Skip to main content

Conyers has written a letter to Triad, stating that there is good reason to believe they have tainted the recount effort, by providing cheat sheets to Triad employees, giving them advance notice of which precincts would be recounted, and what numbers were necessary so that the hand recount would match the machine recount.

The idea was to prevent a statewide recount.

This link below will enable you to read the entire text of Conyers's amazing letter.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/triad_letter.pdf

Let's all thank him and support him in his efforts to reveal the truth.

Originally posted to blue man on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:15 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My first diary (4.00)
    Hope I followed the correct format.

    Conyers's letter is so encouraging.  Wanted to share it will all.

  •  Slightly off topic... (4.00)
    But wonder if this response I just received today from the NY Times is a hint that there may be something coming down the pike about voter fraud?  What do you think?

    Here is my letter sent several weeks ago:

    Dear Mr. Okrent,

    After what happened in Florida in 2000, we all know that this country has a deeply flawed election process.  We desperately need centralized standards and we desperately need non-partisan oversight at the federal level.  This is something that deeply concerns every U.S. citizen, regardless of political affiliation.

    Since November 2, evidence is mounting that our deeply flawed election process - which is basically a free-for-all at the precinct level - may (worst case scenario) have delivered us the wrong president for another four years!  

    The Democratic side of the House Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Rep. John Conyers, held hearings last week to investigate what appear to be massive and widespread voting problems in Ohio.

    Why does a newspaper like the New York Times completely ignore these hearings?  Would it have been newsworthy if a few Republicans had been involved?  I would appreciate some insight into this, since it is really confusing,

    Best wishes,

    Writer
    ______
    Here is the response that I received today:

    Dear Writer,

    Several hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. Mr. Okrent asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over; please stay tuned.

    Sincerely,
    Arthur Bovino
    Office of the Public Editor
    The New York Times

    •  If only... (4.00)
      they would run the Conyers letter on the front page tomorrow, above the fold.  Then Okrent could do a little Harper's dissection of it, showing how the Times has dropped the ball on each point.

      That letter is incredible.  They've got Barbian openly admitting to tampering with the recount process.

      Why is that letter not co-signed by a United States Senator?

      "The government is us, you and me." - TR

      by Chance the gardener on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:33:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could be (none)
      Heard there's going to be news tomorrow.
  •  Good coverage by Wired mag (4.00)
          The article Monday by Wired about the election worker's (Sherole Eaton's) affidavit concerning Triad's technician in Hocking County is much more balanced than the story by the AP, which had concluded there just was no funny business whatsoever.

    Wired says that Eaton does trust Triad still, but she certainly did hear the tech rep say he was putting on a patch to the machine.  I certainly did not make up the remark, Eaton said, because I'm not familiar with the word "patch" (she's age 65), so I could not have concocted the term myself.  <--[paraphrasing]

  •  So we have proof of election fraud and tampering (4.00)
    Conyers should declare the election illegitmate and very much contest the OUTCOME.

    Oh yeah, and John Kerry too!

  •  Where are the Ohio reps on this? (none)
    Conyers is doing a great job on this, but dammit, he's from Michigan; Ohio has some Democratic representatives of its own.  Why are they playing dead?
  •  My favorite part (none)
    On the last page, in a list of general questions about Ohio, is this:
    10. Our research indicates that any handling of ballots- which are defined by the Ohio Code to include election machine - may only be done in the presence of the entire election board and qualified witnesses. In addition, any modification of the election machinery may only be done after full notice to the Secretary of State. When your staff made adjustments to the election machinery in Hocking and the other Ohio counties, was the entire election board present? If not, why not?
    ...
    Was there any cost associated with your services concerning the recount? If so, how were such costs paid for.

    I remember reading the other day about how there was a slush fund. It had been generated by going outside the contract to get cheaper parts. I am sure that is a no-no.
    My favorite is part is the cc: at the bottom:

    Mr. Kevin R. Brock, FBI Special Agent in Charge

    "I don't believe you go to heaven when you're good. Everything goes to hell, anyway..." Tom Waits

    by Nicholas Phillips on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 10:32:32 PM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site