October 27, 2016


News and Views


TODAY’S SANDERS/CLINTON NEWS –

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/clinton-campaign-leaked-photo-of-a-sunbathing-bernie-sanders-to-gossip-blogger-perez-hilton/

Clinton Campaign Leaked Photo Of A Sunbathing Bernie Sanders To Gossip Blogger Perez Hilton
CHUCK ROSS, Reporter
4:19 PM 10/26/2016

Related: The Wall Street Journal, The 2016 Presidential Candidates and Employee Pay: Minimum Wage, Pay Equity, & Paid Leave


Members of the Clinton campaign appear to have leaked a photo of a sunbathing Bernie Sanders to gossip blogger Perez Hilton.

“I wonder what @MikeBloomberg would think about this??? @BernieSanders lounges at elite Martha’s Vineyard pool, summer 2015, after helping raise money from Wall Street lobbyists,” Hilton wrote in a Feb. 9 post on his Facebook and Instragram accounts.

The picture showed Sanders lounging near a swimming pool at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee retreat at Martha’s Vineyard.

Several days before the post, a longtime Bill Clinton aide named Tina Flournoy forwarded the picture to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign press secretary Brian Fallon.

The email chain was released by WikiLeaks and hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account.

The campaign at that time was attempting to paint Sanders as a hypocrite for attending DSCC fundraisers even while he criticized Clinton for her ties to lobbyists and the Democratic party establishment. Though Sanders is an independent, he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and helps raise money for the party.

“Bernie at the DSCC retreat,” Flournoy wrote in the Feb. 6 email to Podesta and Fallon.

“Omg,” Fallon responded.

“Can we tweet?” Podesta asked.

Fallon suggested giving the picture to the New York Post.

Flournoy then provided a date for the picture — July 11, 2015. She also sent Fallon and Podesta a guest list for the 2015 retreat.

The next day, MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald reported on Sanders’ appearances at the DSCC conclave. He also included information from the same guest list Flournoy provided to the Clinton campaign.

Seitz-Wald reported that the guest list was from a 2007 DSCC event rather than the 2015 meeting. He followed up with an article two days later hammering Sanders against for attending the events.

The MSNBC article did not include the photo of Sanders. The scheme did not make as big a splash as the Clinton team seems to have hoped it would.

Perez posted the picture on several social media accounts, including Facebook, Tumblr and Instagram. It did not get picked up by mainstream news outlets.



“The campaign at that time was attempting to paint Sanders as a hypocrite for attending DSCC fundraisers even while he criticized Clinton for her ties to lobbyists and the Democratic party establishment.” Though Sanders is an independent, he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and helps raise money for the party.”


The most annoying thing to me is that it was leaked to a gossip columnist – a “whisper campaign,” no? I think it shows that Sanders was following his own belief system and acting on it. Heck, he wasn’t raising money for himself, but for the DNC. That’s a little bit of loyalty in my view. Besides, he didn’t make the millions of dollars off Wall Street that Clinton did and make promises to those BIG BOYS there to further their own right leaning political agendas, as Clinton did in at least some cases. Content from her speeches shows that. More of her “public position” versus “private positions.” If I find evidence that Wall Street sources did significantly fund Sanders’ coffers I will publish that as well – “Always fair and balanced,” don’tcha know.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/27/emails-show-clinton-campaign-expressed-concerns-about-sanders-rise.html

Emails show Clinton campaign expressed concerns about Sanders' rise
Published October 27, 2016 Associated Press


WASHINGTON – Allies of Hillary Clinton felt threatened by the power of Sen. Bernie Sanders' candidacy and wondered about getting some signal of support from President Barack Obama in the heat of the Democratic primaries, according to the latest emails in a hacked trove from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Ahead of the Illinois primary in March, liberal operative Neera Tanden asked Podesta, who formerly worked on Obama's transition in 2008, if the president could give any kind of indication that he was supporting Clinton over Sanders.

Tanden asked Podesta whether Obama could "even hint of support of Hillary before Tuesday?"

Obama stayed officially neutral in the primaries until Clinton clinched the nomination in June.

Tanden wrote: "Maybe they don't want to do this, but the stakes are pretty damn high in this election for him."

The email exchange was contained in more than 1,500 emails released Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. The notes were stolen from the email account of Podesta as part of a series of high-profile computer hacks of Democratic targets that U.S. intelligence officials say were orchestrated by Russia, with the intent to influence the Nov. 8 election. Russia has denied the allegations.

