Saturday, August 16, 2014

We report, you decide: Mitch Tyner's vote.

This is what the Chris McDaniel campaign calls an illegal or irregular vote:

Mr. Tyner voted in both Republican elections held on June 3 and June 24. The redacted part of the pages above are the voters' birthdays.   However, the Chris McDaniel campaign said in its election challenge that this vote is either a crossover or irregular vote and thus should be rejected. The complaint stated on page 17:

 Mitchell Harry Tyner, Sr., voted written in margin and on June 24
Sloane Davis Tyner, voted written in margin and on June 24

The pollworker apparently wrote "voted" on the left side of the page next to the name of everyone who did indeed vote that day.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

Is this an irregular vote that should be cast out under state law? We report, you decide.


Anonymous said...

These people are f'ing morons. Subpoena all of these volunteers that keep screwing up and let them explain what they were looking for and let the judge decide if they were being honest or if they were on a mission.

Anonymous said...

I am not an elections expert, but my wife has been a poll worker in a municipal election and I have been in charge of recruiting pollworkers in multiple elections after SoS certification. This costs my family money and time, but it is worthwhile to participate in the process.

This stuff is infuriating. We pay our poll workers peanuts, they do their best to get it right, and internet trolls and talk radio blast them often. It's damn hard to convince people to help as is. NOW this idiot comes along with this bs making it harder.

Here's the strategy that moron should have taken:

1.Conceded 2. Went to his elected position and made the case for closed primaries. He would have had an incredibly large swath of MS behind him after this election. Even if would have been an uphill battle 3. Ran again. (Sadly, he probably would have won.)

Now this guy has (thankfully) alienated so many people he will have no traction except with the likes of people praying for violence.

But you've certainly alienated more good people who will be damn hesitate to agree when I call to ask them to be poll workers. And why should they, when this becomes the *basis* for a election challenge?

(I had no role in this election other than having to vote for another long term incumbent because his challenger was narcissist who could be spotted by anyone who passed a correspondence course in psychology.)

Anonymous said...

It definitely proves that the McDaniel volunteer I believe it was Judy Batson is an idiot.

Kingfish said...

I question the veracity of her claim that the Circuit Clerk was not htat nice to them. I went up to Canton to get a copy of the court file on the Porter case (Ridgeland coaches). I saw Ms. Westbrook there dealing with them as they counted the votes. She was very nice to them and I was there for awhile.

Anonymous said...

12:57 here. Multiple typos above, I know. But this rage inducing for people in my position.

Anonymous said...

I guess when you've created a theory, you'll do anything to "prove" it. I do not see the correlation of a poll worker marking voted by a voters name, when they did in fact vote in the primary and the run off the correct way, and then somehow alleging that the vote is " irregular".

Maybe others know something I don't, but whether it's Mitch tyner or just a regular joe blow, this seems to be one huge case of crying wolf.

Of, course, we all know what this really boils down to, and it's not Mitch tyner. It's the fact that democrats and undecided voters voted for a republican probably for the first time in their lives.

I would ask, that if they voted for chris mcdaniel, would TC camp be raising hell?

That's the only question in which to gage this frenzy.

My vote on Tyners vote: Not irregular.

Anonymous said...

Lee Westbrook has been the Circuit Clerk for Madison County for a number of years. She does an excellent job of carrying out her duties! She is always very professional and nice to everyone. I dare say these McDaniel idiots are lying about the way they were treated in her office like they have lied about everything and everyone else! When will they realize it's over for them???

Anonymous said...

In case folks are wondering about the number that appears underneath the word "voted," that reflects the corresponding line number in the receipt book where the voter signed their name. The receipt book is what voters sign once their name is found in the poll book and their voter ID is checked. In this case, Mitch was the 19th voter to sign in and vote for Cochran that day and Sloaney Poo was Cochran voter number 176.

Anonymous said...

Kingfish wrote


FWIW, Ms. Westbrooks name showed up as a sponsor on a McDaniel fundraiser. I sure she was nice to them.

Anonymous said...

2:02 Are you saying that Mitch Tyner didn't have enough confidence in McDaniel to vote for him??? That's very interesting, very interesting, indeed!!!

Anonymous said...

So will Mitch be disqualified to represent McDaniel of the Cochran lawyers call him as a witness to verify his vote?

Anonymous said...

2:27 It is highly unlikely that an elected county official publicly supported a "wanna-be" candidate for United States Senate. Do you have any proof of this or is it just "hearsay"?

Zorek Richards said...

I guess that means that Mitch Tyner is a racist. :-)

Anonymous said...

The political calculus of an officer of the court, civil servant, or elected official is nuanced. It is a private act and sacred however. So is a persons right to representation. Even if one lives in a repressive society, no modern court would not 'pop the hood' on a voter's thinking. All court proceedings are 'public drama' within a set of complicated rules and process. No voter will be called to testify, but I think I would fire the current lawyer and hire John Reeves.

Anonymous said...


Bullshit appeal to authority. Nobody gives a shit if it costs your po' family time and money.

Anonymous said...

Let me explain this to you folks who have never actually run, overseen, or worked a party primary election here in Mississippi. Works like this: Each separate County Party Committee, both Republican and Democratic, appoints members to an election subcommittee, who actually does all of the work of finding helpers and hiring and training poll workers for each precinct in 82 counties. Only exception to this is if the County party Committee punts and "outsources" the primary election to the 5 elected County "Election Commissioners", who push for this in order to make more money than their yearly county salary. Those folks get their election training through Hosemann's office and then in turn train their own poll workers. If, after primary election day for both parties, held on the same day at the same precincts, one or both parties has to proceed to a runoff, the 2 parties, both Dems and Repubs, are supposed to "exchange and trade" poll books in order to make sure that their is no crossover voting on runoff day. The whole system is full of holes and ripe for confusion, shenanigans, mistakes, flaws, etc.

The Mississippi election system is prehistoric and moronic, it should be run by a sate elections board with permanent, UNELECTED, civil servants in a professional manner like in most of America. Banana Republic is what we have now folks.

Anonymous said...

Tell us August 16, 2014 at 6:46 PM what you've posted in your first paragraph that hasn't already been repeated before ad infinitum?

Anonymous said...

Tate needs to get McD off the elections Committee next session so he will not take revenge on the primary system that has kept him and other extremists from taking us over.

Anonymous said...

5:59, Reasonable, informed citizens would care about the compensation of poll workers. Or even if they are not, those citizens so, so, so very concerned about the integrity of elections would.

People in the "praying for violence" party probably don't care about poll worker training or compensation, as they have other agendas, I agree.

P.S. I hope you've "chipped in", cause your candidate desperately needs YOUR money. Seems his money doesn't spend on his maniacal ambitions.

Anonymous said...

1. Close the primaries.
2. Require bio-metric party identification cards.
3. Post armed guards at prominent locations visible at all primary voting places.

These 3 steps will end the widespread practice of party raiding and crossover voting. They can be implemented in the next legislative session.

Anonymous said...

Be sure the Party guards wear brown shirts, jack boots and the arm band of the Tea Party so everyone who disagrees is intimidated.
More reasonable: take Chrissy off Elections; make him Chairman of Forestry next session instead since he's from the Piney Woods.

Anonymous said...

Armed guards? In the words of Dave Chappelle as Lil' Jon, "WHHAATT?!"

Anonymous said...

why is he suing Cochran personally instead of his campaign or the Republican Party? If the Republican Party is in charge of the primary / runoff, made the rules for the primary / runoff, governs the poll workers, and certifies the results, then how can McDaniel obtain relief by filing suit against the other candidate who has no authority over the election? Why not just sue the Republican Party or Circuit Clerks?

Anonymous said...

10:12: arrest yourself.

Anonymous said...

10:12 pm Is your last name Putin?

Anonymous said...

A lot of these solutions seem like overkill. Putting people in jail is not needed except in extreme cases. A 500 fine for each vote, assessed consistently, would be more than enough. If violations for questionable votes were enforced as consistently as fines for parking violations, this would be minimized.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why there are TWO pictures here. The black bars covering the DOB also cover the party of the pollbook.

In the "top" picture, the column for 6/24 is filled out. That would make me assume the upper picture is from the r-runoff, but the black bar makes it hard to say.

In the "lower" picture shown here, the column for 6/3 is filled out, and the column for 6/24 is blank. That would make me assume the lower picture is the dem-pollbook, since there was no d-runoff.

Are these two pics from different pollbooks? If so, why? In other evidence I've seen, the pollbook for the xyz party is marked twice, once on 6/3 and once on 6/24. Here, there are two pics, each marked only once. Is Madison cty operated such that they print up a fresh repub-pollbook for the 6/24 election, physically distinct from the 6/3 repub-pollbook? Any help here grokking what picture is from what pollbook would be appreciated.

Just Passin' Thru said...


I Have Spelled It 3 Times Already said...

Expert @ 12:57: If you are recruiting and training poll workers, I would suggest you move past the geriatric, donut crowd who are capable only of smiling and asking you six times to restate your name.

Their concerns seem to be limited to: How early do I have to be there, what should I wear, will someone bring Tea Cakes, is lunch provided and will I have to be nice to people of other races.

Anonymous said...

12:07 am " seem like overkill"?

It's more like insanity?

Aside from how wildly expensive a biometric card system would be , giving a political party biological identification is the ultimate identity theft!

It's tyranny!

Party loyalty in this extreme is the stuff of Nazis and Communists!

You couldn't get more Un-American and un-Constitutional than what 10:12 am is proposing!

Don't you and 10:12 am get that we vote by secret ballot for a reason?!

I'm already offended at how McDaniel et al is violating this basic principle of our Founding Fathers!

There is no mention of political party loyalty in our Constitution! We don't swear a loyalty oath to a party or a person but to our country!

I don't have to join a party to vote! I'm a citizen and it's my right to vote! And, I can vote for whomever the hell I want!

I can be an Independent and declare a party in a closed primary state! That will not mean I have to vote a straight party ticket in the general election! Nor does it mean I can't change my mind about my party affiliation in the next election cycle !

