John Kerry, Bob Fitrakis, and Election Fraud . . .

[Klimmer]

I make no apologies about being a John Kerry loyalist and apologist, but there are some criticisms that John needs to address . . .

In the 2004 Election Results and Discussion forum:
"Talked with Bob Fitrakis in person tonight (6-18-05) at his book signing"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x378939

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I've been following that thread, too...

...(and others on that topic) and I agree that the implications are somewhat disturbing. While I would love to see JK come out swinging, do you think he's waiting for some public opinion tipping point or something? I understand not wanting to be labeled "sore loser" or whatever, but if the election was blatantly stolen (as I believe to be the case) then I think he owes it to the people who voted for him, and America as a whole, to set the record straight. Rather than leaving it all on JK's shoulders, why don't the party leaders start hammering this home? Surely they know.....

[kerrygoddess]

2. Fraud is very, very, very hard to prove

As a lawyer, JK knows this. Some investigations are also best done under the wire. I don't claim to know what JK is doing on this, however, I do feel that he would be doing it under the wire, that's his style. No one heard much about Iran/Contra or BCCI until he had solid evidence.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. That's kind of my thought too....

...that he would be methodical and sure that he had the correct information before making any kind of public statement. I just get kind of steamed when people want to insinuate that he somehow colluded in the fraud or capitulated for political reasons, i.e., saving himself for 2008. I imagine he has learned over the past 25 years or so to be very cagey when dealing with this gang of criminals.

[TayTay]

5. The saving yourself for 2008 argument is spurious

at best. Nothing would build a better case for 2008 than proving, 'You waz robbed.' I'm not sure what comes next. You have to come up with an honest assessment of what works in your favor and what does not.

Lack of money and official governmental power to investigate work against you. What works for you, realistically?

[TayTay]

4. There was a rumor a few days ago about a DNC release

Lalawawa (Larissa Alexander) at Raw Story told us about the on-the-ground lawyers in Ohio not being Kerry's and that he had been back-stabbed by a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be watching the vote.

The problem with this is that there is no power structure to appeal to in Ohio. The state, currently, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. The best hope to actually get to the bottom of this is to run the Repubs out of Ohio. The Coingate scandal holds out the possibility of doing that. (Nothing awakens a populace more than hearing the government had lost money to officials related to government personnel.) We have to pump as much money and effort as possible into Ohio to get the Rethugs out of government so that the whistle-blowers won't be afraid to come forward.

The other problem is an inflated (and oddly conflated) opinion of what John Kerry can actually do. He is a Senator and in a Republican Congress lacks the power to subpoena anyone to an investigation of any sort. We have seen how the Rethugs have threatened John Conyers and given him broom closets in which to hold important hearings. The Rethugs control the power of the purse in DC. It is a miracle that the Dems have come as far as they have with the Bolton investigation. (I mean that. If Bolton gets stopped, this is a friggin miracle. Look at what they are up against.) Lacking money, media attention and, most crucial of all, voter interest in this, what is John Kerry supposed to do?

There are several things that are already happening. The REthugs can't govern. They flat-out can't govern at all. * is not getting any of the big things that he wants in Congress and the doors are starting to come off of his 'greatly feared' organization that has been running everything so tightly since 9/11. Other Repubs like Chuck Hagel and those brave Repubs in the House who signed the Withdrawal from Iraq Bill show that the control that * once had is starting to slip away. The Schiavo case showed that the average American doesn't trust these people. (Remember 82% of the people thought intervening in the Schiavo case was wrong. 82% is beyond even the ability of * and his puppet masters to fix.

What John Kerry needs to do is be a Senator and keep his eyes and ears open for anyone who comes forward. Those people need to be protected and their names and info stored for when actual action can take place. (If you bring these people forward too soon before they can be taken seriously you destroy the investigation.) Sen. Kerry has mentioned election fraud at least 5 times this year. Teresa has also strongly mentioned it. But without proof and the subpoena power necessary to actually investigate, it's not going anywhere. (It lacks a strong popular movement that forces government's hand.) It lacks it for now. But the need is building.

The press does not really believe that election fraud took place, except that they suspect wrong-doing. (Look at the schizophrenic series of articles and editorials in the NYTimes on fraud. They believe there was wrong-doing, they don't believe it happened. They keep going back and forth.) Something this big has to be PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do you do that without money, subpoena power and the strong backing of the people? It's not John Kerry's fault. For all I know, he might believe it more than anyone, but what can he actually do about it. (He can build the case and wait for the other elements to fall into place. If the DNC releases it's supposedly devastating report, he can then call for an independent prosecutor, which he won't get. Then he is left with taking his case to the people, which is a very tough sell.)

