• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

4 Indiana Dems charged with election fraud in 2008

It doesn't really matter to the faithful dweebs. They're loyal to their party, not to the process that ensures our liberty and freedom. Don't all of you people who demand integrity and honesty have something better to do? :2razz:

Nobody has suggested election fraud go unpunished. Why are you making things up?

What people are saying is:
1) Election fraud is not limited to Democrats. If you think otherwise, you are dumb.
2) Election fraud is not as widespread as people seem to think
3) Voter ID laws would not have prevented this
4) Actual fraudulently cast votes are incredibly rare, because there's so little to gain for the individual doing it and so much to lose.

Do you support ACORN? Yes or no.

ACORN is not guilty of what most people think they are guilty of. I suspect you have a mistaken impression of what actually happened.
 
Last edited:
If it takes law enforcement until the NEXT election to even charge someone with voter fraud, how does that dissuade someone from trying it?
 
If it takes law enforcement until the NEXT election to even charge someone with voter fraud, how does that dissuade someone from trying it?

Because they gain nothing and end up in jail?
 
Because they gain nothing and end up in jail?
I'd assume that if they knew they were going to gain nothing, they wouldn't try it at all - obviously they thought it would help, or why the hell did they do it?

So then, if they think the election fraud will help the candidate they support, and they won't be charged until the next election, what is dicouraging them from trying it, beyond the threat of possible criminal charges in 3-4 years, with an even lower possibility of conviction/jail time.


Edit: I'm assuming here that the only people who might contemplate such actions are fairly partisan/fanatical in the first place – and so willing to risk such.
 
Last edited:
I'd assume that if they knew they were going to gain nothing, they wouldn't try it at all - obviously they thought it would help, or why the hell did they do it?

So then, if they think the election fraud will help the candidate they support, and they won't be charged until the next election, what is dicouraging them from trying it, beyond the threat of possible criminal charges in 3-4 years, with an even lower possibility of conviction/jail time.


Edit: I'm assuming here that the only people who might contemplate such actions are fairly partisan/fanatical in the first place – and so willing to risk such.

In this particular scenario, I don't see how they did gain anything out of it. These weren't fraudulent votes, they were forged signatures for a primary ballot. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were going to be on the Indiana primary ballot regardless. The requirement was only like 500 signatures, that's trivial. So, yeah, it's just the fanatics basically, or lazyness? This isn't even something that could have swung an election, that requires fraudulent votes, not petition signatures.
So yeah, the discouragement is exactly what I said. Lack of anything to gain and possible jail time. Yeah, some people are going to be fanatical enough to do it anyway, but that would be true regardless of what laws you make. What they did was already illegal, it's not like you can make it MORE illegal. Voter ID's have been mentioned a few times, but that wouldn't have prevented this.
 
Last edited:
So, here's one for the right-wingers who are sitting on their moral high ground:

Ex-Ehrlich campaign manager Schurick convicted in robocall case - The Washington Post

Paul E. Schurick, the 2010 campaign manager for former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., was convicted Tuesday by a Baltimore jury of four counts stemming from a robocall that prosecutors said was intended to suppress the black vote.

Not petitions. Not voter registration fraud. Convicted of bonafide voter suppression. Clearly this means Republicans steal elections all the time. Right? What was the phrase? Par for the course for this party?

All of them.

Cop out.
 
In this particular scenario, I don't see how they did gain anything out of it. These weren't fraudulent votes, they were forged signatures for a primary ballot. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were going to be on the Indiana primary ballot regardless. The requirement was only like 500 signatures, that's trivial. So, yeah, it's just the fanatics basically, or lazyness? This isn't even something that could have swung an election, that requires fraudulent votes, not petition signatures.
So yeah, the discouragement is exactly what I said. Lack of anything to gain and possible jail time. Yeah, some people are going to be fanatical enough to do it anyway, but that would be true regardless of what laws you make. What they did was already illegal, it's not like you can make it MORE illegal. Voter ID's have been mentioned a few times, but that wouldn't have prevented this.
Well, unless they changed the law to require voter ID for primary ballot signatures...
 
How many votes in this case were fraudulently cast?
 
