Democratic congressman's son discusses how to commit voter fraud...

pbrauer said:

This video proved exactly nothing except that the guy is a moron.... but so is James O'Keefe. And so are the idiots that believe this crap. Now tell me, Grim17, how do these people impersonating someone else for the purpose of voting... How they get past the signature part of voting????

Click to expand...

I don't have to show anything to vote. Do I have to sign? I'm not sure, don't remember; but I'm betting not.

Edit: Tom voted today -- early. He said he had to show his driver's license and sign for the ballot. I'm really glad to hear that. I think that must be something new in Illinois.

MaggieD said:

I don't have to show anything to vote. Do I have to sign? I'm not sure, don't remember; but I'm betting not.

Click to expand...

I've always had to sign something. I'd be surprised if you didn't. Not sure, though.

Grim17 said:

And there's the petty insults you always turn to when you can't make a rational argument, or want desperately for a topic you don't like to go away.

Click to expand...

I couldn't give a **** about the topic.

It's nothing to do with me mate.

I just have to point out every time you play the victim because it amuses me.

Aderleth said:

I've always had to sign something. I'd be surprised if you didn't. Not sure, though.

Click to expand...

I've always had to sign my ballot as well. In Oregon we have all vote by mail and we have to sign the ballots. The signature is compared with the one on file.

it was out of his own mouth.....are people this stupid to talk with someone that are asking you how to fraud the election really that stupid.....oh wait...never mind.

Grim17 said:

I have to admit, I felt a little sorry for the guy myself when I was watching it... But if having to resign and deal with the embarrassment is all that happens here, he should consider himself lucky. As painful as it was to watch, voter fraud is serious stuff and we need more videos like this to be made if we ever hope to eliminate it.

Click to expand...

If they are going to make a big deal out the next video, I hope it has more substance.

Aderleth said:

1) Why do you believe that part of the blame doesn't lie with the person who instigated the conversation?

Click to expand...

Free will... He chose of his own free will to participate in that conversation, offer advice, and even go as far as saying that party lawyers might be helpful if he has a problem, as long as his fraudulent documents looked convincing enough. The words he spoke were those of his own choosing and who initialized the discussion is irrelevant to that point. Undercover reporters using hidden video has been an accepted form of investigative journalism for a very long time, and although I find the deception that's involved a bit distasteful personally, it's a useful tool for exposing bad, illegal, and/or unethical behavior.

Do you disagree that Moran made three different attempts to dissuade the person asking him about voter fraud from attempting voter fraud?

Click to expand...

I agree he did suggest doing it legally... But that doesn't cancel out the other stuff.

2) Why haven't you answered my second question?

Click to expand...

Because it's irrelevant to the core issue here.

Grim17 said:

Free will... He chose of his own free will to participate in that conversation, offer advice, and even go as far as saying that party lawyers might be helpful if he has a problem, as long as his fraudulent documents looked convincing enough. The words he spoke were those of his own choosing and who initialized the discussion is irrelevant to that point. Undercover reporters using hidden video has been an accepted form of investigative journalism for a very long time, and although I find the deception that's involved a bit distasteful personally, it's a useful tool for exposing bad, illegal, and/or unethical behavior.

Click to expand...

Would he have said any of those things (and I disagree with your characterization of them, but that's a different issue), if he hadn't been repeatedly asked about them by the person who initiated the conversation? Does he not have free will?

Grim17 said:

I agree he did suggest doing it legally... But that doesn't cancel out the other stuff.

Click to expand...

If by "it" you mean voter fraud, in what way could that possibly be done legally? In any case, that wasn't the question. Do you disagree that he attempted to dissuade the person who initiated the conversation from engaging in voter fraud three different times?

Grim17 said:

Because it's irrelevant to the core issue here.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I ask you to elaborate on a comment you've described as:

Grim17 said:

an opinion related to this story

Click to expand...

And now you're telling me it's not relevant? You brought it up. You can't reasonably pretend it doesn't matter.

Aderleth said:

Would he have said any of those things (and I disagree with your characterization of them, but that's a different issue), if he hadn't been repeatedly asked about them by the person who initiated the conversation? Does he not have free will?

If by "it" you mean voter fraud, in what way could that possibly be done legally? In any case, that wasn't the question. Do you disagree that he attempted to dissuade the person who initiated the conversation from engaging in voter fraud three different times?

