Is Chuck Hagel a Fraud?

[dorkulon]

From an eye-opening interview about election integrity with Brad Friedman of http://bradblog.com

I read an alarming thing about Chuck Hagel, that he was the CEO of ES&S less than a year before his first election, and that ES&S counts all the votes in his state.

That’s correct. And he won that seat for the first time in like 20 years or something that a Republican had won that seat.

And it was considered an upset victory, right? He wasn’t leading in the polls.

That’s my understanding, yeah.

So what do you think the chances are that that’s crooked — that basically, Chuck Hagel shouldn’t be a senator?

Well, I’ll tell you. I’ve seen a lot of things that have raised my eyebrows, certainly, but unless I can absolutely prove something, I just don’t report it. As a matter of fact, I’ll go even further, I tell people, ‘don’t trust me; I’m not to be trusted, but neither is the AP or New York Times.’ If people were as cautious with them as they are with me, I think we would be in good shape. So it’s a long way to answer your question, which is to say yeah, I’ve seen a lot of stuff that’s really really troubling, but if I can’t confirm it and prove it than I wont report it. But it is worth mentioning for sure. And it is also worth noting that the Nebraska newspaper out there, (the Omaha World Herald), they have a huge ownership in this voting machine company. And questions have come up at various times, whether it’s the Hagel thing or anything else in Nebraska about the voting systems, and what the hell is a newspaper doing owning a voting machine company?

[waiting for hope]

1. Fraud?

Can you spell R E P U B L I C A N ?

[marmar]

2. Exactly.....

Which one of them isn't?

[AzDar]

3. I have to say this: the thing he pulled Monday, trumpeting a major

announcement and calling a news conference, only to mumble some nonsense about how he and his family would decide later as to whether or not he'd run in 2008, was STRANGE.
Looked like he'd been worked over....
Perhaps he was getting a little too independent?:tinfoilhat:

[bdamomma]

8. somebody leaned on Hagel, he is not as so outspoken as

he has been. You don't fool with the Bush Crime Family! SOB's

[AshevilleGuy]

43. And then yesterday he voted against the Iraq resolution. n/t

[sam sarrha]

4. does owning the software company for the voting machines that stold your election make you a fraud.?

[dorkulon]

5. Well, I'm trying to ascertain whether that's true.

I think the possibility that he stole his seat through election fraud is something people should know. Has anyone else heard about this?

I suggest reading the interview, there's some good info there about the new Rush Holt election "reform" bill:

...the bad news is that folks out there are under the impression that paper trails would have made difference down in Sarasota. Paper trails would have made no difference. We need paper ballots, not paper trails on these touch screen machines.

Because the undervoting wouldn’t leave a trail at any rate…

That’s right. The fact of the matter is that 18,000 voters failed to either notice or be able to change their undervote when it was right there in front of their face on the computer screen, so where these folks get the notion that they are going to notice it on a tiny little piece of paper, checking it a second time—where they get the idea that is going to make any difference is somewhat beyond me.And studies have shown that people don’t actually check those so-called voter verified paper audit trails, and remember, with 18,000 votes, all you need is 369 of those people not to have the time or interest to notice that there is a problem in that race for us to have the same result. So it is somewhat maddening, because I even see folks who I consider to be on the good side of this fight, Common Cause and People for the American Way and so forth, out there telling people if we only had a paper trail in Florida this would not have happened. Baloney.

Do you recommend a hand count?

No—well a hand count is fine, but optical scan works well enough if we have the proper audits of those optical scan ballots. But the key here is that you need a paper ballot. No matter how it’s counted, you need a paper ballot.

So you can go back and look at it?

Not just so that you can go back and look at it; so you can count it in the first place. I mean, that’s what’s remarkable, even about this new Rush Holt legislation , which I should mention I worked on with their office, and hopefully was able to improve it quite a bit. That said, I still can’t support it at this time, because it will allow for DRE voting machines, which means we will have ballots that are never counted. But it’s quite remarkable to ponder the idea that folks like me are actually fighting for people to be able to mark a ballot, and then to have that ballot actually counted, by anyone at any time. I mean, it’s like I’m trying to convince the Democrats to invent the wheel or something.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Oh, for God's sake, I will jump in again and defend my Senator--

it looks like too much of a coincidence and makes a good story, but there's never been any evidence, and nobody in Nebraska seems to have pursued it (or seems to care) beyond the guy whose ass he whupped in 2002. If Ben Nelson had any evidence, he'd have gone after Hagel, for sure. Those two have been bitter enemies since Hagel beat him in '96.