There are people in both parties that I would NEVER vote for to lead a parade, much less my country because they are too damn incompetent! And, that is true in our State as well!

Anonymous said...

It's kind of hard to find poll workers, which must be available during the day, when most people are working. The geriatric, retired crowd is about it.

Anonymous said...

The geriatric asked you to restate your name because even you might become hard of hearing as you age ( standing near speakers at concerts will do it!) and you young people mumble!

A loss of hearing, doesn't, however, make us senile and I'd be more than happy to compare IQ scores, degrees, and a psychiatric evaluation with any of you!

Besides, I'll bet those who complain the loudest volunteer or contribute the least! There's always the doers and those who bitch in everything!

Kingfish said...

Expert at 5:04: Many times the problem is getting people to volunteer to sit there all day and work the polls. We have a huge problem with that in Hinds County as for the GOP primaries, it is a mad scramble trying to find people to work. So quit griping and volunteer. You do get paid for it.

6:46 gave an excellent explanation as to how the system works.

as for the poll book pages posted here, those are from the Republican primary. I verified that fact with the Circuit Clerk.
The "voted" written on the left side of the page means the voter voted in that day primary, not the previous election. Look at the June 3 sheet and you will see fewer people voted. Clerk was just being careful and matching up the name. Not hard to lose your place when you start reading across pages and pages and long lines of information.

Anonymous said...

The problem is not the regular party members who tend to be loyal year after year, or even over a major part of a lifetime. The problem is the "Independents" who flip flop from one primary to another. Just require a person to be a registered Independent for at least one full election cycle or minimum of 12 months before they are allowed to join ANY party or vote in ANY primary.

Cell phones have fingerprint ID, and they cost only hundreds of dollars. There is no reason that voting machines do not have this technology when they cost many thousands.

Anonymous said...

9:11 am Independents are not a problem and YOU want to take away our right to vote!

If I don't get to vote in an " election cycle" then it's taxation without representation !

And, since you seem totally ignorant of American history , that is what our Revolution was about!

What you and those like you really want, assuming you are not clinically crazy or stupid, is one party( yours) to take over the country! And, that sir or madam, will be the end of freedom!

It obvious you aren't well educated, but for God's sake, what is it about what has happened in Russia or why the Iraqi President caused havoc there that you don't understand???!!!!

Have you never heard the phrase, " All power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Don't you know that " He who controls the flow of information, controls power"?

Have you never read The Declaration of Independence or our Constitution ALL THE WAY THROUGH???!!!!

God save us from the likes of you!!!!

Kingfish said...

Closing party primaries will merely empower the Bennie Thompsons and Ike Browns even more. Start thinking about the other side of the coin. Start looking at towns like Byram and Hattiesburg. Be careful what you wish for.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Although the blacking out of the title on the page probably prevents us from knowing for sure, it looks like the top picture is the original "Democratic Poll Book" and the bottom copy is the "Republican Poll Book". They were probably switched appropriately, with the Rep. Book used for the Rep. Primary June 3rd and the Dem. book used for the Rep. Runoff on June 24th. Someone wrote in the left margin on June 24th, hence causing the "irregular" vote. My vote is there is nothing to see here. Votes all count.

Anonymous said...

9:55 AM

Nobody is disputing your right to vote in the GENERAL election. But a party primary is a more private matter that is held for the participation of party members. Our Constitution implicitly gives us the Right of Exclusive Association, which is absolutely required if the explicit Right of Free Association is to have any meaning. No one has the absolute right to be part of an association from which they are excluded by the rules of that association.

Mississippi provides that persons may vote in party primaries ONLY when they have the INTENTION of supporting the winner of the primary in the general election. That is the Law.

As for the remark about American history, surely you are aware that there was no such thing as a modern election open to the general public at the time of the Revolution. So the Revolution cannot have been about something that did not yet exist.

Again, nobody is disputing your right to vote in a general election.

Anonymous said...

10:24 am What is wrong with you?

If I can't vote in a primary because I'm an Independent or simply not a loyalist, you have robbed me the opportunity to vote for the person I think is the best candidate in the general election!

Moreover, whoever is elected is suppose to represent ALL his constituents, NOT just the party faithful!

IF a candidate doesn't have to ever been concerned about those who aren't in his or her party, then when anyone else has a problem with the IRS or SS or a government contract or their VA check or any number of problems with federal government, there would be zero reason for the elected representative to respond.

You are beyond stupid! You are dangerous!

Anonymous said...

3:45 - two different books. For the runoff the Republicans used the pollbook used by the Democrats on June 3 so they could prevent someone who voted Dem in the first primary from voting in the GOP runoff. So the fact that the June 3 column is blank shows that no one on the page voted in the Democratic primary and everyone on the page was eligible to vote in the runoff. The second book shows who voted in the June 3 Republican primary which just reinforces the evidence that those who voted in that race obviously did not vote in the Democratic primary on the same day.

Anonymous said...

You can't close primaries without first requiring voters to register by party. Unless what you and McDaniel mean is putting up a "Whites Only" sign at the Republican table.

To require party registration now would have to survive the Voting Rights Act, but now McDaniel has created a legislative history that would show the DOJ and federal courts that the main motivation would be to exclude blacks from voting in Republican primaries. Good luck with that VRA submission.

Anonymous said...

No, you just want to throw out ALL the 6.24 votes from Hinds and Madison Counties based on alleged poll worker notations. From now ones not let any TP types run here without reminding everyone in these two counties that the TP wanted to dispose of ALL our votes. Brown shirts and jack boots.

Barry Neyrey said...

Also redacted above are the words "Republican" and "Democrat" in front of Poll Book. Tyner's vote is considered "Irregular" not illegal. Other types of irregularities are the word 'voted', in the June 3 column and then crossed out. Did the GOP chairman tamper with the books?
Also Continually omitted from discussion is evidence that many, many precincts in Hinds, Lafayette, Madison and other counties, poll workers DID NOT use the June 3 Democrat Poll Book to check to see if a voter in the runoff had voted in the Democrat Primary. Doing so is voting twice in the same election and is against the law. This means that thousands more voted twice than just the 3,500 proven. Poll workers broke the law, voters broke the law, GOP officials who were election officials for a primary broke the law themselves and encouraged poll managers and workers to break the law. The runoff election was corrupted and should be thrown out.

Anonymous said...

10:24 am There was no such thing as a Republican or Democratic party either in 1779 either ( I expect you find that date confusing)!

I'm fully aware only male property owners could vote.

Those we elect are supposed to represent, once elected, all the constituents. That is WHY those who aren't party loyal get to vote in a primary in the two current legal forms that exist or we can opt to wait until the general election.

You do not seem to understand that what you are advocating is exactly how other countries end up with a dictator!

Even at a local level, your plan ends up with the corruption that one party control brings!

It's clear that you only have a rudimentary understanding of government and our history. You need to study political science, civics and history in more depth before you make such proposals!

You clearly don't know what you don't know and it's voluminous!

And, if you were to do what you suggest in MS out of ignorance, you will, as KF suggests, you will live to regret it!

Anonymous said...

hey 9:11am, in order for fingerprint id to work, you would need to match it to one. Where are you going to get everyone's fingerprint? Go back to playing crush on your iPhone.

Anonymous said...

I always thought that voting was supposed to be secret. Just saying. And while we are at it, how, pray tell, did Chris vote? Has his poll book been scrutinized, or is he above reproach?

Anonymous said...

Barry Neyrey:
In your quest for party purity and perfection in an imperfect world, you explicitly call for ALL our votes to be disenfranchised here in Hinds and Madison Counties. The Nazis excused every crime on the search for "purity" and "perfection" as well; there are no limits in the search for purity, or in the disregard for the rule of law. When you start your "purge" of the Party? Or the "punishment"? Or throwing out our well cast votes in Hinds and Madison? You would make the Circuit Clerks of Hinds and Madison Counties and all the poll workers the "enemy". The TP at its heart is totalitarian. Thank God the voters as a whole are not fooled.

Anonymous said...

Barry, are you a Russian national?

Is that why you believe what you just wrote is relevant?

IF there were those who voted in the first primary as a Democrat, it's a no brainer to prove it.

The totals were small and all one has to do is run a name comparison and check when the same name pops up in both.

This is not hard. Once you identify the same name voting in difference primaries if you still can discover if there's more than one person with that name in a city directory, then ask for birthdates. Voila! Proof!

I could have done that by myself by now without the aid of a computer recognition program ( which would make it really fast), delivered a list of matching names to the Clerk in any county and I'd bet money, they'd check and do the right thing if it were the same person or else they run the risk of never holding that office again!

The ignorance of the Tea Party people that still buy into this crap is amazing ( and I'm being kind to use the word ignorance)!

Anonymous said...

Barry, it is time for you to go get involved in elections.

I see how much time you have devoted to making them happen. Or did you just spend your time Monday Morning QB'ing?

That's a real question Barry, how much of your time have you used to help in any public election at any level?

Anonymous said...

How is it possible at this late date that it is left to speculation or individual interpretation what the poll books say? The McDaniel challenge does have some burden of proof if he simply wants a very self-interested 52-person committee or a single (one hopes) disinterested judge to throw out thousands of "regular" votes and declare McDaniel the winner by fiat. Particularly since the definition of "irregular" is apparently "something my nonexpert volunteers don't understand." I get that they don't want to spend the money on actual handwriting experts, etc.. But surely best evidence would require interviewing the poll workers about the books to explicate the clear meaning of what is there rather than leaving it up to
their amateur supporters to give affidavits more or less saying "something ain't right." Crossover votes -- fine, definable, identifiable. "Irregular" is never defined and somehow gets lumped in with illegal -- and the complaint seems perfectly happy to avoid the least bit of due diligence to keep everything as muddled as possible. Combined with the fact that apparently no one has claimed any of the money offered for proof of illegality, it's hard to see the challenge as anything other than all smoke.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that we are able to vote in the primary for whomever we wish to vote. I have voted for republicans and democrats because I do not follow party lines and I vote for the best person. As far as "Mississippi provides that persons may vote in party primaries ONLY when they have the INTENTION of supporting the winner of the primary in the general election. That is the Law." I can go one Kim Wades facebook and Mcdaniels facebook page to find numerious people who claim they will not support Thad. That being the case they need to be tossed out of the election.