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Thanks, TayTay...

I think we're in this for the long haul.

[Klimmer]

7. What I'm saying is that I think it would be best for his base . . .

and everyone who voted for JK, for Kerry to just openly admit, apologize frankly and honestly, and admit to making a mistake, having an incredible base of evidence to fall upon now with the Conyers Report and the new release of "Did GWB Steal the Election? Essential Documents . . .," he should read them cover to cover and then state that he does now believe the election was stolen.

And he can continue to explain . . .
However, considering the current circumstances: the courts of law being stacked against me, and the Radical Right Wing Neo-con Republican party's total lack of ability to investigate any wrong doing what-so-ever no matter how illegal their behavior is --- I'm sorry but I can not pull a rabbit out of a hat. But I will do my job everyday and fight the good fight and do the peoples' business, I promise you that. And when the anger of the American citizens is so great that the Neo-cons can no longer ignore you and me anymore, I will lead that charge. So people please soon get so pissed-off that you can not take it anymore and you are running into the streets as they did in the Ukraine and demand to take back your democracy. I'm waiting for you.

LOL. I can dream this can't I?

(Hey John, maybe just maybe, we are also waiting for you to lead us. You said you would have our backs, and we said we would have your back. Maybe we just need to do it. When the word comes down from Conyers et al on the authenticity of the DSMinutes/Memos then it is "high noon" and time to turn the Swift boat to the shore and we need to charge. I'm serious here. No fooling around.)

[Mass]

8. The problem is that there are not that many evidences that are legal

proofs.

This is one thing to say in a TV interview or in a book that some things are weird, or, as Kerry said in January (and was terribly blamed for it), that there was vote suppression.

This is another thing to sue somebody (assuming that you can sue) or contest the election.

I am a little bit wary because I think people (those who votes but are not necessarily activists) have moved on and they hope the leadership will be on other issues, rather than on electoral issues (or even the DSM). I think the message Kerry is trying and that it is time to care about people. (of course, I would like to see him contest the vote, but is that the most important thing he has to do as a Senator?).

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Apologize?

I'm sorry I disagree. First the point of him being worried or that it would hurt his chances in 2008 are absurd, IMO.

Secondly, I was a bit on the inside right after the election, we were all devastated and closing the blog really hit us hard. I screamed NO,NO when they announced that he was going to concede. You must remember also that Bush had a 3 million popular vote lead, and John being the man he is took that in to the fold too. So anyway, the reports of all the anomalies and the poll scrutiny was coming in. So we started telling the campaign all this stuff, and they knew it and wanted all the information we could get to them. If you remember someone had posted Cam Kerry's e-mail on DU, which we quickly reported to him and it was removed, and an alternate e-mail was set up. We were in touch with Cam and yes they were collecting all the info, but the Fraud was the hardest and most valuable piece of the puzzle. We needed to get in the machines and John did sign on to a lawsuit to do just that. That lawsuit is still going on and probably being stonewalled by the Repubs in Ohio.

If for any reason he thought he could prove before the dates put upon him, I know in my heart he would have done it. I to would like to know where the DNC was on this, it is like John Kerry had to do this all on his own, they stood by Gore, maybe they knew it would be to hard to prove, hell Gore had more of the popular vote and he still lost against the Republican Supreme court. Now do you think Kerry would have any chance against that same Supreme Court. Also Kerry did not stop any Senator from signing on to stop the electoral college count, as Gore did.

I know everyone of us know that he won, and it hurts, but to blame John Kerry is a bit much to me. I know in my gut if he could of proved it in the time alotted, he would be the first one to step out on it. Remember this is a guy that has gone against this government more than once, and in each case he did it took months and years, when he knew he had the evidence, he didn't back down, he knew it would be a political risk, but TRUTH, HONESTY, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE are #1 on his list.

The truth will come out some day, but with no media and a Republican run government, we are in a very bad dilemma. That is why 2006 is so important, and we have to get Congress back it is vital for our Democracy.

One reason I supported JK was for his common sense approach, and common sense would tell you this would not be an easy thing to prove with the thugs in government.

Just my 2 cents, and I respect everyone's opinion.

[Mass]

10. Great post

I was not an insider of the campaign, but, from all I have read here and there, I think you are right on the mark here.