Interesting. I ask you to elaborate on a comment you've described as:

And now you're telling me it's not relevant? You brought it up. You can't reasonably pretend it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

If you've read my posts here, you may remember that I sorta' think the sting stinks and feel sorry for the guy. But. Let's raise the ante. Let's say an undercover cop was involved and asked him to give him some ideas on how to kill his wife.

There's a bit of a conspiracy problem, I think, which is why the young man resigned so quickly. I understand he resigned publicly as fast as the YouTube video was posted.

Do I think it will be pursued? No. Do I think it should be pursued? No. But this young man screwed the pooch for sure.

MaggieD said:

If you've read my posts here, you may remember that I sorta' think the sting stinks and feel sorry for the guy. But. Let's raise the ante. Let's say an undercover cop was involved and asked him to give him some ideas on how to kill his wife.

There's a bit of a conspiracy problem, I think, which is why the young man resigned so quickly. I understand he resigned publicly as fast as the YouTube video was posted.

Do I think it will be pursued? No. Do I think it should be pursued? No. But this young man screwed the pooch for sure.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that he screwed up, but I also think your analogy is flawed. Giving advice on murder is very different from giving advice on voter fraud. More importantly:
There is no conspiracy problem for several reasons. Here are the elements of conspiracy:

1) Specific intent to engage in a conspiracy

2) An agreement between two or more people to engage in a conspiracy

3) An overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy

None of those elements are met.

1) We have no real indication that Moran intended to form a conspiracy to commit voter fraud. All we have is noncommittal (at best) statements vaguely discussing what would be required to pull it off, combined with several statements indicating that it would be a bad idea.

2) Clearly, Moran never (in the video) indicated his agreement to do anything.

3) There is no overt act. There is no evidence that Moran made any effort at all to actually engage in voter fraud.

Aderleth said:

I completely agree that he screwed up, but I also think your analogy is flawed. Giving advice on murder is very different from giving advice on voter fraud. More importantly:
There is no conspiracy problem for several reasons. Here are the elements of conspiracy:

1) Specific intent to engage in a conspiracy

2) An agreement between two or more people to engage in a conspiracy

3) An overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy

None of those elements are met.

1) We have no real indication that Moran intended to form a conspiracy to commit voter fraud. All we have is noncommittal (at best) statements vaguely discussing what would be required to pull it off, combined with several statements indicating that it would be a bad idea.

2) Clearly, Moran never (in the video) indicated his agreement to do anything.

3) There is no overt act. There is no evidence that Moran made any effort at all to actually engage in voter fraud.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to argue the law with you; I'm just coming from common sense. Which, many times, has NOTHING to do with the law. Ha! I did, however, quickly find this:

In some respects, conspiracy is similar to attempt, to solicitation, and to aiding and abetting. Unlike aiding and abetting, however, it does not require commission of the underlying offense.

Click to expand...

Ooo!! I also found this:

It is not enough, however, to show that the defendant agreed only with an undercover officer to commit the underlying offense, for there is no agreement on a common purpose in such cases. As has been said, the essence of conspiracy is an agreement, an agreement to commit some act condemned by law either as a separate federal offense or for purposes of the conspiracy statute.

Click to expand...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf

So! You win!

I cant believe there are folks defending Moran, calling this a fake, or trying to minimize the wrongness of this action.

Pat Moran's resignation tells the story well enough.

This is an acid test for partisans on the left. It doesn't matter what party the person committing this is. It is seriously wrong.

poweRob said:

And Dems of course are in tight with the police and all law enforcement so the conspiracy is all laid out?

Click to expand...

Holder has proven that assertion time and again.

Grim17 said:

If it's a democrat who's stung, it's entrapment by a political operative, story on page 6... If it's a republican that's stung, it's on the front page and that investigative journalist is up for a Pulitzer.... LMAO

Click to expand...

All too true. Sadly.

MaggieD said:

In some respects, conspiracy is similar to attempt, to solicitation, and to aiding and abetting. Unlike aiding and abetting, however, it does not require commission of the underlying offense.

Click to expand...