Predictions Map
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections.
See Predictions Map →

In a separate June 2015 email, the Clinton campaign worried that some state affiliates of the nation's largest labor union, the National Education Association, were set to endorse Sanders even though the national union had not yet made an endorsement.

On June 22, 2015, Clinton's labor outreach director Nikki Budzinski emailed other campaign officials to let them know "NEA is concerned their VT affiliate could do a Tuesday (next week) recommendation of endorsement (with potential press release). This is not confirmed. The bigger concern is that RI and MA might go with VT as well."

Carrie Pugh, the NEA's political director, had similar concerns and shared them with Clinton campaign officials.

Budzinski said the move in Vermont "doesn't pose serious concern for the NEA overall endorsement" but called it an "optics problem" coming before a major meeting of NEA representatives.

"I am working with Carrie Pugh on options to head this off," Budzinski wrote.

The NEA ultimately endorsed Clinton in October 2015 despite some complaints that leaders hadn't taken Sanders seriously enough and should have waited.

In an email to Podesta in January, Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg weighed in by urging that Clinton better position herself relative to Sanders on the issue of reforming big money politics and special interest giveaways.

The memo hints that Clinton, a prolific fundraiser and longtime Democratic Party insider, had her doubts.

"Her concern about authenticity and credibility on this issue is understandable but not right," Greenberg said.

"There is nothing more important politically than Clinton getting ahead of money and politics," the pollster said. "It is a pre-requisite for getting heard on change and government activism, for competing and beating Sanders and establishing a key contrast with the Republicans."

And both Podesta and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio warmed to the idea of setting up a "People's PAC" intended as a vehicle for Clinton to direct support toward liberal Democrats in the House and Senate — and potentially draw Sanders' supporters to Clinton.

The idea was floated in a March 2016 email from Huffington Post contributor Brett Budowsky to Podesta, which Podesta forwarded to de Blasio, who responded that the liberal PAC "has a lot of merit."

The People's PAC never came to pass.

"I think it's a good idea but think that our team will see it as a resource diversion," Podesta wrote to de Blasio.

In an email on Jan. 22, 2016, Erika Gudmundson, with Chelsea Clinton's office, discusses ways that the campaign could help Chelsea Clinton draw distinctions between her mother and Bernie Sanders as the campaign grew more competitive.

"The tone has changed — would be great to highlight for her where contrasts should be made," Gudmundson wrote.


RELATED: More on this...

Sources: Clinton emails would have been 'whitelisted' for Obama BlackBerry
Huma Abedin Granted Access To Hillary Based On Clinton Global Initiative Donor Status
Clinton Campaign Manager Lost Track of Shifting Position on Trade


http://searchexchange.techtarget.com/definition/whitelist

whitelist
Posted by: Margaret Rouse

WhatIs.com

A whitelist is a list of e-mail addresses or domain names from which an e-mail blocking program will allow messages to be received. E-mail blocking programs, also called a spam filters, are intended to prevent most unsolicited e-mail messages (spam) from appearing in subscriber inboxes. But these programs are not perfect. Cleverly crafted spam gets through, and a few desired messages are blocked. Most Internet users can tolerate the occasional unsolicited e-mail advertisement that a spam filter misses, but are concerned by the thought that an important message might not be received. The whitelist option is a solution to the latter problem. The list can be gradually compiled over a period of time, and can be edited whenever the user wants.

Some spam filters delete suspected junk e-mail messages straightaway, but others allow the user to place them in a quarantined inbox. Periodically, the quarantined messages are observed to see if any of them are legitimate messages. This option is used by some Web-based e-mail clients in place of, or in addition to, a whitelist.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/26/bernie-sanders-say-hell-pressure-hillary-clinton-from-the-left-good/?utm_term=.dccdbb7ea747

Of course Bernie Sanders should pressure Clinton from the left. Here’s why.
By James Downie
October 26 at 3:10 PM

Photograph -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in September. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)


During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton’s supporters complained that Sen. Bernie Sanders had never even been a member of the Democratic Party. But since the Vermont senator conceded the race to his rival, he has been loyal to the Democratic nominee — endorsing her promptly, cementing her nomination in an important gesture of unity at the party convention and stumping for her on the airwaves and around the country. (Not to mention raising millions for down-ballot Democrats.) With Clinton’s lock on victory becoming clearer and clearer now, Sanders is looking ahead to after Election Day, telling The Post’s John Wagner that he has “leverage that I intend to use” to pressure Clinton from the left. Clinton supporters and the Democratic establishment might prefer he stay unwaveringly loyal, but using his newfound influence simply makes sense for Sanders — and actually could help Clinton in the long run.

