Cliff Arnebeck
Cliff Arnebeck's JournalTwo unconventional candidates for President in 2016: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump
I recently said that Bernie Sanders was making all the other candidates in both major parties appear anemic. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027068523
Donald Trump, however, is another exception. Roger Stone, Trump's former campaign manager, has observed that both Sanders and Trump are connecting with the voters because of their broadside criticisms of conventional politics, which the public recognizes is not working for them.
I did not know Roger Stone, so I listened to his C-Span presentation of his book arguing that President Lyndon Johnson was the principal beneficiary of, and person behind, the assassination of President Jack Kennedy. http://www.c-span.org/video/?316819-1/book-discussion-man-killed-kennedy From this presentation (without reading Stone's book) Stone appears to me to be popularizing the extraordinary scholarly work of James Douglass: JFK and the Unspeakable, but is still a serious student of American politics.
The Secret of Bernie Sanders' Success
I think Bernie Sanders is making all the other candidates of both parties look quite anemic. And, it is all from telling the truth about the things that matter to the American public. He does not have to go negative toward his opponents. By taking money from the billionaires they are negating themselves in the eyes of the American people, as beholden to the billionaire class.
I am re-posting this here, pending my appeal of it being locked out of "General Discussion." Bernie is currently engaged in the general campaign where he is walking away with it, to the astonishment of most professional politicians and political pundits. Bernie has reformed the election process by making his refusal to take billionaires' money an essential part of a winning strategy for the 2016 Democratic primary and general election.
The Secret of Bernie Sanders' Success
I think Bernie Sanders is making all the other candidates of both parties look quite anemic. And, it is all from telling the truth about the things that matter to the American public. He does not have to go negative toward his opponents. By taking money from the billionaires they are negating themselves in the eyes of the American people, as beholden to the billionaire class.
I am re-posting this here, pending my appeal of it being locked out of "General Discussion." Bernie is currently engaged in the general campaign where he is walking away with it, to the astonishment of most professional politicians and political pundits.
The Secret of Bernie Sanders' Success
I think Bernie Sanders is making all the other candidates of both parties look quite anemic. And, it is all from telling the truth about the things that matter to the American public. He does not have to go negative toward his opponents. By taking money from the billionaires they are negating themselves in the eyes of the American people, as beholden to the billionaire class.
Why Karl Rove will not be able to steal the 2016 Presidential election
A couple of years ago I posted about how Karl Rove rigged the FBI investigation of the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022560634 and thereby got away with its theft.
Rove placed his protege Stanley Borgia as SAC of the Cincinnati, Ohio (Southern District of Ohio) in December 2004. Borgia closed down the FBI investigation of obvious criminal fraud that had been undertaken at the formal request of US Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. Thereafter the answer to those of us who alleged "election fraud" was: "The FBI investigated and found there was no violation of federal laws."
On January 1, 2013, Lou Dubose, Editor of the subscription newsletter Washington Spectator, reported on how Karl Rove lost control over the Ohio fix he had planned for the 2012 Presidential election. Bob Fitrakis and I were in federal and state court on election day 2012 with lawyers for ES&S and the Ohio Secretary of State. FBI Cyber Security was in the office of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.
The spotlight was on the "experimental" patches ES&S and OSS Husted had placed upon the vote tabulators of some 25 Ohio counties. I believe no one dared to tell Karl Rove that his electronic fix for Ohio could not be implemented for fear by the implementors of getting caught and being criminally prosecuted.
It makes a big difference who is in the White House on a Presidential election day. Rove Republicans may still be running the electronic voting machine industry, but the Obama DOJ and FBI did not tolerate obvious massive vote shifting from the democratic to the republican candidates in the 2012 election, and will not do so in the 2016 election.
Lou Dubose's article is posted at http://electionprotectionaction.org/4/post/2013/01/did-an-election-day-lawsuit-stop-karl-roves-vote-rigging-scheme-in-ohio.html but with Lou's permission I am reposting here for viewing and discussion. Lou Dubose, formerly wrote for the Texas Observer and now edits the Washington Spectator.
Down for the Count
Did an Election Day Lawsuit Stop Karl Rove's Vote-Rigging Scheme in Ohio?
January 1, 2013 | by Lou Dubose
For 30 years, Karl Rove has won elections by a formula that depended on deceit and defamation.
A whispering campaign that described Texas Governor Ann Richards as a closet lesbian; an
announcement that two aides working for Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower
would be indicted (before Justice Department lawyers made any announcement about
indictments); rumors of John McCain’s illegitimate black child that circulated in South Carolina
after McCain defeated George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary; rumors about
Cindy McCain’s drug habit; a national media campaign that turned John Kerry’s service in
Vietnam into a liability.
Later in his career, Rove’s connections with Republican state officials overseeing elections, and
the big private corporations contracted to conduct them, have put him in position to manipulate
the vote when he couldn’t deliver it.
