Sunday, September 25, 2016

Clinton Campaign Releases List of Fact-Checked Trump Lies


The Hillary Clinton Campaign held a special press call, to call on the debate moderator, media, and voters to fact check Donald Trump.

In order to help the press, debate moderators, and voters fact check Trump, the Clinton campaign has released 19 pages of Trump lies.

HFA Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said, “Donald Trump has shown a clear pattern of repeating provably false lies hoping that nobody will correct him. As we head into this debate, we want voters and viewers to be on alert that they should keep track. Any candidate that tells this many lies, clearly can’t win the debate on the merits.”

Even if this list doesn’t give the voters pause, or the moderators pause, it should give the press some serious pause, if not to be embarrassed by the wholly unprofessional job they’ve done about holding Trump to some kind of account.

CLICK HERE to read the list.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

NC Finds 2,214 Registered Voters Over the Age of 110


North Carolina voters roll shows that the Tar Heel State has 2,214 voters that are 110-years-old. Most of these voters are Democrats and most seem to live in four democrat-controlled Counties. Some of these aged voters have already voted Absentee.

Many are even older than 110. In fact, it seems that North Carolina has an awful lot of voters that are 112, too. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of the voter rolls this year and found that there are 631 Democrats who are 112 or older. By contrast, the Republicans can only find 229 over 112 voters in the state, and “unaffiliated” found 39.

And it gets worse. Two voters, and, yes, they’ve already voted in early voting, are over 150! One in Gaston County is 154 and another in Granville County is an astonishing 160!

This isn’t necessarily evidence of vote theft. It could be a massively failed voter registration system, although it is notable that the largest number of these voters just happen to be Democrats.

But what ever is the case, it is highly unlikely to have this many centenarian voters still able to get out of their wheelchairs or retirement homes and have a run down to the polling place.

Something certainly seems amiss in North Carolina.

So what is Voter ID protecting when most of the Voter fraud is in Absentee or Mail-In ballots?

One way to protect this type of voting is to mail a Security Code separate from the ballot. The voter then would enter this code on their submitted ballot, and if it does not match, the ballot is voided. This concept would also work with On-Line voting.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Little Blue Dot Irritating Nebraska's GOP


Nebraska Democrats love talking about the Blue Dot. Formally know as the 2nd Congressional District, the Blue Dot hugs the State's Eastern border with Iowa, encompassing Omaha and its suburbs, an outpost of liberalism in an otherwise Red State.

In 2008 voters in the Dot went for Barack Obama while the rest of the State backed John McCain. Because Nebraska splits its Electoral votes by Congressional Districts, Obama got one from the Dot, becoming the first Democrat to win an Electoral vote in the State since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Obama failed to repeat his victory in 2012, when Republican Mitt Romney carried the Dot by seven points, thanks in part to redistricting that shifted many Black and Latino voters into the 1st Congressional District, making the Dot much less reliable Blue.

Hillary Clinton is determined to take back the Dot, and its single Electoral vote, this year. Her Campaign has had staff in place there since early summer and had opened two offices in Omaha by the end of August. By early September, the Campaign had recruited mote than 400 volunteers and was running near-daily phone banks. Donald Trump's has an office in Lincoln, the State Capital, but has yet to establish a presence in the Dot.

Republicans have repeatedly tried to undo the State's Vote-Splitting law since it took effect in 1992. There have been multiple attempts to return Nebraska to the Winner-Take-All system used by every other state except Maine, which has assigned Electoral College votes by Congressional Districts since 1972. The most recent vote was defeated in a Legislative Committee this April.

Democrats in the Blue Dot were delighted, but the Party has shown little interest in passing Electoral Vote-Splitting in other states. "From the perspective of the Democratic Party, this one goes under the heading of Be Very Careful What You Wish For," says Paul Landow, a longtime Democratic operative who's an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. "You may think that this is a really good idea in Nebraska or, say, Iowa that's got some heavy Democratic District. But do you want to make this change in California or New York?"

The answer so far has been no. Following Romney's Electoral loss in 2012, Republican Legislators in Virginia and Pennsylvania introduced bills to drop the Winner-Talk-All system but were defeated by Democratic opposition. If the system used in Nebraska and Maine had been in place Nationwide in 2012, Romney would have carried 275 Electoral votes, according to a Washington Post estimate, enough to win the White House, rather than the 206 he won.