Sanders’s surprisingly successful campaign shifted the policy debate in the United States. He proved what activists have been arguing for years: There is a strong constituency for progressive ideas such as a higher minimum wage, breaking up the big banks and an expansive effort to make college tuition free for millions of Americans. Thanks to Sanders’s efforts, they are part of the most progressive Democratic platform ever. But getting these policies into the party platform and Clinton’s stump speech is worthless without trying to see them become reality. And if these ideas make it into law, they’ll need strong executive branch appointees — at the Cabinet level and below — to implement them.

Defeat has not dented Sanders’s popularity; his favorability is not only higher than Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s — it is higher than President Obama’s. Fellow Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — who like Sanders has been campaigning for Clinton wholeheartedly — has leveraged her support into real influence: As the New York Times reports, “policy negotiations [at the Obama White House] often include aides raising the caveat of ‘What would Elizabeth Warren say?'” There’s no reason that Sanders, working with Warren and other progressives, should not try to exert the same level of clout.

And yes, Clinton does bear watching. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) was likely wrong to say in July that Clinton would eventually support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But Clinton’s friend and former co-chair of her 2008 campaign wasn’t making up her moderate views on trade out of thin air, which will affect what trade agreements under a Clinton administration would look like. Her transition team has been impressively leak-averse, but some of the names that have come out have raised eyebrows, such as Blanche Lincoln — a former senator, but more recently a lobbyist for companies such as Monsanto — as a “top contender” for agriculture secretary. Clinton’s record on financial deregulation and her hawkishness on foreign policy should also keep liberals hopeful but wary, and pushback from liberals will help curb any movement away from what Democratic voters want.

Besides, Clinton die-hards should want pressure from the left. Used correctly, it can only help in inevitable negotiations with recalcitrant Republicans. Pressure from Sanders and other progressives — Warren being the most prominent among them — can give Clinton cover to propose more liberal policies. Sanders’s (and Warren’s) popularity with voters can also help shift the public debate on Clinton’s proposals to the left. It will drive a Clinton White House crazy sometimes, but active pressure from Sanders is much more likely to help Clinton and the Democratic Party than to hurt them.



As great a guy as Bernie Sanders is -- before the latest Hard Times in 2008 and following, with scarce jobs, good workers unemployed, a working class who need financial help from the legislature to pay their mortgages and medical bills -- Sanders’ Democratic Socialist background would only hurt him in a presidential race with too large a part of the patriotic and too often uninterested public. My memories of the Sen. Joseph McCarthy’ hysterical rabblerousing are fresh in my memory. In those days c. 1957, he was on the news and the ordinary American was afraid of “Reds,” which included Socialists as well as Communists. Unfortunately, the KKK and several other right wing organizations were popular in the South. We’re still in a similar place, but it isn’t as extreme nowadays.

I wouldn’t have thought of Sanders before he began to post his beautifully written and thought provoking snippets about his views. I had heard his name, but I knew VERY little about him. With each bit of Bernie wisdom, I became more and more sure that “my kind” of Progressive had arrived on the scene, and with a bang. Sanders is a very powerful and intelligent campaigner, and as far as I can see at all, he has no personal axe to grind. He is simply committed to a better and fairer America, as I am.

His success is due to a combination of his Energizer Bunny personality, his views, and the crucial fact that “his time has come.” People in this country are truly “hurtin’” again, not quite as badly as in 1929 to the mid 40’s, when WWII – finally -- brought a more prosperous economy, sending us into the Boom times of the 1950s.

Obama has also worked hard on this set of interrelated problems for the common man, but he was battling a severe economic decline and his success has been marred by a continuance of joblessness despite some level of true business revival. I am, however, convinced that businesses right now COULD create more jobs and give better wages if they wanted to. They just, let’s face it, aren’t “hurtin!”

