Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and possibly GBCW if I get banned for this)?

First, why did I keep quiet? I followed the campaign's guidance to resolve these issues behind closed doors. There were a few elements of this: the campaign's first concern was make as many corrections to the delegate count as possible within TDP rules, in TDP offices. Once the deed was done, an orderly audit benefited our side, and pushing these charges in the press would have created a circus (a la Florida) that would have shut down the process of verifying sign in sheets and delegate calculations.

Second, why no reporting? Because the press did not seek to investigate this, even though the Clinton campaign published the linked press release that we had evidence of widespread illegalities. I called a reporter from the El Paso Times who did not return my call. Also, this did not get pushed in the press after the initial press release because the TX Hillary campaign chose to trust the process and grind out the delegate count. Since the TDP is run by people who support both campaigns, there would have been a serious lose of face to air these charges, and would have strained the professional relationships between all in the campaigns and in the party. In the specific case of El Paso, I am told Chair Danny Anchondo did not want to humiliate leading Obama-supporting Democrats who he will have to live with for years to come.

Third, how did a minority faction override the majority? In the end, they did not. We had the best field operation I have ever seen, and in most cases, had a few trained people in each precinct. I should add, our organization was so overwhelming, the Obama campaign abandoned their precinct captain program about a week before the election, placing their bets on an election-day blitz by out of state organizers. We were also transparent, and included people with ties to the Obama campaign in our caucus training program. We knew that an orderly process favored Hillary. We would not have known about Mrs. A's precinct if we did not have trained people in the room. So, we were able to over-turn problems like Mrs A's precinct after the fact. How did the Obama organizers seize the convention in the first place? By intimidation, by physically controlling the legal documents, and by ignoring the legal process that called for an election of officers. They took the convention package and never let go of it.

That is the update that PacificJohn provides to my questions about his/her diary specifically addressing the holes in his/her story.  I began this as a comment, but I could not contain my thoughts to appropriate comment-length, b/c I'm so outraged at the popularity of a diary so bereft of logic and evidence.

Massive fraud of the type that PacificJohn describes is something that you can't push under the rug.  There were live reports from caucuses all across Texas.  I understand PacificJohn may have been busy and missed those, but they were broadcasting. I'm sure print reporters were all over the state as well.  They all apparently missed this.  A document in this comment by alegre claims that over four thousand people called the Hillary Clinton's campaign, but nobody called the press.  

The update says a reporter from El Paso's newspaper blew PacificJohn off. No, duh, b/c there is no story there.  The evidence she/he provides in his/her diary is not proof of anything.  It's hearsay.  He/she tells us about a conversation he/she had with a person in another precinct.  There's no evidence of this.  I mean He/she doesn't even name the precinct.  How am I supposed to believe an anonymous blogger who won't give me any information to verify his/her claims?

Let's leave the press alone for a second.  Where are the police?  I know they were at caucuses (at least one).  B/c ProudMilitaryMom was kind enough to post a video of one.  If you watch the video you will notice them prominently near the convention chair in the center of what looks like a basketball court.  She posted this as proof of said illegal and/or unethical activity.  First, why didn't the police stop it?  Second, why has this video not become a rallying point for you to demonstrate your point.  I can't answer the first one, but I can answer the second.  B/c it doesn't show any illegal or unethical activity.  I'm sure this was not the only caucus with cops.  Why didn't they arrest, detain or otherwise prevent illegal activity that PacificJohn claims?  If these people were so coordinated and so violent and thug-like, why weren't there massive arrests around Texas?

Why has the TX AG not proceeded with criminal investigations?  (If they have please provide evidence).  PacificJohn said the TDP (with the Clinton campaign's acquiesance) is trying to sweep any alleged fraud under the rug in order to save face as long as the delegates are awarded fairly.  But I doubt that the Republican TX AG would be so accomadating.  Especially in an election year with a Senate seat that Dems are making a real run at.  You don't think that he/she would love to paint the Democrats as corrupt b/c one of the presidential candidates is conducting massive fraud?  Even if there's no case there we've seen the Republicans go after Democrats for less. Look what they did to Gov. Siegelman.  Why is he/she not investigating?  This is massive criminal fraud you're talking about.  A massive fraud can be conducted in a presidential nomination process and the AG doesn't hear about it.  Earlier, I cited a document posted by alegre with thousands of calls to the Clinton campaign.  PacificJohn wants you to believe that noone called the Secretary of State, the state Elections board, the Texas Rangers,  the local police or the TX AG.

No, I'm sorry I'm going to have to call bullshit on all of that.  It doesn't make ANY SENSE.  It's just not logical.  The world does not work that way.  Fraud in caucuses are open for the public to see.  It would be obvious to everbody and not possible to hush up with investigative powers of both Fourth Estate and the Republican officials of the state of Texas going after it.