[dorkulon]

7. What evidence?

That's kind of the problem with touchscreen voting: there is no evidence whatsoever to support any assertion--including that the election was fair. Isn't the fact that the result can never truly be verified or disproved reason enough to change the way we vote?

[TwilightGardener]

12. There's an old article from Salon that I googled that covered all

of this, and the main point was: There was no evidence that Hagel either cheated or wouldn't have whupped the Democrat's heinie fair and square--most likely, that's what happened. Some counties had paper ballots, some had touch-screen with no paper trail. I'm guessing the paper ballots were consistent with statewide results--that would be easy to prove. Hagel wouldn't have had to rig the election to win (this is Red NEBRASKA we're talkin' bout!), and there's no evidence that he did, so it's kind of an interesting legend, but it will never get beyond that, I think.

[dorkulon]

17. Wrong.

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."

What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

[Morgana LaFey]

47. DORKULON!!!!! Cease and Desist !!

Of COURSE he's a fraud. (Or perhaps you know that and were simply posting "as if" you weren't sure.)

You HAVE your answers; you'll probably never have "proof."

[ISUGRADIA]

24. DELETE

[Mister Ed]

11. We can never, ever know.

You're right. There is no evidence, and there never can be. That's the evil of electronic voting. It absolutely can not be audited.

If Hagel is as innocent as you believe, then electronic voting machines have done a great disservice by leaving a pall of doubt over him that can never be cleared up.

If Hagel is not innocent, then electronic voting has done us all much worse than a disservice. Either way, for the sake of democracy, those evil boxes must go.

[TwilightGardener]

15. I agree, there should always be a paper trail for just this reason.

Look, I think he's a good Senator (despite his "R"), and he takes a LOT of crap, abuse and condemnation from his own 'Pug constituents here for standing up to BushCo on the war. I hate to see him further dragged down by allegations that are most likely false--I wouldn't like to see that happen to Nelson, either. If there was enough suspicion to investigate, I'm sure someone in this state would have done so--we're not THAT much of a backwater or banana republic, LOL!

[dorkulon]

20. Actually, a paper trail doesn't do much--paper ballots are key. see post #5. (nt)

[EFerrari]

16. Excuse me? No evidence? ES&S counted every vote.

That's not evidence enough for you?

[TwilightGardener]

18. From the Salon article I cited:

"Nebraska was considered a "safe state" for Republicans in 2002. Most political commentators believed Hagel's opponents -- Phil Chase, an independent, John Graziano, a Libertarian, and Charlie Matulka, the Democratic candidate -- did not stand a chance. And according to the official count, Hagel trounced the opposition. He won about 400,000 votes -- Matulka, in second place, won just over 70,000."

And here is the conundrum:

"Bev Harris doesn't believe that anything went wrong in Nebraska, but that's not the point. She wonders how you can prove that everything went well when what goes on inside a voting machine isn't accessible by the public."

Bev Harris is the lady who wrote Black Box Voting, where this was first uncovered.

Innocent until proven guilty, people!

[dorkulon]

21. We're not talking about 2002.

We're talking about '96. And the "official count" is meaningless if it was fixed.

[The Count]

22. Bev Harris also made sure Florida was muddled enough in 2004 to be off the table

She messed with Randi, KO until they stopped covering it. So, you'll forgive me if I don't accept your witness as credible.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Oops, she's not MY witness--she's the one who dug up the dirt on

Hagel. And until someone can prove that there's fraud involved in EITHER of his elections, I don't know what more can be said here. You can be suspicious all you want, I don't blame you, it looks a little weird. I tend not to be suspicious in this case, because he just doesn't strike me as corrupt or dishonest, and certainly is worthy of the Senate. And again, if Nebraska let a 2002 election happen on the same machines as the 1996 election that was apparently such a surprise upset, then apparently people must not have been all that concerned about fraud. Just sayin', until there's proof, it's all conjecture and nothing more.