I hope Sanders will continue publishing his clever and bracing pieces of economic wisdom on his websites, because they will help to convince other people as time goes on. His following is good, but it needs to be even larger to defeat a powerful Democratic and Republican Party, not to mention the various wild-eyed RIGHTIST groups who are ever more vocal now. Progressives will have to defeat the Fascist-leaning groups before we will win a national election and really establish a place in this country. Still, I’m very hopeful about our ability to get some federal level/state level changes into place, raising minimum wages, opening ALL businesses to unionization, and hiring much more freely. Right now, though, we have to eliminate The Drumph’s power and win the 2016 election for Clinton.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-slams-att-time-warner-merger_us_5811e66de4b0990edc2f45ab

Bernie Sanders Slams AT&T-Time Warner Merger
It eliminates competition and threatens democracy, he said.
10/27/2016 08:48 am ET | Updated 4 hours ago
Willa Frej
Reporter, The Huffington Post


22 Photos – Bernie Sanders On the Campaign Trail


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) laid out his disapproval of the merger between AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Inc. in a feisty letter addressed to Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata B. Hesse on Wednesday.

“This proposed merger is just the latest effort to shrink our media landscape, stifle competition and diversity of content, and provide consumers with less while charging them more,” he wrote in Medium. He asked Hesse to enforce antitrust laws and block the merger.

AT&T announced over the weekend that it had agreed to buy Time Warner for $85.4 billion ― the biggest deal in the world this year ― in an effort to combine the former’s high-speed network with the latter’s viewing content.

The deal has major consequences for democracy, Sanders added, since one company will now have control over a wide range of brands.

“Our democracy thrives when there is a diversity of viewpoints, and when citizens have unlimited access to information,” he wrote. “This merger represents a gross concentration of power that runs counter to the public good and should be blocked.”

Sanders quoted critics, like nonprofit Public Citizen, to bolster his claim that one company controlling so much power is never a good thing. Competition is stifled, he argued, and it becomes more challenging for new players to enter the market.

Other major telecommunications companies have already made similar moves. Comcast purchased NBCUniversal in 2011. Verizon Communications Inc. bought AOL, The Huffington Post’s parent company, in 2015 and is in the process of acquiring Yahoo Inc. for about $4.8 billion.

Sanders then explained how the merger would affect the average consumer. “This deal would almost certainly lead to price hikes and reduced choice,” he wrote.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also has demanded that the merger be blocked.

“It’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” he said at a rally on Saturday.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton took a much more muted position on the merger. “I am going to follow it closely, and obviously if I am fortunate enough to be president, I will expect the government to conduct a very thorough analysis before making a decision,” she said.

This post has been updated with comment from Clinton.

Also on HuffPost



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-accuses-rnc-of-violating-court-order-to-prevent-voter-intimidation/

DNC accuses RNC of violating agreement to not intimidate voters
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
October 27, 2016, 11:18 AM

Play VIDEO -- Why Trump's "rigged" elections claims are unprecedented


The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is accusing the Republican National Committee (RNC) of violating a long-standing decree that restricts Republicans’ ability to question voters at polls and prevent those people from casting ballots.

On Wednesday, the DNC filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court asking a judge to block the RNC from engaging in such voter intimidation tactics. It appears to come in response to Donald Trump’s repeated claims recently that the presidential election is “rigged.”

The DNC asked the judge to prohibit the RNC from allocating money to fund, reimburse expenses or provide support to Donald Trump and his campaign’s “voter intimidation program” or Trump supporters’ plans to serve as poll-watchers on Election Day on Nov. 8.

The lawsuit also asks the judge to direct the RNC to seek reimbursement from Trump’s campaign or state political groups for any funds used for any prohibited “ballot security measures.”

The decree the Democrats say the GOP is violating dates back to 1982, and was modified in 1987, which came after voter caging was found to be taking place in neighborhoods that had large black and Hispanic populations, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Voter caging is the illegal practice of sending mass mails to registered voters, then compiling lists of the voters from the mail that is returned undelivered and using that list to challenge voter registrations. “When it is targeted at minority voters (as it often is, unfortunately), it is also illegal,” the Brennan Center notes on its website.

In 2008, the DNC and President Obama’s campaign asked for the enforcement of the decree because it they claimed the RNC hadn’t submitted ballot security operations for review.

In December 2017, the decree expires unless the judge grants the DNC’s request in the lawsuit to have it extended for eight years.

For months, Trump has claimed that the election is “rigged” and has recently talked about the threat of widespread voter fraud, despite studies showing that it’s actually quite rare.

At a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania earlier this month, Trump suggested that there could be problems in Philadelphia and wants to ensure the vote is protected 100 percent.

