BUSH TRIED TO INSTALL CRONY AT FLORIDA ELECTION BOARD

President Bush has said "Every registered voter deserves to have confidence
that the system is fair and elections are honest."[1] But according to a new
report, the President is doing all he can to once again rig the election in
Florida.

According to the Miami Daily Business Review, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ®
appointee at the Broward County Board of Elections hired a law firm headed
by two close cronies of President Bush to fight any charges against it
during the 2004 election. Specifically, the Broward Supervisor of Elections
Brenda Snipes hired the law firm Blosser & Sayfie.[2] Justin Sayfie "is a
former spokesman for Gov. Bush and currently is co-chair of the Bush/Cheney
re-election campaign in Broward County." He is also a Bush Ranger (aka.
someone who has raised more than $100,000 for the President's campaign).[3]
James Blosser is also "a top fund-raiser for President Bush's re-election
campaign."[4] Many observers expect the election will be extremely close in
Florida and predict it will touch off litigation. County election
supervisors and their legal teams could play a key role in deciding the
election.

While Snipes has since been forced to fire the law firm,[5] it shows just
how far the Bushes are willing to go to throw the Florida election again.
Earlier this summer, Jeb Bush attempted to purge thousands of voters from
the Florida voting rolls, but was stopped after public pressure overwhelmed
the effort.[6] Additionally, Florida GOP operatives are going to
naturalization offices to give new immigrants voter registration forms which
are already pre-marked to register the voter as a Republican.[7]


Sources:

1. "President Signs Historic Election Reform Legislation into Law,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53257.
2. "Elections Supervisor Rapped for Hiring Lawyers With Bush Ties," Law.com,
8/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53258.
3. "Top Fundraisers Earn Right to Party," Los Angeles Times, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53259.
4. "Elections Supervisor Rapped for Hiring Lawyers With Bush Ties," Law.com,
8/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53258.
5. "Broward elections supervisor fires lawyer over firm's connection to
President Bush," Sun-Sentinel, 8/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53260.
6. "State ceases felon voting purge," Miami Herald, 8/14/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3355437&l=53261.
7. National Public Radio, 7/25/04.


Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. »

Any judge worth his salt should cause this lawyer to excuse/recuse himself from the matter based on obvious and publicly evident interest in the matter dur to his relationships as a political activist for the Republican Party and an associate of Boooooooooosh.

The Election Law is being mocked when politicians conduct themselves in this matter.

Is this an impeachable offense, if it can be demonstrated that the CEO of Florida ia acting to place his partisan interest above the federal and state Election Laws in Florida, and thereby refusing to obey the law?

No one ever said that attorneys representing people had to be impartial.

That is why there is a judge.

Unless you overlooked what the above post has written in it, you should know the difference between "people" and "the people" as in the public.

The represented are the taxpayers who are afforded Election Laws and due process in equal administration of the law and under the law by their government representatives; the represented are not a private individual in a civil matter.

Additionally, history shows us that lawyers are often removed from cases in which they have a direct interest in the outcome via a relationship with one of the parties outside the scope of providing legal services.

There is a clear difference.

Is the judge Republican?

In a perfect world we could trust our judges to be 100% impartial.

But, I believe we would just have to trust the process. If we don't like the decision, it can be appealled.

To question judges solely based on their political affiliation threatens to degrade our legal system into people blaming judges for their rulings on their political affiliation. Example: a registered Democrat files a small claims case that is heard by a known Republican judge. Whether or not the case has merits or not, the Democrat could just say the judge ruled due to political affiliation.

I don't think we want to go there.

IMHO, this would breed more of the *us versus them* mentality that has gotten us to where we are today and will only see our country further divided in the future.

Evidently, Bross. overlooked my response or had no counter argument for it.

First, like I said, nothing requires an attorney to be impartial. You would be indicating that any attorney that showed partiality to recuse himself from a case? There would be no attorneys left. That is a nice thought, but a whole different discussion.

Second, the question of whether this would be an impeachable offense? No. Why? Because it is not a violation of any law. For a politician to place his partisan interest above (not laws), but the interest of the people is not an impeachable offense. Sadly, it is standard practice. That is the reason for elections. If the people he represents don't like it, they can simply not re-elect him.

We can argue this speculation all we want, but if you want to cite exact laws that were broken, I would be happy to comment.

It is obvious that you are referring to my original post and not to my response to your follow-up.

If you are willing to ignore my resonse, then so be it. But to redouble your efforts to dispute my original post while there is a more current response to your original follow-up indicates that you are either careless in reading this thread or deliberate in shying away from the responses your posts evoke.

When you are ready to be direct and to the point at hand, and willing to acknowledge that a general statement can be made for brevity, while it truly represents a thourough subject that lacks depravity as you indicate, then I just might take you more seriously sometimes.

First, you are right. I did miss this. Oops. :D

Anyway, I can certainly see your point. I am not sure what would be applicable here.

Certainly the attorney could be shown to have a bias, that is OK. The attorney could also be shown to have a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Would a judge ask the attorney to recuse himself is the real question. That is a pretty big grey area.

If an attorney has a direct interest in the outcome of a case, let's say an attorney is representing the company he works for, or holds shares in, then that would be allowed more often than not. However, if that same attorney were shown to have a larger interest in his client actually losing, then he would likely (but not definitely) be removed. Never assume logic rules in the courts.

However, I certainly do not see where any actual laws were broken.

Again, you missed the point of who the attorney is representing: The taxpayers, not a private entity or individual.

If an elected official forces the taxpayers to be represented by an interested party in the outcome, and especially if that issue is to change legal precedents on the Election Law to the detriment of the taxpayers, then it is clear that the elected official is attempting to defy the law and to alter it without jurisdiction on the matter, and therein is the violation of law. This unless the state of Florida rests complete authority in their Governor to make laws and/or change them and their precedents, without due process to the state legislature or the taxpayers.

I didn't miss it at all. I was just giving an extreme example and then indicating that the whole thing would be a really big grey area. There is nothing solid that would indicate that a judge would rule one way or the other on that. Sure, the other side would argue that the attorney should recuse himself, but it is not a slam-dunk situation.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am only applying reality to the situation. And, to be honest, in all likelihood, the attorney would be allowed to continue without challenge.

I am not making a statement on what *I* think is right or wrong, only what would be likely to actually happen.

Then plainly, you are ignoring the legal precedents and principles at hand.

Also, you appear to be inventing probable cause in your inclination to believe that either a conflict of interest would not cause lawyer to be removed by a judge, or that the Governor will not be in violation of the law as outlined in the Constitution of the state he presides in.

Well, once again, I really don't care that much about this particular issue.

But, if it is something you would just like to engage me in an interesting, intellectual discussion about, then, by all means, please cite any legal precedents, case law, and laws supporting your argument.

Otherwise, let's agree to disagree on this one and let it go.

Great post jessigirl. Nice references too. Isee this thread going down hte lawyer rat hole but IMHO, Rather than attacking the lawyers who were hired in this.
( cronie loyalty and all)... I am more concerned that the "Jeb Bush's appointee at the broward County board of elections" is acting unethically here in hire the lawyers in the first place.

Others?