BBV meeting with Carter/Baker commission? Anybody hear this?

[tommcintyre]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3948840
"I just heard about this on Bradblog. Is this true?"

EDIT: It is confirmed Cobb said this in other posts in this thread.

On the Bradshow:
http://bradblog.com/BradShow/
2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
DAVID COBB
on the Green/Libertarian OH Recount
and their continuing Federal Court Challenge,
plus the upcoming Baker/Carter Commission
meeting in Houston.
--------------------------------------

This is good news, and possibly bad news.

Good news: She has PLENTY of experience in election fraud investigation, etc.

The possible bad news: Why her? And, is it ONLY her? (Re: election fraud investigators) Why NOT Conyers? Why not USCV?

WTF is goin' on!?!?

Well... hopefully we will know the end of next week.

<I'm gonna go do a lil' research, see what else I can find out.>

[benburch]

1. I cannot trust her.

She IS a Freeper.

[tommcintyre]

3. Ben, she may be crazy, but freeper may be a little strong ;)

I saw how she went out.

I saw the thread posted here accusing her of saying Kerry cheated in Volusia Co. over at freep.

I also went and read her post there. I noticed she lied about why she is no longer here; but also noticed that she only said the Kerry people told her not to go into Volusia Co. <I also noticed how the thread here was discredited by other DUers for making a false claim. BTW: while visiting freepland, I also noticed that Bev was registered a few years ago there. I have no problem with and independent investigator doing such a thing; but I do believe (from what I've seen) Bev DOES lie, and may be crazy as a loon. ;)

So, considering all of this, I think it is WAY premature to paint her as a "freep".

I hope this thread doesn't get locked because of such claims, since the upcoming Carter/Baker Election Reform Commission is VERY important; and, the fact that Bev Harris will apparently be testifying there is equally important. We just can't be totally sure why yet. (I certainly WILL be listening to the repeat of this show tomorrow AM, and, like I said, I'm off to do more research on this matter right now.

[benburch]

11. If you post at freeprepublic.com

Then you are a freeper. No?

[tommcintyre]

12. I see what ya mean, but the fact that she was in good standing here...

for all these years (while she was also occasionally posting there?), is a bit different then your standard, ordinary, run-of-the mill freeper, don't ya think?

Also, I know there are some here that actually register (and post) there to "tease"/taunt them. That may be mean to be so cruel to such inferior things; but I don't consider them freeps for doing it. ;)

[BamaBecky]

21. Don't get me WRONG!

I'm not a Bev fan. Just an OBSERVATION HERE from little ole me. I went over to the freeper site during the election time frame and responded to some freepers over there with their outlandish posts. Does that make me a freeper? Hell no and far from it, so be careful who you paint with the broad brush!

BIGTENTDEMOCRAT (otherwise know as BOZOSFORBUSH) recently threw that up in my face...."I happen to know you post at Free Republic" like that meant I was some kind of FREEPER! I imagine there are all of two or three posts over there attributed to Bama. After I did it, I felt DIRTY and NEVER went back! Everybody makes mistakes!

The end of the year reports from Bev's organization should be very interesting. I just hope and pray that any problem (if any develops) doesn't reflect badly on the entire election reform movement.....what a set back that would be!

Hi Andy! I hope you are getting stronger and feeling better every day.

Hi Ben! Thank you for all your efforts to build websites to help Andy thank the folks here.

Bama

[bitchkitty]

26. No.

There are more than a few DUers who post over there, myself included. I'm not a freeper, I'm an undercover agent for myself.

[tommcintyre]

32. Go bitchkitty! Kick their ass! ;) n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. If Bev Harris told me the sun was shining....

I'd go look out the window. And likely see storm clouds.

In other words, I don't believe a word she says.

[tommcintyre]

4. Especially in light of recent developments, I don't trust her either...

and that goes double for the actions of the C/B Commission so far.

But, this is what we have to work with so far.

If anyone heard this interview, do they know how Cobb seemed to feel about it?

We really need more information. This is a HUGE surprise (almost as big as the surprise announcement of the formation of the Commission itself).