[EFerrari]

26. What part of "conflict of interest" is so hard to understand?

[TwilightGardener]

27. Absolutely, it's a conflict of interest--and to me, the most disappointing

thing about all of it is that he didn't inform the Senate about the conflict of interest when he should have. But the Ethics Committee apparently concluded there was no wrongdoing, so I guess that's where it's been ever since. I only defend him because there's absolutely no proof that he doesn't deserve to have a seat in the Senate. And I want him in the Senate, because Lord knows we would just elect another 'Pug in his place, and probably another Bushbot (like our sorry-ass Congressmen)--we could do a lot worse than ol' Chuck. Now, if someone wants to hold this against him as a presidential candidate, if this makes people not trust him, that's fair. I have no problem with that.

[EFerrari]

29. No committee can change how he got into office or where he

came from, which is a company that is involved with bad elections.

[TwilightGardener]

30. What do you want Nebraskans to do? Pull him out of office and tar and feather him?

Look, rigging an election is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS charge--it strikes at the very heart of democracy. To me, it's just under treason in terms of the worst crimes of office that elected officials could commit. It's far worse than the Duke Cunningham scandal. Is there anything about this man's life or history, both before the Senate and during his Senate career, that would suggest he is capable of doing such a thing? All he did was own stake in the company. That may be a conflict of interest, but it's certainly not suggestive of a crime. Again, if this makes Nebraskans suspicious, they don't have to re-elect him. If it makes the country suspicious, they don't have to elect him pres. He should address this publicly if he runs for either office, but it's just an unsubstantiated rumor for now.

[EFerrari]

31. It's not a rumor. You might want to do a search in the Election

Reform forum. And he didn't only own stock. He at one time was an officer at that company.

[TwilightGardener]

32. The RUMOR is that he somehow RIGGED the election because of

his position. If you have proof that that IS NOT a rumor and is substantiated fact, then you'd better start calling people who can remove him from office! That's the heart of this--did he use his position and ownership to rig his own elections? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE of that? There is none--that's the point of the touch-screen voting problem--can't prove or disprove anybody's results for certain. If someone had proof on him, he wouldn't still be in office, he'd probably be in jail.

[EFerrari]

33. You are putting words in my mouth. I have pointed to the FACT

that he was elected under a cloud. That ES&S counted every vote cast for him and that ES&S has been involved in bad elections. That he was at one time an officer at ES&S and that he had. a financial interest in that company.

As I said above, you might want to spend some time in the ER.

[TwilightGardener]

35. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, forgive me. But you are not

going to convince me that he doesn't deserve his Senate seat, or that he is dishonorable or has criminal tendencies. I am not suspicious of him--I don't think he's "under a cloud". He's had two elections that were certainly within his scope to win, and no one can prove that he didn't win them fairly. He is not a stupid man--and he's been in Washington, off and on, for decades. I'm sure he realized that people would point out his ES&S connections, and that he would be under some additional scrutiny because of it. Why would he even think of running for pres and undergo that fine-comb process if he thought someone might have evidence that would ruin his career and reputation, and possibly send him to jail? I can understand why Dems want to see more than there actually is here--I tend to assume the worst about 'Pugs myself. But all I've seen is what's on the internet, and it's not convincing enough for me to believe that he doesn't deserve to be where he is. And yes, I understand that there's been problems with other elections and ES&S, but that doesn't implicate him either. If you're truly concerned, call your Senator and ask him to look into it. If you're trying to get opposition going to damage his run for pres or Senate, you're well within your right to do so. But I also have a right, as a constituent of this Senator, to assume he's in office legitimately and defend him.

[EFerrari]

39. I don't have a dog in this race in all honesty.

When people vote for Chuck Hagel, what voting system do they use? And there is quite a bit of material that isn't "on the internet" -- like Mr. Conyers' report, like Mark Crispin Miller's book and like the GAO report.

I've learned a good deal about our voting systems by reading the ER forum. Election reform activists have built a good infrastructure in the last few years so it's going to be much harder for the hackers to pull anything in 2008. That's the good news, I guess. :)

[TwilightGardener]

40. Yup--always a good thing to realize how horrifyingly easy the

system can be gamed. I believe we should have a paper ballot backup, to avoid this grief in the future--I would think most candidates would be OK on that. I'm not saying you're nutty or tinfoily, just that until there's a government investigation and someone takes him down, I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Ben Nelson's got a file of evidence on all of this in his desk drawer, all set to be released for Nov. 1st, 2008? LOL! He would suddenly be a Dem hero, instead of Lieberman Lite! :)

[EFerrari]

44. I myself thought I was being paranoid for about a second after 2004.

That's when I started reading and searching and that's how I got to DU.