Your entire diary is all conjecture.  There are no facts.  There are no numbers.  There are no locations.  No names given.  No way to verify anything that you say.  Merely the word of an anonymous blogger with hearsay evidence.  He/she could be Sean Hannity mascarading as a Democratic blogger trying to stir up shit for all I know (he/she's probably not).  Why doesn't he/she provide the basic facts, like what precinct he/she was talking about and in what precinct were he/she was working?  

The fact that this is being rec'd and that you are getting mojo is sad.  And I know I might get TR'd for saying that, but it's true.  There are no facts here.  There is no evidence.  And yet people praising this diary beyond belief as if it's exposing some deep, dark secret.  There were a couple of diaries up the other day about WVWV.  With the WVWV, many of the same people who are praising this diary were hammering that diary.  They were outraged that somebody would malign a progressive organization that has been working to register voters since 2003 with very little evidence.  That diary had press reports.  That diary had a press release from the NC AG.  That diary had an audio recording.

Just the other day there was a big story on Dailykos about Mickey Kantor supposedly maligning Indianans with expletives and racial epithets.  That diary had a video and a transcript.  It appears that the veracity of both those stories are in doubt know due to the good reporting of Ben Smith of Politico.  And yet PacificJohn's story with no press reports, no press release from either law enforcement or other official objective sources, no audio recording, no video recording, no transcript, is being praised by lions and lionesses of this blog.

That is pathetic.  That is the demonstration that all who swallowed that b.s. hook, line and sinker are only out to malign a progressive candidate who has done amazing things with volunteer recruitment, morale, bringing in new voters and fundraising.  Barack Obama has conducted a brilliant campaign and the reason he did so well in caucuses and red states is b/c he COMPETED for them.  Hillary had what has been the Dems' GE strategy for years.  Win the big states and win the close states.  Don't compete anywhere else or else you're wasting your money.  That hasn't worked in the thirty years of that ridiculouse strategy's use.  The only time it did work is b/c Perot was splitting what would be the majority needed to win the election.

And b/c Barack Obama competed for those states, b/c he cared about involving those Democratic citizens in the selection of the next Democratic nominee, PacificJohn and others assault him.  On that thread Obama and his supporters have been called criminals, thugs and other unsavory adjectives.  That this blog respects that and allows such baseless slanders against not just a candidate, but the individual volunteers in TX (including The Distillery if he/she was telling the truth) makes it a much different place than the one I joined.  Thus this is a call out.  I am calling out PacificJohn to provide the evidence or take down his/her diary.  I am calling on all the people who rec'd that piece of shit to apologize.  And I am calling on Jerome, Todd, Jonathan and other mods to ban that diary and take possible disciplinary action against PacificJohn if he does not provide the evidence.

I do not care if my trusted user status to hide people gets taken away from me for this.  I do not care if I get banned for this.  I do not care if Jerome comes over to my house and tries to kick my ass.  I will not stand idly by while a person with nothing to offer tries to malign myself and my fellow Obama supporters and my candidate with unsubstantiated rumors.  This is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC blog.

Tags: Alegre, Barack Obama, GBCW, Hillary Clinton, PacificJohn, ProudMilitaryMom (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

Do whatever you want?

I'm not expecting mercy

by nklein 2008-05-03 03:01AM | 0 recs
A little unsolicited advice...

Don't "threaten" folks here in your headline.

It's self-evident that you're looking for an excuse to issue a GBCW missive, or you wouldn't have done this in the first place.

I've seen far, far, far worse commentary about caucus procedures, accusations against the Clinton campaign for voter fraud and other related, unsubstantiated indictments of their organization with much less substantiation over on Daily Kos this cycle.

The diarist does have credibility. He does offer substantiation with regard to hard evidence demonstrating the variances between primary results versus caucus results in Texas, and there's significant cause for legitimate concern about his accusations. Period.

The fact that you rant about being a strong Obama supporter, quite frankly, is nothing more than irrelevant, as far as the supposed focal point of your diary is concerned, too.

If you're looking for an excuse to leave, then just do it.

If you want to hang out and contribute to the dialogue here in a constructive manner, then perhaps you will think twice about issuing threats to the management of this blog--at least in your headlines!

Totally uncool diary, IMHO.

by bobswern 2008-05-03 06:31AM | 0 recs
I knew what I was doing. n/t

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

Just want to mention that many on DKos said to disregard the Kantor video because it may be fake, so they dropped it. I didn't see it discussed after that except maybe to discuss the fakery of it or how it may be a trap, etc.

by Becky G 2008-05-03 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

that makes it better? Once it's out there, how does the retraction help, and it wasn't even retracted?  Just slipped off the radar?  While Barack is a decent guy, some of his supporters aren't so decent, and Barack isn't inspiring them to be better than that.  He encourages them, passively, and he provides the cover by calling her names. He seems to have backed away from that, but his supporters don't necessarily read the retraction. If there was one.  

by anna shane 2008-05-03 07:45AM | 0 recs
You won't be banned.