[Bill Bored]

5. A lot of serious people don't know the truth about Bev Harris.

This whole field is so new, there are many otherwise reasonable and even influential people, who will cite her "work" as proof that something is wrong with the election system in this country. Looking at the big picture, this may not be such a bad thing, as long as she doesn't make an ass out of herself in the presence of bona fide experts. That's the problem.

On the other hand, the Freeper theory may hold some water if she's going there to try and blame the Dems.

But also consider this: would it be such a bad thing for the Repukes to get on board with truly verifiable voting? It just might take some allegations of Dem e-voting fraud to get those arrogant bastards to do something about it.

Just because they build these machines, doesn't mean they're the only ones who know how to exploit them right? Maybe putting some fear into them about the potential for the other side to rig the vote would get them to make some meaningful reforms to prevent it from happening on either side.

I doubt Bev Harris has much proof of anything really. What matters is that there is a _potential_ for e-voting fraud and there are ways of fixing that. Let the Repukes think they invented the solutions, as long as they are implemented. We can win once the playing field has been leveled at the ballot box!

[tommcintyre]

7. I hope you are on the right BB.

"Just because they build these machines, doesn't mean they're the only ones who know how to exploit them right?" (There have been some possibilities mentioned lately, haven't there? ;) )

Sort of like a nuclear standoff, eh? Too potentially dangerous to either side be left unchecked.

The problem is, from what I've seen at the hearing (and mostly since), that is NOT what the "other side" has in mind.

Well, hopefully, they are just as afraid of our PC nerds as we are of theirs.

In that case, the good book may be almost right... "The "geeks" shall inherit the earth." ;)

[shance]

6. Bev Harris has made great strides,

but she certainly doesnt represent the United States of America.

That is highly insulting and not to mention a betrayal for Baker and Carter to be meeting with one person when there are thousands of people now involved in and on this issue.

It sounds like another 9/11 Commission.

[tommcintyre]

8. Oh, much worse. Remember Richard Clarke DID get to testify

But, if I had to chose just one person to testify on election fraud at the hearing, Harris would certainly NOT be my first choice.:eyes:

[shance]

14. I guess its up to us to get the word out. You've made a good start Tom.

Thanks for posting the information here.

The fact that Jimmy Carter is EVEN TALKING to James Baker, one of the known accomplices in the Bush election fraud scandal is unreal.

Does Jimmy Carter have a spine? I know hes a good man, thats not the point here.

Why is he working with James Baker? Why would anyone concerned with voter protection be working with someone who was from all accounts involved in the fraud itself?

[tommcintyre]

15. My best guess right now is Carter is "towing the party line"

So you may ask... "why would the Dem party want him to tow THAT line"?

At this point (at least until after the C/B hearing next Thursday), I prefer not to elaborate more on my thoughts on this. <For a hint, read Bill Bored's post, and my reply to him in this thread.>

[shance]

23. That's a nice way to put he's complying. IMO

Theres no reason for him to be meeting with James Baker ever, in my opinion. It does not spell 'good' for Americans for him to be meeting with him.

The corporate oligarchy on the other hand.....

[tommcintyre]

31. Yep. here's some nice "summer reading" on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380595#380674

One line to sum it up:
"America's political parties, unions and media organizations have abandoned the citizenry, leaving powerful moneyed elites in control of politics and government"

Me-thinks, considering the "last straw" - the DNC report, the battle lines have been drawn; and we are going to have to fight BOTH parties' "elites" if we are going to rescue our democracy.

[Boredtodeath]

22. Bev has lost it

Given her recent posts on her site, I'd say she's more unstable today than she has ever been.

Some poor sap offered to help and she went into a paranoid rant like we've never seen about Bay Area scientists and activists in Georgia and North Carolina "stealing her work."

It's one of those "MINE, MINE, MINE" posts where this whole movement and any related research belongs to her and only her.

[tommcintyre]

9. So how did Cobb seem to feel about this?

Was he sounding upset? happy? or what?

This could be important information since he could have some "inside information" about how she plans to play this.

[autorank]

10. Sounds like "useful idiot" time. The WH lets Gannon in but not Conyers.

We know their values. They are slime. Carter is a fool also. I have lost all respect for him.


NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Contact the DNC and Tell THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN & That They’re NOT Doing Enough to PREVENT Election Fraud

[tommcintyre]

13. Well... I'm still glad Carter builds those "habitats for humanity", but...

I WISH HE'D STAY THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS! ;)

[LightningFlash]

20. Your sig is inspiring.

What a great sig!