Just by way of explanation, this quote is correct (and I know you've already admitted that I "won" this particular conversation, but I thought you might be curious as to how this works); however what is required to prove a conspiracy is an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy. So, for example, imagine three people get together to rob a liquor store by breaking into it at night. They all have the intent (element 1), they've explicitly formed an agreement (element 2), so what's element 3: overt act? It could be a lot of things. Maybe buying three ski masks and a crowbar. Or staking the place out for a day or two to find out the habits of the owner. Both of those are overt acts, but obviously don't constitute commission of the crime. In the case of voter fraud, an overt act would probably be something like actually creating a forged utility bill, or perhaps inquiring into who might be able to do such a thing in a convincing manner.

One of the reasons for this distinction (between actual commission of the crime and a mere overt act in furtherance) is that if our hypothetical theives actually committed the robbery, you wouldn't prosecute them for conspiracy to commit robbery, you'd prosecute them for robbery itself (or attempted robbery if they tried and failed to rob the place).

Grim17 said:

If it's a democrat who's stung, it's entrapment by a political operative, story on page 6... If it's a republican that's stung, it's on the front page and that investigative journalist is up for a Pulitzer.... LMAO

Click to expand...

Look at me, I'm a conservative and we're the most persecuted group ever!

But seriously, O'Keefe goes out and engages in behavior that would get you dinged by a mod here (baiting, trolling), and we're supposed to celebrate him?

cAPSLOCK said:

I cant believe there are folks defending Moran, calling this a fake, or trying to minimize the wrongness of this action.

Pat Moran's resignation tells the story well enough.

This is an acid test for partisans on the left. It doesn't matter what party the person committing this is. It is seriously wrong.

Click to expand...

If by "this" you mean "voter fraud," you may want to watch the video again. Moran clearly screwed up by not stopping the conversation and by getting drawn into explaining what would be necessary to commit voter fraud, but at no time does he indicate any intent to engage in voter fraud, nor does he encourage anyone else to do so (quite the opposite in fact).

Aderleth said:

If by "this" you mean "voter fraud," you may want to watch the video again. Moran clearly screwed up by not stopping the conversation and by getting drawn into expalining what would be necessary to commit voter fraud, but at no time does he indicate any intent to engage in voter fraud, nor does he encourage anyone else to do so (quite the opposite in fact).

Click to expand...

Your post is the exact thing I am talking about. Moran shows tacit approval for plans to commit voter fraud.

The argument that "he didn't actually commit fraud" is grasping at straw men. It is not the point.

Moran's intent was clear.

So is yours.

Aderleth said:

If by "this" you mean "voter fraud," you may want to watch the video again. Moran clearly screwed up by not stopping the conversation and by getting drawn into explaining what would be necessary to commit voter fraud, but at no time does he indicate any intent to engage in voter fraud, nor does he encourage anyone else to do so (quite the opposite in fact).

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious to me that he was trying to distance himself from that guy. Especially when he goes into his office and sits down with his back to him. No question.

His youthful inexperience drowned him. Had he said out loud what I think was probably in his mind? He'd have said, "What???? Are you ****in' NUTZ??? Get the hell out of here." Too late now.

How do I think I know what was in his mind?? His body language; his reticence to discuss the subject. What stopped him from saying it? The human condition of being polite.

cAPSLOCK said:

Your post is the exact thing I am talking about. Moran shows tacit approval for plans to commit voter fraud.

The argument that "he didn't actually commit fraud" is grasping at straw men. It is not the point.

Moran's intent was clear.

So is yours.

Click to expand...

His intent was clear, just not the way you want to believe. You're also using the term strawman incorrectly. Watch the video again. At three different points he specifically tells O'Keefe that he'd be better off spending his time trying to get the registered voters to vote, rather than engaging in fraud. So yes, his intent is very clear.

Aderleth said:

His intent was clear, just not the way you want to believe. You're also using the term strawman incorrectly. Watch the video again. At three different points he specifically tells O'Keefe that he'd be better off spending his time trying to get the registered voters to vote, rather than engaging in fraud. So yes, his intent is very clear.

Click to expand...

Ah. Read the post. I didn't use the word "strawman".

I see how to do this now. Nice.

cAPSLOCK said:

Ah. Read the post. I didn't use the word "strawman".

I see how to do this now. Nice.

Click to expand...

You said "grasping at straw men." You meant "grasping at straws." "Grasping at straw men" isn't an expression.