WHY BEV SHOULDN'T SHOW KEITH TAPES

[tbuddha]

It serves no purpose and I see no reason to show our hand to them when NBC has no right to be trusted right now. Especially after buming her earlier. I would rather let the Florida Supreme Court see the tapes.

Remember? The Florida Supreme Court that was giving Gore the chance to recount 4 years ago. The one that was overruled by Scalia and friends. I think with Rehnquist on his deathbed we have a real chance here.

[Maddy McCall]

1. Because she doesn't have them.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ducks In A Row]

55. just keep telling yourself that

hahahahahahahaha

[noclonyofthechimp]

2. Agreed

I agree that he may have only done a cut up version of her storming that meeting so he wouldn't look partisan. But....he didn't even give it the details it deserved. I am sure many emailed him about this. Maybe he will correct his info tonight.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Showing the tapes would blow the case wide open for the whole world

Here is the picture: A shot of a tape of election night with 1,000 votes for Kerry in a particular precinct. Next to them a shot of the tape actually turned in later with Kerry getting 800 votes. Case closed, entire world calls Fla a phony election, Ukraine style.

Sorry, your explanation will not do.

[tbuddha]

5. LOL...and we would get that kind coverage on MSNBC?

Really dude, who do you think we're up against? MSNBC is a repuke owned media. Do you really think their editors would let that fly? I sure as hell don't.

[Jersey Devil]

7. Sure, and there is a "media lockdown" too, right?

They would not be able to shut up Olbermann on this despite claims of a "media lockdown" which, if I am not mistaken, was also a Bev Harris statement.

[havocmom]

11. Especially after a plane crash involving Keith's mentor/champion

and his family? Yeah, I know it was snowing, but man, with recent weapons developement, I question everything which might intimidate those in media who do not toe the party line.

MSNBC = Goebbles bullhorn 2004

[Kelvin Mace]

29. You folks really must get over

this murder with small plains fetish. Next it will be Buddy Holly.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[havocmom]

37. don't have to 'get over' anything

Do have to question EVERYTHING.
To do otherwise is foolish.

[ClassWarrior]

20. If we're going to get the word out, MSNBC looks like our best shot.

We're not going to have any better luck on CNN or Faux. Remember, it wasn't until there was video that Abu Ghraib came out. Unless there's a reason not to release it - and we haven't heard from Bev that there is - what can we lose by releasing it to our one ally in the Corporate Media?

NGU.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

25. MSNBC is pretty much our only shot.

I can't help but feel that it's vital we not turn on the only media source that has actually given this some merit. We need to keep in mind that this is really a small part of a much larger picture. Keith made some good points and now the ball is in Bev's court. When she responds then all this second guessing can come to and end.

[Ducks In A Row]

57. we do not need the media, and it's a fool's game to go to them

Bev is smart, just giving interviews with the independents. The MSM is just there to protect their own (and in turn bushco's) interests.


the fucking media, including msnbc, can beg for Pacifica's crumbs.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. I'd love to argue with you

But, after having seen what Bev had to say on the matter I can't.

If Bev does chose to go on Olbermann after all the confusion, misstatements and general hooey, I support her. If she doesn't I sure don't blame her.

[Maddy McCall]

6. Oh how I agree...

That leaves only two possible justifications:

1) She doesn't have said tape, or
2) She is squatting on said tape, which could cause a groundswell for investigation of a fraudulent election, simply because she wants to keep it to herself for her "documentary," which DUers have funded and of which she will reap the financial windfall.

It's occam's razor, people.

[Jersey Devil]

8. You can only bluff for so long and then you have to show your cards

That is Keith's entire point and it is well taken, at least by me. Show em or fold. That's her move.

[Maddy McCall]

14. Exactly. If she would just show proof...

then she would be vendicated and all of this controversy could stop. But she won't show it, so.........

Where does that leave us?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

15. Huh? If she was saving...

then why did she come on DU and blare that she had the tape???

If she was going to keep it secret, then why didn't she keep it completely secret?

And is the only way you know how to respond to me is by calling me a troll? In two words, YOU'RE WRONG.

[havocmom]

19. Maddy McCall , formerly known as jchild, does not deserve your attack

but then, you haven't been here long enough to know that.

Bye

[Maddy McCall]

22. Thank you so much, havocmom!

:loveya:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Wow. Is this the reasoned, calm, rational tbuddha I've come to respect?

ALL THE BICKERING is causing division within our ranks. The only one who can provide answers is Bev. And we haven't heard from her yet. Meanwhile, the enemies are STILL the Radical RW and the Corporate Media Whores.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Remember the Radical RW NEEDS the culture war to win.

We win when we stay calm and rational. Don't give in to the dark side!

NGU.

[tbuddha]

38. Tell Maddy that

She keeps trying to diss Bev

[havocmom]

39. asking well reasoned questions & playing devil's advocate not 'diss'ing

Attacking someone who raises a question or makes a point contrary to one's own belief, however, IS a RW sort of tactic. It does not serve us well to use that 'with us or axis of evil' sort of system here.

By the way, I missed seeing comment after one of my posts before it was deleted. Who was it and did they attack me for having a different opinion? How very democratic. ;)

[tbuddha]

40. LOL...but YOU'RE attacking Bev, I'm trying to stop that....

There is no good reason to question Bev's integrity at this point. It seves no purpose and is totally destructive to our cause.

[havocmom]

41. Not attacking Bev. Just not putting up with your carpet bombing of those

who ask questions. You are the one who seems to have a burr under your blanket. I haven't seen anyone else attacking anybody.

Skepticism and questions ARE NOT attacks. They are part of rational and productive discourse. Or did you miss that?

[tbuddha]

42. They don't come off as just questions

I have seen opinions all over this board that are totally unfounded and have no constructive purpose.

Why would anyone not trust Bev after all she has done? She's done a LOT more than Keith Olberman EVER will.

Not that he's not a good guy, but really, are you telling me you TRUST MSNBC???

[havocmom]

43. They come off as more than questions to those who just don't wanna

entertain questions. When those asking legitimate questions get attacked, well now, THERE'S something to question right there.

Why such thin skin? Legitimate questions are how we get stronger. Refusal to entertain questions, well, reminds me of a * 'press conference' quite frankly. Again, smacks of that "you're either with us or with axis of evil' mind set. We do better to not emulate that particular tactic.

[Ducks In A Row]

58. well Bev doesn't deserve to be attack by McCall, and when Bev is attack

we will defend. That is the right of any DUer

[Ducks In A Row]

56. You could show the media tapes and then they spend all the time

laughing at they, and ridculing them and Bev

meanwhile they lose the value for the court, and we lose.

Sorry, but the media hasn't done anything to make bev (or me) trust them.

keith is worse for pretending to care.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. Please, think about it.

Bev has already claimed that she has them, and it's no state secret. So what difference would it make if she showed them publically?

I believe she lost a very big opportunity to educate the public in a now very popular mainstream venue. Just remember all of those people who believed that Iraq had WMDs because of MSM's drum up to war. Just remember all of the people that thought Saddam was behind 9/11 because they hadn't been apprised by MSM. Why did all of those people polled believe there was a fair election? MSM was complicit in a blackout, all except for Keith.

In my beliefs, the more people are consciously aware, more and more people follow suit ala the 100 Monkeys Theory. This has to get into the collective consciousness big time now. Who better to have assisted that then Bev?

[Jersey Devil]

13. What difference? - A world of difference spelled: credibility

All the "tinfoil hat" dismissals of vote fraud would melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West doused with a bucket of water.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Exactly! n/t

[tbuddha]

17. A HUGE DIFFERENCE

Once she releases them to the MSM (you know, the people who have been trying to stifle this), they can start their arguments on the air. We would be at a HUGE disadvantage. They have their arguments. It's not like if she came out with the tapes, however damning they are, the MSM and the Corp right is just gonna roll over and say, "Darn, you caught us!". Get real people.

This is best saved for the Courts. Where we will win

[Jersey Devil]

18. Just like the good old days in 2000, huh?

The case would be moved to federal court then SCOTUS and those tapes would not only not be aired on TV, they'd be seized and never be seen by anyone ever.

[tbuddha]

24. Possibly, but that is what the battle has come down to

I'm hoping that SCOTUS will be ineffective on this one with Rehnquist sick.