“Everybody wants that, but I hear these horror shows,” Trump told his supporters. “I hear these horror shows and we have to make sure that this election is not stolen from us and is not taken away from us. And everybody knows what I’m talking about.”

As a result, Trump has been encouraging his supporters to serve as poll-watchers on Election Day. His campaign website even has a webpage asking for volunteers to be Trump election observers.

“Help me stop Crooked Hillary from rigging this election!” says the form, which prompts supporters to sign up.

At the third and final presidential debate last week, Trump refused to say whether he would accept the results of the election next month.



http://civilliberty.about.com/od/voting/f/voter_caging.htm

What is Voter Caging?
By Tom Head


Answer: The sale of mailing lists to direct mail marketers is a fairly lucrative business, but outdated mailing lists are hardly worth the price. So from time to time, advertisers will send out a flyer and record the addresses associated with any flyers returned as undeliverable, then purge those addresses from the mailing list. This practice is called caging. The purchasers of the mailing list may then rest comfortably in the knowledge that anything they send to the listed addresses, whether it reaches the original intended recipient or not, will at least not be returned as undeliverable.

Since 1981, the Republican Party has used caging to identify potentially "fraudulent" voters--sending out flyers to registered voters in contested states in search of undeliverable addresses, then used the returned mail as grounds to challenge the legality of votes.

Historically, the GOP has used this practice to target African-American voters.

Election Form DWC 250
pdffiller.com
Download, fax, print or fill online Form DWC 250 & more, subscribe now
Register to Vote
Voting
Vote
Election
Get Out the Vote

To cite one Washington Post report, for example:

In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime.

Even when the tactic isn't specifically used to target minority precincts, it still has the net effect of suppressing low-income and minority voter turnout. High-income voters, who tend to vote Republican, have addresses that are likely to change hands from one recipient to another fairly quickly and to fill out address forwarding forms, which means that mail sent to those addresses--whether it reaches the intended recipient or not--doesn't get returned as undeliverable. Meanwhile, low-income voters, who tend to vote Democratic, have addresses that are less likely to change hands quickly, and they are less likely to fill out address forwarding forms when they move. This means that mail sent to those addresses is more likely to be returned as undeliverable. This is why the outcome of voter caging always tends to produce discriminatory results even if it is technically done in a "neutral" way.

Related

Voter Information Cards in Canadian Federal Elections
Could the GOP Actually Benefit From Colorado's New Mail Voting?
Registering to Vote
Election Day Guide Questions and Answers



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging

Voter caging
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[NOTE: AT THIS WEBSITE SEE ALSO A CHART OF IMPORTANT CAGING INFORMATION WHICH IS TOO UNWIELDY TO PUT IN THIS BLOG. IT IS CALLED -- “VOTING RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES.”]

Voter caging refers to challenging the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of allowing them to vote. Sometimes, it involves sending direct mail to the addressees of registered voters and compiling a list of addressees from which the mail is returned undelivered. The list is then used to purge or challenge voters' registrations on the grounds that the voters do not legally reside at the registered addresses.

In the United States, the practice is legal in many states. However, it has been challenged in the courts for perceived racial bias, and it has been declared illegal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The term has also been applied to recent cases of increased requirements for proof of identity, residency, and eligibility being added with the intent to limit the number of eligible voters.[1]

United States[edit]
See also: Voter suppression in the United States

Legality[edit]

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit voter caging:

"Pursuant to the NVRA, a voter may not be removed from the voters list unless (1) the voter has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the voter has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific voter list, or (4) the voter both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in the two federal general elections following the date of notice."[4]
“Voter caging may thus be legal if the primary purpose is to identify those who are not properly registered to vote and to prevent them from voting illegally but not if the primary purpose is to disenfranchise legitimately registered voters on the basis of a technicality.

[CATCH 22 --SEE COMMENT SECTION AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.]

1980s[edit]

In 1981 and 1986, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. The violation of the Voting Rights Act got the RNC taken to court by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As a result of the case, the RNC entered a consent decree, which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities from conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[5]

The RNC sent letters to predominantly-black neighborhoods in New Jersey in 1981. When 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC then sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime. The effect was to suppress or intimidate black voters.
In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned. Again, the action was challenged and dismissed. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or from conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."