:yourock:

[autorank]

34. Well, thank you...and now for the tee-shirt!

:hi:

[kster]

16. This would be

one reason that I would pick her,

SNIP..... Harris had stumbled upon an electronic archive. Employees of Diebold, a company that boasts about its security systems, had done something breathtakingly dumb: Posted on a public Web site thousands of unsecured internal company files, the equivalent of putting the files in an unsealed envelope and tacking it to a corkboard in the town square. Anyone in the world could download them, and after Harris found a file that aroused her suspicion that Diebold had put uncertified code into voting machines in Georgia, that's what she did, for 40 hours. The data filled seven CDs

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0204web/vote.html

[Amaryllis]

17. Bev is only one of MANY people testifying but not AT the hearing;

it's the hearing before the hearing. See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380293

US vote counts, Bob Fritakis, David Cobb, Lynn Landes, Clint Curtis will all be there. There are a lot of people who will testify.

[tommcintyre]

19. That makes more sense. Did you hear Cobb on Brad's show?

The reason I ask is the original GD poster also said: "According to the show they're not meeting with ordinary citizen's but they are BBV?"

Then she posted several more times in her thread, mentioned Cobb was talking, but no one else regarding testimony OR the alternate Election Assessment Hearing.

Like I said, what you said makes more sense; but I will listen tomorrow just to be sure.

[Amaryllis]

29. Didn't hear Cobb. Talked to Kip last night, so know she is one of many

presenting at the counter-hearing, or whatever they are calling it.

[tommcintyre]

30. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - NO BEV AT C/B HEARING

I just listened to the interview (link below). Cobb was very clear that Bev et. al. will be testifying ONLY at the Election Assessment Hearing, and NOT at the C/B Hearing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380830

http://www.electionassessment.org
Election Assessment Hearing
Wednesday, June 29 2005
The Garden Center at Hermann Park
1500 Hermann Drive
Houston, Texas 77004

Election Assessment Hearing Presenters


Issues Identified in Electoral Processes:

* Rev. Bill Moss, Plaintiff, Moss v. Bush
* Bob Fitrakis, Editor, Free Press
* Richard Hayes Phillips, Legal Statistician
* Richard Winger, Ballot Access Expert
* Kathy Dopp, US Count Votes
* Judy Alter, Election Investigator
* David Griscom, Adjunct Professor, Materials Science and Engineering
* Juan Martinez, MASSVote
* Joseph Waymack, North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting


Impact of Digital Voting Systems on Electoral Processes:

* Bev Harris, Black Box Voting


Causes for Electoral Process Issues and Recommended Solutions:

* Ted Selker, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project
* David Cobb, Green Party Presidential Candidate
* Linda Curtis, Independent Texans
* Lynn Landes, Freelance Journalist
* Jo Anne Karasek, CASE Ohio, J-30
* Cynthia Test, Coalition for Election Integrity
* Heleni Thayre, Citizens for Voting Integrity
* Sharona Merel, National Ballot Integrity Project
* David Wager, Verifiable Votes Coalition of Houston

[kster]

18. kick.nt

[Peace Patriot]

24. Jimmy Carter has placed himself in a number of "hot" and dangerous

situations--places anyone would fear to tread (such as Israel/Palestine)--and has brokered solutions. He did so recently in Venezuela (verifying their election of Hugo Chavez--in a country where the oil elite had tried to oust Chavez, first by a coup and kidnapping/assassination, and when that failed, by a Recall vote, using a provision of the Venezuelan Constitution, which Chavez had been instrumental in getting passed by the legislature--the dogs!).

Anyway, I'm not ready to judge Carter in this situation. He's a diplomat. He can "talk to the enemy." His split with the Carter Center makes me uneasy. I'm not sure what all that was about. They're the ones who said that the U.S. election system doesn't meet international standards and they therefore could not monitor the 2004 election. The Carter Center is NOT involved in this phony, private Baker-Carter "commission," as I understand it. But I'm still willing to give Jimmy Carter the benefit of the doubt.