Anonymous said...

They were using LRADs in Ferguson, maybe that's why the earplugs?

Anonymous said...

After this is over abd Cochran wins, all nine crazy Senators need to resign. Sojourner had one bill assigned to her Forestry Committee lasy session! All nine are ineffective in the State Senate. McDaniel and Sojourner just need to ride off into the sunset as planned - sooner than later! Maybe Gandy will get the pray cloth out again, just like on election night. Don't look for any bills to be referred to the Senate elections committee if McDaniel stays around for th 2015 session. McDaniel and his eight fellow Senators can have plenty of playtime together for 90 days and then get their asses kicked back home in the primary!

Barry Neyrey said...

Mississippi code 23-15-575.
No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
This is a real law and the keyword is intent. I am a Republican and always vote in Republican primaries. When I voted for McDaniel I intended to support the winner of the Primary. However, when I learned that Cochran supporters in the GOP broke the law to get him elected and when I learned that Cochran's team called me a racist in radio ads I decided to change my mind. I cannot vote for the product of a criminal enterprise and will in fact vote against that criminal enterprise. The key word is intent. How many voted for Cochran with absolutely no "INTENT" of voting for him in November? Still, what's more important is the criminal activities of GOP, aka Election Officials, during and after the primary and runoff elections.

Barry Neyrey said...

12:28, I chose not to work at a poll because I was very busy campaigning for a candidate. I thought that was a conflict. Apparently not. Apparently GOP election officials can even take bribes from one of the campaign teams as Hinds Co. Chairman Pete Perry did. I also had confidence that party officials would run a fair election. I was wrong. I guarantee I will be involved in November and in 2015.

Barry Neyrey said...

To 12:21 Who called ME a Russian National. It is not easy to find double votes when the county official won't allow inspection of the records as a number of counties did and when the GOP officials violated procedures by not looking up runoff voters in the June 3 poll book. Yes it is easy to find then via computer if you have access. Why hasn't the S.O.S. done that? Maybe he has but being a Cochran supporter hasn't disclosed the results? McDaniel is being supported in his challenge by many, many more than just Tea Party affiliates. Attacking the messenger won't work on that score.

Anonymous said...

Fine, Barry- even though this law has not held up on court, do us all a favor and follow it to the letter and just not vote in November. Then we can be sure that you truly do believe it. It doesn't mean I have to go by it, but if your convictions are that strong that you feel you can tell everyone else what to do, walk the walk.

Kingfish said...

Barry, I didn't approve one of your comments because it included a link to info on another site that is already found on this site.

Anonymous said...

Barry, are you one of the ones who couldn't find the courthouse?

If you people had respectfully followed procedure rather than make unreasonable demands in a belligerent manner, and then get pissy and leave rather than listen, you'd have had what you needed.

Anonymous said...

Barry @ 10:40 Law or Attorney General opinion that run off is the same primary.

Anonymous said...


>>even though this law has not held up on court<<

Do you have the name of the case where the law did not "hold up in court"?


Bears In The Woods said...

I can forgive one not being able to find the courthouse; but, what is unforgiveable is the number of Barbourites on here who couldn't even find a damned outhouse.

Anonymous said...

All the McDaniel supporters should write him in in the general election - not just for Senate but in every Congressional seat also. That will teach the GOP establishment.

Those Donuts Are 4 The Workers! said...

I DO, in fact, volunteer Kingfish. You're always trigger happy and ready to pounce if it will appeal to the peanut section. My suggestion, instead of bitching about not being to find and train people, is to get folks to agree to work only half a day at the polling place.

The last three times I've voted, there were what I'd call 'young girls' sitting beside the workers at the tables. I'm not sure if they were paid workers or just watching the process. Thousands of young people were sitting idle at home during these primaries.

Additionally, most of my volunteering was done on days when I chose to take a day off from work to participate in the process. All volunteers need not have blue hair and be hard of hearing.

Anonymous said...

2:44 pm While indoor plumbing is my first choice, I have found outhouses when necessary and am organized enough to have tissue on hand.

You are still in the woods with the bears, apparently.

If you have indoor plumbing, I'll wager you leave the lid up and leave tracks on you tidy whities!

Kingfish said...


Your team claimed there were thousands of crossover votes. When you actually examined the books, you found out that was not the case. You claimed thousands in Hinds County. Turned out if was around 300.

You can make all the claims you want but you still have to back it up with solid evidence.

Anonymous said...

Bingo KF. What we do know is that it appears that Barry and most of the McDaniel observers are intellectually challenged. There are less than 1000 true crossover votes. This is a fact and verified by SEMS. Also a fact is that McDaniel volunteers listed crossover votes of hundreds if not thousands of voters who voted GOP on 6/3 and again 6/24. Also is a fact is that several different affidavits, specifically in Hinds County list the same voters multiple times, in effect raising the McDaniel teams claimed numbers by hundreds if not more. Those are facts. Countering those intellectual lightweights and their affidavits will be real lawyers who have gone through every affidavit with a fine tooth comb. It's going to be fun watching them tear each claim apart piece by piece.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Your team claimed there were thousands of crossover votes.

Kingfish, define 'crossover vote'.

Anonymous said...

After reading the True The Vote transcript with attached incident reports and reading the Tea Party comments I have come to realize how much I dislike RINO's. The Tea Party is Republican in name only. The party of Lincoln is an all inclusive party that has to compromise in order to get anything done. Those who think a Jones County trial lawyer who did nothing in state senate will change the nation have been smoking something other than corn silks.

Anonymous said...

For all the talk about the "party of Lincoln", about how they are the only true Republicans and denigrating all others as "RINOs", coming from TP'ers, they sure sound more than a little like Mississippi Democrats circa 1950. Dixiecrats in particular. And why not, since it worked out so well back then.

Anonymous said...

C'mon "Kingfish", define 'crossover vote'. Why are you duckin'?

Anonymous said...

The Dixiecrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by Haley Barbour. You are history CLUELESS August 17, 2014 at 8:15 PM.

Anonymous said...

There is no definition for crossover vote because it is not a term in the law. Voters are not registered as Democrats or Republicans or Reform or Green or independent. At each primary election, every voter in Mississippi is allowed to choose one primary to vote in. It doesn't matter which primary they voted in the past. The only restriction is that a voter can only vote in one party's primary on the same date. The other statute about intent to support the nominee is not enforceable except that anyone who voted in the first primary of one party can be challenged if he/she tries to vote in the other party's runoff. It is not clear that it is illegal to do so - the law does not say so - but the AG's opinion supports the party denying those votes.

Anonymous said...


No shit? Really?


Kingfish used the term. Let's hear his definition.

Anonymous said...

Kingfish is not the one saying there were thousands of illegal crossover votes. That is the McDaniel clan saying that. The rest of us are saying where is the evidence of illegal votes? A blog article saying blacks voted for Cochran? So when y'all talk about illegal crossover votes, do you mean it is illegal for blacks to vote in the Republican primary?

Anonymous said...

I realize that after the pardons, Haley Barbour disappointed quite a lot of conservative Republicans, particularly in the South and especially Mississippians who had voted for him.

I knew that the head of a lobbying firm was unlikely to be a candidate for sainthood so I didn't hold such high expectations as some of you must have held. He was one of many wolves in sheep's clothing to be found on both sides of the aisle in politics.

It is laughable that the Tea Party is attempting to turn him into the boogey man of Mississippi politics.

Haley is no Eastland. His ability to do favors or mete out punishment is far more limited than Eastland's was. Eastland was a Senator with influence at every level nationally in a time when it could be wielded with less scrutiny.

Nor does Barbour enjoy the support he once did here. Pride in a Mississippian turned quickly into anger and disappointment when he embarrassed us nationally. And, that's a lesson McDaniel and the Tea Party people should have taken to heart.

I haven't heard a Mississippian " drop" Haley's name since he left office. No longer do Mississippians see being thought of as his friend or associate as social advantage.

The harping on RINOs is also laughable. The term has little to do with positions on issues and everything to do with tapping into class warfare. It just takes too long in a blog or sound bite to say Republicans with education and money. The same is true with the term, " establishment" which was overused in the 60s by liberals. That is has a new life with conservatives is ironic. These are appeals to those who have a chip on their shoulders and who blame others for their personal woes.

The political rhetoric of both parties is designed for those who need someone to blame and who want simple answers and easy fixes to complex problems that will take as long to solve as it took to create them. Those who seek power will then try to find you a " Moses" to lead you out of your unhappy " Egypt" and have you imagine he is, like Moses, favored by God and able to part the waters.

While you are distracted with demonizing and worshipping the parties or politicians, they are picking your pocket and assigning the spoils after a win.

Try not to be so gullible, will you? Try learning enough about one issue, at least, so you'll have a chance to recognize the charlatans. Then maybe, too, you can have a chance to recognize the few honorable people trying to tell you the hard truths as well while there are still any surviving in the system you've helped screw up.

Anonymous said...

Geez, 9:26 are you really that ignorant? What do you think a Dixiecrat WAS anyway? (Use of past tense, not accedental.)

Anonymous said...

Oh good grief 5:38 am, look up the definition yourself.

KF didn't originate the term.

Whether or not it exists in Black's or in legislation is not relevant to a blog discussion. And, ordinary terms get used in courts of law as well as legal filings.

I can't know if you are arguing just to argue or nitpicking just to nitpick, but if you have a point, you aren't making it!

Anonymous said...