2004 elections[edit]


BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:

"V. Pre Election Day Operations New Registration Mailing

At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote."[6][7]

Shortly before the 2004 election, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained many blacks and registered Democrats. The list was attached to an email that a Florida Republican Party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin.[7][8][9]

The Republican National Committee also sent letters to minority areas in Cleveland, Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the voters right to vote. Civil liberties groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging the voters.[10]

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it hoped to cage voters there in the Democrat stronghold.[5]

Journalists have found evidence that the RNC had also attempted to use voter caging to suppress or intimidate voters in states such as New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. For example, New Jersey RNC officials used caging lists to challenge absentee ballots and absentee ballot requests.[10]

2008 elections[edit]

As noted earlier, the Republican Secretary of State in Michigan was found purging voters from voting rolls when voter ID cards were returned as undeliverable. In the court challenge, the federal judge ordered the state to reinstate the voters.[11] The judge ruled that the state's actions were in violation of the NVRA. His decision noted that there was no way to prevent qualified voters from being disfranchised as their cards may be returned as undeliverable by postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi-unit dwelling, or even simple misspelling or transposition of numbers in an address.[12]

In December 2007, Kansas Republican Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting that "to date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!"[13]

Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to voters in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Escambia, with 'do not forward' on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate voter ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with voters they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Petersburg Times. A representative denied that the mailing had anything to do with caging. Two top Florida elections officials, both Republicans, faulted the Republican mailing, calling it "confusing" and "unfortunate" because of a potential to undermine voter confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations." Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers.[14]

In Northern California, reports of voter caging emerged when letters marked 'do not forward' were sent to Democrats with fake voter ID numbers. The description of the letters matches the letters that were sent out in Florida.[15] See the caging letter that was sent out here. Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a Voter Identification Division, but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters.

On October 5, 2008 the Republican (but elected on the Democratic ticket) Lieutenant Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties that trend Democratic. The purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.[16]

Terri Lynn Land, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to be purging thousands of voters from voting rolls based on Voter ID cards being returned as undeliverable.[11] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took Michigan to court over the purges. Judge Stephen J. Murphy ruled the purge illegal under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and directed Land to reinstate the affected voters. (See full ruling here [17]).

The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impacted the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states in handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. Neither party was singled out, but because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[18]

2013: RNC v. DNC retention of consent decree[edit]

In the years since the original 1982 consent decree on voter caging, a series of suits and countersuits between the RNC and the DNC as well as civil rights groups and labor unions ensued. The RNC would attempt to have the consent decree lifted and other parties would attempt to have the decree enforced in specific cases in which the plaintiffs would allege the RNC was in violation of the decree. In November 2008, the RNC sought to have the consent decree lifted in the U.S. District Court in Newark (Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee). Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise rejected the effort, and his ruling was upheld by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals.[19] The Third Circuit ruling found, "It is not in the public interest to vacate the decree." It also stated, "If the RNC does not hope to engage in conduct that would violate the Decree, it is puzzling that the RNC is pursuing vacatur so vigorously notwithstanding the District Court's significant modifications to the Decree." [19] The RNC then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of the Third Circuit ruling; the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Third Circuit ruling to stand as legally binding.[20]

External links[edit]

NOW on PBS video report on Voter Caging, featuring an interview with Greg Palast
BBC Newsnight report: New Florida vote scandal feared
GeorgeWBush.org "Dead Letter Office" - Source of 2004 Bush Campaign caging lists
Republican response to Florida vote story
Newsnight response to Republican complaint
African-American Soldiers Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List
GOP Challenging Voter Registrations
BBC Newsnight Report Oct 2004, The Florida caging list scam
Greg Palast discusses his 500 "lost" Rove emails proving illegal caging by Republicans
ePluribus Media analysis of the Voter Caging data Palast, Progressives and Investigative Journalism
Jacksonville, FL 2004 caging list maps and analysis




REMEMBER THE GREAT MOVIE AND BOOK CALLED CATCH 22? READ THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE LAW CAREFULLY. I THINK THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A GOOD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION: “NO LAW DEFINING OR ADMINISTERING A HUMAN OR CITIZENSHIP RIGHT IN THE USA MAY BE MADE CONDITIONAL UPON A STATE LAW IN PREFERENCE TO THAT FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION.”

NOTE -- “Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit voter caging:

"Pursuant to the NVRA, a voter may not be removed from the voters list unless (1) the voter has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the voter has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific voter list, or (4) the voter both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in the two federal general elections following the date of notice."[4]
NOTE ESPECIALLY -- “Voter caging may thus be legal if the primary purpose is to identify those who are not properly registered to vote and to prevent them from voting illegally but not if the primary purpose is to disenfranchise legitimately registered voters on the basis of a technicality.”


