Dems Target GOP Phone-Jamming Scheme

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean sent a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, asking him whether the White House or the national GOP authorized the scheme.
...
Mehlman acknowledged that James Tobin, one of those convicted, and other local GOP officials had called Alicia Davis, the White House political operative responsible for the Northeast, in the days surrounding the election. But he said that was because "one of the most competitive" Senate races that year was in New Hampshire.....

"As White House political director during the 2002 election cycle, my staff and I regularly communicated with competitive congressional campaigns and Republican Party organizations," Mehlman said. "To be clear, none of my conversations nor the conversations of my staff involved discussion of the phone-jamming incident."
...
Lawyers for Democrats said they are entitled to more evidence, in light of the timing of Tobin's and other calls and because many went to a government office.

"When somebody who is in the middle of committing a felony repeatedly calls a government office when the crime is falling apart, the people of this country have a right to know whether the conversation involved the crime," Paul Twomey, a lawyer for the Democrats, said after the hearing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/politics/main1491289.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Politics_1491289

[MADem]

1. Yeah, repeat that assertion UNDER OATH, ya baaaastid!!!!

"When somebody who is in the middle of committing a felony repeatedly calls a government office when the crime is falling apart, the people of this country have a right to know whether the conversation involved the crime," Paul Twomey, a lawyer for the Democrats, said after the hearing.

The question of whether White House officials were involved is key to whether the Democrats' lawsuit should be dismissed. One law under which the Democrats sued requires them to show government involvement in harming voters' rights; the Republicans say the lawsuit has no legal basis because no government officials were involved.

BULLSHIT...they call a WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL, and then say NO government involvement occurred? And we should believe this, why??? Because they SAY SO??? Come ON!!!!

[Old Vet]

2. This is a WAY bigger story then people think!

Have any idea what the implications are if it can be proven by connecting the dots. Brads blog has been all over this story, This ought to be good.

[MADem]

3. I agree! n/t

[democrat_patriot]

4. Maybe the NSA taped those calls....

By accident of course....

[brentspeak]

5. NJ's 5th Congressional District was a victim of GOP phone pranks in 2002

Democratic candidate Ann Sumers was competing against Republican Scott Garrett for Marge Roukema's vacated congressional seat. In the last week leading up to Election Day, thousands of households in the 5th Congressional District received daily anonymous, "robo-calls" which targeted Ann Sumers. The calls basically followed this outline: "This is a call concerning Democrat Ann Sumers...(pause of 5 seconds, then resume)...Ann Sumers wants to raise your taxes. She voted to raise taxes on NJ residents 3 times. Call Ann Sumers, and tell her you're sick and tired of her raising your taxes."

Click. End of message. No "this was paid for by Friends To Elect Republican Scott Garrett", no identification, no nothing. Caller ID didn't work, *69 didn't work.

As I said, these calls were spammed to 5th Congressional District household on a daily basis for an entire week, sometimes several times a day. Some people who were annoyed by them actually thought it was Ann Sumers herself who was behind the calls because of the clever pause after the "This is a call concerning Democrat Ann Sumers"; people would hang up before they heard the rest of the message, believing it was a call from Ann Sumers.

There was something else: Ann Sumers never "voted to raise taxes on NJ residents 3 times" -- she couldn't have, because had never held a political office before.

Needless to say, the Garrett campaign denied knowing anything about the calls. "We'd like to know who's behind them, too." Ha, ha, yeah right. Turned out the Club For Growth was putting millions into getting Garrett elected, and they're the most likely culprit.

Campaign finance reform laws? What reform? Anybody can make harrassing, misleading, anonymous phone calls to the public and get away with it if its regards an election.

[drm604]

6. It would be very interesting to know

what political operatives from other areas made or received calls to or from the White House during the election, and whether there is any relationship between the calls from a given area and any blatant illegalities or questionable incidents/activities in that area.

For example:
Was there a sudden reversal of trends (in favor of a Republican) after a call was made or received?
Was there a large number of calls around the time of some questionable incident?

How were these calls discovered? Were they subpoenaed during the court case?
Are White House phone records public property? Can they be obtained with an FOIA request? Has somebody already filed for them?

[drm604]

7. Kick

Hoping for answers to my questions.

[wanderindiana]

8. Don't really have answers, but look at this.

ePluribus Media

Rove's "72-hour task force", which is supposedly about GOTV, had been doing "experiments" to see what worked and what didn't. It's whole purpose was to counteract Dem GOTV efforts so I wouldn't be surprised to see James Tobin's NH phone-jamming case (and his calls to White House Public Affairs liasion Alicia Davis) turn out to be one of these "experiments" gone horribly awry.

Mehlman has given a statement, but it is not enough. Alicia Davis must come forward as well, with any records and notes she may have kept from that day, to prove the RNC claim that the Tobin-Davis calls were inocuous.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Don't forget they also tied up the lines of the local firefighters,

who had agreed to make themselves available to transport voters without cars to the voting booths on election day.

They distinctly interfered with some people's right to vote.