[Island Blue]

11. I agree with you Fedup ...

As much as it hurt all of us, I think Kerry had no other option but to concede when he did, even though I think he won Ohio. Nothing about the situation was in his favor - nothing. He was up against an incumbent* President who already had experience stealing one election. It was no doubt a race that was going right down to the wire, making it much easier for Rove & Co. to fiddle with the results. (If Kerry had been up in the polls by 5 pts. or more, I don't think they could have pulled this off.) Ohio is controlled by a very corrupt Rebuke political machine. Both the US House and Senate are Repuke controlled, not likely to step in and offer help to a Democratic candidate. The WS Supreme Court has already proven it really doesn't care about doing the right thing as far as this issue goes. Other than that, sure he could have fought it!

Would any other candidate really have been able to do anything more unless of course there was some huge smoking gun staring right at them? (If there had been, JK would have continued to fight too). In my opinion, Gore had more of a luxury in dragging the matter out because he was basically unemployed the day after the '00 election. Likewise, so would John Edwards or Howard Dean have been.

Like I've said before, Kerry was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. I think he's a true statesman, and was acting from that position.

I think the fact that Kerry is not living in the White House today hurts all of us so badly that emotions run high on this issue. It may be too late, but I do think that as the current administration continues to unravel, the truth about what really happen in Ohio will begin to surface. Let's hope so anyway.

[karynnj]

14. Great Post

It must have really been a roller coaster for you guys in the last week of the campaign.

[whometense]

17. Could not agree more.

No apology is necessary. We were all wronged by what went on in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, and probably many other states as well. Kerry was wronged too.

Just as with all the comments on mistakes made by the campaign, I don't see how Kerry could have been expected to micromanage every single detail. I'm quite sure he made the best decisions he could make given what he was told. If he was given bad information or was double-crossed (and I remember Larissa saying that as well), that's something those who were responsible for giving him that bad information will ahve to answer for.

Once again, I have to ask, where was the party? Where was the help?

[karynnj]

12. Different Levels of Proof

All of the people investigating fraud can describe any actions that appear suspicious and can spell out why they were most likely fraudulent activities. They can show there was a pattern of voter suppression - that's not hard, the length of lines is well known and wasn't even across the state. They can identify cases where polls had inadequate people to assist people who needed to know how to vote or to get foreign language assistance.

On all of these things, the Republican answer was that the county election boards were bipartisan. Now, the SOS tried to suppress votes before the election trying to eliminate all registrations not on the "correct" weight of paper. He had over all responsibility for a smooth running election (just like K. Harris) and will be rewarded for failing. Reading all of this is frustrating to all of us and must be more so to Kerry.

I don't think Kerry would trade (the not sure) winning easily in 2008 for fighting if there were a chance for success for an electoral college only win in 2004. He knew he would end the war as soon as reasonably possible and that Bush wouldn't - if he could have won he would have won to help them. Even after conceding he went to the ME and tried to push (or embarrass) Bush into training the Iraqis quicker. That Bush hasn't shows he lies. I think Kerry had confidence in his approach.

I also don't think Kerry would feel wrong about winning without the popular vote - you play the game by the rules. His strategy was clearly for the electoral win. He was hardly seen in NYC, NJ or IL nor were there many ads. (I saw them on the web site) If he had a real chance to claim an electoral college victory I feel certain he would have done it and then made a beautiful speech on bipartisanship and how he would try his best to reach out to those on the other side. (As the anti-Bush, he wouldn't talk about his political capital).

I trust that Kerry believed the summary of how they decided the valid votes were not there written by Kerry's brother. What is most unfortunate is that Kerry through a huge amount of work probably did inspire enough people to vote for him. Some never voted due to unfairly long lines, some voted using the wrong template for their precinct because they were told to "use any machine". But they can't be added to the total. I definitely think he owes no one an apology.

Most of the people in this country from election night on heard that Bush had a very comfortable margin of victory. The media, as a whole, wanted Kerry to disappear and let them write the story about why he was unlikeable and move on to other stories. The Republicans have ridiculed Kerry every time he's talked about the real size of the victory and when he has listed the types of voting problems that DID happen.

Elections in this country are on the state and local levels. Clearly the last 2 elections would have had different results if voting were done identically with equal ease everywhere. If Kerry can get people concerned and involved enough to get on the boards in their states, these non-sophisticated problems can be addressed. The computer issues may have to be addressed nationally and I really don't think it was an accident Teresa said something. But in terms of running the elections, we shouldn't be looking at our candidates - they have a huge number of things they need to do - and this really seems something the party needs to do. First because the local party includes the right people and it should be done in every election cycle.