EXCERPTS -- “Historically, the GOP has used this practice to target African-American voters.” . . . .
"2013: RNC v. DNC retention of consent decree[edit]


PLEASE READ THIS SECTION ABOVE. If I am reading it correctly, this has been ruled already by the Supreme Court in "RNC v. DNC" in favor of the DNC. I will also mention that I have found no mention today on the Internet -- perhaps I overlooked one somewhere -- of the DNC engaging in this kind of abuse of citizens rights.

The whole issue is clearly and obviously about racial and other political discrimination by deceitful practices. Why is it not illegal? I guess if you do it to Black people it’s okay, because they aren’t fully human. “Monkeys” don’t have voter rights. THERE SHOULD BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH CITIZENS AT THE POLLS OF ANY KIND WHICH IS LEGAL. POLL TAXES ARE SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL, BUT APARENTLY THE LAW IS NOT WRITTEN BROADLY ENOUGH TO PROTECT ALL CONCIEVABLE FORMS OF THE SAME OLD DIRTY TRICKS. WHY NOT JUST SEND A KKK MEMBER IN HIS ROBES OUT THERE TO QUESTION THESE VOTERS?

I’m going to say something straight out. All forms of cheating, lying, discrimination, PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION, or otherwise performing a function which CAN BE USED for discrimination purposes – should always be punishable by strong fines, expulsion from professional memberships, firing from current positions, and publication on the Internet of contact information of any party member who engages in such. Perhaps a specific prohibition of the use on mail of a phrase like “do not forward,” should be banned in law, since there is no good reason that occurs to me for prohibiting the forwarding of any piece of mail. So, it makes a little more work for the Post Office. It keeps them busy and promotes the hiring of more workers, which is always a good thing.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrutineer

Scrutineer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general, a scrutineer (also called poll-watcher or challenger in the United States), is a person who observes any process which requires rigorous oversight, either to prevent the occurrence of corruption or genuine mistakes.[1][2] It is most commonly known as part of voting in an election, where the scrutineer observes the counting of ballot papers, in order to check that election rules are followed. There are other uses of the concept, such as in motorsport, when a scrutineer is responsible for ensuring that vehicles meet the technical regulations.

Politics[edit]

Scrutineer sheet for the Australian federal election, 2013

One formal duty of an election scrutineer is to verify the ballot boxes are empty when sealed, and that the seals have not been tampered with at the end of the polling day

Rules vary concerning the number of scrutineers that are allowed to be present at each polling station from a political party. In some jurisdictions, each candidate or party may have one scrutineer or poll-watcher per constituency or precinct where voting or counting is taking place. In other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Canada, each party is permitted to appoint one or two scrutineers per polling booth. They are often required to refrain from contact with voters, wearing or displaying political slogans, or otherwise exerting influence on the conduct of the election while it is taking place. Scrutineers also report back unofficial results to their campaign headquarters, as the official results can take some time to be issued.



NOW FOR SOME LIGHTER SUBJECTS:

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/what-cats-do-when-were-away/

A Glimpse Into the Day of a Bored Cat. Spoiler Alert: It’s Hilarious (VIDEO)

3.3kTOTAL SHARESKate Good
October 23, 2016 60 Comments

Do you ever wonder what your cats do when you’re away at work? It seems like they spend 90 percent of their time sleeping when you’re home and ready to play with them, so one can only imagine the sorts of shenanigans they get up to when no one is there to watch them.

Well, if you take a look at this cat, it seems like their days might not be as wild as we imagine. This little guy has a clear case of “bored cat syndrome.” It’s kind of like what happens when the power goes out and you have to spend the whole day without internet or TV. Naturally, this cat has to get a little creative to keep himself entertained.

He starts out trying to perfect his Jedi mind tricks and will his human to wake up and give him all the treats in the house. (Let’s just say that one’s going to take some time.) And then he pays a visit to the weird other cat who lives in his human’s closet, but unfortunately, this guy doesn’t seem to want to play either.