Much of the evidence surrounding the caucus skews is circumstantial.  But don't underestimate it on that account.  Americans are sentenced to death regularly on what you deride as "circumstantial" evidence.  Contrary to popular mythology, most "hearsay" is also either admissible under the myriad of different exceptions to the rule or because the statement doesn't conform to the particularized definition of what constitutes hearsay.  

Smoking guns in the world of evidence are often elusive.  If it smells like a fish and looks like a fish, you don't need the fish's DNA samples to know it's a fish.  

Here, the skewed results of caucuses are unaligned so much with correlating primaries that they alone should create a presumption of wrongdoing.  

Failure to investigate or convict persons based on alleged voting irregularities are the product of an overburdened law enforcement that has more immediate priorities.  There are rapes and murders that go uninvestigated and unprosecuted.  Moreover, decisions to prosecute lie with local officials, D.A., etc. who are just as influenced by their constituencies' politics as any government workers.  

The diary on Texas caucus fraud is not only more credible than you would like to believe, but it's also very believable for anyone who's been through enough election cycles to see how slipshod many of our procedures actually are in practice.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 04:46AM | 0 recs
Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

madness.

Thanks.  You're right.  If it smells like a fish....

So, this being a democracy, let's get to the bottom of it. Obama supporters...simmer down, if you have nothing to fear let the investigation take place.

I read somewhere yesterday that there is nothing more vile than voter disenfranchisement in a democracy.

Yup!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-03 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

Give me evidence of an official investigation.  I still haven't even seen that.

by nklein 2008-05-03 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

Who are you, demanding this and that from people on this site?  Why would anyone send you anything?   If there is an official investigation I'm sure you'll access all of the information through your connections.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

I know nobody in Texas.  The people I knew in Texas have moved to California or Virginia.  I asking for something every other diary on such an immense topic has: evidence.  That's it.  Why is it so hard to produce a new account?  A news account?  We have thousands of papers in this country.  Almost all of them were in Texas that night.  Where's the news account?  A press release from the TDP (oh right they want to save face, of course) or the TX AG.  Can't I have that?  Is that so hard to find?  

How about this?  There are lots of organizations dedicated to ensuring that the vote of every individual is protected.  League of Women Voters.  NAACP.  Voter Protection Network.  Bradblog.  I met that guy; he's a good guy.  Somebody, anybody to substantiate your conjecture.

by nklein 2008-05-03 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

We know of immense fraud in Ohio in 2004, yet there has been no official examination of that either. In the capitol city, there were riots the night of the election. Lots of internet accounts and yet only ONE mention in a newspaper at the time.

You aren't making your case.

Hillary isn't complaining because obviously, there is no upside to it. Your candidate won't have to take responsibility for it if it happened. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that the people it happened to aren't angry and don't have the right to talk about it. You're engaging here in what they perceive, no doubt, as an extension of the bullying they already witnessed,.

You want to call bullshit, be my guest. No one will hear anything except an Obama supporter having a temper tantrum at Clinton supporters discussing their experience and the tales their hearing. Sometimes, it's like the entire Obama campaign is one long, national cry of "shut up, shut up, shut up!"

Water finds its own level.

by Little Otter 2008-05-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

Read it in the papers.

by switching sides 2008-05-03 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

What papers?

by nklein 2008-05-03 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

Jo Anne's.

by switching sides 2008-05-04 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, a rational voice in the midst of

Whose Jo Anne?

by nklein 2008-05-05 07:01AM | 0 recs
There is adequate evidence

if you apply logic and clear thinking.  There are actual videos of some of the Texas caucuses and how vitriolic and out of control they were.  One woman in Fort Worth had to take the caucus documents to the police station for safe keeping because Obama people were physically threatening her.  That was reported on local television and in the newspapers.  

If you know anyone in Texas who participated in the caucus, they can tell you about irregularities.  Obama people laugh about what they got away with and Hillary supporters are disgusted that people who would do those things claim to be Democrats.  The evidence is everywhere.  I live in Texas and participated in the caucus.  Because of what I personally witnessed, I believe that Obama has not won a single state honestly.  That is not because of what others report but because of what I saw.  Becoming thugs and criminals in order to get your guy elected is not a party activity that I am willing to participate in but that cannot be said for many, thankfully not all, Obama supporters.

by macmcd 2008-05-03 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: There is adequate evidence

What station?  Which paper?  Did they arrest anybody?  Was there evidence of a connection to the campaign?  Were they employed by the campaign?  Did they find any documentation?  Do you see that I want to see this?  This is important.  

I've sat in polling stations.  I've gone to state hearings on the conduct of our elections in California.  There were abysmal in L.A. county.  There was this "double-bubble" issue (you see non-partisan voters had to fill in two bubbles to be counted; it was a big mess).  It ended up invalidating the votes of 70,000 voters.  This was in L.A. county, which Hillary won pretty handily.  Guess who the non-partisan voters were pulling for heavily?  That's right Barack Obama at 58%.  Do you see me crying fraud?  No.  There was a fuck-up.  Just like in Texas.  Except in Texas there was a way to check the voter rolls against the caucus rolls and make sure that everyone got counted.