What I think the Baker-Carter "commission" is up to is federalizing our election system, and destroying the power of ordinary people at the state/local level to achieve true election reform. Once the election system is under federal control, the Bush Cartel can do anything it wants to. And our democracy will be at an end.

I can't imagine that Carter wants such an outcome. I just don't know if he's savvy enough to suss out that goal and understand how perilous that would be.

In the '60s, the federal government acted as the protector of black citizens' right to vote, against the the southern states which had placed extremely unfair restrictions on black voters, often backed by both private and official violence. "States rights" was the cry of the bigots and the lynchers.

Today, however, I think we have a very different situation. We have an illegitimate federal government in power due to two stolen elections, and clearly aiming at fascist power over all branches and levels of government. This fascist coup not only FAILED to enforce the Voting Rights Act in Ohio in '04, it is strongly suspected of encouraging illegality and of fiddling the vote in Ohio and across the nation.

We have an out of control federal government, bent on disenfranchisement, and in collusion with electronic voting machine companies--all them supporters of Bush and of rightwing causes.

In this case, "states rights" are (or could be) a bulwark against disenfranchisement. The Bush Cartel, through HAVA, sought to thoroughly corrupt our election systems, over which the states currently hold the power of decision--by pouring $4+ billion into state coffers, permitting lavish lobbying, and failing to institute any reasonable controls on the electronic voting systems or the companies who peddle them. A lot of that money went right into the pockets of the Bush donors who run these companies. And this whole business has corrupted Democratic as well as Republican election officials. That's why it has been so hard to correct. Many Democrats are corrupt and collusive.

Ordinary people still have some influence at the state/local level, and can potentially correct this situation by throwing these companies out of the election business in their state and local venues. The federal government IS NOT GOING TO FIX THIS. The federal government and the Congress are controlled by the Bush Cartel. THEY DON'T WANT TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS, and will do everything they can to prevent them. So the only real hope of reform is local.

We really need to get this through our heads. Because what is likely to come out of the Baker-Carter "commission" is something that SOUNDS half-okay--say, electronic voting "with a paper trail"--but is a TROJAN HORSE by which Congress will grab power from the states to PREVENT a real paper ballot and to STOP our state/local movements for transparent elections.

I felt this danger when Jesse Jackson Jr. proposed a constitutional amendment on voting rights. One, the Bush Cartel will never enforce it. They didn't even enforce the Voting Rights Act! Two, anything federal at this point is a danger. Three, such an amendment would lull people into thinking that the problem was fixed--and could even give the Bush Cartel a P.R. advantage and make these election thieves and mass murderers look like they care about black voting rights (or any voting rights).

What good is a constitutional amendment supposedly protecting voting rights WHEN WALLY O'DELL IS COUNTING THE VOTES WITH SECRET, "PROPRIETARY" SOFTWARE?

If the amendment banned electronic voting, then it might do some good.

Anyway, that alerted me to the danger of the Bush Cartel DOING ANYTHING--such as support of this amendment--under the claim of "protecting your right to vote."

Such an amendment would be quite good, of course, if we had a legitimate federal government, and not a fascist coup.

CAVEAT: Look out for any move to federalize elections and reduce or destroy the power of the states--a constitutional power, I believe--over election systems. It may be done openly. It may be done by stealth. But I'm pretty sure that is the goal. And, for godssakes, don't think it can't happen here! Didn't one of these Bush "pod people" in Congress just propose a constitutional amendment to undo the 22nd amendment and permit Bush a third term? They are OUT OF CONTROL and will DO ANYTHING to stay in power, including taking away the states' right to choose election systems.

I can just hear some people, even at DU, saying, "Well, we got a paper trail. We can work with that. We can now lobby for a real ballot." But the real problem will not be paper trail vs. paper ballot (and we will NEVER get the latter, by the way, from this fascist Congress). The real problem will be the FEDERAL MANDATE to purchase electronic systems, and some sort of new, powerful "commission" to oversee how those systems are run. And it will be all over at that point.

This phony, private "commission" that seemed to spring out of nowhere seems perfectly designed to give this fascist Congress the political "cover" they need to make such a power grab against the states. I think that's what they're up to. At the very least what they are up to is, a) promotion of electronic voting--making it seem safe and legitimate; and b) a preemptive strike on emerging election fraud information (--although the DNC has now done that themselves).