Someone get this kitty a Roomba, then he’d never have to be bored again!



http://www.copblock.org/167653/ny-cop-known-for-satire-videos-making-light-of-police-brutality-charged-with-chokingharassment/

NY Cop Known for Satire Videos About Police Brutality Charged with Choking/Harassment
OCTOBER 22, 2016 BY KELLY W. PATTERSON 14 COMMENTS

Video -- Buffalo cop known for Vine videos accused of choking, harassing person
Video -- Community members take sides after officer suspended over videos


Richard Hy, a Buffalo Police Officer who became internet famous for 15 minutes earlier this year when he was suspended for posting satire videos making light of police brutality and other types of misconduct has now been charged with harassing and choking someone he was involved in an “altercation” with.

The unnamed victims were said to have been recording a music video using their cell phones when they were involved in some sort of incident with Officer Hy and an off-duty West Seneca Police Officer, whom the department has refused to identify. Although, very little details have been released concerning the incident that happened on September 13th, Hy was charged with harassment and “obstruction of breath.” The West Seneca Police Officer has reportedly been suspended as well while an internal “investigation” is being conducted, although whether he is on a paid or unpaid vacation was not specified.

Previously, Officer Hy had received quite a bit of notoriety when he was suspended by the Buffalo Police Department in February of this year for posting “Vines” under the title “Angry Cops.” The satirical videos uploaded to that channel included many that joked about prison rape, police brutality and shootings, and stealing from the evidence room. One of them included a video in which he claimed to have stolen a bag of cocaine from evidence and can be seen with (presumably) simulated traces of coke on his face.

Being that cops, including Officer Hy now, are routinely caught doing those things, it didn’t sit well with his department once he began to get a large following on various social media sites. He was suspended for 22 days for violating the Buffalo Police Departments’ social media policy. Partly because he often did the videos in uniform with his badge and name tag clearly visible.

At the time, he defended his videos to the New York Daily News:

Hy, 29, told the Daily News he thought the clips humanized cops at a time when police tactics are under scrutiny nationwide.

“Did I do anything for malice? Absolutely not,” he said.

“I just thought it was harmless fun…”

“It was kind of like a visual diary, just to show the lighter side of the job,” he said.

As is often the case though when cops show their true nature and thought process by making jokes about assaulting or otherwise harming citizens, that fun wasn’t so harmless back in September when he was caught actually choking someone, which is kinda why police tactics are under scrutiny nationwide.



This Vines video really is pretty darned funny. To see it, Google: Richard Hy, “Angry Cops.” Unfortunately, there was one appearance of a racial slur in the video, when he imitated a young black woman sneezing and stuck his lips way out to show how large he thought hers were. The really serious problem mentioned in this article, though, is that he did get caught actually choking someone. For that he certainly should be punished or at the least retrained. Choke holds are usually illegal, I thought, and they are definitely dangerous. It somehow shocks me that they still keep showing up in policing after some two years of heavy scrutiny from the public. Officers not only need to be trained in better ways to deal with people, they need to be CHOSEN more carefully also. This young man seems to be very immature, possibly even not very intelligent, and that’s dangerous in a cop. He should simply quit the police force and start doing standup comedy. He’s not using his true talents pulling people over for traffic violations, and probably not enjoying the work either.

I think Hy was probably not trying to cast aspersions on anyone, but he is “out of control” like Jonathan Winters and Robin Williams could sometimes seem to be. That always makes me laugh as long as it’s harmless, but he doesn’t appear to me to have an “edit” function in his brain. He doesn’t really fit into the overwhelmingly serious world of policing, especially if he got angry enough even once to hurt someone in the real world in a minor disagreement. The other thing I didn’t say is that he looks very strong physically, able to break a neck in one of those choke holds. That shows an even more dangerous side to his personality. Perhaps he needs some psychiatric work, or simply some good mood controlling medications?

I wish him the best, but he doesn’t belong in a city police department. Lots of bars have “open mike” night once a week or so, when amateurs can do standup for the audience. I’ve always heard that we should follow our strong suit in life. Unfortunately, most people really don’t do that. They just numbly, dumbly “get a job” in the quickest and easiest way when they get out of high school or college. I’m saying that because we can turn ourselves into a kind of mental robot that way, ending up in a state of great unhappiness and loss of direction. I’ll be interested to know what happens to him in the future. He’s only 29. He has time to change into another path.



LIFE OF JAMES GARNER

Sit down and watch this video. It takes around 20 minutes to finish, and shows the real person behind the good-looking “hunk” with a gentle touch. Too bad he’s dead now. I still watch him on the “MyTV” channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_03n_PyVqA

Who was James Garner Really?
Jerry Skinner, On the Spot Films