votes verified more (at least in some way), however this will never stop it. Like all illegal activity the perpetrators just evolve and change to evade the newer security measures in place. Our own state had a problem recently (can't remember exactly when) where they found a lot of votes from dead people, and not just people who recently died, but LONG dead, which is why I like the ID requirement myself. The part of voting that still bothers me is that only two candidates EVER get the spotlight, and always of the same two parties. Many times I can't even find out about all the candidates, and in our day and age this shouldn't be an issue at all. I didn't vote for either of them, because I didn't like one more than the other and the candidates I would have voted for (was still undecided to the end) had no chance of winning. To me, the whole system is corrupt anyway so one tiny flaw isn't enough to worry about.

We need to fix them all.

I agree that the immediate dismissal of other qualified candidates to concentrate on the "big two" actually perpetuates the problem of the two-heads one party.

It is essential that we work towards all of these at once, otherwise we maintain the status quo where the only issues that ever get "fixed" are those that will help maintain the majority of either of the big two that happen to have the power at the time.

There are many, many Americans that simply do not vote because they do not feel sympathy toward either of the big two and are convinced that their voice is otherwise insignificant. Imagine if all those who lean libertarian actually voted that way. Or those who lean socialist for that matter... It would turn an election. Yet most never will.

I almost didn't vote this time. I most certainly didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Wrote in Ron Paul. I lean libertarian/ center right for the most part and unfortunatley there is never anyone in WA state to vote for that represents me though I did end up voting for Dino Rossi for governor.

 

[Rusticus]

Yeah, cant imagine why investigation into Democrat voter fraud would turn up nothing with Democrats in charge.

I can help you with that. Democratic voter fraud could be prosecuted as infringement of any one of several Republican patents.

 

[Rusticus]

There wasn't voter fraud in this election to much extent, just as there wasn't much in the 2000 election. The only party who cries it is the "dumbocrats" when they lose.

It's really a moot point since the election was awarded to the chimp by the supine court.

 

[KittenKoder]

While you make a few good points I don't think it's that simple, the why part. Look at the Florida Fiasco (FF, how cuuute) that happened when Jr got elected, no matter what you do the system is not perfect. I agree that ID's should be checked and votes verified more (at least in some way), however this will never stop it. Like all illegal activity the perpetrators just evolve and change to evade the newer security measures in place. Our own state had a problem recently (can't remember exactly when) where they found a lot of votes from dead people, and not just people who recently died, but LONG dead, which is why I like the ID requirement myself. The part of voting that still bothers me is that only two candidates EVER get the spotlight, and always of the same two parties. Many times I can't even find out about all the candidates, and in our day and age this shouldn't be an issue at all. I didn't vote for either of them, because I didn't like one more than the other and the candidates I would have voted for (was still undecided to the end) had no chance of winning. To me, the whole system is corrupt anyway so one tiny flaw isn't enough to worry about.

We need to fix them all.

I agree that the immediate dismissal of other qualified candidates to concentrate on the "big two" actually perpetuates the problem of the two-heads one party.

It is essential that we work towards all of these at once, otherwise we maintain the status quo where the only issues that ever get "fixed" are those that will help maintain the majority of either of the big two that happen to have the power at the time.

There are many, many Americans that simply do not vote because they do not feel sympathy toward either of the big two and are convinced that their voice is otherwise insignificant. Imagine if all those who lean libertarian actually voted that way. Or those who lean socialist for that matter... It would turn an election. Yet most never will.

I almost didn't vote this time. I most certainly didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Wrote in Ron Paul. I lean libertarian/ center right for the most part and unfortunatley there is never anyone in WA state to vote for that represents me though I did end up voting for Dino Rossi for governor.

Lately our state government has been the "turd sandwich and giant douche" types.

 

[Gun Clingin']

We need to fix them all.

I agree that the immediate dismissal of other qualified candidates to concentrate on the "big two" actually perpetuates the problem of the two-heads one party.

It is essential that we work towards all of these at once, otherwise we maintain the status quo where the only issues that ever get "fixed" are those that will help maintain the majority of either of the big two that happen to have the power at the time.

There are many, many Americans that simply do not vote because they do not feel sympathy toward either of the big two and are convinced that their voice is otherwise insignificant. Imagine if all those who lean libertarian actually voted that way. Or those who lean socialist for that matter... It would turn an election. Yet most never will.