How many votes in this case were fraudulently cast?
From what I gather, there WERE no votes cast in this case - these fools were forging signatures on a primary ballot.

Edit: And it wouldn't matter in any case:


*snip*

Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot.

*snip*


Indiana State Police investigators identified a total of 22 petitions that appeared to be faked, yet sailed through the Voter Registration Board as legitimate documents. The signature of the board's Republican supervisor, Linda Silcott, which is required for legal certification, appeared to be rubber stamped on the documents. She told investigators that she did not remember signing or authorizing her rubber stamp to be used.

*snip*

Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify with 500 signatures from each of Indiana's nine congressional districts. Indiana elections officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional District, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ed-with-election-fraud-in-2008/#ixzz1r0uAJfjf
So in the end, there were not enough fraudulent signatures to make a difference.
 
Last edited:
From what I gather, there WERE no votes cast in this case - these fools were forging signatures on a primary ballot.

Correct, and as far as forged signatures, they speculate 150, and have 20 that they are using to build the case.
 
Correct, and as far as forged signatures, they speculate 150, and have 20 that they are using to build the case.
Well, if it was 35 or more for Obama specifically, then technically he shouldn't have been on the primary ballot in Indiana, if I'm reading this right - but that's a REALLY moot point at this...point.
 
Well, if it was 35 or more for Obama specifically, then technically he shouldn't have been on the primary ballot in Indiana, if I'm reading this right - but that's a REALLY moot point at this...point.

Honestly, it is a moot point because it took them over 4 years to get to this.
 
And you think that voter ID laws would have prevented this somehow?

How would that work?

It works with...

tumblr_l2fxrsNhB61qazzfio1_400.jpg

MAGIC!


Electoral fraud =/= voter fraud. For some reason this is incredibly hard for some to grasp and I don't know why.
 
Honestly, it is a moot point because it took them over 4 years to get to this.
Which was my original point - if it takes 3-4 years to even charge someone, fanatical partisans are likely to A: think it's worth it, and B: be willing to take the hit later if it helps the figurehead of their chosen ideology at the time.

I mean, let's face it, in 4 years the candidate any such actions might affect has a goodly portion of their term behind them anyways...Or in the case of representatives, may already have been voted out/re-elected.
 
It's not a red herring as I did not identify Obama.... and you're avoiding answering. Use Bush if that makes you feel better or best yet, use a no-name President, or Mayer, or Governor.....

How will things take care of themselves when someone was elected fraudulently? I take it you mean, you'd do nothing.

With all due respect, in respect to this thread, it is a bull**** question, which is why I am not going go answer it.
 
Which was my original point - if it takes 3-4 years to even charge someone, fanatical partisans are likely to A: think it's worth it, and B: be willing to take the hit later if it helps the figurehead of their chosen ideology at the time.

I mean, let's face it, in 4 years the candidate any such actions might affect has a goodly portion of their term behind them anyways...Or in the case of representatives, may already have been voted out/re-elected.

I think you are right. And think of how a judge or jury would look at this 4 - 5 years later...They wouldn't throw the book at them in my honest opinion. It would seem like some small detail. I am not sure on this, but isn't this nearing the statute of limitations? If so...a little more muddling, and this is a great crime to commit because it would take over 7 years for them to figure out you did anything wrong.
 
Wait... Wait...

4?

4?


tumblr_lzzbua608I1r49612.gif
 
Par for the course with that party.

DOJ, liberal groups that oppose voter ID require photo ID to enter their buildings
posted at 1:50 pm on April 5, 2012 by Rob Bluey

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Holder’s politically motivated crusade against voter ID laws has the support of liberal advocacy organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project.

Each of these organizations has criticized photo identification for voting, yet they require it to enter their Washington, D.C., offices as well. There’s even a sign in the building of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “ALL VISITORS MUST SHOW ID.”

DOJ, liberal groups that oppose voter ID require photo ID to enter their buildings « Hot Air

That's funny no matter who you are. You can't get into the DOJ building without an ID. Doesn't that disenfranchise the poor who don't have ID's from going to the DOJ for help?
 
Back
Top Bottom