Posted on 06/26/2014 2:36:06 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
The Chris McDaniel campaign has identified multiple Mississippi counties in which enough improper ballots have been cast that a legal challenge to the outcome of the election is warranted.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Drudge email is down. Any one have a back door into drudge? Breitbart?
UPDATE: The Cochran campaign is reportedly asking county clerks not to certify the voting rolls until the last day possible so that the McDaniel people will not be able to look at the rolls and challenge them.”
Is this guy going “full Democrat” or what?
Certification is a necessary step in the process that involves a challenge to the outcome. The reason the Bush/Gore fiasco got out of hand is that the SCOFLA delayed certification (by cherry-picking suitable phrases from election law, and ignoring the process as a whole), thereby eating into the time allowed for close scrutiny of the ballots.
My thinking exactly. Get this into Drudge and Breitbart with photographs. Mark Levin should be contacted too
>>One voter Annette Harper came to the precinct this afternoon looking to vote, but was told she couldn’t vote because her name was on the Democratic poll book as voting in the June 3 Democratic primary.<<
If the Democrats keep a tally of who votes in the DEM primary, that would change things. At least then you could determine approximately how many votes were illegally cast, by going through all the poll books.
That still leaves the problem of verifying who those illegal votes were cast for, however, since ballots are supposed to be secret. Sure, you could assume they’re mostly Cochran, but it would probably take individual interviews to verify that.
Possible outcome: A sympathetic judge rules that the RunOff Election is invalidated, and must be held again, with poll workers instructed to tell every voter that they are not eligible to vote if they voted Dem in the June 3 primary.
Best outcome: Senator Cochran realizes the mess he’s created here and concedes the election to McDaniel based on his near certain opinion that he won it only because votes were cast illegally for him. That would reunite the GOP as well, and someone should get working on making it happen.
“...You wouldn’t need a name if you could match a ballot number to a name.”
********************************************************************
The ballot number and name is just for reconciliation purposes. The actual casting of the ballot CANNOT be linked back to the ballot number which “authorized” a vote to be cast. In the case of “paper ballots” the portion where the voter chose candidates does NOT have a number and is torn off of the “stub” which had the number.
Thank you! Just donated as this needs to stop right now. Cochran is now trying to put the last nail in the coffin McDaniel’s fight for this seat.
Do we know who took this photo? If McDaniel campaign not able to view it must be an insider in the recorder’s office.
I just can’t see that making a difference. If you prove illegal activity went on in a large enough quantity, the election result is in question regardless of who voted for who. The judge must call for a do-over of the runoff.
Ok I get it...what I want is for McDaniel to never give in to the corruption!
That’s my understanding. Kim Wade is the name.
You are correct that McDaniel wants certification to be done ASAP. It’s a necessary pre-requisite to mounting a challenge to the outcome.
Has anyone sent this information to Drudge? If so I hope he pushes the story.
“Pray pray pray!!”
I am praying with you!!
Bear in mind that the photo causing so much ruckus doesn’t prove that the voter voted DEM on June 3rd, nor does it prove that said voter voted for Cochran on June 24th.
All the photo indicates is that someone who usually votes DEM did vote in both elections. If they usually vote DEM, but didn’t on June 3rd, perhaps because they had a strong preference for, say, McDaniel, then they might well have voted McDaniel both times.
Unlikely, I’ll concede that, but the photo isn’t sufficient, only suggestive. Highly suggestive, true, but not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. (And a lot of imaginations are being stretched to the limit right now.)
That's what this sheet shows:
It shows who voted in the 'Rat primary on 6/3/14. It also shows that several of those voted again in the GOP runoff on 6/24.
Based on that image it appears that
James Earl Hayes, 126 Sewanee Dr, Jackson
Sandra B Haynes, 302 Galvez St, Jackson
Pearline Herron, 114 Sanford St, Jackson all voted
illegally - or someone did on their behalf.
Ugghh, thanks Don. My stomach was already turning from a moment of weakness Costco hot dog.
>>I just can’t see that making a difference. If you prove illegal activity went on in a large enough quantity, the election result is in question regardless of who voted for who. The judge must call for a do-over of the runoff.<<
If the DEM poll list actually verifies that they voted DEM, and not just that they voted in a particular election (and usually vote DEM, or they wouldn’t be on the DEM poll list), then illegal votes will be easy to verify. But I doubt that the DEM poll list verifies which party they voted for on June 3rd.
Again, the best resolution would be for Cochran (and his supporters) to come to their senses and realize the mess they’ve created here, and concede the election, and the argument. Otherwise, they’re as corrupt as the Democrats, and proving it.
OK I’m getting confused here. I thought that on June 3 a Dem had to vote for a Dem and Repub for a Repub. And only in the runoff can a NON-voting Dem vote in repub runoff. Wrong I guess. So cross-over allowed in both elections?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.