By any definition there were not enough crossover votes to make a difference. And where is the "ballot stuffing" that Mitch Tyner so loudly proclaimed in.the press conference? In the toilet with his reputation and that of his client. The TP will pay a big price for taking us all through this complete charade and medicine show. I hope Tate consigns McDaniel to the Forestry Committee next session. That would be a start for what he deserves.

Barry Neyrey said...

So now I see why no one uses their name to post this blog. You become an instant target. "Attack the Messenger!" I challenge liberal posters to post a comment with no insults. I also challenge posters to use a fact now and then. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could read McDaniel's challenge document and not see the corruption in Hinds and Lafayette. Heck, in Lafayette, the GOP Chair reported 500 more votes than actually cast. Well, the good news is that we'll have an honest man with authority reviewing the evidence.

Anonymous said...

That's right, Barry, so whether he rules in your favor or not, I expect every single person bemoaning every step this process has taken and saying it's unfair to shut the hell up finally.

Anonymous said...

Barry: I understand you are head of the Gulf Coat tea party? Ever think of switching to coffee? Too much tea is bad for the kidneys.

Bruce Bancroft said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It is especially bad on one to mix tea with Kool-Aid.

Bruce Bancroft said...

Let's talk about Hinds Barry. Taking a look at the affidavits submitted, at least 300 names are listed on both affidavit's, in effect gaming the process and double counting. Also on Haley Winningham's affidavit she lists Precinct 14 in Hinds County as having 182 strike through crossover votes when in fact there were only 25 Democratic votes on June 3, meaning she is off by at least 157 votes. Combine the two and Hinds is overstated by at least 450 votes. Looking forward to the dishonesty of the McDaniel campaign being exposed.

Anonymous said...

If McDaniel ever wakes up and comes to his senses, he's going to say, "What the hell was I thinking"? He is FINISHED and only has himself to blame!

Anonymous said...

Boris, I mean Barry @August 18, 2014 at 9:01 AM
" I also challenge posters to use a fact now and then." I don't know the rules regarding postings, but I do know that the rules of civil procedure require pleadings contain facts in supprt of one's claim. I challenge you to read McDaniel's challenge with that in mind. He has no facts, only speculaton, exagerated numbers, polls conducted by third parties that he rips off without attribution or verification, hearsay testimony, and a lot of whining and stamping of the feet. It's over. Mcdaniel lost. He will not be on the ballot in November or hopefully, any other ballot in the future. He will now fade into obscurity.

Anonymous said...

Here is what the challenge comes down to:
1. There is no valid constitutional challenge to the open primary election statute. Federal courts have consistently held that only a political party, not an individual may challenge the constitutionality of an open primary law.
2. The issue of allowing "Democrats" to vote in the primary is a losing proposition. There is simply no way to enforce the rule regarding party loyalty. No court is going to allow a contestant to present evidence on this point, especially by unreliable polls and social media posts. It would seem challenges should have been made prior to the vote by particular voters. Any post-election disqualification would have to be on a case by case basis, in the very unlikely event it would be allowed at all.
3. There is a possible legal argument to invalidate votes of those who can be proved to have voted in the Democratic primary before the Republican runoff. But this appears to be unlikely to be a large enough number to affect the outcome.
4. Fraud. Again unlikely that there will be sufficient proof of fraud. Allegations aren't enough. Sloppiness does not prove fraud. And appeal to voters who don't ordinarily vote Republican isn't fraud.
5. Irregularities and ballot box security. This is the only basis for which there may be some traction. If McDaniel can muster enough proof that there were serious issues as to ballot box security, he may have a way to get a rerun. There is support in prior cases to invalidate election results based on ballot box security. But the "irregularities" cited as to the poll books are pretty weak. He may able to get some absentee ballots disqualified but again probably not enough.
5. If McDaniel is successful on ballot box security issues, the court could order a rerun. If that happens, McDaniel will be swamped in the runoff because he still will have no valid way of keeping "Democratic" voters from voting in the Republican primary unless they voted in the Democratic Primary. He will also lose a number of his prior votes because of disgust with the posturing. I don't see him picking up much in the way of additional votes with new voters. There is absolutely no way a court would declare him the winner outright.

Anonymous said...

12:14, with no law background, your post seems based in common sense to me. Thanks for that.

It's been asked a few times on here, but just to repeat it again: is Thad named as the defendant for a specific legal reason? It just seems to me the brunt of the argument doesn't really concern him that much. Does he have to be named as the defendant to file the injunction against him? Obviously I have no clue. As I said, just from reading it and trying to apply common logic, you'd think it'd be filed against the Republican party if they want their main arguments to have an attempt at floating.

Anonymous said...

Good question 1:15 p.m.. The statute that sets up the judicial review procedure does not actually specify the party against whom the petition for judicial review should be filed. So there is perhaps no clear answer to your question. Petitions in reported cases sometimes are against the other candidate (who had been declared the winner) or against the party executive committee which had jurisdiction over the election. The statutes do refer to contestant and contestee, but do not define those terms. It is obvious that the contestant is the candidate challenging the election. It is not clear as to the "contestee." However, since the contestee before the in the executive committee proceedings would normally be the other candidate, it would be reasonable to expect that the other candidate would be the contestee in the court proceeding.

Anonymous said...

1:15, the contestee in this case is properly Cochran, partly as 4:03 has explained, but also because it is Cochran who has an interest in defending the properness of the election.

Remove it from this election, and consider the general rule. There is often a possibility of 'the party" having had elected a nominee other than their preference. The could chose not to present a strong defense and thus 'throw' the judicial proceeding to the contestant. Many such cases have occurred, several within recent history - whereas the winning candidate has every interest in mounting a vigorous defense of the election.

So even though the 'party' conducted the election, the proceding is properly filed against the winning candidate who will present a strong and in this case, winning, defense.

Anonymous said...

Hey Barry. Don't know how much f the kool-aid you have been drinking, but its time to put the pitcher down and start thinking for yourself - if you are capable.

Please explain the basis for your claim that the officials conducting the election in Hinds, Lafayette, and others didn't 'switch' the poll books. Guess you either are depending on that wonderful political expert, Ricky Cole and his self-serving tweets, or else you are depending on the savior of us all, Chrissy Crybaby McD and the petition filed by his 'expert'.

For those of us here in Hinds, we have all been inundated in the news by the guy that you accuse of taking bribes (at 1:24 - hope you have plenty of liability insurance to cover this slander, unless of course, you have proof to back up this claim). Perry has shown on numerous occasions the foolishness of McD's claims of illegal votes in Hinds County, and in doing so gave copies of the poll books used on June 24th. They were the June 3rd Dem books. Wasn't the purpose of his demonstration - he was showing the crazy claims of 'crossover votes' being made by McD - but it also did show clearly that the poll books used had been swapped.

Can't speak to Lafayette County, but would assume that your absolute knowledge of what all happened throughout the state is based on just as good knowledge there as what you stated about Hinds.

By the way - how about pointing me to the state law that says the poll books are suppossed to be swapped in party runoff elections. You can't find it because its not there. Since there is no law against voting in a different primary election for the runoff, there is no law about how to insure that it doesn't happen.

Since you are so knowledgeable, and since you know all about bribes and other illegal activities, please point me to one - just one - case of fraud in the June 24th election. And no, you can't use McD's petition as proof of your statement. You have to have real facts.

Barry Neyrey said...

Dear 10:52 asking me to explain the basis for my claims. 1st I will and must use McDaniel's complaint because it is the only investigation conducted and the evidence is the sworn affidavits by reputable people, many also members of GOP executive committees. Remember, sworn testimony is evidence. So, start at pdf page 83 and there's a long list of precincts in Hinds where there are no June 24 marks in the Dem. June 3 poll book even though these precincts reported many, many votes. Procedure dictates the Dem book is used in the runoff to make it easy to see the June 3 demo voters. These precincts didn't do that. This would allow everyone that voted in the June 3 Democrat primary to vote in the runoff. No body checked. Who knows how many voted twice. That is fraud. Regarding payoffs. The $171,000 Perry received from Henry Barbour is documented in FEC reports. It was reported in articles in many publications. The principles have said it was harmless pay for services but give me a break. It doesn't matter what it's called it ends up the same.

Anonymous said...

KF @ 3:55 wrote: "[team McDaniel folks] claimed thousands in Hinds County. Turned out if was around 300."

KF, it is 'only' 300 illegal-double-votes, which is specifically people who voted in the 6/3 d-prime and then voted again in the 6/24 r-runoff, if you take Pete Perry at his word. As Barry points out, Perry was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by team Cochran folks during the cycle. That alone doesn't make him guilty, and Barry is very wrong to call it a "bribe" when it could well be above-board... but still, it does give Perry a motive for misbehaving, I believe that much is incontrovertible. Couple that motive, with the evidence that the pollbooks were "corrected" by simply ERASING any inconvenient double-votes from the 6/3 d-prime, and you will see that the original number of ~1500 irregularities (to include an unknown but large number of illegal-double-votes) was artificially brought down to 'just' 300 illegal-double-votes by retroactively legalizing the illegal. Here is a picture of Pete Perry himself, holding up a page with exactly that kind of evidence.

If you zoom in, you can see that there are six votes in the 6/24 r-runoff shown on the pollbook page, and three of those people are also marked as double-voting in the 6/3 d-prime, but were retroactively erased. According to Pete Perry, this page shows six valid non-double-votes in the 6/24 r-runoff. According to team McDaniel, the page only actually shows three valid non-double-votes, and three other votes that are suspicious irregularities.

That is where the 'just' 300 illegal-double-vote number Pete Perry is claiming, actually comes from. By crossing out a large number of the double-votes. Now, it is plausible that the cross-out was in fact proper; maybe the pollworker made a "mistake". But this was done wholesale, in precinct after precinct. It is extremely worrisome.

And that's before we even consider whether Hinds county corrected the certified totals from the *dem* primary, now that they have retroactively changed the outcome of that 6/3 election by crossing out some of the votes!