For the elected officials targeted by Rove, and for those of us who have documented his work,
the word schadenfreude will forever be associated with Fox News’s 2012 election night
coverage.
Anyone who missed the moment has probably seen the video that went viral: the divided screen
displaying the celebration at Obama’s Chicago headquarters on the left and Chris Wallace calling
Ohio for Obama on the right. Then Rove—working as a Fox on-air commentator while directing
the largest outside-money PACs in the 2012 election cycle—telling the network co-anchor he
was wrong.
Although Wallace was seated behind a console, viewers could see his knees buckling as Rove
and the Romney campaign bore down on him. “Karl just got off the phone with somebody else,”
Wallace said. “You’ve got more-recent figures?”
Wallace turned the decision over to Rove, who stammered about the Ohio secretary of state’s
web page and argued that it was too early to make the call. (The Associated Press and the other
networks had already called the election.)
Where Wallace failed, Fox co-anchor Megan Kelly manned up, following her producer’s
directions to walk back to the network’s decision desk and confirm what the network had
reported.
“I think we should bring Chris Stirewalt or Arnon Mishkin out here to sit next to Karl,” Kelly
said after she returned from an off-set conference with Digital News Director Stirewalt and the
analysts who had made the call.
Michael Barone, a data-driven conservative, finally sat next to Rove and told him the election
was over, even as Rove persisted with confused projections of Republican votes yet to be
counted.
“I’m just sayin’ in terms of public perception,” Rove said, “it looks a little odd for us to be
making the call.”
Rove’s on-air meltdown was understandable. He had just squandered $300 million that corporate
oligarchs poured into the two dark-money PACs he created to buy the Senate and the presidency.
Plaintiff’s attorney Clifford Arnebeck has a different theory.
Exactly seven hours before Rove embarrassed himself and Fox News, Arnebeck was in an Ohio
courtroom, arguing that a secret contract the state’s secretary of state had executed with a
voting-tabulation company created the capacity to “flip the vote” in 25 Ohio counties.
To understand Arnebeck’s lawsuit, it is necessary to understand who the defendants were.
Jon Husted is a Republican secretary of state who has spent much of the past two years working
to restrict early voting, which in previous elections has been used by far more Democratic than
Republican voters. (See “Stealing Ohio,” Washington Spectator 9/1/02.) When a law passed in
haste by the Republican-dominated Ohio General Assembly created confusion about early voting,
Husted issued an advisory opinion that allowed only members of the military to vote on the
weekend before the election. He then fired Democratic election commissioners who challenged
his ruling. And after a federal district judge held that Ohio’s ban on early voting was
unconstitutional, Husted refused to comply with the court’s order, insisting he would not begin
preparations for early voting until an appeals court ruled on the case. When the U.S. Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision, Husted appealed the to the U.S. Supreme
Court, in an attempt to run out the clock on early voting. Four days before the election, he issued
restrictive rules on the counting of provisional ballots.
“The surreptitious manner in which the Secretary went about implementing this last minute
change to the election rules casts serious doubt on his protestations of good faith,” federal
District Judge Algenon Marbley wrote in a decision handed down after the election.
Arnebeck’s second defendant was Election System & Software, one of the big two
voting-technology companies that control 70 percent of elections in a U.S. voting system that is
almost completely privatized.
ES&S made national news in 2006 when its tabulation program registered an 18,000 undervote
in a South Florida congressional race that Republican Vern Buchanan won by 369 votes—out of
238,000 cast. Most observers, according to the Charlotte Sun, concluded that absent the
undervote, the Democratic candidate would have won.
The Port Charlotte, Florida, daily also reported on a New York study that found an ES&S
“precinct-based voter counter” that tends to add votes in some elections. The same model counter
lost 11,000 presidential votes when it was used in Florida in 2008.
More closely related to the lawsuit that Arnebeck filed in Ohio was a forensic audit of ES&S
software in Venango County, Pennsylvania, where two computer science professors from
Carnegie Mellon University documented multiple unauthorized remote connections to ES&S
tabulation servers. The outside access to the servers was unknown to election officials until the
forensic audit was released.
The report was suppressed after ES&S threatened legal action. But the Brad Blog, which does
in-depth election coverage, obtained and posted a copy along with a letter from ES&S that
charged the Carnegie Mellon professors with unlawful possession of proprietary information.
Arnebeck was skeptical about a contract signed by Husted and ES&S less than two months
before the election with no public review or bidding and no testing of the software.
“They are both behaving in a suspicious way,” Arnebeck said in phone interview. “Whether or
not they are coordinating, I can’t say. But Husted has been involved in a lot of questionable
activities going into the election.”
Arnebeck’s client was Bob Fitrakis, a journalism professor who has used the online Free Press to
document election irregularities in 2004 in Ohio. Fitrakis has co-written several books on
election theft. He is also a sophisticated political activist. He ran for Congress (as a Green Party
candidate) so that he would have standing in election-related lawsuits. He and his co-author,
Harvey Wasserman, are persistent critical observers of the election process in Ohio.
Before filing suit, Fitrakis got word that a software contract between Husted and ES&S had been
signed within months of November’s election.
Fitrakis submitted an open-records request for the contract, and according to Arnebeck was
“stonewalled” by the secretary of state’s office. (At the November 6 hearing, an attorney
representing Husted said the secretary of state’s office had been working to pull the requested
material together.) Less than a week before the election, a source inside the government quietly
provided Fitrakis the 28-page document that was withheld by the secretary of state.
The contract describes “a stand-alone singularly focused” software application that could produce
a “precinct-level, candidate, elections result file for all state requested offices.” Arnebeck’s
description is not so benign. In court pleadings, he described a plan to install ES&S software
“patches” on computers tabulating votes in 25 of Ohio’s counties, including the three most
populous counties in the state. The patches had not been tested by an elections board as required
by state law because they were designated as “experimental,”thus not subject to the requisite
testing. Installing them created a “back door” that could allow outside access to the
voter-tabulation system, Arnebeck told the state judge hearing the case.
An attorney representing ES&S wrote in a memorandum filed with the court that the software
“does not have the capacity to access or alter a vote in Ohio, even if the imagined saboteur
exists.” Arnebeck’s allegations are based on speculation, the attorney wrote (and argued in
court).
At the November 6 state court hearing (Arnebeck made a similar argument in federal court the
same morning), Arenebeck told the judge that the patches were the point at which the
“man-in-the-middle attacks” that Karl Rove had used to flip Ohio’s votes in the 2004 election
could be implemented in 2012.
I asked Arnebeck about his “man in the middle” allegation. He said it was supported by the
affidavit of Stephen Spoonamore in a lawsuit Arnebeck filed alleging electronic manipulation of
election results in 2004.
According to SourceWatch, Spoonamore, a Republican, is a “recognized expert in the field of
data security and digital network architecture” who has worked as a consultant for MasterCard,
American Express, Chubb Insurance, Bloomberg, and others.
Spoonamore attested that he found evidence that Rove, in collaboration with IT company owner
Mike Connell, had used computer fraud to steal the 2004 election for George W. Bush.
The tabulation system Connell designed allowed for the introduction of a third computer
“between computer A and computer B,” Spoonamore had written.
“This centralized collection of all incoming tabulations would make it easy for a single operator,
or preprogrammed ‘force balancing computer’ to change the results in any way desired by the
team controlling Computer C.”
Connell’s IT firm had been employed by the Bush-Cheney campaign, the Republican National
Committee, the National Rifle Association, and numerous Republican candidates and elected
officials. According to Craig Unger’s recently published book Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove’s
Secret Kingdom of Power, Connell’s firm was “a powerful technological tool” at Rove’s
disposal. Connell was also a key witness in the voting-theft lawsuit Arnebeck filed after the 2004
election.
Connell died while returning from a business trip to Washington, when his private plane crashed
within miles of the Cleveland airport on December 19, 2008. The circumstances of his death,
while Arnebeck was preparing to depose him for a second time, resulted in a series of articles,
mostly in progressive news outlets, that attempted to tie Connell’s death to his critical role as a
witness.
In Boss Rove, Unger reports that there was no evidence of foul play.
Spoonamore, a witness with unimpeachable IT credentials, believes the 2004 election was stolen
in Ohio. “What they did was brilliant,” he told Unger. “You have to admire that. They won. They
changed the election. Kerry won but they switched it to Bush. Trust me, that’s what they did.”
The 2004 Ohio election was the backstory to the lawsuit Arnebeck argued on Election Day 2012,
which was largely ignored by mainstream media.
No one expected Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Serrott to issue a
restraining order postponing a national election. The lawsuit was a preemptive measure.
Arnebeck and Fitrakis were creating a public record that documented the existence of potentially
malicious software that was secretly put in place by the secretary of state. They would have filed
suit earlier, if they had had the contract earlier, Arnebeck said.
Judge Serrott said a court order for a recount paid for by ES&S was premature and denied
Arnebeck’s request for relief: “You can always ask for a recount [after the election]; if I draw
that case I’m happy to look at it and maybe make a determination of who should pay for it.”
The prospect of a canvass of paper votes created by the electronic system, overseen by a special
master selected by the state court, was a hedge against election theft.
On election night, Rove assumed he was betting into the fix. The Fox political analyst had reason
to believe that Mitt Romney would carry Ohio, not by a narrow margin at the polls but by the
shifting of votes at a computer console, according to Arnebeck.
As it turned out, Obama didn’t even need Ohio to win the election.
Profile Information
Name: Cliff ArnebeckGender: Male
Hometown: Columbus, Ohio
Home country: US
Current location: Columbus, Ohio
Member since: Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:37 PM
Number of posts: 305
