News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
17 November 2006
http://www.legitgov.org/

Pentagon wants to build mini-city for terror trials –The Pentagon wants to build a compound costing up to $125 million for upcoming military trials at Guantanamo. 17 Nov 2006 The Pentagon plans to build a military commissions compound at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, costing up to $125 million, a major undertaking meant to accommodate up to 1,200 people for the first U.S. war crimes trials since World War II, The Miami Herald learned Thursday. [When will the treason trials begin for Bush, Cheney Halliburton and Rumsfeld?]

A Week Later Ehrlich and Steele Still Have Tough Questions to Answer

Maryland GOP Leaders Hiding from Fraudulent Ballots, Dirty Campaign Tactics

Electronic voting: the silent catastrophe

Read more.

This new report is crucial reading for all those concerned about
election fraud–which, last Tuesday, was, again, a massive
problem, notwithstanding all the blithe post-mortems issued
by the US press from Tuesday night on through the week.
(Nor surprisingly, Diebold joined that chirpy chorus with a
long mendacious press release promoting Diebold’s wares.)

Now here’s some startling evidence of widespread fraud, assembled
by my good friends at the Election Defense Alliance. It’s likely
that the Dems actually did win, or should have won, some 50
House seats–and that Bush/Cheney’s GOP was not just
“thumped” but devastated.

Please spread this piece far and wide.

MCM

November 17, 2006 at 10:56:26
OpEdNews Exclusive
Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked;
by Rob Kall

A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

“We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape,” said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, “so ‘the fix’ turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances.” Explained Simon, “When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure–of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.

Read more.

By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org November 14, 2006

One friend in the activist community asked me this morning if we are making the case enough that unverifiable/unverified DREs give some the “temptation to cheat”. Based on the close elections this year (eight House races are still not decided and there are a few recounts and contests still in the process) aren’t we in a position where there is a “temptation”. My simple answer is; Yes. The country is so evenly divided and that division is contentious to say the least. I would also add that we are in danger of desensitizing ourselves to questionable elections. It’s just another questionable election on questionable machines and only a few of us die-hards really seem to care that the voters will may not have been heard in large and small races across the country. The Sarasota County story with over 18,000 undervotes is now relegated to the back pages, if it is mentioned at all, in the national media. So, Yes! In an atmosphere of tight races and now normal election contests the “temptation to cheat” is very real and very dangerous because it can be done with no one knowing and the vendors denying it will ever happen.

Source

… None. of the workers knew that the plastic flaps over the printers were supposed to be open so the voters could verify their choices, and did not understand why. I opened the flaps on machines several times in passing, and at 8:00 AM reminded the poll workers that they were supposed to be open. They did not check after every voter and, unfortunately, many voters unthinkingly closed the flap (if open) when they finished, so the next voter didnât even know he was supposed to see the printed votes. I brought this up several times in the day and 1:30 PM had a conversation with (a friendly poll worker) about the importance of voters verifying their vote. Both the supervisor and he believed that the voters could verify on screen, and so clearly they had not grasped that the purpose of an independent printed ballot was a cross check against the screen display, that it was technically possible that the screen and printed votes would not match (due to glitches or software tampering), and that the printed ballot was necessary to have in case of a recount. Once I explained that, he understood the situation and at 2:00 he quietly taped the flaps open for his precinct, and they stayed open until closing; a very friendly worker at (the second precinct) also began checking the flaps after voters beginning around 4PM.

I would guess that only about 20% of voters looked at the printed paper, so who knows how many printed ballots do not match the screen ballot. In other words, the “paper trail” is not working as planned, and if a recount was done based on these paper ballots it might not reflect what the voters intended at all. I would consider this paper trail useless, in theory. If one must use DRE in future, the remedy for this is to REQUIRE the computer screen to instruct the voter in large clear RED letters to verify the printed votes and include a statement on screen that this is necessary for recounts. (I do not know what the computer screen says now – I have always had paper ballots.) In addition, there should be large posters on the walls explaining the need to verify the printed vote, which the poll workers can tell the voters to read. before voting

…

T he vote machines as set up were actually quite short and many men had to stoop way down to see the screen, so reading the small printer located below the screen level off to the side was even more awkward for them. Moreover, the print is not especially dark, making it even less likely that the voter will review every item on the printer, in this case 15 offices and 15 propositions! (Average time to vote was 6-7 minutes.) Raising the machines 6 + inches would still be comfortable for the average voter (5 ft 4 – 6ft), and a big help to taller, AND relocating the printer to be up at eye level next to the screen would be a HUGE help for everyone . If the voters don’t verify the much prized “paper trail” it will be just so much paper…

________________