Do you see? You scream fraud  Give me no evidence, but your word (although I have seen video from mrstas in the other thread of people peacefully counting the votes and actually laughing while they do so).  I give you evidence with sourcing of a serious problem that happened with our election in L.A. county.  I don't scream fraud.  I don't malign people.  And most importantly and I cannot stress this enough I provide evidence.

Please show me something I want to know about it.  I hate the idea of subjugating democracy.  That's why I don't like the superdelegates.  Please show me the evidence I want to see it.

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:07AM | 0 recs
This alone should have warranted a

full out investigation of "WHY?"

...the skewed results of caucuses are unaligned so much with correlating primaries that they alone should create a presumption of wrongdoing

At the very least it highlights how undemocratic caucuses are and how they are an unreliable guage of "the will of the people." This is just one more facet of the case that Hillary must present to ALL the delegates - decided or otherwise.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-05-03 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You won't be banned.

Are there a lot of exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence?  Yeah.  But does that mean that hearsay evidence is admitted most of the time?  No.  You see, there is a reason why they are called exceptions.  They're exceptions like the "excited utterance" or "dying declaration."  But since many people committing crimes do not scream out that they're going to commit the crime or announce it on their deathbed, they're exceptions to the rule.  The rule still stands in the great majority of cases.

by nklein 2008-05-03 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: You won't be banned.

The hearsay rule is an example where the exceptions swallow the rule.  Most things that sound like "hearsay" aren't actually hearsay because of the rule's particularized definition, and even when, most hearsay is admissible hearsay.  I won't list all the exceptions for you, but if you're as familiar with the hearsay rule as you appear to be, you know they are much more far-reaching and numerous than simple dying declarations and excited utterances.

The figure the pops out in my mind is a statistic I saw about 90% of so-called "hearsay" being admissible.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You won't be banned.

A figure from where?  You see, you still don't provide evidence.  Either way, the phone call described by PacificJohn is not admissable.

by nklein 2008-05-03 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: You won't be banned.

It was an offhand remark from a BAR/BRI lecturer.  And it's imprecise.  Maybe 89.7% of apparent hearsay is not inadmissable hearsay.  Maybe it was a figure of speech.  Either way, if you know your rules of evidence as well as I do, you would know that most practical instances of "he said X" and "she said Y" can be wiggled through the hearsay sieve.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

Actually, it's against myDD rules to call out another diarist, which is what you do here.  I'm pretty sure Pacific John didn't submit this diary with the intention of laying out every shred of proof and documentation in an open forum such as this, and he does not owe you or any other reader that.  This is not a trial or official investigation.

He wrote a diary telling his story because he believes it to be important information to the process of selecting a nominee.  He has attempted to answer your questions.  He didn't have to do that, and he doesn't owe you anything more.  If there is official follow-up through appropriate channels, I'm sure he will provide whatever back-up information is requested.

By the way, this comment is just my opinion.  I haven't discussed it with Pacific John, and I've never met him.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

Pacific John can back up everything he says here.  As a resposible and long time party activist he would NEVER level these kind of charges against the operatives of another Democrat lightly.

As for this diary - call-out are out of bounds.  Delete it.  Unless you'd rather keep this dicussion going in this discussion thread.

by alegre 2008-05-03 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

You know him.  I don't.  It's all conjecture.  I've worked in the Democrat Party my whole career.  Never met the guy.  So just b/c you say he's a Democrat doesn't mean I have to.

by nklein 2008-05-03 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

That should end "trust him."

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

I live in a different part of Texas and I will vouch for what John has written because I saw what the Obama people tried (unsuccessfully because our precinct was so small so we knew everybody) in our precinct and tried again in our County convention.

I have no question in my mind that, after seeing what I personally witnessed, in the bigger caucuses Obama operators were out of control.

by macmcd 2008-05-03 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

How about some "shred of proof"?

by nklein 2008-05-03 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

You can ask and ask and I guarantee you there will not be one shred of proof. This dairy is wholly transparent.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

I meant "diary", but "dairy" will work.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 10:40PM | 0 recs
if Kos stopped airing it

doesn't that carry any credibility for you?  If anything, dkos making a decision not to air it because it could be fake is important, as that site among all of them would be one to really run with this.  I'd be very careful here calling out diarists, especially those who can document the fakeness of this video.  Kantor et al are going to pursue legal action after this person is identified.  

by 4justice 2008-05-03 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: if Kos stopped airing it

He/she isn't praising or claiming the veracity of the Kantor video. The point is that there was a video that could be proved to be altered. In Pacific John's diary, there is no evidence so there is nothing to be refuted.

by dantes 2008-05-03 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

My first thought over the caucus diary by Pacific John was of a cartoon I saw in the New Yorker once. It was a dog sitting in a chair in front of a computer with his paws on the keyboard saying, "On the internet they don't know you're a dog."  One fun thing about the internet is you can be anybody or say anything. And if you can write persuasively a lot of people will believe what you say even if there is nothing at all to back it up. For all we know Pacific John is a smart 12 year old trying to stir up the grown ups.

by Becky G 2008-05-03 06:50AM | 0 recs
Unfortunately for Obama, John is very honest

with a long history of working in Democratic elections.  He made friends with some honest Obama people and the honest Obama people even tried to keep some of the unethical things from  happening.  Stay tuned.  I absolutely stand by what John has written.  He does have the evidence.

by macmcd 2008-05-03 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

Becky G...