Anyways, KF, please be fair here. The truth is, we don't know how many illegal-double-votes there really were in Hinds cty (yet). The challenge-lawsuit will likely help settle that question. But taking what Pete Perry says at face value, and ignoring the evidence otherwise, is unfair.

Besides, 300 illegal-double-votes is quite a large number, if the pollbooks were actually switched! There are allegations by the dem-party-pollworkers in Hinds cty (once again directly naming Pete Perry as culpable) that pollbooks were NOT properly switched in all precincts.

@ 4:13, "There are less than 1000 true crossover votes. This is a fact and verified by SEMS." Be aware that SEMS doesn't know anything about retroactive erasure of votes. The evidence McDaniel lawyers gathered shows there are ~3500 illegal-double-votes, plus another ~9300 questionable irregularaties (including crossouts). Another ~2300 invalid-absentee-ballots were also found; again, SEMS will know nothing about such things, as I understand it. There were still a few counties that had only been partially reviewed, as of 8/4; Washington cty was mentioned, and Lauderdale is prolly on the list as well ("officially" only 7 bad votes according to the certified circuit-clerk totals there).

Anonymous said...

@ 10:56, "names are listed on both
affidavit's, in effect gaming the process and double counting."

Don't be silly. The affidavits from volunteers in Hinds cty list the names THAT volunteer personally saw.

The final totals don't count one name per time printed in the booklet; they of course count up the number of names mentioned in total. That's not to say the lawyers on team McDaniel never goof, or that volunteers never make mistakes, but any problems like that will be caught during the lawsuit process.

Anonymous said...

10:52 wrote, "...your claim that the officials conducting the election in Hinds... didn't 'switch' the poll books. ...depending on... Cole [and] McDaniel... here in Hinds, we have all been inundated in the news [by Pete Perry]... in doing so gave [aka waved around] copies of the poll books used on June 24th. They were the June 3rd Dem books. ...did show clearly that the poll books used had been swapped."

Did the 'evidence' Perry gave (waved around) show that the pollbooks had been swapped in all counties, for the entire time? The dem official who testified says that the pollbooks were swapped in some precincts they visited, but in others were not swapped until after 4pm. They only visited a couple dozen; Hinds has around 100 precincts, if memory serves.

10:52 continues, "...By the way - how about pointing me to the state law that says the poll books are suppossed to be swapped..."

Interesting you should bring that up! According to the allegations against Pete Perry by the dems in Hinds cty, that is exactly the excuse used when attempting to prevent swappage of the pollbooks, in some (not all) of the precincts, for the 6/24 r-runoff.

KF has helpfully posted some of the instructions given to pollworkers in Hinds cty, which presumably came straight from Pete Perry.

The pink page, at the top. "Rule#1... Those who voted in the Democrat 1st primary [aka 6/3 d-prime] may not vote in the Republican Runoff [aka 6/24 r-runoff] Election. See: Mississippi Poll Manager Guide, Election Day Operations, Office of the Secretary of State, p44, Revised as of 2014."

There is also supposed to be some msAttyG opinion from 2007, saying the exact same thing. And a plain reading of the intent-law, which says you must intend to support the nominee in November, logically requires that you not vote in multiple party primaries (you only get one vote in November... you cannot intend to vote for both parties in November... legally at least!)

Of course, the only way to CHECK whether this rule#1 about illegal-double-voting was being followed, requires swapping the pollbooks. Should the swap not be done (or delayed until 4pm), or should the votes on the 6/3 d-prime be erased, then we have a problem. Despite your assertion that Perry has waved some pollbooks around on teevee, and therefore everything must be just peachy, I'd like to see the judge look over the evidence, and see if they agree.

Trust, but verify.

Anonymous said...

Barry @ 11:56, "said it was harmless pay for services but give me a break. It doesn't matter what it's called"

Barry, that is wrong. It does matter what it is called; it also matters what the truth is. The truth is, Perry (via his corp) was paid at least $171k bucks from pro-Cochran groups during this election. Whether such was actually harmless, depends on what exact "services" were desired/purchased, and what exact "services" were intended/provided.

There is a possibility both the payor and the payee are innocent of any wrongdoing. There is a possibility both are guilty. There is a possibility the payor was trying to bribe Perry, but he didn't get the hint, and did not do anything wrong. There is a possibility the payor was NOT trying to bribe Perry, but that he took a hint which never existed, and then behaved badly.

Only a deeper investigation of how the 171k was spent, and how Perry behaved during May and June 2014, and of communications between the people involved, can give us the truth. Until then, Perry is innocent until proven guilty. Which strangely enough, is not actually in the Constitution.

Words have meaning, as Reagan said; do not call it a bribe please. Call it what it is: a few payments totaling 171k, for as-yet-unspecified services. Likely we will know more, soon.

Anonymous said...

12:14, your list of points is pretty well-thought-out, but you re-used point#5 to lump together several different things! :-) I will do a brief re-numbering of the points after the fourth one.

1=constitutionality of open primary, 2=intent of the voter & whether they are dem or repub, 3=double-voting on d-3rd and r-24th, 4=fraud or inciting to fraud, 5=irregularities, 6=ballot box security, 7=redo-runoff, 8=outright overturn. I will also add 9=invalid absentee.

Comments: on point 1, there is some evidence that the new rules of the national party, since 2012, prohibit dems (as opposed to indeps) from "determining the nominee" for any repub primary nationwide; you are right that individuals cannot challenge the semi-open primary (intent law makes it semi), only parties, but as I understand it McDaniel is asking the judge to enforce the EXISTING rules of the repub party. Henry Barbour was a key vote in getting those new repub rules passed in 2012 at the convention, by the way.

2. We broadly agree that the court will not throw out votes by dems (as self-identified in the Chism poll or facebook or whatever) on that basis alone; the question is whether team Cochran was inciting dems to violate the intent-statute, or not. See the advert by Arthur Siggers, where he urges folks to vote repub in this "special election" only, then implies they can go back to being dems.

3. There were ~3500 illegal-double-votes, which is less than the 7700 certified margin of victory. See also point 9, and remember that the big question is whether team Cochran was guilty of inciting these ~3500 illegalities (cf Pete Perry pollbook-swapping && erasures plus Ronnie Crudup adverts urging "every registered voter" to show on 6/24).

4. Fraud is certainly key; even if only a dozen votes were fraud, the judge may well overturn the runoff-results. It depends on the scope of the operation, and who knew what when.

5. irregularities include about ~9300 votes; many of them are retroactive erasure (maybe very bad), but some will turn out to be just human error (all elections suffer from human error in the ~1% range but this itself is not enough to overturn, ever... there has to be intentional "mistakes" not just accidental).

6. ballot box security did turn out to be pretty significant, but again, human error (people not knowing any better) is not enough; if the ballot boxes were insecure, and the certified total is hundreds or thousands off from what the election-materials themselves show, that is another matter, though.

7. The only way McDaniel will be named the winner by the judge outright, is if intent to commit fraud was shown, and Cochran and/or his main staffers knew about it. The discovery phase, where we finally see how many people were given small amounts of cash to be campaign walkers, is what will matter most methinks.

8. But yes, far more likely is a redo-runoff, based on a combo of #3 double-votes, #9 invalid-absentee, and #6 box-security; such would be administered by the courts, and might happen in late September (who knows what that means for printing the November ballots which is supposed to be finalized the first week of September).

9. Invalid absentee stuff is one you skipped; there were over 2000 of those, most of them failure to have an absentee ballot application on file (MS reqs that one be filled out & signed & notarized ... because without that info there is little to prevent fraudulent absentee-votes, which do not require any other form of voter-ID, unlike in-person voting). This is a category where mistakes do not keep the votes from being invalidated, just like double-votes; the intent of the voter does not matter, double-voting and invalid-absentee votes do not count, even if the voter was not TRYING to do anything wrong/illegal/bad/whatnot.

(Summarization in next comment.)

Anonymous said...

@ 12:14 continued....

All told, this adds up to around ~5800 invalid votes (3500+2300), plus more if the judge determines some of the ~9300 irregularities are also invalid. There is a non-zero possibility that the final count will exceed 7700, and if there is a more than a hint that thousands were incited by the actions of team Cochran or the affialiated PACs, even proving "only" that 4000 or 5000 or 6000 invalid votes were cast might get the judge to force a redo-runoff. Thousands of votes is a lot; over 1% of this (unusually high turnout) election, and judges don't want to encourage bad behavior in future elections by ignoring it, if at all possible.

McDaniel does NOT have a slam dunk case (which would require >7700 illegal-double-votes), but he does have half-a-slam-dunk with ~3500+2300, and if he can prove illicit behavior on the part of Perry/Shook/Sims/etc, may very well score two points. Winning the redo-runoff is another matter; how folks are feeling about Cochran (and McDaniel) by then, will be determined by what exactly comes to light during the lawsuit.

Kingfish said...

I got the paper with the instructions from the Election Commission.

Anonymous said...

A lot of this speculation will end once the Rules of Evidence are applied, which will let the air out of McD's bag. The McD fantasy of either being given the nomination or of a re-do is just that: fantasy. It is McD who bears the burden, and most everyone just wants this to go away. This going away is the default position.

Anonymous said...

Just because someone is hired to do a job doesnt mean they can actually do the job. These people who reviewed the books, what is there qualifications for doing so? Have the experience in doing this and especially in mississippi. Several people quote from these affadvits as gospel but these folks may have no idea of what they are speaking of.

Anonymous said...

Here's something people keep leaving out: I've heard this several times before, but on Paul Gallo yesterday Nosef mentioned that he was made aware that Democrats may intend to vote in the runoff for Cochran, and he contacted Chris to see if he wanted him to make a statement on it, and Chris declined.

To me, if you don't address it early, ESPECIALLY when someone like that asks if they want you to, it's hard for me to take you seriously now. This shouldn't be something that makes you mad only if you lose.

Anonymous said...

4:25 am Thank you for taking the time to explain McDaniel's legal challenge better than his lawyer did.

Can you explain why so many of the names listed as invalid are people I know personally and who have been members of good standing in the GOP since Gil Carmicheal ran for governor?