This is a way too long post saying that the Democratic party owes Kerry (and Gore) an apology for not doing the mundane, tedious work needed to insure their counties work well, not the other way around. I also think that Kerry is going further in making the very defensible statements on election results he has than many other candidates would. He knows the reaction he'll get each time he does it (as I think Teresa does). I think it is smart that he stays safely on the side of the provable - because even that leads to the fact that if everything was fair, he would have won even though the press was stacked against him. (Maybe because when seen he's impressive and LIKABLE)

[TayTay]

13. No one here is disputing what you say

There is ample evidence that these Rethugs view the holding and keeping of power as the end that all means justify. But let's review for a second all the prior cases that Mr. Kerry has brought. This is by way of reminding you what you are up against:

Iran-Contra: All players in Iran-Contra got off nearly scott-free. The principles in this case who did have charges against them that stuck were pardoned by George HW Bush before he left office. Oliver North, who blatantly ran a drug running campaign in order to finance the sale of weapons to the Contra murderers, was so fully exonerated that he was able to mount a credible campaign against Charles Robb of Virginia for the Senate. Mr. North had the unmitigated gaul to run commercials in that campaign that accused Sen. Robb of condoning drug use and being lenient on drug sellers. Thank God he still lost.

During the initial phase of looking into Iran-Contra, Mr. Kerry was ridiculed by the Republicans and by some members of his own party. The press called him "a conspiracy nut." At one point in time, people connected to the drug running scheme tried to frame him as a drug-runner. His patriotism was questioned (what again, ho-hum) The final report of the Kerry Commission on Drug-Running and the Reagan/Bush Admin and the Contras was officially buried. The 3 volume report was available for one week from the government printers and then it vanished. One week. Four years of work, hundreds of man-hours of labor, extensive questioning of dozens and dozens of witnesses and the tireless efforts of gifted investigators and the report was buried after one week. No major newspaper ran with this report. It basically fell into a big hole and was swallowed up. Years later, in 1996, a reporter named Gary Webb, dug the whole thing up again for a series of reports in a SoCal newspaper. He eventually lost his job and all credibility over this case because of impressions major newspapers got that weren't in the story. Gary Webb committed suicide last fall after the election.

Senator Kerry was more successful in his pursuit of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International case. But he was vilified this time by Democrats for pursuing this case as ardently as he did. There was drug and armament money going through that bank and high ups in the Democratic Party were getting paid off in this case. Kerry pursued it anyway, but it didn't really make him a popular guy in DC. (And Kos has the balls to say nobody in the Dem Party really liked him. Geez, you think that some of these old grudges were still there?)

I think you get my drift here. The Senator pursued the reconciliation with and normalization of relations with Vietnam, even though that was a political loser. (There was nothing to be gained by doing this. Except the knowledge that it was the right thing to do. But politically, it didn't really give Kerry anything.)

So, forgive me if I advocate some caution. If there is election fraud then it has to be proven beyond anything Kerry has ever had to prove before. (It's that big.) And I fear that he will take as much damage from it as advantage. (Fraud on this epic a scale is devastating. It means prison terms and the collapse of associated businesses and the ruin of wealthy people. This is no small thing.) I think that time and extreme effort and the promise by those involved that they will indeed 'have the Senator's back' are in order. I think he full well knows what fighting these people is like. He has done it before. The results have been very painful.

[TayTay]

15. A thread that asks questions about Fritakis

This should be read as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x378950

[pinkflower21]

16. Kerry is not at fault

I don't think Kerry is at fault. If there was a smoking gun, Kerry would have come out swinging, there was no way to prove this and if Kerry had tried without the smoking gun, he would have been vilified for it. I was very said when he had to concede, I stayed in bed for a day depressed, but he had to do it. He ran a great compaign and JK is a classy man. I believe there is hope yet for 2008.

[wisteria]

18. Oh, my gosh, I called off work with nausea when he conceded.

I haven't read the full coverage, but I am tired of everyone second guessing Kerry-even Edwards. I knew exactly what he would do when the numbers weren't there and I understood why. After the 2000 election, you would think people would have realized he had no where to go with accusations of possible fraud or disenfranchisement at that time. Gore fought a mighty fight to have all the votes counted and he was slapped in the face by the Supreme Court in the end. By the time Gore conceded, the country had had enough, and Gore was made to look foolish.I think Kerry has to much respect for us and himself, to have attempted this avenue again - it just wouldn't work for him and it did appeared he had actually lost. Gore, had the popular vote on his side. (That was a sore point with the Bush camp the last time so they made sure Bush would get that this time around - IMO). No, I will never believe Kerry was wrong to concede when he did. He didn't have any other choice available to him at that time.
I wish it didn't have to be this way. To this day, I haven't been able to listen to or even read the concession speech. I have never experienced any election as sad and as unfair as this last election was.