Following the 2010 census, Nebraska Republicans redraw the boundaries of the Blue Dot to include not only Douglas County, home to almost 30% of all Nebraskans, but also the Conservative Western half of Sarpy County, South of Omaha. Before the 2014 midterms, State Democrats commissioned a D.C. consulting group to develop a strategy for taking back the District, which mainly focused on Voter Registration. Working alongside labor groups, the Party registered 10,000 new voters, many of them Latino. They succeeded in ousting eight-term Republican Representative Lee Terry and electing a Democrat, Brad Ashford, one of only two Democrats to defeat a sitting Republican Congressman that year.

State Republicans haven't shown much interest in matching Democrats' organizing efforts. Jon Tucker, who heads Douglas County's GOP, says their main focus will be on making sure voters know their polling places and publishing a candidate slate online.

Democrats have maintained a narrow registration advantage in Douglas County, 128,477 as of Sept. 8th, compared with Republicans' 127,286, but that's more than erased by their 20,000 Voter deficit in Sarpy County.

In August, polling by Ashford's Republican challenger, Don Bacon, showed Trump almost six points ahead of Clinton in the Dot, even as he trailed her in National polls. Bacon, a former Brigadier General in the U.S. Air Force, has attempted to distance himself from Trump.

But Nebraska Democrats have their billionaire, Warren Buffett, who has endorsed Clinton and made small contributions to the Local Democratic Party Committee. He appeared at an August rally with Clinton in Omaha. He announced a website that will connect drivers with voters who need a lift to the polls on Election day. Buffett pledged to drive at least 10 people himself in a rented trolley bus. "My goal is to have the turnout here be the highest percentage of potential voters of any district in the country", he said.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Trump Either Lied or Broke the Law


Trump committed perjury or he looked into the faces of the Republican faithful and knowingly lied.

It has become an accepted reality of this Presidential Campaign that Trump spins a near-endless series of falsehoods. For months, the media has struggled with this unprecedented situation, a candidate who, unlike other politicians who stretch the truth, simply creates his own reality. Trumps regularly peddles “facts” that aren’t true, describes events that never happened or denies engaging in actions that everyone saw him do. He utters his falsehoods so fast that before reporters have the chance to correct one, he has tossed out five or six more.

This time, it is different. Trump can’t skip past his perfidy here. There are two records, one, a previously undisclosed deposition of the Republican nominee testifying under oath, and the second a transcript/video of a Republican Presidential debate. In them, Trump tells contradictory versions of the same story with the clashing accounts tailored to provide what he wanted people to believe when he was speaking.

This fib matters far more than whether Trump was honest about why he abandoned his birther movement or the corollary fib that Hillary Clinton started the racist story that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In the lie we are examining here, Trump either committed a felony or proved himself willing to deceive his followers whenever it suits him.

Trump told the public version of this story last year, during the second Republican Presidential debate.

Trump had been boasting for weeks at his rallies that he knew the political system better than anyone, because he had essentially bought off politicians for decades by giving them campaign contributions when he wanted something. He also proclaimed that only he, as an outsider who had participated in such corruption of American democracy at a high level—could clean it up.

During the September 2015 debate, one of Trump’s rivals, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, verified Trump’s claim, saying the billionaire had tried to buy him off with favors and contributions when he was Florida’s Governor. "The one guy that had some special interests that I know of that tried to get me to change my views on something—that was generous and gave me money—was Donald Trump,” Bush said. “He wanted casino gambling in Florida."

Trump interrupted Bush:

Trump: I didn’t—
Bush: Yes, you did.
Trump: Totally false.
Bush: You wanted it, and you didn’t get it, because I was opposed to—
Trump: I would have gotten it.
Bush: Casino gambling before—
Trump: I promise, I would have gotten it.
Bush: During and after. I’m not going to be bought by anybody.
Trump: I promise, if I wanted it, I would have gotten it.
Bush: No way. Believe me.
Trump: I know my people.
Bush: Not even possible.
Trump: I know my people.

If Trump was telling the truth that night, so be it. But if he was lying, what was his purpose? His “If I wanted it, I would have gotten it,” line may be a hint. Contrary to his many vague stories on the campaign trail about being a cash-doling political puppet master, this story has a name, a specific goal and ends in failure. If Bush was telling the truth, then Trump would have had to admit he lost a round and, as he assured the audience, that would not have happened. When he wants something, he gets it.

But that wasn’t the point he needed to make in 2007. The deposition was part of a lawsuit he’d filed against Richard Fields, whom Trump had hired to manage the expansion of his casino business into Florida. In the suit, Trump claimed that Fields had quit and taken all of the information he obtained while working for Trump to another company. Under oath, Trump said he did want to get into casino gambling in Florida but didn’t because he had been cheated by Fields.