It seems to me that these procedural details are intended to protect the sanctity of my vote, not to throw it out simply because those running the election didn't follow procedure to the letter and make human errors!

It seems to me that proving , after the fact, whether a vote was an illegal crossover or the vote ineligible are the only things that should be relevant if " intent" of the law still has any meaning.

Has anyone given any real thought to how, in detail, Pete Perry could have as a practical matter, for any amount of money, implemented the suggested conspiracy? How many people would he have had to enlist? No offense to Pete, but have you met him? He's no Machiavelli!

And, just as a business can't have you sign a document that allows them to be off the hook for negligence, I question whether a GOP party "rule" can trump State law. I would hope someone would ask the Supreme Court should this be a basis for the ruling. In the final analysis this silly rule calls for reading a voter's mind! THINK! Can not someone change their mind and decide to leave a party? Can not someone who was a party member decide they strongly dislike a candidate and wish to sabotage his or her primary?

This rule seems to me typical of those who don't think through the practical implications of what they wish they could accomplish!

As a practical person, I can see something like ballot box " security" becoming a nightmare. Are we to have armed guards become necessary? That a box wasn't highly secured doesn't mean it was tampered with or that any opportunity existed for tampering to occur.

That a judge would or could simply hand an election over to the candidate who lost for the reasons you list appalls me.

At this point, I frankly welcome a " re-do" so that McDaniel will get a strong message that Mississippians do not approve of his shenanigans!

Frankly, to those of us who aren't locked into the bubbles of either the party politics or arguments between lawyers ( who can always argue) so that we are blinded to the rest of the universe, this is insanity!

For most of us " lay" people, those who think this challenge has a rational basis are conspiratorial in their thinking to the point of paranoia, are literalists , are binary thinkers, are OCD, are anal-retentive, have anti-social personality disorder, have dementia, have lost all perspective, don't understand human nature, are fanatics or combinations thereof!

Anonymous said...

[AND] that is your Daily JJ Pontification brought to you by August 19, 2014 @ 9:17 AM.

Anonymous said...

McDaniel's minions seem to have zeroed in on their first real true-to-life election violation criminal, which is (according to them) a lady from Macon.


Although they have fingered one alleged criminal, there seems to be a problem finding the crime of "double voting" from this. This lady did NOT vote in two different primaries on the same day, which is the thing the law prohibits.

Barry Neyrey said...

Dear 9:17 am.
Pete Perry or other GOP chairman can lock themselves in a room with the ballots and scan absentee ballots over and over again. They can take absentee ballots from June 3 and run them in June 24. They can throw away absentee ballots. While alone with the ballots and books, a GOP chair can mark through or erase markings in a poll book that would otherwise prove people voted twice. They can send to the State Executive committee a higher number than the real number of votes as was done by the Lafayette GOP chair or they can report zero votes for a precinct as was done in Harrison Co. in the June 3 Election. Another thing a GOP chair can do and did is to improperly train the poll workers and tell them to NOT check the primary poll book for double voters. GOP chairs in a minority of counties can use a number of means to tamper with the ballots, records and counts in small amounts each but enough in total to skew the grand total toward their choice of candidates. 7,700 votes? We are watching it happen. Read the sworn affidavits. After the state GOP certified the vote, when inspectors arrived in Hinds co., the GOP chair declared the vote had not been certified and locked himself in a room with the ballots for a day and on the next day, allowed the inspectors to examine the records. Oh, by the way, did I mention this is the man who, according to FEC filings, received $171,000 in so called "fees" from the Barbour/Cochran PAC? Give me a break!

Anonymous said...

Barry. These sworn affidavits were sworn by whom and what is their back groud,experience and training?

Anonymous said...

When one votes enters the precinct polling place, one signs one 's name in a book after producing identification. How are these books used in connection with identifying who voted in what primary? I have seen lists of discussion about poll books, but none about the signature books and their significance. Are these not the best evidence of who voted when and in which party primary? Absent forgeries which should be pretty easy to detect, wouldn't they provide an excellent record to determine whether someone voted on primaries for more than one party? I would be interested in an explanation about these records.

Anonymous said...

A "sworn affadavit" in no way means that what the affiant is asserting is correct, Barry. But it could make for a an unusally entertaining cross-examination of said affiant. By the way, is that why your compadres were skulking around in the Hinds Cnty courthouse after hours? Trying to bust Perry or others tampering with the ballots?

Anonymous said...

A complaint concerned with best evidence would not
feature so prominently a recording of a woman speaking
about what her mother thought she might have seen. After
two months was it really not possible to at least get the
mother to say what she thought she might have seen in her own words?

Anonymous said...

Barry, you are an absolute idiot. None of the things you claim could be done are possible. You can't run June 3rd ballots through and count them on the 24th - they are coded and the scanner wouldn't read them, for one thing. Also, there is the little thing of the double check system - you have to have the same number of votes, signatures, and 'voted' notations to match - along with an accounting of the number of ballots used has to equal the number of votes. Etc. etc.

Also, these things are not done in a vacuum. Canvassing of the votes is a process done in public and by multiple people. The 'conspiracy' required to do something like you allege has happened would be so vast it would take more black helicoptors than you have ever imagined seeing flying over your house.

As to the number of 'improper' votes found in Hinds County, the 300 number was the total found by McD investigator who also saw each and every poll book that was used in the June 24th primary. The examples of the poll books were not just 'waved around' by Perry, copies of them were passed out to the media members present at the various press briefings.

You might want to keep on with your baseless allegations, just as McD and his crazy team of advisors have done. But the evidence exists that will prove you and them to be the crazy zealots you are that cannot see the truth when it is slapping you in the face.

Anonymous said...

3:29 - better check your facts also. The 'dems' that made accusations was only one 'dem' - Claud McGinis - who got paid to make comments to Breitbart, not testimony. And there was nothing in that set of lies that gave an 'excuse' for the allegations made by McGinis, all of which have been debunked by the media upon investigation.

Your changing the "gave" to "waved" about the poll books ignores the facts also. During the press conference, Perry did hold up a copy of the poll books, but he also passed out copies to everyone present.

The AG opinion is not a 2007 opinion but one from the early 80's. And it doesn't establish law, it only provides an opinion.

And, swapping of the poll books is not the only way to insure compliance with this "AG opinion" is met. Most counties in MS provide poll workers with a list of voters in the first primary; only a few counties actually swap the books.

Thanks for playing - next time, though, try to get your facts right first.

Kingfish said...

Better think twice before relying on Claude's testimony.

Anonymous said...

Barry 10:05
You repeatedly speculate about the Hinds County Republican officials, saying "they can" do this and that. That one can imagine what "they can" do is far from a statement of evidentiary fact; it is just TP mission oriented paranoia speaking. We will find out in Court what the admissible (and only the admissible) evidence shows or does not show.

In the meantime, you have illustrated once again that the TP accusations are like the McCarthy accusations during the early 1950's hysteria: unfair, full of character assassination, harmful, and unsubstantiated. I hope all Mississippians now see what the Tea Party is really about.

Anonymous said...

How about Pete Perry's testimony Kingfish? No qualms at all about his integrity?

Anonymous said...

3:03. You obviously do not know how SEMS operates. Within a few days of a primary (6/3 in this case) all voters who participated are scanned into SEMS or manually entered based on their assigned voter number (barcode) This is done well before any runoff. Once in the system, there is no way to retroactively remove a voter. Any attempt to change any information is registered in an audit log.

After the runoff the runoff participants are scanned under the process poll books functionality within SEMS. If a voter voted in another parties primary election. a message in red comes up which states "voter voted for a different party in primary election". The system functionality will also pickup if someone voted absentee and then showed up at the polls and attempted to vote again. There is no way to retroactively erase anything. The SEMS number plus the number from the 7 counties that don't use SEMS is the true number. Not the 3500 number claimed. That is a bogus number which the Cochran attorneys will easily prove.

Anonymous said...

I would note that Bill Billingsly's affidavit lists less than 400 improper votes in Hinds. Haley Winningham's lists more but also includes 300 names also on Bill's list plus the already debunked 182 names from precinct 14. The entire McDaniel case is based on the competency of the volunteers sent to the various Courthouses which is at best, suspect and at worst, incompetent.

Anonymous said...

So really, the SEMS print out should tell all, and end all the baseless speculation of the volunteers? What are the 7 counties without SEMS? This sounds like a huge part of the story. Hopefully the Circuit Clerks could testify to all this.

Anonymous said...

Not sure which counties. Here is a good overview of SEMS functionality.

Anonymous said...

Prediction for Wednesday: Judge McGehee excludes most of McDaniel's purported evidence on various grounds, hearsay, lack of evidentiary value, unable to verify, etc., and by days end McDaniel sends out an email saying that he will file an interloc and, of course, asking for money, money, money.

Anonymous said...

Wish it could be, but tomorrow is just a status conference to set deadlines. There will be a deadline for motions.

Anonymous said...

Poster #1 here; subpoena these volunteers and make them explain their findings. That would be enjoyable and probably will cut to the chase.

If Barry up there is a "leader" and is so mislead on the electoral process, I can't imagine what these volunteers think. 12:03 just blew his rhetoric out of the water, and this isn't even coming from the lawyers.

Can they livestream this sucker? Also, I've started to enjoy law, but it's so slow. Good Lord. Get this thing started.

Anonymous said...

12:11 wrote, "The 'dems' that made accusations was only one 'dem' - Claud McGinis - who got paid to make comments to Breitbart..."

Oh? "[Claude] McInnis told Breitbart News he personally witnessed at least one Hinds County precinct -- Precinct 16 -- where the books had not been switched during the runoff day [prior to 4pm]. ...McInnis and his fellow Hinds County Democratic Executive Committee member, Chairwoman Jacqueline Amos-Norris, provided Breitbart News with email evidence that Perry and Connie Cochran were trying to not 'switch the books' on runoff day. ...[Rickey] Cole, the state Democrats’ chairman, said it [a statement by Perry that pollbooks were swapped in all precincts] really wasn't the end of it [the question of whether that was in fact true] because Perry somehow managed not to switch the books in several precincts across the county."

