do-si-do @ 170

Well, I gotta thank you guys. My eyes were crossing trying to figure this out. [tinfoil at hand here]If “Blank” is punking uthe blogosphere, that must mean somebody’s on to something kinda important…

His basic instruction about how to do an forensic audit is correct and he is describing someting called an audit test. But he then conflates unrelated audit standards and throws in all sorts of other stuff that kinda doesn’t make sense.
I should not have used the word hoax. It may be that this guy put a ton of work and research into this and thinks he has the goods.

Would you say a little more on what is terrible about ‘conflating audit standards’? Those are just words to me. I would probably say, if anyone were unwise enough to ask, “Hey, conflate away. Have a ball.”

What’s striking is this tidbit in today’s WaPo:

Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning.

I spent nearly 9 years as a federal prosecutor. I’m not aware of a single instance when any prosecutor or agent told anyone outside the Justice Department that a search warrant was going to be executed later in the day. Telling outsiders — specially lawyers for the person whose property will be searched — defeats one of the principal purposes of a search warrant: SURPRISE to ensure the integrity of the evidence field.

So, what the DoJ did would properly be classified as “obstruction of justice.” Right?

perris @ 198

we need youtube of that for sure

Ask, and ye shall relieve!

thankyou sir

I’m southern born and have always winced at the term “trailer trash”. What is the yankee equivalent?

Trailer trash.

Cousin Ru-dee needs a macaca moment.

How’s this?

rwcole @ 187

LS

This business about gettin rid of all or nothing primaries is a good idea in principle- it makes the electoral vote approximate the popular vote–it won’t happen though- unless gooper states and dem states with roughly equal electoral votes agree to make the change together- otherwise it’s unilateral disarmament.

California ain’t goin for this.

I am going to go out on a limb here, because I don’t really know what changes are proposed for Calif. But:

The electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution, and it will never be changed, for the reasons that ammendments to the constitution are difficult. However, some political scientists figured out a way to make that irrelevant. Here’s how:

They drafted model legislation which said that the state would give its electoral votes to which ever candidate won the popular vote. Furthermore, the legislation by its terms only takes effect if the states representing a majority of electoral votes pass similar legislation.

The idea of legislation that only takes effect if other states pass the same legislation is not as unusual as you may think.

I think this is what they’re talking about, right, LS, and rwcole?

Republicans Move To Stealthily Steal Electoral Votes

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes-votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.

Which really troubles me because there are certain county voter registrars who I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw them.

On the other hand it’s really a good thing that Debra Bowen is SoS because she is a bulldog as far as looking out for the California people along with her deputy (forget his name but he is one of the best election issue related lawyers anywhere and everywhere)

This ballot measure has to go down, and not only down, but down in flames

On Sunday, Josh Marshall pointed out that the New York Times editorial on the potential need to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that “Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.” As Marshall noted, before the editorial, Cheney’s involvement in the incident had never been established.

Today on CNN, in a preview of his interview with the Vice President tonight, Larry King said he asked Cheney about the allegation. “I asked the Vice President about that and the story that he was the one that asked him to go,” said King. “And he said he had no recollection.”

“He did not want to deal with specifics, which tells me, they’re looking at trouble,” King added. “If you don’t want to deal with specifics…I think you’re looking at trouble and you’re looking the other way if you’re denying it.” (emphasis mine)

(snip)

Good, let the MSM be mad at Darth instead of afraid of him