A lawyer asked Trump, “Did you yourself do anything to obtain any of the details with respect to the Florida gaming environment, what approvals were needed and so forth?”

Trump: A little bit.
Lawyer: What did you do?
Trump: I actually spoke with Governor-elect Bush; I had a big fundraiser for Governor-elect Bush…and I think it was his most successful fundraiser, the most successful that he had had up until that point, that was in Trump Tower in New York on Fifth Avenue.
Lawyer: When was that?
Trump: Sometime prior to his election.
Lawyer: You knew that Governor Bush, Jeb Bush at that time, was opposed to expansion of gaming in Florida, didn't you?
Trump: I thought that he could be convinced otherwise.
Lawyer: But you didn't change his mind about his anti-gaming stance, did you?
Trump: Well, I never really had that much of an opportunity because Fields resigned, telling me you could never get what we wanted done, only to do it for another company.

One of these stories is a lie, a detailed, self-serving fabrication. But unlike the mountain of other lies he has told, this time the character trait that leads to Trump’s mendacity is on full display: He makes things up when he doesn’t want to admit he lost.

Assume the story he told at the debate is the lie. Even though Bush’s story reinforced what Trump was saying at rallies, he had played the “cash for outcomes” political game for years, he could not admit he had tried to do the same in Florida because he could not bring himself to say that he had lost. Instead, he looked America in the eye and lied. And then he felt compelled to stack on another boast: His people are so wonderful that they would have gotten casino gambling in Florida, regardless of Bush’s opposition, if Trump had wanted it.

Now consider the other option, that Trump committed perjury in the 2007 testimony. There, he admitted pushing for casino gambling in Florida, but said he would have gotten what he wanted if he hadn’t been tricked by Fields. The rationale for the perjurious testimony is simple, Trump wants money from a man who stopped working for him and, once again, the story lets him deny he is anything less than perfect.

No question, these two stories must be investigated if there is ever a President Trump. In their impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about an extramarital affair, Republicans established the standard that failing to tell the truth while testifying, even in the most understandable of circumstances, rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Surely, perjury for pecuniary purposes or to inflate one’s self-image cannot be ignored.

Finally, the lie here matters because it shows how shameless Trump is and how reckless. He told this lie even though he knew he was standing next to a credible witness, Bush, who could contradict him, and he gambled that no one would discover his sworn testimony.

Trump must be called upon to answer the troubling questions raised by the episode regarding Bush and gambling in Florida: Is the Republican nominee a perjurer or just a liar? If he refuses to answer, just as he has refused to address almost every other question about his character and background, Trump supporters must carefully consider whether they want to vote for a man who at best has treated them like fools over the past year and at worst committed a crime.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Dead People Voting in Colorado


Local officials in Colorado acknowledged "very serious" Voter fraud after learning of votes cast in multiple elections under the named of recently-deceased residents.

A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the State with Federal Government death records. "Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast," El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a "very serious" pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead.

It's not clear how many fraudulent ballots have been submitted in recent years. CBS4 reported that it "found multiple cases" of dead people voting around the State, revelations that have provoked State Criminal investigations.

"We do believe there were several instances of potential vote fraud that occurred," said Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams. "It shows there is the potential for fraud."

Colorado is a perennial battleground State in Presidential battleground states.

President Obama beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney by 51-46 in 2012. Clinton leads Trump by 2.5 points in the Real Clear Politics polling average, although there is wide variance in the three most recent surveys.

One shows Trump leading by four, another shows them tied, and the third shows Clinton up nine points.

So what is Voter ID protecting when most of the Voter fraud is in Absentee or Mail-In ballots?

One way to protect this type of voting is to mail a Security Code separate from the ballot. The voter then would enter this code on their submitted ballot, and if it does not match, the ballot is voided. This concept would also work with On-Line voting.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Federal Court Says Ohio’s System for Purging Voters Violates Federal Law


The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Ohio’s reliance on lack of voting activity as a trigger for purging people from the voting rolls violates federal law.

In a 2-1 opinion, the Appellate Court reversed U.S. District Judge George C. Smith's decision and struck down the state's process, which involved sending notifications to inactive voters.

The dissenting Judge said he rushed his dissent so there would be time for Supreme Court review, if requested by Ohio. Ohio getting a reversal on this on an emergency basis is a long shot given that this is a 2-1 ruling, and given that both the majority and dissenting opinions’ interpretations of the interactions of two Federal statutes (the NVRA and HAVA) seem plausible.

In April the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted over the way the State conducts voter roll maintenance.