Article by Matthew Boyle, published 27th June 2014, which was a couple days after the 6/24 r-runoff. When I do a bit of googling, mcinnis amos norris hinds perry cochran, turns up zero debunking-stories. Can you provide a link, where Claude McInnis recants his story, and admits the email-evidence was falsified?

As everybody knows, once it became clear to him that he was involving himself in a felony, Steve Fielder partially recanted... then flipped his narrative... but the photos of the text-messaging evidence are another matter, eh? Now clearly Rickey Cole and the other dems here have an ulterior interest in making repubs look bad, stirring up infighting amongst repubs, and so on. Rickey Cole is no friend of the tea party, nor of non-tea-party-repubs like Barbour. But when Rickey Cole accused team Cochran of hiring on Scooby Doo Warren, that turned out to be true, didn't it? Cole had no evidence at the time (mid-June), only hearsay, but since that time the evidence of the financial links have come to light. Are we to assume that these other two dems, in addition to Cole, both like Cole giving their names and their positions (and one with personal-knowledge testimony about specific wrongdoing in a specific precinct), are just liars? If so, what about the email evidence? Those *CAN* be faked, sure enough, but were they?

I'd like to see Perry, Cochran, McInnis, Amos-Norris, and Cole give testimony before a judge, and have the court sift all the evidence (both what is now known plus additional evidence that shows up during the discovery phase) and then render a final verdict.

@ KF from 12:14, there is a difference between relying on the bald testimony of one person, who has a prima facie ulterior motive, and relying on corroborating testimony from three people, plus email-evidence. There is also the sheer number of illegal-double-votes in Hinds cty, several hundred no matter *who* you ask. Those numbers strongly suggest the pollbooks were not properly swapped, and that therefore, the allegations there was an effort to prevent pollbooks from being swapped hold water. We don't have the clearcut truth here, but dismissing the allegation by McInnis outright seems improper; why do you assert he is wrong? Like some others who comment here, you are local to Hinds cty I believe, and thus probably saw the election process with your own eyes. More crucially, you have easy access to pollworkers from 6/3 and 6/24. Can you do some interviews, and find out what happened in precinct 16, and what happened in the other precincts, with regard to when/whether pollbooks were switched?

Anonymous said...

9:17 wrote, "Can you explain why so many of the names listed as
invalid are [repubs]?"

There are different reasons for different folks, but an example, one of the names from a pollbook page that was made public that I personally investigated, turned out to be around age 70, caucasian, a repub donor per FEC data, an employee of a Trustmark subsidiary (the same bank that loaned $250k to team Cochran controversially), and living in the same zipcode as Austin Barbour. In other words, they are almost certainly a repub in good standing.

They are marked as having voted in the d-prime on 6/3, which was later retroactively erased (X'd through), plus then having also voted in the r-runoff on 6/24. This puts the person in the category of the ~9300 "questionable votes" mentioned by the McDaniel lawyers, although I have not checked if this person's name is actually mentioned there.

There are two main possibilities for the truth of the matter. First, maybe the person really voted in the 6/3 r-prime, and marking them down for the 6/3 d-prime was a clerical error by a pollworker. Second, maybe the person really voted in the 6/3 d-prime, and X'ing that vote out was a clerical error by a pollworker. In case one, the 6/24 vote is valid, and should count; in case two, the 6/24 double-vote is invalid, and should not count. The court will decide which.

As for the motivation of the person, who is a repub, to vote in the d-prime on 6/3... well, if they DID do that, it seems pretty clear why. They donated to a repub several years back, who was running against Travis Childers that year. In the d-prime of 2014, there was Travis Childers yet again, competing against three other people for the dem-nom, one of whom was Republican Bill Marcy! ("I am changing my party-label but not changing my principles.") So it is plausible that this repub-voter was engaging in some party-raiding, trying to get Marcy as the dem-nom instead of Childers. That is a bit unethical, but not technically illegal, per MS state law, as long as the voter was willing to state at the time that they "intended" to vote for the dem-nom (which turned out to be Childers) under the MS-intent-law that makes primaries just semi-open.

Anyways, hopefully that answers your question; repubs are listed in the evidence, because the pollbooks show that repubs were voting in the 6/3 d-prime, and then voting again in the 6/24 r-runoff.

Or sometimes, because there was something else irregular about the pollbooks for that repub voter, such as Mitch Tyner having an extra unexplained 'voted' notation in the margin, as well as his official voted-notation in the proper column.

Plus of course, volunteer reviewers after 6/24, just like pollworkers on 6/24, are not free of human error, clerical error, and computerized GIGO problems. Seemed like a simple question; sorry the answer was longwinded.

Anonymous said...

9:17 cont'd. "...these procedural details are intended to protect the sanctity of my vote, not to throw it out simply because those running the election didn't follow procedure to the letter and make human errors!"

Yes, this is correct. If you, or somebody you know, is listed in the evidence/affidavits/whatnot, I suggest you send your own affidavit (think it must be notarized) to the court with your statement about what happened, about whether you voted on 6/3 or not (and if so d-prime or r-prime), and whether you voted on 6/24 or not (in the r-runoff). You don't need to reveal who you voted for, or your intent, but the giving latter will help the court make a determination: if you voted on 6/3, did you intend to support the repub nominee come November, or the dem nominee come November? If you voted on 6/24, did you intend to support the repub nominee come November?

Similarly, if you see an affidavit which says something about the election-process that you know (from seeing it with your own eyes) to be incorrect, then you prolly want to submit an affidavit stating the facts. This is important for whether pollbooks were switched at each precinct, and if so when, and whether absentee-materials were thrown out or not, and whether ballot-boxes were secured, and so on and so forth.

I would suggest doing a bit of research on proper creation of affidavits beforehand, and where they ought be sent, but perhaps some kingfish readers can help out here? Does an affidavit for an election-challenge court case need to be in some particular form, or include any specific info? Notarized? Send it to the judge, send it to Tyner, send it to Butler Snow, send it to all three?

Kingfish said...

Those of us who have dealt with Claude don't think of him as someone who is credible and that is putting it mildly. I've caught him lying several times. To my face.

All of this is coming from Claude McGinnis and I don't think Breitbart has ever published the emails, either? I'll put it this way, if I had them and wrote about them, don't you think I would have posted them here?

Anonymous said...

9:17 also says: "No offense to Pete, but have you met him? He's no Machiavelli!" Yes, correct, and he has been taking a lot of heat, which may turn out to be smoke-but-no-fire. Life is not always fair; I feel for the guy. Similarly, though, Steve Fielder is not Einstein, either. The question is whether there was in fact, somebody behind the scenes funding and inciting and so on. The answer to that question remains to be seen, but we are coming closer to whether it is provably the case, or not. It is no conspiracy-theory to say that there were millions and millions of dollars being spent, by team Cochran (and for that matter by team McDaniel). The question is just how those monies were spent.

9:17, "Can not someone change their mind and decide to leave a party?" Yes, correct. I doubt the RNC rule will get much 'time' in the state-court election-challenge; as Ralph Hall in the Courier suspects, it is probably in there merely to permit appeal to the federal courts, should the MS supremes again rule just as they did in mid-July. Furthermore, even under the MS semi-open primary law, one can leave the party. However, the attyG opinion suggests that one cannot vote in the r-prime in the morning, "leave" that party to vote in the d-prime that afternoon, and then "return" to that party to vote in the r-runoff a few weeks later... that would pretty clearly violate the intent-law, right?

9:17, "I can see something like ballot box 'security' becoming a nightmare." This is correct; it could easily become a nightmare. But remember how the cops could immediately clear the pro-McDaniel precinct worker who went back to the Hinds cty courthouse at 2am, wondering why the vote-counting was not yet finished? Because the ballot-materials were locked in a vault, so the cops knew everything was fine on that score. My personal opinion is that all ballot-materials should be, by law, under the constant eye of two surveillance cameras, with the camera-resolution high enough to record page-numbers on the paperwork, with encrypted feeds uploaded to the sec-state in real time, digitally signed (at both ends!) to prevent tampering. Then, any allegations of wrongdoing would be caught on tape, without the need for armed guards. If both of the redundant camera-systems suspiciously failed at the same time, the precinct in question would have a do-over election, or simply be thrown out, depending.

9:17, "That a box wasn't highly secured doesn't mean it was tampered with or that any opportunity existed for tampering to occur." Your first statement is true; your second statement is false, at least, by my definition of security: if an opportunity DID exist for tampering to occur, then the ballot-box was NOT properly secured, in my book. Security should be high enough to prevent such opportunities (no matter the cost), but no higher (why waste money on additional security which is not necessary).

9:17, "That a judge would or could simply hand an election over to the candidate who lost for the reasons you list appalls me." Basically, the only reason the judge will GIVE the nom to McDaniel, is if widespread INTENTIONAL fraud is proven. I don't know whether that will happen; it will depend on testimony about the vote-buying stuff. If thousands of votes were provably bought with intent to defraud the electorate, then even if the total was not >7700, I would still expect the judge to flip the results. Do you not agree?

9:17, "At this point, I frankly welcome a redo-runoff..." Yes, there may well be one, depending on whether Butler Snow is able to disqualify enough evidence.

Anonymous said...

9:17 philosophically quoth, "Frankly, to those of us who aren't locked into the bubbles of either the party politics, or arguments between lawyers (who can always argue), so that we are blinded to the rest of the universe, this is insanity! For most of us 'lay' people, those who think this challenge has a rational basis are conspiratorial in their thinking to the point of paranoia, are literalists, are binary thinkers, are OCD, are anal-retentive, have anti-social personality disorder, have dementia, have lost all perspective, don't understand human nature, are fanatics or combinations thereof!"