And how do we know you are not a 12 year old in Children's Gap Clothing?
Hang in there....you'll get your proof, John's democratic loyalty is something to be admired and more importantly, he was THERE in the thick of it all...he knows what he saw..

by NHLight 2008-05-03 07:30AM | 0 recs
She's not claiming massive fraud. n/t

by nklein 2008-05-03 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

Becky G, you are right to be skeptical of what you read on the internet. This is the one of the first post I have made on my dd.  I have been working on elections for over 10 years and worked with John in El Paso. He knows what he is talking about. Further more I was at a polling site in El Paso where I witnessed the woman in charge of the polling site tell early voters they could not come inside the polling site because she thought they wanted to vote and it was before 7pm and they were there to caucus.  Meanwhile Obama supporters who were expert caucusers went right in behind her as she was talking to El Paso voters with Obama signs and other campaign  paraphanalia which is against the rules. They are not supposed to bring in campaign materials while people are still voting. I witnessed this with my very own eyes. I also witnessed the entire caucus which Hillary won because she had over 100 people there for her and Sen Obama had about 14.  I really felt bad for the Obama supporters because I imagined that is how it was for Hillary caucusers in other states.  All of the people caucusing had no experience in this aside from the campaign people that were there for Obama and Hillary.  They didn't try to convince the Obam asupporters to come over.  Actually the irony behind it all is that over 50 of the Hillary caucusers were dying to be delegates they believe in Hillary so much they wanted to participate even more. There were young men and women participating their first time and Latinoes and elderly anglo men and women. It was quite beautiful.  Those are stories you won't see in the papers but I can vouch for Pacific John because I was there in El Paso.  You personally can't be accountable for all of Sen Obama's supporters but fair is fair there was fraud and it is so easy to do.  I just believe in fair elections! As does Pacific John.

by fair elections 2008-05-04 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

You still didn't describe fraund, especially not in the caucuses.  You give testimony (from an anonymous blogger once again with no link or other evidence to back it up) of an obnoxious poll worker.  Do you know how many of those I've met?  Mostly their good people, but after being hassled all day nerves can get frayed.  That does not prove fraud.  You also state that some Obama supporters were able to keep campaign paraphanailia when they shouldn't have.  Neither of those examples are evidence of fraud.  Fraud is something serious.  It is a conspiracy.  Said conspiracy would have documents or testimony to prove it.  I still haven't seen anything like that.

by nklein 2008-05-04 02:36PM | 0 recs
This is pretty simple
As this commentator says, this is an issue for the TDP, not the AG.


There are signed affidavits from witnesses. I did not sign one, because, as you mention, I was on the other end of the phone from the crime, so only got it second hand as it was happening. Mrs. A signed an affidavit.

What I bring to this is information like affidavits I helped gather as part of the small investigative legal team in El Paso County.

I need to add that I have intentionally omitted specific information that might help Internet hooligans. The Mrs. A anecdote is the tip of the iceberg of what is in witness statements that can be verified by any credible authority who requests them.

You have to face this: far less substantial stuff than this clogs the recommended diary lists of other blogs slurring any candidate other than Obama. It all seems to go away because there is nothing to it. There is something to this.

by Pacific John 2008-05-03 07:11AM | 0 recs
The diary being diss'ed in this diary...

...is one of the most important, under-/uncovered stories of the entire Democratic Primary, IMHO.

Big, big, bigtime kudos to Pacific John for posting it in the first place.

Bottom line is something that's been widely reported in the British press for weeks now, with regard to Hillary obtaining the nomination. Essentially, when you strip away the caucus results from the vote totals, (using only popular vote-based results obtained from true Primary elections in the states that had them) Hillary is the clear leader in the vote and in the delegates, too.

In fact, I've heard more than one comment in the British press that, in fact, it could be the most compelling reason of all for Superdelegates to support Hillary when it comes time to actually count the delegate votes!

Pacific John's diary would be a strongly-worded argument supporting this British press meme, IMHO!

If this diary--the one in which I'm commenting now--is what is going to be the standard reply from Obamatrons, all I can say to them is: "Is that all you got?"

So, I hope everyone that's read Pacific John's diary does everything they can to push this information to the top of every blog, and to get it into the faces of as many members of the MSM as possible, as many times as possible, too!

by bobswern 2008-05-03 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The diary being diss'ed in this diary...

Yet, I agree with the diarist of this diary. The "most important, under-/uncovered" story that you speak of might simply have no traction because it's been exaggerated and glorified.

