U.S. Attorney John McKay was on the John Carlson Show Monday, dancing around to avoid explaining why his office is not investigating the King County Elections fraud scandal, as the U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee is investigating the election fraud in that city. As Bob Edelman of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation explained to me in an e-mail:
McKay implied that he didn't have jurisdiction over individual isolated acts of election fraud. It didn't take much effort to prove that the problem is not that he can't - it's that he won't.Indeed, there should be a federal investigation of the non-citizen voting, particularly to see if there was any organized effort to encourage non-citizens to register and vote. One of the identified non-citizen voters is a UW student. The UW has 2,500 non-immigrant students. Did more than 1 of them vote? That's a reasonable hypothesis. Were there activists on campus who tried to get everybody out to vote, including foreign students? Wouldn't surprise me. Private citizens don't have the means to look into this, but the Feds could, say, cross-check the list of foreign students against the voter registration list and find out how many non-citizen students voted. I hope they will investigate this, publicize their findings and prosecute and/or deport the violators. If they don't, then you know that we'll see a large increase in the number of foreign student and other non-citizen voters the next time around.
...
McKay said the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to, “crimes like bribery, forgery of ballots, conspiracies to intimidate individuals to affect the outcome of an election.”
...
Contrary to McKay's claims of limited authority, federal law establishes much broader jurisdiction. For example, 18 USC 611 and 18 USC 1015 make votes by non-citizens ... federal crimes.
UPDATE: 42 USC 1973i also defines the following to be federal crimes: double-voting; provding false information on a registration statement; willful failure to tabulate votes. The U.S. Attorney has his work cut for him, if he only chooses to step up to the plate.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 13, 2005 11:45 AM | Email ThisSo much for leaving Clinton people in high places!
Posted by: Susu on May 13, 2005 12:05 PMI heard him on Carlson and his namby-pamby excuses not to investigate were so irritating.
Posted by: Shannon K on May 13, 2005 12:19 PMPerhaps they're trying to save expense by not worrying about an election that's going to be thrown out shortly.
[/overly optimistic]
Actually, that's probably one of the internal justifications they're making - wait-and-see on the court battle; they don't want to spend a bunch of money investigating an election that would turn out to be moot.
Now, that doesn't make the non-citizen, etc. voting less illegal (I think), but the public would definitely care about it less, considering the $$$ involved in any investigation like this.
Posted by: mopic on May 13, 2005 12:50 PMActually, that's probably one of the internal justifications they're making - wait-and-see on the court battle; they don't want to spend a bunch of money investigating an election that would turn out to be moot.
Now, that doesn't make the non-citizen, etc. voting less illegal (I think), but the public would definitely care about it less, considering the $$$ involved in any investigation like this.
I hope not to sound too harsh, but are you insane? Assuming the election was stolen through fraud, you are suggesting we decriminalize crime to save money? If a crime was committed, the criminals should be investigated and prosecuted regardless of the outcome of any election. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm reading a book on election fraud. The author asserts that a Mexican voter in his OWN country needs this to vote: a tamper-proof, photo id complete with thumbprint, mag strip, hologram and a signature that is verified.
...and WHO landed on the moon?...
Not enforcing laws on critical issues equates to giving tacit approval to the alleged crimes.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 13, 2005 02:12 PMWould that prove to be true. The problem is that the foxes are guarding the hen house. There are ample reasons to both ask for help from the Feds and a reasonable expectation that they would comply.
The feds are waiting to if Rossi is going to be able to prove any of his allegations. With the state involved in it fully, the feds are going to see if there is anything left that needs to be done.
Posted by: Erik on May 13, 2005 02:56 PMYou know, we often hear the liberal denial of a liberal biased media. But in the case of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, liberal bias is written into the purchase contract:
“CHICAGO When Lee Enterprises Inc. agreed to purchase Pulitzer Inc. for $1.46 billion, it also agreed that the flagship St. Louis Post-Dispatch will keep its longstanding liberal editorial slant for at least the next five years, according to the purchase agreement mailed to Pulitzer shareholders Friday.”