Laughing out loud, as the kids say nowadays; although I do know you meant it seriously, and are indeed frustrated at the whole situation (as am I), that *was* a pretty hilarious rant. I did laugh. Some of it is very true! I admit to being a literalist about the Constitution, and a binary thinker ("if Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit") about the legal system generally. I'm also a radical for capitalism, and a fanatic for liberty. I have exactly one paranoid conspiracy theory: I strongly fear slash suspect, although I have no non-circumstantial evidence, that Andropov's death in February 1984 was NOT from natural causes. If the judge says the election results should stand, and if Cochran apologizes for people under him using his name whilst they were abusing racial hatred as a wedge-issue, I'll support him 100%. If the judge says the election results should be overturned, and if McDaniel apologizes for mistakes he (or tea party folks in general) have made along the way, will you support him 100% against Childers? If so, then we are doing well.

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree, the Mississippi election in 2014 has been very frustrating, for all concerned. Too much of it has been mudslinging (of the worst sort), way too much of it has been party politics (of the *worst* sort), and WAY WAY too much of it lawyers arguing (there are no shades of grey here... all lawyerly arguments are 'the worst' rock-bottom no-qualification-needed). At some point, many people have lost sight of the goal here: improving the direction our republic is headed. As you put it, folks have lost all perspective. I will readily admit to that: I really and truly consider the post-June McDaniel campaign to be more important than almost every other campaign in the country, with the possible exception of Louisiana, and VA#7. I still think that; MS'14 has broader implications than just this one seat, or just this one lawsuit. It is about the future of the tea party movement, and about the future of the repub party, and about fair elections, and fair tactics, going forwards.

Anyways, this isn't over yet (for any definition of "this"), as we both know. May I gently suggest, though, if you keep name-calling, the ripple-problems from this election may never *be* over. If you disagree the election-challenge has a rational basis, that is fine, make your case logically, or just explain you don't feel it is right, or whatever. But saying that I must have dementia, or some other clinical mental disease, is pretty harsh. Would you also call me a racist, since I disagree with the policy-positions of Barack Obama, about 90% of the time? Hint: I'm not a racist. Hint: I'm not demented. Hint: that doesn't mean I'm correct in 100% of my stances, predictions, or policy-goals. Best wishes in your quest to see rational behavior re-assert itself, I seek the same thing, and I look forward to reading your reply.

Anonymous said...

11:17, "By the way, is that why your compadres were skulking around in the Hinds Cnty courthouse after hours? Trying to bust Perry or others tampering with the ballots?"

I was not there, but yes, as I understand the story, that is basically correct. One of the people was a precinct-worker; they turned in their paperwork ~8pm.

Unbeknowest to this precint-worker, or to the McDaniel campaign, Perry told everybody helping to vote-count, to go home ~11pm to sleep, and locked the ballot-stuff in the vault.

The precinct-worker, with a McDaniel volunteer in tow, returned to the courthouse ~2am to see why the vote-counting was taking so long (aka to "bust" any perfidy that may have been occuring), going in through a side door which was left propped open back at 11pm, but getting locked in when the door closed behind them.

The precinct-worker called Pete Perry to be let out (and to find out what was up with the place being empty but no totals yet reported), Pete Perry called the cops ("to manufacture a scandal" of the people who were trying to "bust him").

The cops verified the ballot-stuff was still in the vault, and no charges were filed, but the 'scandal' remains (as your BTW remark proves).

This was all on the 6/3 r-primary, and the early morning of 6/4 afterwards. Perry and the others came back at ~8am, and finished vote-counting. Most of the later accusations involving Perry were pertinent to the 6/24 r-runoff; see commentary above.

Anonymous said...

1:58, maybe you can fill me in on the detailed working of SEMS, then? Who scans the precinct-by-precinct pollbooks into SEMS? Can they choose *not* to scan something, if that something has been marked out? By scanning, I'm assuming you are talking about barcode-scanning vote by vote, as opposed to flatbed scanning page by page?

Who is authorized to "correct" the precinct-by-precinct information, retroactively within SEMS? Who is permitted the opportunity to do so, authorized or not? What happens to the information in SEMS when the county officials, and then the SREC, certifies the totals? Are the pollbooks all re-scanned from scratch? Is every vote added, and every vote deleted, tracked in the audit-log, or can some votes be marked as "clerical errors" in pen, which never get scanned into SEMS?

Once the info from the runoff is being scanned, new questions arise (presumably the same as above... but maybe not... is there anything special about the runoff-process which differs from the process used in the original primary). First, can somebody override that red message? If so, who? What happens when they do, does the vote get counted as one of the "1000 true" illegal-double-votes, or does it become legalized by the override?

On another matter, how thorough is the checking for absentee-vote-plus-also-in-person-double-voting? Can it detect if I have an old registration in another county (or a new registration in another state), and can it detect if my absentee-ballot-app uses my work address, but my in-person voter registration uses my home address?

You assert that the SEMS number is the true number, and that there is no way to retroactively erase anything WITHIN the computerized record. However, even though my inside knowledge of SEMS is weak, my knowledge of computers tells me that GIGO may well apply here: who are the people feeding SEMS the truth? Moreover, who is guarding those selfsame guardians? That is what will help convince me that the true number, is what the computer says it is, rather than what the paper-based pollbook records say.

Note that usually, in cases of systematic accounting fraud, there will be a (false) computerized set of 'books' used for SEC reporting and such, plus the (true) 'books' on paper. If it turns out that there was election-fraud in the 2014 runoff, I would fully *except* what the computerized record claims is true, to differ (dramatically) from what the paper-trail says is true. That seems to be the case here, which doesn't mean there WAS fraud, but does mean the discrepancy needs investigating.

p.s. These are serious questions, to which I would like to know the answers to, but I understand there are a lot of them, and you may not have the time/inclination to mess with it. No problem, if so. (And if you do have time to answer some or all of them, much appreciated.) The courtcase will tell us the "true" number according to the judge, sooner or later.

Anonymous said...

KF at 6:23, "All of this is coming from Claude McGinnis..."

Well, not the way I read the article; it sounds like the Breitbart guy talked directly to Claude (e.g. about precinct 16 not swapping until 4pm), but also talked directly to Amos-Norris (who backed McInnis up on the email-stuff and was herself quoted directly). Rickey Cole also was mentioned in the same article, talking specifically about precinct-pollbook-swapping and Pete Perry; though I didn't see Cole making any further statements, he also didn't dispute anything the other two said.

"...and I don't think Breitbart has ever published the emails, either?"

No, not to my knowledge. They summarized "the point" of the email-contents, but did not quote them. You can always ask Amos-Norris to see them, though, if you don't trust McInnis. (How *is* his name really spelled? I keep seeing four variations here in the comments... the Breitbart guy spelled it McInnis.)

Anyways, if you have the time, I'd really like to see the outcome, from you doing a series of interviews with pollworkers, on as many Hinds precincts as you can find. I'll help make phone calls, if that is useful to your effort, but I'm not in Hinds so that limits my investigative capacity. If you are not comfy "trying the case in the media" in that fashion, that is okay by me as well. But personally, a lot of my frustration with this whole saga, has been the refusal of people to SAY WHAT HAPPENED.

Sure, we have seen Pete Perry on teevee, and of course McDaniel and his lawyers, and we have a few quotes from a few high-level dem-party officials. But where is the low-level pollworker, who was actually IN precinct sixteen ON the afternoon when McGinnis said the pollbooks were not swapped until 4pm? Surely getting to the bottom of this is not infeasible; yet here it is August 20th, and the article came out June 27th, but since then no progress on finding the truth has been made.

It is still just pro-McDaniel folks saying "oh breitbart said this" and in return pro-Cochran folks say "oh you cannot trust that dem". He-said-she-said, is that what we are reduced to here? Arrgh. Same crap with Fielder; where are the interviews with Sims, Shook, Baird, and all the other staffers and campaign-walkers that can be found? Nowhere....

Sigh; in any case, I will mightily strive not to complain about this particular nit again, if it is too annoying. I'll just point folks to the comment-section here. ;-)

Not a Perry fan, but said...

3:03 - you make damning claims about what "Pete Perry did" and what "Pete Perry claims"; and suppossitions about what Pete Perry 'might have done after the fact to change the poll books to give different numbers.

Too bad you evidently don't know a damn thing about what you are saying, or are part of the Magic 8-ball team running the McD circus touting numbers that don't have anything to do with facts.

McD's 'examiner' was on site at the courthouse with Perry the entire time from the moment the polls closed until he had finished examining the materials. Not that Perry would do anything as illegal as you 'suppose' - changing the poll books after the fact - but that would not have been possible unless McD's representative was in on the fix with him.

And the 300 number of 'possible' cross over votes is not just Perry's number, it is the number that McD's guyncame up with after going through all the poll books and cross referencing them to the sign in books.

You can damn Perry all you want, but just because McD's crazies want to villify him because he got the voters out in Hinds County to add an extra 8000 to the total doesn't make him a crook. Actually, it appears to me to make him out to be a pretty good practical politician in the GOTV effort. And nobody has come up with any inkling of evidence that he or anybody else in the Hinds GOP did anything in the conduct of the election but what is required to get this volunteer work done in the best manner possible.

Anonymous said...

Now being reported that Mitch will not ask, properly so, how any one voted. That should effectively do away with the question of whether voters intended to support the nominee, not that was ever a real issue legally. While he may challenge particular votes, based on the interpretation of the statute that a voter cannot vote in a first primary for one party and in the runoff of another party, he cannot seek to disqualify voters who did not vote in the primaries of both parties, whatever self-idenfication voters give themselves by party. His only challenge there is the constitutionality of the open primary law, but that fails for lack of standing. The RNC rules issue is also a nonstarter because those rules do not bind the state party.

Ultimately this will be only about the questions of fraud and/or irregularities that may rise to the point of clouding the results so much that a winner cannot be fairly determined. I remain highly skeptical that there will be adequate proof to upset Cochran's certification.

Suscribe to latest on JJ.

Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel


Trollfest '09









This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07




This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS