When all else fails... Relentlessly attack the messenger...

[jsamuel]

Personal attacks are the best - a page right out of Roves handbook...


OK, people lets dissect this a little. Two senarios...


1. The affidavit is real.
2. The affidavit is a fake.


What is gained by #1? - It helps spread info that is going to be released tomorrow anyway.

What is gained by #2? - It only helps to discredit the messenger, but doesn't discredit Clint. Why? Because he is the one testifying. If he didn't actually write it, then it can't implicate him.


So, either way you look at it Clint is not discredited. Who would be is Brad, but there is more name calling than anything else going on here. Not to mention "font problems" which is so rediculously like the "rathergate" thing to be almost comical.

I conclude that we just freaking wait until tomorrow for the court hearing and find out straight from the horse's mouth. So far, the only evidence I have seen that tries to discredit Clint, only confirms what he is saying. However, there is much left to be discussed.

[truehawk]

1. I agree.

[Malikshah]

2. So very true-- the politics of personal destruction are alive and well

Gee, ya think folks would've learned from the 90s...

To quote Stewie Griffin from Family Guy...


"Dance, puppets, dance!"

How about folks chill...have some dip.

[IndyPriest]

3. Court hearing tomorrow?

JSam, that's a piece I hadn't read about anywhere. What court? What issue?

[jsamuel]

5. Oh, I think they are FILING tomorrow...

Sorry, a little mix up. We may get the affidavit from that filing anyway.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Hey, I got all kinds of time, I'm not going anywhere.

The facts in the affidavit are pretty straightforward. If it is true, this guy has to have other evidence that backs up his statements.....and that ought to be very interesting.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. AMEN!

[Radical Activist]

7. What on earth are you talking about?

[jsamuel]

8. This thread is crazy long and confusing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x118513

So, just to quick sum up...

Bradblog.com provided us with a signed affidavit that says that a computer engineer worked on a vote stealing program for a Republican Congressman in 2000. It lists many details including the murder/suicide of a reporter investigating his claimes in 2003.

Many attacked Brad of BradBlog as faking the affidavit, but as stated above it doesn't really matter because all they are doing is attacking Brad. The info about Clint will come out when the hearing is held anyway.

[MarkusQ]

9. You left out the most likely case

3. The affidavit is a red herring.

What is gained from #3? - it distracts people from the real issue.

There is clear and compelling evidence of good old fashioned election rigging, from voter suppression (racially orchestrated at that) to an unconstitutional in-kind poll-tax, documented lies by public officials (e.g. the Warren County terror alert, provisional ballots), destruction of voter registrations & election records, voter intimidation, etc.

On top of that, there is plenty of evidence of "irregularities" such as straight party votes going to the wrong party, unexplained "glitches" that add votes, patterns of spoiled ballots and under-votes, ballots being mislaid, thown away, or counted twice...

Ask your self: why would anyone want to lead us off on an endless goose chase after Black Helicopters? I don't think it's a case of attacking the messenger as much as of calling out a Quisling.

--MarkusQ

[jsamuel]

10. WRONG

Here you are not attacking the authenticity of the affidavit, you are attacking the person who supposedly wrote it, Clint Curtis. That is an unbackable possition so far, unless you can enlighten us with information that no one else has presented thus far.

[MarkusQ]

11. Well, for one thing...

For one thing, he's been accusing the same group of people of everything from spying for China to overbilling the Florida Department of Transportation for several years now. He was dismissed for trying to pass off someone else's code (with their copyright still in it IIRC) as his own work, and has been slinging mud at them ever since.

But more to the point, I am suspicious of anyone who yells "look over there!" when my pocket is being picked.

--MarkusQ

[jsamuel]

12. Your right... except

The reporter he was working with "committed suicide" after the "several years" you talked about. And that part about him being dismissed is Feeney's spin on the situation when he was hauled into court over it. What Clint claims is that he and one other person was fired for being a whistleblower (and that was confirmed by a court who found that at least the other person was "dismissed" because she helped Clint whistleblow).

I am sorry, but the claims you made sound like they came from someone on Feeney's team. I am not saying that you are wrong, but that the arguments that you made do not make sense.

[Garbo 2004]

13. The suicide guy was a FL DOT employee/investigator, not a reporter. n/t

[jsamuel]

14. Even better... wow

[MarkusQ]

15. What doesn't make sense...

My arguments about the Clint/Feeney feud may not make sense to you, and may sound like they come from one side or the other. So be it. As Mark Twain (IIRC) said, "All I know is what I read in the papers." And from what I can see, they've been slinging mud at each other for quite a while before the issue of vote fraud got grafted on to it.

I will state, for the record, I do not know anything about Feeney, or Clint, or the whole mess, save what I have gleaned from on-line sources. For all I know, they might both be figments of someone's over active imagination. I am not on either of their "teams".

But if you are going to question my motives/affiliations, may I take the liberty of questioning yours?

What is it about this whole snarl of accusations that warrant diluting the attention on the (to me at least) very real and cogent questions about the 2004 elections which are already known and documented? Why should we "take our eye off the ball" and watch this amorphous side show, instead of pursuing tangible issues such as voter suppression and intimidation, official misconduct, etc.?

--MarkusQ

[jsamuel]

16. We are a talented bunch here at the DU and we can keep our eyes on more

than one ball...

When one goes foul, we will take our eyes off of it.

[jsamuel]

17. I would like to add that this particular ball has not even made it to the

bat yet...

[goclark]

18. What time is the hearing on CSPAN?