Folks here are not really interested in democracy. They are mostly interested in the types of contests that give Senator Clinton more votes and more delegates. I would like to see one diary against caucuses written before Iowa. Mind you, many of the people egging on Pacific John don't live in Texas, don't know anyone in Texas, but figure, yeah, what the hell, Obama stole it.

You can dig and push this story all you want, if it were true, it would've been out in the open. The Clinton campaign has been near shutting down a couple of times that keep something like this under the rug, when it could've brought them back to life, is ridiculous in of it self.

by lizardbox 2008-05-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The diary being diss'ed in this diary...

I was in El Paso Texas that day and it is true! You can be in denial but why don't you go fly over to EL Paso and talk to people like me who know that she won 70% of the vote in El Paso because they love Hillary and believe in her.  Go take a trip and see for yourself. El Paso is a great city I love it.

by fair elections 2008-05-04 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The diary being diss'ed in this diary...

And she got around 70% of the caucus in El Paso, so what's your issue?

by nklein 2008-05-04 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pretty simple

Are you a lawyer John?  I'm actually going to be a legal student soon and let me tell you something that I did not even need to learn in law school: you can't hid a fraud that invovles hundreds and possibly thousands of people.  They just don't keep a secret.  History, acutally teaches you that.  B/c it's been tried.  So some nosy reporter, some voter rights' organization, some official entity is going to know about a massive fraud like the one you describe.  

In the previous thread you mentioned "guidelines" for the conspirators.  Were these printed?  If so, there must have been at least one per county, right?  There are like a hundred counties in Texas.  So there must be hundreds of copies of said guidelines.  Do you have one?  B/c when you have that many documents it gets out.  So you must have one, right?

Let's ignore that for a moment.  I don't want you to tell me who Mrs. A is or anything about her for that matter.  What I would like is the precinct number.  That way if I was so inclined I could call up the local police station and find out about any police reports about "violent" activity at the caucuses.  Or I could ask the TDP county office about any illegal activity (wait, I forgot they're in the bag).

Upthread you'll notice that I provide evidence of a massive fuck-up by L.A. county's registrar-recorder.  Believe that person has caught all types of hell b/c of it.  It might of cost Obama a couple of delegates.  But I didn't scream fraud.

You say your part of a legal team doing some investigating (for who by the way?).  You provide no evidence.  You say that the only authority I can go to will lie to me, b/c they want to cover it up.  You tell me you were a volunteer field organizer (btw you have a lot of free time, don't you?).  You tell me all this and then you level the most slanderous charges against a campaign.  Once again, you have no evidence.  Nothing.  You're spreading a rumor.  And if you were just saying Obama had cooties, I'd let it go.  But you're saying something far worse.  What were you afraid that thsi rumor wasn't out there?  Believe me, it is.  I've heard it many times.  Thus why did you say anything, if you're jsut going to publish the results of said investigation later?  Why from a whole report of massive fraud could you only cite one instance of said irregularity?

You see, tt strains credulity to believe you, though.  B/c there is a lack of what? evidence.  Was there chaos? Probably.  Was there fraud? NOOOOOO.  Not until you prove it.

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:55AM | 0 recs
Just have to step in here.

I am a Pct Chair for Collin Co. That night I was the election judge for our side at a polling place covering 4 pct's. It was a long day, starting at 6 AM. MANY of my known rethuglican neighbors signed in at my table. The GOP crossover was significant in the day voting. They did not stay for caucuses.  The 4 different Pct conventions went smooth enough with only one getting a little rough from some disgruntled HRC supporters because there was no Pct Chair and the BHO folks actually ran that Pct convention.  I helped supervise all 4 Pct conventions and made sure the rules were being followed, then took the poll lists around and made sure all the voter reg ID#'s were on the caucus rolls. I left to take my poll materials to HQ at 11:15 PM.  There was NO fraud in my sphere of influence and because of the late night many went home before being able to be selected as a delegate to the county convention.

Even at the county convention there was attrition. We started out the day with a full slate of delegates and each candidate caucus lost 33-50% of its delegates before the vote to send someone to state (that occurred at 11:45 PM, the convention ended at 0730 AM the next morning.)

I'm not trying to discount PJ's diary, I'm just saying that the discrepancy in TX between Primary and Caucus returns in my opinion was directly related to Mr Limbutt's request 4 days prior, to have the GOP come out to cross over; and that there were plenty of area's around the Co. that had relatively smooth if not protracted caucus evenings.

by LoneStarLefty 2008-05-03 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Just have to step in here.

I'm just saying that the discrepancy in TX between Primary and Caucus returns in my opinion was directly related to Mr Limbutt's request 4 days prior

Although I trust your account that your caucus ran smoothly and fairly, I don't find your reason for the caucus/primary discrepancy credible.  First, though Hillary increased her Republican vote in Texas from previous contests, I've no indication that she got more Republican votes than Obama that day.  Thus excluding Republicans from the caucus probably would have hurt Obama more than Hillary, or hurt them both equally.  In no way could it have resulted in such a massive shift from the primary results to the caucus results.

