The docs are at my husband’s office where our scanner is. Hopefully he’ll e-mail me the scans before he even comes home. I can upload them when he does.
In the 2 elections that Hawaii has the records for before 2008, the HDP signed their cert with eligibility language a month after the National Convention and then hand-delivered the cert to the Elections Office.
In 2008 they specifically took out just the eligibility language from the standard cert they had used the previous 2 elections, signed it at the National Convention a day before Pelosi signed anything, and gave it to Sandler who sent all of it together to the Elections Office.
The DNC tried to explain their own cert for Hawaii as being extra “cautious”. But that makes no sense, given that the HDP and DNC filed their certs together and used the only combination that had NOT already proven sufficient in the past. That’s not caution, that’s an experiment. Caution would be if both the DNC and HDP had included the eligibility language.
In 2000 the DNC exercised caution. They made a cert just for Hawaii by typing in the added eligibility language to their standard cert and signing the new cert just special for Hawaii - even though the HDP also had the eligibility language in their cert which was filed a month later. That’s caution.
In 2004 they didn’t do that. They let the HDP certify eligibility. It worked just fine.
The only year the HDP didn’t certify eligibility was in 2008 - and by the time Pelosi signed her cert she knew that the HDP was not going to certify eligibility.
The DNC wants people to believe they added the eligibility language to be cautious, but the fact is that they coordinated with the HDP and would have had BOTH the HDP and DNC certify eligibility if they were being cautious.
If they were just showing standard care they would have let the HDP certify eligibility as had worked just fine in 2004.
If they wanted to be RISKY they would have tried something different that had never worked before - just the DNC certifying eligibility.
They SAY they were being cautious, but the fact is they deliberately chose the riskiest of 3 options. Why? It wasn’t because the laws had changed. It wasn’t because they had asked the Elections Office and found out it didn’t matter who certified eligibility. Why did they take the riskiest route - the only one that had never been tried and worked before?
The only answer that makes sense is that they were willing to do the risky route because the HDP refused to certify eligibility as they always had in the past. The HDP refused to do the safest route so the DNC had to cover for them by doing the previously-untried experiment.
So that brings us back to the question I said was so important: Why in 2008 did the HDP deliberately take out the eligibility language from their standard form? Why did they let the DNC know ahead-of-time that they weren’t going to certify eligibility, so the DNC would know they needed to do so?
You need to read jbjd’s (http://jbjd.org) three-part series entitled “A Coup Through and Through” about the events that took place in the run up to and then at the national Democratic Convention. I think you will realize that the signing of the HDP’s letter at the convention had more to do with the events that took place there than a refusal to certify Obama. I cannot yet reach a conclusion that the HDP “refused” to certify Obama based solely on when they signed a letter and how they assembled it. I need hard evidence. What you have is speculation. And that’s not meant as an insult, it means I’m a skeptic who needs significant confirmation of facts.