Source:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920570
So much for the liberal lie that the MSM is anything other than a liberal mouthpiece.
Could it be that for whatever reason, McKay's sympathies are with the Dem's, and he will let any call for an investigation die?
Yeah and here is their mantra….don’t want any of this going on.
The Post-Dispatch platform statement, adopted in 1911, includes the pledge that the newspaper “will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.”
Lets see what an opposite philosophy might look like.
The Post-Dispatch platform statement, adopted in 1911, includes the pledge that the newspaper “will always never fight for progress and reform, tolerate and promote injustice or corruption, defend the demagogues of all parties, belong to the party with the money, make sure the privileged classes know how to publicy plunderer,lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to our stockholders, never be satisfied with merely printing news unless it is pre canned from the whitehouse, always be drastically independent as the wind might blow, never attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.
sounds like the FOX.
Now that’s what we need our 4th estate to be doing.
Bravo for them because that's what the democrats stand for. If you want to be included in their Philosophy, become a democrat versus a sheep.
If you don't, there are plenty of other places to chew your grass.
Baaaaahhhhh!
Does anyone have U.S. Attorney General Gonzeles' direct e-mail? I could only find one to the office.
So far all of the excuses that McKay have made do not hold water (I even referenced the Nov. 1, 2004 press release from his office).
I think we need greater exposure to these pleas, like a mass mailing, press confrence, etc.
Anyone have ideas on how to go public, and take this to their doorstep?
Beyond your codewords for communism, the article clearly states:
"Over the years, the paper's editorials have taken a reliably Democratic or liberal view of issues, positions some worried would change under Lee's ownership."
Much like contesting a voter, I expect someone needs to step forward and say "_I_ accuse _X_ of violation of _Y_ which is a Federal Crime. Please investigate or charge me with slander/libel."
Posted by: Al on May 13, 2005 04:06 PMEFF gave names of felons, deceased voters, forgers, aliens who voted, and people who registered with false addresses to McKay in their complaint. http://www.effwa.org/vip/GonzalesLetter4-7-05.pdf
Short of bringing people in in handcuffs, what else should private citizens do?
Logan's deposition should be enough to warrant an investigation.
Posted by: Vicki on May 13, 2005 04:45 PMOutside of the issue of elections... there is something to be said for economic influence (assuming limited resources) on law-enforcement and prosecutorial-discretion decisions... best usage of taxpayer money, etc. Again, I'm not saying that applies to the mess in KC, but generally.
Probably not a strong legal basis for this (IANAL - but it also seems like the dems don't need legal bases for their legal actions ;) ), but it may be possible that if the judge throws out the Nov election entirely and orders a do-over, the status of those votes (and any laws that might have been violated in the creation and tabulation of those votes) would be odd, and it may cause trouble for any prosecutions based on it. Again, just a guess.
Posted by: mopic on May 13, 2005 04:52 PMYou don't have to have *all* of these offenses to investigate! Just enough to show a trend.....
Do you think the Feds would ignore those that are listed in bold below?
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/November/02_at_641.htm
ü The Justice Department will enforce the laws that prohibit:
Ø voter intimidation;
Ø voting by ineligible individuals;
Ø bribery;
Ø destruction of valid ballots or registrations;
Ø counting more votes than there are registered voters;
Ø altering vote tallies;
Ø voting in multiple counties;
Ø abuse of absentee ballots;
Ø malfeasance by election officials; and,
Ø ballot boxes disappearing;
--------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
VOTING ACCESS AND INTEGRITY INITIATIVE
(All complaints related to discrimination or access can be reported to the Civil Rights Division at 800-253-3931)
(All complaints related to ballot integrity can be reported to the Criminal Division at 202-514-1412)
(All media inquiries are to be directed to the Office of Public Affairs at 202-514-2007)
Election Day Points of Contact - District Election Officers
Washington - Eastern - Spokane--Rolf H. Tangvald--509-353-2767
Washington - Eastern - Yakima--Gregory M. Shogren--509-454-4425
Washington - Western--Arlen Storm--253-428-3800
There is no chance that he's being influenced by liberal or local politics; at worst, his instincts for smelling something rotten are constrained by the reality that some of the responsibilities on his plate are far more deserving of his attention than this. Like I said before, we can take care of this kind of local stuff ourselves, but I don't think blog-dorks like us can defend our country from terrorists. Really guys, we can stand up for our civil rights without asking for a Federal investigation.
That said, I agree with "Al" that if someone laid down a specific Federal charge, I believe they'd take it from there.
Posted by: Regret on May 13, 2005 08:02 PMSpecific allegations with specific names have been made. John McCay is not investigating them nor has he requested the FBI to investigate. We civilians don't make the charges - that's his job. He is supposed to investigate credible allegations and he has not done so. He has abdicated responsibility for whatever reason. I guess he can always claim to have more important things to do. I for one don't believe there is any issue on his plate more important to us in Washington State then our failed election system - failed partially because law enforcement has not done its job. And don't raise the spectre of terrorism unless you can explain why the US Attorney for Western Washington must devote all or even part of his time to terrorism. If he has been prosecuting terrorists it hasn't made the papers yet.
Posted by: BJ Gadfly on May 13, 2005 09:11 PMDoesn't mean he IS, doesn't mean he ISN'T, right?
Posted by: Bad Bob on May 13, 2005 09:40 PMDon't be silly BJ Gadfly!
John McKay is devoting his time to speaking engagements around Western Washington....
He was on John Carlson's show, He will be speaking at the U of W Law school next week....
Sheesh! Give the guy a break!
Just look at the important cases he's been involved with this month...(From John McKay's website):
5/9/05 ANDERSON
Monroe Man Sentenced to Probation for Removing Artifact From Protected Historic Site...
snicker......
He has been supporting the DV hysteria since its inception in order to win brownie points. In the meantime, his department was throwing innocent men in jail left and right.
Reichert sucks. You may as well cc Patty Murray.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 14, 2005 02:08 AMFunny that he hasn't shown up on Siegels' show. Suppose there's a reason?
Posted by: Dogbert on May 14, 2005 01:21 PMWhy don't you email Mike Siegel and ask him if he's invited John McKay to be on his show?
Mike@MikeSiegel.com
Posted by: Deborah on May 14, 2005 07:13 PMAfter the Chelan County trial has concluded and there has been no news of an investigation at the Federal level for more than say 3 weeks, it is time to go over John McKay's head - to the US Attorney General, because the jig will be up and there is obviously something going on that is not politically ethical behind the scenes, because it is abundant clear that the 2004 election warrants a Federal investigation for King County.
About what McKay said on the talk show last week, trust but verify... Maybe Siegel would be able to get a bit more out of McKay, but not unless he was confrontational - hmmm.... I believe Carlson and McKay have known each other for some time. However, one can conclude that McKay prefers to have a reputation of good home training if he idly sits by and doesn't enforce Federal Election laws that were clearly broken.
nuff said...
Posted by: KS on May 14, 2005 09:10 PMPerhaps some investigations are coordinated from a higher position in the DOJ than Mr. McKays...They DO have different divisions to handle different investigations...
Or maybe John McKay wins the *P*ker Face* of the year award! Or he could be purposely left out of the loop!
However, one has to wonder *WHY* John McKay would go on the John Carlson show in the first place? Why is he really here - now? Why is he riding the circuit right now - placing himself in a public position to be asked about the elections and any investigation?
I mean - do you really believe it's like "Hey! What a coincidence! There's John McKay the US Attorney for our area! He is just the man we need to talk to! Let's ask him about the election investigation!" .....Imagine that!
Hmmm....looks like a duck to me....
Posted by: Deborah on May 14, 2005 11:23 PMWhy do you fear a Federal investigation?
I can tell by the choice of threads you reply to...you are bothered....deeply! You analyze every word...every inuendo...trying to gain some insight into a possible investigation! You weigh everyone's input....Are they serious? Who are they? Do they know something? Anger quickly takes over and you lash out! Exposing your fear......
You poor, poor troubled troll.....Soon - it will all be over....