[Razorback_Democrat]

21. Remember Bev's stated goal is not to overturn the election

her goal is to change the way things are done.

I think she is probably not releasing anything because it isn't her goal to blow this up before certification, or the holidays, or anything else.

I think that we have to work to get this out any way we can and not depend on anyone's organization to do it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. Not to mention, that if she is non-partisan, what she's doing is

precisely what she should be doing. She's independent and no pushing from Democratic harridans is going to change that.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you.

Very much needed is a public consensus that fraud took place. Hiding this in the courts won't make the people of our country aware of how their basic right to have their vote count, was stolen away. I honestly believe that Kerry won by close to a landslide. Popular and electoral. How else would that explain the recent Gallup results. 63% don't believe Bush has a mandate (29% do), and 59% believe that Roe should stand (and 31% doesn't)? How will they feel the outrage if they are left in the dark?

[tbuddha]

26. Getting a public consensus isn't going to happen thru MSM

Unless we do a lot of protesting. The proof is already out there. The reason there is no public consensus is that the MSM doesn't want there to be. I don't think that they are going to allow a forum that proves them wrong. They just plain aren't.

I believe she should release a statement, not the tapes.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Why do you think other shows are now giving obligatory air time to this?

It's because they see Olbermann doing it, and gathering a viewership. The more that this gets out there, the more people will know. This should not be a state secret, and I am sure that if Bev wanted to come on without the tapes, she could have too. Just our protesting won't make a bit of a difference, we need millions to. We have been victimized over and over again by this criminal administration, and at some point the public, the Kerry supporters are going to say, I've had enough of this, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!

[smartvoter]

12. They would blow the doors open if they are what we think they are.

This is crazy.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Because if you have evidence of

a crime your are morally and legally required to reveal it.

Grasping at straws here....

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[pointsoflight]

33. One thing everyone is getting wrong: It's votergate.org's tape

She's working with them, yes. But has anyone considered for even a moment that the tape isn't actually hers to give up?

[Razorback_Democrat]

34. Videotape is, but polling tapes are supposedly in her custody

Maybe she should videotape the polling tapes and send them to Keith, or post pics of them on her site?

I don't know, it does seem that she had a lot of traction and made sure that we all knew what she was doing a few weeks ago and now I haven't seen too much other than she filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County and served LaPore at her retirement party. I don't know if she knew it was her retirement party. I'm not particularly fond of the once Republican, then Democrat designer of the butterfly ballot, then now registered independent Lapore, but if it was more than an accident it was a little over the top to show up there. If it was an accident and they didn't realize what they were doing, they could have waited until after the presentation to serve her.

Maybe I don't know the story, just what I've read here and on Olberblogger or whatever he calls it now, Bloggerman.

[pointsoflight]

36. Yes, that's right. Hard to follow, people are talking about both.

[peacetalksforall]

44. People have to get a grip on building - building a case...

giving things to NBC is madness.

NBC MSNBC CNBC are our enemies - in spite of the love affair with Olberman.

[Chi]

45. Quietly raises hand 8)

To all
Would like to ask a question....first a summary of things I've seen that makes me think Bev has the tape(s)in question.

1) Bev gives a somewhat detailed description of events about finding a signed, original voter roll tape in the garbage.
2) The item of real interest here is the voter roll tape.
3) She files a lawsuit against the county. http://www.clerk.org/reports/suits/circuit/DayCiDl_2004_11_23.html
4) She posts a copy of the the lawsuit on her website which includes the line...
"15. Many public records, including one signed results tape from a voting machine were found in the trash. Many of the requested records not furnished by the Elections office have been found in the trash. Results from the tapes found in the trash do not match the results of the copies of tapes furnished."
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/volusia-lawsuit.html

IF, this IS listed in the actual lawsuit, imagine the Judges displeasure when she asks to see the evidence, and Bev can't give it to her.
It's a sure way to sink your case, and fast.

Granted, there is no 'slam dunk' of evidence here. Which brings me to my question.
What evidence do we have that she doesn't have the voter roll tape?
(and yes, past conduct/integrity counts as evidence)
I am purely looking for information, not to antagonize 8)

PS. What the heck does N/T mean? I've been trying to figure it out for a week now, heh.

[Blue State Blues]

46. N/T Means no text in the message

See, if I'd put N/T in the subject line, there wouldn't be text here. ;)

[Chi]

48. Thank You!! N/T ;-)

[DubyaSux]

47. Here's a very good reason....

....she won't show the tapes because although she has tapes, they do not show fraud.

If remember correctly (it's been a while), what she filmed were copies of something normally thrown out. Granted, that could be a big problem, but it doesn't necessarily point to fraud.

If she couldn't show them for legal reasons, then she would have already posted the legal action concerning outright fraud on her website and we'd all know about it. But that doesn't exist. She's only suing for cash (Qui Tam). Meaning, the tapes are only related to fraud and since no fraud legal action exists, they're just tapes.

The tapes would put this concern right in the heart of middle America if they proved anything. She is obligated to show everything she has when somebody just allowed her into the living rooms of the entire United States and the world

But they don't and that's why you won't see them. Mark my words - you heard it here first.

And David Allen, I applaud you. You have valid concerns and although I disagree with most of your reasoning (a friendly debate for another time), you've chosen to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. And I really do appreciate that.

But Bev Harris has become part of the problem. Unfortunately, the longer she keeps it that way, the more profits she will see and the more mainstream support we will lose. Too bad.

[F.Gordon]

50. Finally, someone says it......

she won't show the tapes because although she has tapes, they do not show fraud.

It's called "controlling the message". Keep the evidence vague enough to perpetuate the "story". Oh, and instead of staging an off off off off Broadway production at a retirement party (I really wish I hadn't logged on to DU and saw that...), why hasn't the "evidence" been used to pursue legal action on fraud.

Here's one good Florida Statute. Go for it. If the "evidence" is there, then use it. Prove it.

104.22 Stealing and destroying records, etc., of election.--Any person who is guilty of stealing, willfully and wrongfully breaking, destroying, mutilating, defacing, or unlawfully moving or securing and detaining the whole or any part of any ballot box or any record tally sheet or copy thereof, returns, or any other paper or document provided for, or who fraudulently makes any entry or alteration therein except as provided by law, or who permits any other person so to do, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[goodboy]

49. what tapes? Sorry, I've been under a rock for the last few days...nt

[DubyaSux]

51. Not to beat a dead horse...

...but here are other examples of "blockbuster" stories she's floated and then ran away.

Here's her rock-solid proof of a hack she found that exposes fraud. I'm sure Keith would be interested in this as well:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID70/1995.html

Here's her lockdown:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2636130

Here's where she says she has hard evidence (i.e. "We base this on hard evidence..."):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2602324

But lastly, this is an example of our credibility in freeperland. Granted, they're all idiots, but all they are doing in this specific example is repeating what's going on here and laughing at our expense. It includes copies of the posts where Bev Harris was threatening legal action against the people trying to help/do her work for her:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1285583/posts

Why is it we have plenty of evidence that supports her being the fraud, but not one shred of evidence of voter fraud?

And Bev (I know she reads these), instead of trying to sue me, how about doing something simpler? Prove me wrong...please...

[Paligal]

52. Is there a legal reason? Can you publicize evidence in legal case?

I don't know about the law, but I am wondering if it is legal to show evidence to the public when you have a lawsuit going on. You always hear people saying they can't discuss topics when they are involved in a lawsuit. Could that have something to do with it?

[melissaf]

54. exactly my thought

If there's a court case involved, is it even legal to pass around the evidence you're using?

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. I agree.

Hold your cards close to your chest.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

60. But as I asked you on another thread...

...if she doesn't want to show him the tapes, where is the "misunderstanding"?

In the other thread, you claimed that you spoke to Bev and the problem was that a producer for KO's show miscommunicated to KO what Bev actually said.

Keith claims that his show has asked Bev to appear on the show with the tapes. You claim that Bev does not wish to share the tapes at this time. Her statement on her website claims that KO's show never asked her for the tapes.

But if she would have declined anyway, what's the problem? Either the show asked her and she declined or the show didn't ask her but she would have declined if they had. Why attack Olbermann over it? Or accuse his producer of miscommunicating?