Secondly, the same discrepancy, except much larger, between primary and caucus results took place in Washington.

Third, the primary margins across the country have been relatively close as a whole, with Clinton having a small advantage.  Yet Obama's advantages in the caucuses have been huge, and cannot credibly reflect differences in Democratic voter opinion in those states (especially given that, in most states, Hillary has proven to be more popular among registered Democrats, and registration as a Democrat is presumably required at party caucuses).

In short, there is no credible evidence that Republicans not being able to caucus is why Obama outperformed his primary results in Texas, or why he has outperformed his primarily results nationally in caucus elections.

by markjay 2008-05-03 09:17AM | 0 recs
There is no indication because it is not

kept track of. In TX you just show up and vote for the party primary you care to vote in.  TX does not keep track of who is in which party.  And, as for GOP votes for HRC, at least here in TX they are mostly in spite, they are laughing at her, not with her!

by LoneStarLefty 2008-05-03 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

I think it's always very important to insist on backup for extraordinary claims.  That said, I somehow doubt you were this vehement regarding all the recommended DKos diaries that alleged caucus fraud by the Clinton campaign in places like Nevada.  It's clear that you take offense not as an evenhanded seeker of the truth, but as a defender of the sanctity of the marvelous creation that is the Obama campaign.

In my book the jury is still out, but a demand for deletion and banning is just way over the top.  People are free to post their stories, and you're free to believe them or not as you choose.  If it's a hoax, you won't expose it by ranting about how awesome you feel the Obama campaign is.

What's interesting about primaries is that they force us to step into the shoes of the other guy.  I mean, can anyone imagine reading a diary like this one if the original allegations had concerned fraud by someone like Bush or McCain?

by Steve M 2008-05-03 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

You're right.  I was not as vehement.  One, b/c I wasn't posting there all the time.  But also I don't expect much more from them.  They rec up any rumor and only have people verify it later.  Not everybody's bad.  I like a lot of people there (one being Bob Johnson).  But it's an echo chamber.  We all know that.  So I hid the most extreme.  The ones calling her bitch and so on.  And I still post the diary once in a while and I rec stuff, but I mostly am here.  And I expect better from here.  Moreover, at least in many of those diaries there was something: a link and document, a video.  But we don't have that here.  So I can't check to make sure this is not true.  All I ask for is something to demonstrate that this is true.

And I love your sig.

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

Until there is a prosecutorial investigation, all you can possibly have is first hand accounts. And god knows, there are plenty of those online. You need to wrap your brain around this - Clinton supporters felt like they were going to be assaulted by Obama supporters. And since that's the case - whether you think that's a credible concern or not - they aren't going to be handing out their police reports.

I was talking to a woman whose 80+ yo mom lives in Washington state. She's never missed an election. She came home from the caucus in tears because she wound up surrounded by a bunch of Obama supporters screaming at her. She felt physically threatened by them and was afraid to walk to her car alone. What the fuck is that? Ganging up on an elderly woman at night time? Do you really think that she's going to talk up about her experience? No, she's already been scared to death that she was going to get beat up for her vote and she's not going to  do anything that risks having to deal with those people again. Now, I'm not saying Obama supporters were going to follow her out and beat her up - I doubt they were. It's that their behavior was so atrocious that someone was afraid they were going to.

I've been involved in politics since the mid-seventies. I have never heard of caucuses leaving elderly women afraid to walk to their car alone.

by Little Otter 2008-05-03 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

You know what they would have: press accounts.  Where are those?  You know what they would also have: press releases of said investigations.  I've seen a couple videos put up.  They don't show fraud.  So where's the fraud?

You don't provide me with evidence.  You provide me with hearsay again.  You know what I heard.  I heard that somebody in L.A. witnessed a Hillary Clinton supporter trying to refuse non-partisan voters the ability to vote.  Does that mean that Hillary is involved in a massive conspiracy to disenfranchise those voters?  No.  It's just a rumor.

Do I believe that some people were upset by the chaos of the overwhelming numbers and little organization?  Yeah.  Do I believe it means fraud? No.  Once again, I ask where is the fraud?

by nklein 2008-05-03 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud

The press doesn't like Hillary Clinton. Her campaign held a press conference and announced that they have the affadavits in hand, and that are pursuing it. IF there is a court case in the making, they aren't going to make the claims public until they're in court so that witnesses can't be intimidated.

Please - point me to the press accounts of the riot in Dayton after the 2004 election. It happened. Only one newspaper covered it for one day. You'd think 600 people marching through the streets lighting fires and breaking store windows protesting the theft of the Ohio election would have generated some press coverage. it didn't. The press has their own agenda and they'd quite like to take down Clinton.