One other thing: The B/C "commission" report MAY have some good items--say, open source code COMBINED with a federal mandate that all states use electronic systems. Just remember who they claim they are going to issue this report TO: Bush's Congress. And what happens then? Likely, we will get federal control MINUS open source code; or, we will get federal control with a small "pilot program" on open source code that is never heard from again.

Beware! Beware!

[Boredtodeath]

25. You're working on the wrong premise

Because, R. Doug Lewis, the NASS and NASED are all calling for the abolition of the EAC.

What the elections officials want is "give us the money to buy our rigged voting machines and then get the hell out of the election business because it's a state issue."

All the elections officials want is federal money to buy the machines which are destroying democracy. Then, they want all federal oversight abolished.

NASS Conference
Secretaries of State expressed concern at their recent winter conference that many states would be unable to meet the January 2006 deadline for implementing the changes mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Rebecca Virgil-Giron, New Mexico's Secretary of State and head of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), anticipated that it would take states until November 2008 to make all the required changes. The Secretaries asked the Justice Department to ensure that states running behind schedule would not be unduly penalized. The Secretaries also adopted a resolution calling on Congress to dissolve the Election Assistance Commission after the 2006 election, reflecting concern that federal oversight of elections is eroding their traditional authority.
AP 2/9/05
http://www.demos-usa.org/democracydispatches/dispatches54.htm

[Peace Patriot]

27. Of course the Sec's of State would (most of them) oppose outright

federalization of elections! They wouldn't want their little fiefdoms overridden by the federales. That's WHY Bush's "pod people" in Congress would need political "cover" to do it. And, in my judgement, that's the WHY of this mysterious, private, phony B/C "national commission"--to federalize elections, either formally, or stealthily (by attrition). HAVA mandated upgrading election systems--which the private Bush Cartel election system companies and the state election officials interpreted as conversion to electronic voting, although electronic voting was not mandated. Next will be a mandate to convert to electronics--including a national voter database--with political "cover" provided by this B/C "commission. At that point, the states' constitutional control over election systems will effectively be gone--and our power to reform election systems will also be gone. But I have no doubt whatever that Bush's Congress is capable of an outright power grab as well. They would crush and/or buy off any opposition, and the B/C "commission" would help them do that.

The purpose of the Sec of States' opposition to HAVA mandates--and to the EAC--and, you will notice that this opposition is led by New Mex's Sec of State, which, as I understand it, is one of the most corrupt election systems in the nation--is to do the bidding of the electronic voting companies which have corrupted many of these officials. It is not a stand on principle. They are merely shilling for Diebold & brethren. And I think they are, collectively, a very weak reed as to the defense of state control over elections. They will likely cave to Bush Cartel pressure if the right package of lobbyist-delivered perks and future employment is offered.

See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

...and choke on THAT reality. You think your state/local election official is going to protect your right to vote OR your state's right to control election systems? --after attending a "welcome" reception" sponsored by Diebold, a "dinner/dance" sponsored by Sequoia, and a "graduation and awards" ceremony sponsored by ES&S, at the Beverly Hilton? And we can't even SEE what is being offered behind closed doors.

It is naive to think that these people will stand up against the destruction of our election system. How well have they stood up so far?

[Boredtodeath]

28. I didn't say (nor infer) they would

I simply said your original premise was wrong - the premise that NASS or any election official is working with the Baker-Carter Commission.

And, honey, if you think this is the first ever Vendor Sponsored Whoring to the Max sponsored by The Election Center and R. Doug Lewis, you're showing your lack of history on this issue.

This has been going on since the early 90s. Don't blame me if you weren't paying attention.

[KoKo]

33. An excellent post...you make so many good points

I hope you won't mind if I pass your comments on to those here in NC who are working to get two amendments through for a Verified Paper Trail. It's an uphill battle and we've had set back from our own Dems and from a legislature trying to change the language. We keep plugging at it.

I'm very concerned about this Baker/Carter Commission. At this point I don't trust anyone who has been involved with our government over the past 40 years. Look at what's happened. It isn't the Repugs alone.

I'm not as fond of Jimmy Carter as some...and worry about him on this Comission with Jim Baker that appeared out of thin air.