I almost didn't vote this time. I most certainly didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Wrote in Ron Paul. I lean libertarian/ center right for the most part and unfortunatley there is never anyone in WA state to vote for that represents me though I did end up voting for Dino Rossi for governor.

Lately our state government has been the "turd sandwich and giant douche" types.

You get a positive rep for that statement.

 

[no1tovote4]

I almost didn't vote this time. I most certainly didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Wrote in Ron Paul. I lean libertarian/ center right for the most part and unfortunatley there is never anyone in WA state to vote for that represents me though I did end up voting for Dino Rossi for governor.

I know what that is like. I didn't write anybody in, but I wasn't going to vote for Barr. A republican retread doesn't deserve the Libertarian party's nod.

Writing people in is often equal to not voting, unfortunately if they aren't official write in candidates most states don't count the votes. I know mine doesn't (I am an election judge), therefore I had to pick somebody. I knew McCain was going to lose, and I would have voted for him in 2000, so I went in that direction to "protest".

I wish Ron Paul had done a bit better than he did in the beginning of the primaries. I also wish he was a bit more photogenic rather than appearing to be a republican Kucinich...

 

[Gun Clingin']

I almost didn't vote this time. I most certainly didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Wrote in Ron Paul. I lean libertarian/ center right for the most part and unfortunatley there is never anyone in WA state to vote for that represents me though I did end up voting for Dino Rossi for governor.

I know what that is like. I didn't write anybody in, but I wasn't going to vote for Barr. A republican retread doesn't deserve the Libertarian party's nod.

Writing people in is often equal to not voting, unfortunately if they aren't official write in candidates most states don't count the votes. I know mine doesn't (I am an election judge), therefore I had to pick somebody. I knew McCain was going to lose, and I would have voted for him in 2000, so I went in that direction to "protest".

I wish Ron Paul had done a bit better than he did in the beginning of the primaries. I also wish he was a bit more photogenic rather than appearing to be a republican Kucinich...

republican Kucinich..

It is true Ron Paul looked a bit like a skinny version of Mr. Magoo.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Vote fraud claims were wrong

Deters' charges didn't pan out, special prosecutor says


Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he had allegations last fall of widespread voter fraud - allegations a special prosecutor reported Tuesday were wrong, noting the only voter fraud found was from a Connecticut man who told on himself.

"Ultimately," Special Prosecutor Michael O'Neill wrote in a report, "the investigators discovered 'get-out-the-vote' practices, sponsored by community organizations, which took full advantage of this unique absentee-voting period, but no evidence these practices violated Ohio law."

Deters claimed his office had concrete allegations that people were offered booze and cigarettes to vote specific ways, suggesting they were voting for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"He said he had all of this evidence. He was fairly specific about some of his charges," Burke said of Deters. "Where the hell is it?"....

The only criminal case stemming from Deters' allegations of widespread voter fraud last fall was against a Connecticut man.

Kevin Duffy, 24, pleaded guilty Dec. 29 to attempted false voter registration and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $1,000 fine and 250 hours of community service. Duffy was in town Oct. 4 to visit his Xavier University sister, but went to the University of Cincinnati where he registered to vote and voted on the same day.

A week later, Duffy felt guilty and called Hamilton County elections officials to tell them what he did and ask that his vote not be counted. It wasn't.



Vote fraud claims were wrong | Cincinnati Enquirer | Cincinnati.Com

Color me shocked... An investigation of the election fraud that gave us President hussein never occured, says the paper that endorsed President Hussein... and the Prosecutor of the same ilk.

 

[Rusticus]

There is a reason that Ds fight so hard against something so simple as showing identification that most states require you carry and can be provided at no cost in places where they require it. It isn't because they believe there is no problem, it is because they are afraid that somebody would be able to collect evidence.

I'm going to assume that you really don't know why Democrats fight so hard against the ID's and that's why you made up the reason in your post. Republicans like the ID's. They see ID laws as a legal way to suppress Democratic votes.

Getting to a place where they can get an ID made is a major undertaking for many people in this country and would be enough to keep them from voting. This includes poor people living in rural areas, elderly people who no longer drive and have difficulty travelling and invalids to name a few.

Add to that the fact that there is evidence of very liile fraud and the Id is, in fact, a solution for which there is no problem.