The process is used to help weed ineligible voters, those who have died or been found incompetent or convicted of felonies or who have moved from the voting jurisdiction, from the voting rolls. But it also was triggered by lack of voting.

They argued Ohio's process was improper because it violates specific provisions in the National Voting Rights Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Those two laws were enacted to encourage greater participation in Federal elections.
The laws provide states with a means to clear their voting rolls of ineligible voters only under certain circumstances. Part of that procedure must include a notification process that gives a voter a chance to confirm they are still eligible. But the law specifically says registered voters may not be disqualified simply because they have not voted.

The State of Ohio follows a notification process outlined in the Federal statutes. It sends a notice to voters informing them that that their registration may be cancelled if they don't take action to confirm they are indeed eligible electors. A person can confirm eligibility by responding to the notice or by voting within a four year period.

One of the triggers for the notice, though, is if a person has not voted within two years.

The plaintiffs argued that was a violation of Federal law. The State argued that since it included a notification process outlined in the Federal parts of the statue it was complying with the law.

The Court acknowledges that there is some ambiguity in the law, and that the exceptions that allow voters to be removed from the rolls appear to clash with the general law. But it said that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the goals of the statue as a whole, that no voter should be disqualified simply for not voting often enough.

Ohio's process violates that provision, the Court said. And the provision would have no teeth if the State simply could circumvent it by listing ways a voter could confirm their eligibility. "A state cannot avoid the conclusion that its process results in removal 'solely by reason of failure to vote' by providing that the confirmation notice procedure is triggered by a registrant's failure either to vote or to climb Mount Everest or to hit a hole-in-one."

The majority opinion was written by Judge Eric Clay, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. He was joined by Judge Julia Gibbons, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. Judge Eugene Edward Siler, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, dissented in part. He would have upheld the Lower Court's ruling except on an issue of whether Ohio adequately notifies electors how to remedy their voting registration if they move from Ohio.

The case is returned to the District Court for further proceedings.

It is unclear what impact it may have on voters whose names already were removed from the voting rolls. That will be addressed by the district court.

The law bars removal of any names from the voting rolls if there are less than 90 days before a Primary or an Election that includes Federal officeholders.

Husted, in a statement, criticized the ruling. "With today's ruling, the court will effectively force us to put voters back on the voter rolls who have died or long since moved to another address," he said. "This ruling overturns 20 years of Ohio law and practice, which has been carried out by the last four secretaries of state, both Democrat and Republican," Husted said. "It also reverses a federal court settlement from just two years ago that required exactly the opposite action."

Mike Brickner, Senior Policy Adviser for the ACLU, had a different perspective. What was practice in Ohio was also illegal, in the Court's view, he noted. "We are very happy that the court found that Secretary Husted's process of purging voters in Ohio is illegal and must stop," Brickner said "We hope that a plan will emerge soon to allow the tens of thousands of voters illegally purged from the rolls to vote in the upcoming presidential election."

Rep. Kathleen Clyde, a Kent Democrat who often has been at odds with Husted over voting regulations, said the ruling is a victory for the fundamental right to vote.
"Today's decision is a victory for voters, voting rights and common sense," Clyde said. "Now, Ohioans who are registered and show up to vote can be confident that their ballots will be counted instead of thrown out."

Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio said the case is a reminder that voters should check their registration status. "Election Day is still a long way away but it's coming up quickly. So take charge now and verify your vote," Turcer said. "And with early voting open to all Ohio voters, you can cast your ballot anytime from Oct. 12 to Election Day on Nov. 8."











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, September 23, 2016

Federal Law Allows CPD to Determine Debate Eligibility


Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for this post.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) often argues that it is not an arm of Government and therefore has a right to set its own standards on who can be admitted to the General election Presidential debates.

However, Federal law mentions the CPD and says that the CPD’s decision on whom to invite will help determine Federal Government policy toward particular Presidential candidates.

The Federal law is 3 USC 102, and includes a 2010 amendment titled the “Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010”, P.L. 111-283; 124 Stat. 3046.

The Federal law now reads “the Administrator shall ensure that any candidate determined to be an eligible candidate…has demonstrated a significant level of public support in national public opinion polls…and consider whether other national organizations have recognized the candidate as being among the principal contenders for the general election to such offices, including whether the Commission on Presidential Debates has determined that the candidate is eligible to participate in the candidate debates for the general election to such office.”

The September 16 letter from the General Services Agency to Gary Johnson, denying a National Security briefing to Johnson and his National Security advisors, specifically says one reason he cannot have such a briefing is that the CPD has not admitted him.

CLICK HERE to read the two page (PDF) letter.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon