GAO Confirms: 2004 Election was stolen...

Veritas2020 | December 02, 2005

Lyn Davis Lear
Thu Dec 1, 1:35 PM ET

I had a chance to talk to my hero, Frank Rich, a few months ago about election fraud and he claimed he didn't know much about it. Perhaps he has his plate full unraveling the administration's lies aboutIraq, but with the midterm elections coming up someone has to take this issue on.

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they had some young computer hackers on bragging about how easy, embarrassingly easy, it is to switch votes on the Diebold machines.

Bill Clinton once mentioned that India has flawless electronic voting while ours is mired in unaccountability. I hope Frank and other journalists and bloggers of his caliber read this article by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman about the GAO report on the 2004 election.

Paul Krugman and the NYTimes editorial board have been good on this issue in the past, but it has been a while since anyone has raised the subject.

The Government Accountability Office is the only government office we have left that is ethical, non-partisan and incorruptible. They investigate and tell it like it is. Thank God for them. This report is very serious and must get more attention. It has taken years for the mainstream press and Congress to finally understand what we in the blogisphere have known since 2000. This administration will distort and cheat about anything and everything to get its way. If this report got the attention it deserves and broke through the static of our 500-channel universe, it could be the coup de grace of the Bush White House.

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses.

Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems inFranklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear
that's exactly what happened.

GAO Report

Revised 10/27/05

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available via http://freepress.org and http://harveywasserman.com. Their What Happened in Ohio?, with Steve Rosenfeld, will be published in Spring, 2006, by New Press.

Yahoo

John Kerry walked away in 2004...

he should have done what Bush did to Gore [2000] and fight all the way.

What next?

Well for starters...

I won't support Kerry in a presidential run in 2008. He had $15M left in his coffers to pay for all the investigation and recounting necessary and he walked... he didn't even appear to try to call the results into question.... he folded within hours.... We are fighting for the democratic future of our nation.... and he did not even put the issue of election fairness and accuracy in the spotlight. Smart as he is... he can forget the Whitehouse.

OK..i thought about this for a minute...

this story by [bloggers] et al...even though the GAO has summized its 'critical points'; it probably won't actually admit 'the election was stolen';

however; given the way the BushCo manages business @ the executive level; why wouldn't they just run a 'internal investigation'; GOP does [while investigating themselves] --when it comes to issues of 'public fairness and interest'..

whether the GAO has the goods or not; given all the deception, corruption and lies outlining the Bush administration; this story is probably more accurate than inaccurate.

Kerry lost the 2004 election

because he has no spine. We need to nominate someone who's not ashamed to state their positions and defend them. Americans respect that even if they disagree with the position. That's why Kerry lost by 3 million.

So, by your reasoning the 2%

So, by your reasoning the 2% that cost Democrats the election (whether or not the count was accurate) were somehow morally superior to the 48% who voted for Kerry?

The bottom line here, is that the self-appointed Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has no spine, and Kerry made the mistake of aligning himself with them, and of following their advice.

That is the same problem we Democrats face with your screen name.

Hillary does not fit the "Bill"

Hillary Clinton is the near antithesis of her husband Bill. Far too many associate the persona of Bill Clinton to be that of Hillary. This is simply not true. Hillary’s alignment with the DLC, her echoing of Bush’s “stay the course nonsense” in Iraq, Her backing of NAFTA and pro-corporation agenda (that generously fill her coffers) are NOT the beliefs that Bill Clinton advocated and championed as President.

John Kerry may have debated well against Bush, but that’s not saying much. Bush’s has an obvious limited vocabulary and is “less than cerebrally gifted.” The only words he speaks are those that are carefully chosen and construed from the “Rovian lexicon.” That being said, John Kerry lost from a lack of guts and nerve to fight. He instead chose to concede in the “11th hour”, unlike Gore in 2000.

With the GOA confirming today that the “Bush team” has definitively committed another crime by stealing the 2004 election in an obvious conspiracy with the makers of the electronic voting machines (which were deliberately tampered with to alter the outcome in several key States) offers even more vital evidence that Kerry should have followed the counsel of his wife and made sure that ever last vote was properly counted before backing down.

As Bill Harding points out, Kerry’s alignment with the pathetic and infirmed DLC cost him more than just stolen votes. Hillary’s own involvement with the DLC makes her a less than ideal candidate to win her incumbent seat in the Senate much less the office of President. As one quote I saw aptly put it, Hillary Clinton as a member of the DLC is nothing more than “Republican Lite.”

"The first casualty when war comes is truth."

Lite?

I don't think that she is lite or a Democrat. She is the same woman who wanted to reform our medical system without even asking the opinion of physicians who practice medicine.She assumed that we were all too greedy to care. In addition, she also should have kept her husband out of the Oval Office with the intern. She was probably the only one other than Bill himself who could have done this. If someone had defused Bill's libido, our asexual, "God fearing", new born Christian President would have been down on the farm now and we wouldn't be stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. I agree that Kerry should have fought harder. However, some of us don't think that Hillary should be listed on the Democrats side of the ballot.

Cleo

Cleo,

Do you have any thoughts on Health Care? And/or have you posted them elsewhere? Is there one or two main problems you see?

It seems to me that there are two main subjects: Getting the cost down and who pays what if we are to have universal healthcare. This assumes any extra cash is even needed.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim

I have a lot of thoughts on healthcare. I spend most of my waking hours trying to figure out how to stay solvent and still give the working poor good quality health care. In addition, I have to make sure that I can pay for my employees' health insurance since I think that it is my responsibility as a business owner to provide coverage. Cutting out the insurance industry middlemen could only help since many of them are so good at the game of avoiding claim payment that more money is spent by us in seeking payment than we actually get on the claim. Everyone must pay insurance premiums on time or they risk being cancelled. There are clean claims for work that I have done that remain unpaid for a year or more. The current system is flawed and will only get worse as more and more people lose their healthcare. Hillary should be worrying about this now and leaving the flag alone.

Thanks Cleo

Thanks Cleo,

It sure does not seem like the potential watchdog nature of Insurance companies pay for the profits they take. It looks like things would be cheaper without them.

The interesting thing about the HealthCare debate versus Welfare is that very few people try to get sick so as to defraud the system! one has to proceed.

Jim

2006

It doesn't look like 2006 will be much of an improvement.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120705Z.shtml