The thing about Hagel is, there was a cloud or, there would have been no reason for the Ethics Committee to weigh in, right? And the whole appearance of impropriety tells us something about what he's willing to do and to seem in order to get into office.

That's good info to have, imho. And I'd feel the same way about any politician no matter their affiliation. Take Richardson, for example. He stopped a recount in New Mexico (why?) even though there was evidence that Latino and Native American precincts were gamed. :shrug: As a Liberal, my investment is in the process first even though that gets me into trouble on DU.

lol

:)

[TwilightGardener]

45. I think the Ethics Committee weighed in because he didn't list his stake

or exec position of ES&S in his paperwork when he first got into the Senate in '96--that was my understanding, anyway. He definitely should have--an oversight, or deliberate? I don't know. But that was 10 years ago--if he's conducted himself honorably since, and no one in the Senate has seen reason to pursue it further, then I don't consider him to be under a cloud of suspicion, although you may certainly differ. Didn't know about Richardson's recount issue--I certainly hope there was no sinister reason for it (I can't believe he's crooked either!), and I hope this won't affect him if he gets on someone's ticket. Innocent until guilty!

[EFerrari]

46. Certainly, presumption of innocence.

But, asking questions is a good thing.

Why would you stop a recount if you have nothing to hide and you have citizens' votes to protect? :shrug:

I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe Richardson does.

[EFerrari]

25. Bev Harris is not a credible source, in the first place.

And in the second place, if your company counts every single one of your votes, that a conflict of interest, at the very least.

Bring all your experience to bear, people. :eyes:

[undercutter2006]

9. ah

all senators are bought by some wealthy entity - otherwise they can't raise enough money to pay for tv commercials and wouldn't be senators in the first place. on the matter of foreign policy (as a stand alone issue) he has been pretty nice, his speech to the senators urging them to cut funding for iraq war (if you want an easy job - go sell shoes) was priceless

[dorkulon]

10. So...it's okay if he stole the election because you like his foreign policy? (nt)

[undercutter2006]

13. nah

it's not ok at all. i still like his foreign policy though

[MrMickeysMom]

14. Chuck Hagel was the poster boy for conflict of intererest!

Reference: Black Box Voting, Bev Harris. (that book also references members of DU, by the way.) And I quote...

"Hagel's job until two weeks before he announced his run for the Senate was running the voting machine company whose machines would count his votes. Chuck Hagel had been chairman of American Information Systems (AIS now called ES&S) since July 1992... Hagel owned stock in AIS Investors Inc., a group of investors in the voting machine company."

So, yeah, I think he's just a little bit of a fraud... :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

19. Using one fraud to expose another isn't all that effective. n/t

[Melynn]

28. Of course he is

and not too bright.

[Ganja Ninja]

34. Hagel is pretty much done after his press conference fiasco.

The media has to be pissed off that he called them all the way out to Nebraska for nothing. He'll have a hell of a time getting get any favorable press if he decides to run for president.

[TwilightGardener]

37. It will probably hurt him in the short term, hard to say what will

happen in the long term if he does decide to run, but I have to LOL at "All the way to Nebraska"--I see this everywhere, and it cracks me up. Oh, the sheer HORROR of a 3 hour plane ride, a steak, and a night in Siber--er,I mean-OMAHA, to cover a press conference and leave with an uninteresting headline! For 5 whole minutes, the world watched a Nebraskan addressing mostly Nebraskans--The Nerve! How will we, as a nation, ever come to terms with the awful memory of seeing the FLYOVER PEOPLE?

[LeftishBrit]

36. From what I can gather from over here...

he isn't a fraud, but he isn't a moderate either. He is a right-winger who just happens to be comparatively reasonable on a single important issue.

[TwilightGardener]

38. You got it right! Very conservative otherwise.

[MLFerrell]

41. Did the sun rise in the East this morning?

[Tom Joad]

42. Fraud? Isn't that just another way of saying "politician"?