[Klimmer]

19. Maybe I didn't make my point clear . . .

I agree with you all; you are preaching to the choir. You don't have to convince me. I followed every step that Kerry made after the election fraud of 2004. I know all the subtleties.

I'm thinking down the road to his viability next election. My point is how is he going to pull all the democrats back and everyone else who voted for him in 2008 if he decides to run again if they all have abandoned his ship? I'm making these comments in reference to what I witnessed at the book signing with Bob Fitrakis. The group there all voted for Kerry, but were all unanimous in Kerry not being the candidate in 2008. They don't know all the subtleties as we do. Their perception is that he abandoned them the day after the election. They believe he tucked his tail and disappeared. I know, and you know he didn't. But perception is everything.

An apology made by Kerry whether he was right or wrong goes a very long way in healing everyone's wounds. He would be the better man for doing this.

In case you didn't check-out the original thread here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x378939

"5) I asked during his talk did he send John Kerry a signed copy, and why did John Kerry not fight? (New edit: I knew Kerry did help, made statements, and he did provide legal assistance to pending challenges, but I wanted to hear what Bob F. really thought and also how the audience would respond.)

Yes he did send John Kerry a copy and he is having copies sent to all of Congress.

The answer to the next part of the question was hard for me to hear and take. But I asked it --- I wanted to know. I'll be honest, I am a Kerry loyalist and apologist no doubt. But here it is . . .

John Kerry's top lawyer for advice in Ohio works for a firm that is owned and operated by Bush loyalists (I don't think he really knew that. If he did then that was very foolish). He did not get good advice. He was told that the little amount of election fraud that probably occurred would not be enough to make a difference. Bob said he believes JK did not want to win the Presidency only by electoral college and lose by popular vote. He also wanted to keep his options open for running in 2008. He did not want an ugly drawn-out fight that no doubt would have occurred, and at the time if you recall the Bush Admin stepped up the war effort in Iraq. No doubt on purpose to pressure Kerry to give it a rest. We all knew what the response would have been --- "We have a war going on, how can you act this way and be a sore loser. We have to support the troops now so get over it."

Bob Fitrakis did eventually talk to John Kerry at length over the phone and tell him everything he knew at that time (which was a lot of evidence proving fraud and a stolen election). He said John listened to everything not saying a word, and then eventually said something about the fraud in NM and how it was very evident, since where ever computers were used to vote by touch screen, John lost, but wherever they cast their ballots by hand John did very well. From what Bob said I don't know how that phone call ended, but I got the impression that JK just wasn't going to fight it.

And Bob also mentioned what Teresa Heinz Kerry said regarding election fraud changing votes via the central tabulator as reported in a newspaper and interview. So we know they know. But what are they going to do about it?

One thing that Bob F. admits to (and this is a very big hurdle to jump) is that the SOS Blackwell, the Republican party of Ohio, the State Troopers, and the courts in Ohio are all in bed together. All the courts are very partisan and stacked, and they couldn't get a fair trail. All four of the lawyers fighting in Ohio were being personally sued, and being threatened by the prospect of losing their law licenses. Bob admitted he could do just fine since he is a college professor and not dependent on law as his career, however the others were, so when it came time to sign legal documents, to safe guard the others Bob F. was signing them. They don't play fair. They will do anything to win. So that is how the book came about. Fine you don't want us to fight you in a court of law, we will publish the evidence and fight you in a court of public opinion and history will judge you. By the way the investigations are on going, they now have an office, and they are pushing ahead. There is still so much work to do.

One thing Bob said is that at some point Jesse Jackson told John Kerry directly, if you do not fight for all the votes then you will not be a viable candidate for 2008.

Bob F. reaffirmed that statement and position and the small audience cheered and clapped. I didn't. However, I realized right then in a big way that many are very upset with JK about throwing in the towel early.

I am more forgiving. But I do know now, that at some point soon John Kerry is going to have to apologize to the country and admit he was wrong for not fighting back (New edit: that is their perception whether right of wrong). The bible on election fraud is now published and everyone who wants to know the truth will read it and know GW Bush is not the President but a fraud (2X over)."

Edited to add: I really think that the DSMs are Kerry's time to make things right and prove he hasn't abondoned the cause. People want to see him be the fighter they all believe him to be. He has been doing this, but unless you watch C-Span you would never know. We know but they don't. I want him a lot more visible and fighting the good fight.

[JI7]

20. so they wont support him, not everyone is going to like him

and it's a waste of time trying to satisfy those with a victim mentality.

these people don't represent the entire party. in fact they are a very small number but just tend to yell the loudest.

and those complaining the most are the ones who claim to be the "activists".and they tend to be the least informed. which is further proof it's a waste of time trying to satisfy them.