This is bullying behavior that you're engaged here. you're demanding that people turn stuff over that you know the Clinton campaign possesses or you won't believe what's being said. You have no concern that there may have been distorting irregularities in a Democratic caucus. What you're repeatedly emphasizing is that if there were irregularities, there would have be news stories. It's kind of like Islamic countries where a guy can only convicted of rape by the word of another man. Unless the press, who hates Clinton, covers the theft of an election from Clinton, then it didn't happen.

by Little Otter 2008-05-03 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

A number of people have asked that, if there was so much fraud, why weren't legal complaints filed and why hasn't the Texas Attorney General done anything?

The answer is this: Caucuses are organized by political parties.  They do not conform to state or federal election law.  That is why they are not required to allow secret balloting, to accommodate the disabled, to guarantee one person one vote, etc.

There is no state or federal legal jurisdiction over party rules. (Remember when the legal challenge to the Nevada caucuses was thrown out of court because there was no state legal jurisdiction over party rules?)  Therefore, the absence of legal action on these matters has absolutely no bearing in determining whether the described incidents took place.

If anybody is going to get involved, it has to be the media, the Democratic party, the delegates to the convention, or the Democratic voters.

by markjay 2008-05-03 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

What PacificJohn reports of is a massive effort to subvert the will of caucus-attenders through violence, the theft of official documents and forgery.  Such an action is fraud against the party.  And even though caucuses are run by the parties.  It's still illegal to commit fraud against any organization or person, whether they are public or private.  Any person in such a conspiracy would be subject to prosecution.

by nklein 2008-05-03 09:18AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the voice of reason.

I never believe anything I read on the internet without a link to actual documentation or at the very least a link to a bonafide news organization.

So far, nothing but some anonymous persons on the internet claiming there was fraud.  Not even a picture from someone's camera phone which makes me skeptical.

by GFORD 2008-05-03 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

I was at a precinct near Pacific Johns. He was in the Lower Valley-ish while I was on the Eastside (p.120), I can attest that most caucuses were run without regard to the rules. Why? Because more than half of everybody didn't even know we held caucuses in El Paso---in past years only 2 people would show up to caucus, we had over 200 this year. So there was confusion, my friend Adolfo said that in his convention they didn't even check to see if he was a member of his precinct. They just passed a paper around and everybody signed it. Legal and law-abiding procedure? Nope.

No one understood the rules. I happened to attend training a couple of days before so I had some understanding. And I pride myself on running a completely ethical caucus. But the rest of everybody had no idea what they were doing. I watched the news and some precinct was so confused they had to carpool to the El Paso Dem. Party headquarters and hold their caucus there.(i'm gonna look for the tape of the news, so maybe you'll believe me)

Its your choice not to believe Pacific John, but I am a believer because I was there.

[By the way, my precinct chair did call the police on out of town Obama-lawyers trying to assert themselves in our result calculations. And the police didn't bother to show up.----and i've seen pacific john in real life too.]

Rules were broken whether people knew them or not.

by amde 2008-05-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

You describe confusion, not fraud.  Do you understand the difference?  PacificJohn does not merely say "that there was chaos and people didn't know what they were doing."  Instead he says that "there was a fraud coordinated by the thousands of employers and volunteers working for the Obama campaign."  People not knowing the rules is hardly fraud.

by nklein 2008-05-03 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence (and

The clips I saw in the comments of Pacific John's diaries indicated confusion to me too, not fraud.

In fact, in one of them, as one Hillary supporter was complaining about verifying some info or something before coming, a guy with a blue T Shirt with HILLARY in big white letters just stands stone faced behind an African American lady giving the answer which was not satisfactory to the Hillary lady supporter. No one else seemed to support the Hillary lady supporter. This shows me that the fault does not lie with Obama. If anything  blame Hillary who brags about standing up to the Republican machine, but she could not coordinate a campaign where she could not even post monitors or a help network while she had the money to pay high paid consultants for silly ad campaigns which did not work early on. Blame the Democratic Party as a whole for not learning lessons from 2000 and 2004. Isn't Diebold purchased by some Democratic controlled localities? Wow, so much for our party standing up for election reform.

by Pravin 2008-05-05 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus Fraud - Where's the evidence

I recommended that diary to keep the discussion going. I think Pacific John got enough testimonials here to give me the benefit of doubt. However, I am trouble by the lack of hard evidence provided. All the links to youtube videos I saw failed to explain what exactly was illegal or the commentator failed to give us a context to such activity. I am not going to waste time trying to decipher confusion going on over there.

I want to see Pacific John post a new diary with updates because he owes us an update. I saw the one update and it was not good enough for the level of accusations being made. If it was something minor, Pacific John could float by with such a diary using his reputation and recollection as sufficient proof.

I want to see

  1. Specific names of the precincts involved.
  2. Names of the people involved(if possible)
  3. What were the exact rules broken. And how exactly were the Hillary people overpowered physically in preventing envelopes from being confiscated?
  4. What did the Hillary campaign do to educate at least one person in each caucus location on the rules?
  5. What did the DNC and local state party do to educate voters? Was their website good enough source?

by Pravin 2008-05-05 10:18AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads