Breaking news, everyone:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_...date112304.html

PRESS RELEASE
House Committee on the Judiciary
Government Accountability Office to Conduct Investigation
of 2004 Election Irregularities

(Washington, DC) -- Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, Robert Scott, and Rush Holt announced today that, in response to their November 5 and 8 letters to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the GAO has decided to move forward with an investigation of election irregularities in the 2004 election. The five Members issued the following statement:

"We are pleased that the GAO has reviewed the concerns expressed in our letters and has found them of sufficient merit to warrant further investigation. On its own authority, the GAO will examine the security and accuracy of voting technologies, distribution and allocation of voting machines, and counting of provisional ballots. We are hopeful that GAO's non-partisan and expert analysis will get to the bottom of the flaws uncovered in the 2004 election. As part of this inquiry, we will provide copies of specific incident reports received in our offices, including more than 57,000 such complaints provided to the House Judiciary Committee.

"The core principle of any democracy is the consent of the governed. All Americans, no matter how they voted, need to have confidence that when they cast their ballot, their voice is heard."

The Members listed above were joined in requesting the non-partisan GAO investigation by Reps. Melvin Watt, John Olver, Bob Filner, Gregory Meeks, Barbara Lee, Tammy Baldwin, Louise Slaughter and George Miller.

###

Why didn't more sign on???? CHICKEN??? Gotta have bodies on the line - less chance of "cutting them outta the herd"....

With the entire US government in Republican hands, I'm not sure how much good this will do. But at least it acknowledges the validity of their claims.

Are they truly 'independent'? Will they be beyond the reach of the White House who will be doing everything possible to prevent a comprehensive recount and investigation?

? What exactly is the GOA? I mean seriously? What are they going to do?
I put this article in just because the GOA is in on this issue...
The GOA used to be the "General Accounting Office"



From The Nation Magazine


UN Oil for Food 'Scandal'
by Joy Gordon



The CIA's Duelfer report may have confirmed the gross falsity of the WMD claims invoked by the Bush Administration to justify its war against Iraq, but it has also triggered a feeding frenzy in the growing attacks against the United Nations. In January the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada published a list of people and organizations, including UN personnel, who supposedly received vouchers from the Iraqi government to purchase oil. In April the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office) published a report claiming that the Oil for Food (OFF) program had been rife with corruption and that through smuggling and kickbacks, Saddam Hussein had managed to acquire more than $10 billion in illicit funds. A series of Congressional investigations followed, featuring conservative witnesses who pilloried the UN for incompetence, corruption and general unfitness. In the latest hearings chaired by Republican Norm Coleman, the committee staff claimed that Saddam's access to illicit funds totalled over $21 billion--twice the sum claimed by the CIA--and that the money went to terrorists around the world, not to mention (rather astonishingly) the post-Saddam insurgency.

If it is true that Benon Sevan, former head of the OFF program, accepted illicit oil vouchers, then that may well constitute fraud (although the evidence cited against him so far has been tenuous). But it would also have been in direct violation of clear UN policies--hardly an indicator of institutional corruption.


ADVERTISEMENT Rarely mentioned, either at the hearings or in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the UN agencies and those that result from decisions of particular member states within the highly politicized Security Council. For example, the CIA report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were "government to government agreements" between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program. According to the report, they resulted in income to Iraq of $7.5 billion.

The largest of these arrangements was with Jordan--revenue from which totaled about $4.5 billion. This trade arrangement was the single largest source of Iraqi income outside the OFF program. From 1990 until the OFF program began in late 1996, "Jordan was the key to Iraq's financial survival," according to the report. Why didn't "the UN" do something about it? Because the Security Council--where the United States was by far the single most influential member--decided in May 1991 that no action would be taken to interfere in Iraq's trade with Jordan, America's closest ally in the Arab world.

Likewise, the maritime smuggling that took place under the nose of "the UN" in fact took place under the nose of something called the Multinational Interception Force, a group of member nations that responded to the general invitation of the Security Council for nations to interdict Iraqi smuggling. The "UN" Multinational Interception Force turns out to have consisted almost entirely of the US Navy. The commander of the MIF was at every point, from 1991 to 2003, a rear admiral or vice admiral from the US Fifth Fleet. The United States contributed the overwhelming majority of ships--hundreds in fact. Britain provided the deputy commander and some naval forces and other countries contributed a few ships. The UN itself provided no forces or commanders. "The UN" failure to interdict Saddam's tankers of illicit oil turns out, in nearly every regard, to have been a US naval operation.

The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.

Far from giving Saddam a free hand, the OFF program involved extensive monitoring and oversight. The government of Iraq first had to submit a list of every single item it hoped to purchase in the coming six months, and the UN staff had to approve the list. Once Iraq had signed a contract with a vendor, the contract was circulated to UNSCOM (later UNMOVIC), to see if there was anything that could be used for military purposes. Every member of the Security Council had the opportunity to review every contract, and each member could block or delay any contract for imports. Every member of the Security Council also had to approve every contract for the sale of oil. If there was cash paid under the table, it did not happen for lack of oversight. It happened despite the most elaborate monitoring system imaginable. And if the members of the Security Council--including the United States--failed to do their job, that is not the fault of Kofi Annan.

The Duelfer report, along with eight sets of Congressional hearings, vitriolic press coverage and considerable ranting by the right, suggest an antipathy toward the UN that goes well beyond election-season maneuvering. The consequences of this scandal will be considerable. We witnessed the ill-fated decision to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization; we might recall that the Security Council would not grant the American demand to authorize an invasion, precisely because the United States was unable to provide any compelling evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If the world's most respected institution of international governance is rendered impotent by accusations as distorted and exaggerated as these, we should all fear the consequences.

I can see CNN now "And today, the GAO (pause) And now on to the weather"

So it's going to be really interesting to see where the media goes with the story now. Do we have to hit them over the head with a frying pan to get them to acknowledge the story?

Well, this is something. Every Democrat in Congress who is sitting back and sucking up to Dubya should be ashamed. Kudos to this handful of patriots.

The majority of America does not want these extremist in office. We need to let them know if they do NOT help us with this election then we will NOT elect them again and that we WILL once again HAVE fair elections in the USA because we ARE going to take back our country!

Yes. This could potentially have more impact than what Bev Harris is doing.
It is very good news--let's hope we see more similar news soon.

They recieved 57,000 complaints and "certain" people deny that fraud occured? What are the odds that all 57,000 of these complaints are bogus?

Don't know. How many similar problems were there in 2000? 1996? 1992? etc.

It used to stand for the General Accounting Office. They changed the name to the Government Accountability Office. But it's still the same group.

What's wrong, Brossinol? Why does it matter if the GAO
looks into anything?

Nothing. I actually helped to provide information to some of those who called for the investigation.

I think a real investigation would be great.

But, I don't agree with anyone who runs around saying: look at all the complaints, they are proof of fraud. Because they are not proof of anything.

Why?

1. Numerous conclusions can be drawn as the the reason for the complaints and fraud is only one of them.

2. If someone cannot cite data that shows there were actually more *irregularities* in THIS election than in any other, then the numbers mean absolutely nothing.

What's different about this election is that we can't easily
audit the results. And since Diebold promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush, we deserve to know if they did. IMHO.

Exit poll data has been 99.98% accurate in all of history, except for this election. The chances of ALL the exit poll data being as wrong as it was, in so many counties across the entirety of America is 250,000,000 to 1. (250 million to 1).

By your own words, that means fraud, right?

1. Is there data to back this up? I still say that the ONLY exit polls I see cited by reports for this election are from about 4pm. I would really love to see ALL of the exit polls first, then I would like to be able to compare them to the accuracy of exit polls in other Presidential elections.

I am not going to just blindly accept people running around saying: the exit polls have always been right....

2. Was this not the first time in a very long time that a new company was providing the exit polling data?

So, recap:

a) prove the exit polls were, in fact, wrong in this election
prove they were more correct in 99% of the other elections (I would be happy with 75%)
c) prove this had nothing to do with a new company providing the data

And, yes, I know that the guy who is one of the pioneers in exit polling started the new company. That means nothing. Were the models different than ever before? The methodology? Question everything!

The analysis was done by a college PhD professor. Look around this site, I think Activisms posted it a while ago (then again, what DIDNt he post... hehe, just kidding Act!) Anyway, the data was analyized from THIS election and he calculated that for it to have been wrong (by the methods they actually used in 2004) would be 250,000,000 to 1. To me, thats proof of fraud. I know its not to you, no need to say it.

Yes, I know. I have seen the work.

However, what I still have not seen, even from that professor, is the data to back it up.

Now, is he saying that the odds are 250 million to 1 based on one set of exit polls or based on ALL of the exit polling data? And where is this data, because I cannot seem to find it....

The GAO site has a release "Statement of the Comptroller General on Election Related Matters":

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
Comptroller General
of the United States
Statement of the Comptroller General on Election-Related Matters

November 23, 2004

(This came out all run together when I copied it so I put in paragraph breaks.)

GAO has received a number of comments pertaining to the recent national election
processes. In the past, GAO has conducted a range of federal elections-related work,including broad-based systemic reviews primarily focusing on issues relating to federal election requirements and technologies. We also have ongoing and planned work relating to systemic election issues, involving reviews of voter registration processes, provisional voting, and voting technologies.

In addition, GAO has reviewed federal entities charged with overseeing various aspects of election-related activities. For example, we recently issued a report on actions taken by the Department of Justice to investigate and pursue violations of federal laws related to voting irregularities emanating from prior national elections.1

You may obtain copies of our published election-related reports on this web site.
While GAO has and will continue to do certain elections-related work, we are not
authorized to engage in enforcement efforts relating to specific allegations of voting irregularities. Under the nation’s legal framework, elections are a matter largely reserved to, and regulated by, the states.2 Thus, many of the issues relating to the recent election are primarily the responsibility of state and local jurisdictions, since they involve the implementation of state law and regulation. As a result, general questions concerning these issues, as well as specific allegations of voting irregularities, should be addressed to state and local officials, such as the Secretary of State or the State Attorney General.

Congress has, however, asserted its prerogatives under the Elections Clause of the
Constitution (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1) to impose certain procedural
requirements on federal elections through such federal statutes as the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, both of which are enforced by the Department of Justice. In this regard, questions or allegations regarding federal voting irregularities generally are addressed by one of three federal entities. The name, areas of responsibility, and contact point for these entities are:

• The Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, at the Department of Justice:
responsible for enforcing federal voting rights statutes. Information about how to
1 GAO, Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related Voting Irregularities, GAO-
04-1041R (Washington D.C.: September 14, 2004).
2 For example, as outlined in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution (known as the Elections
Clause), the legislature in each state is required to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding
elections for United States Senators and Representatives. The clause goes on to state that “...Congress
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulation...”

Page 2

file a complaint through the mail or by telephone can be found at
www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/contact.htm.

• The Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section, at the Department of Justice:
responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws applicable to federal election fraud
offenses, among other things, in conjunction with the 93 U.S. Attorneys.
Information about how to contact the Criminal Division can be found at
www.usdoj.gov/criminal.

• The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): serves as a national
clearinghouse and resource for information on the administration of federal
elections. Information about the EAC can be found at www.eac.gov.
Specific allegations of voting irregularities should be addressed to the appropriate
authority as described in the above framework. I assure you that GAO will continue
to do its part in connection with important elections issues consistent with our scope of responsibility and authority.

I wonder how many investigators have said "I smell a rat" and produced one overnight. Or, imagine a detective going into his boss' office and saying I have a feeling something is not right, should I check it out? And his boss says no. End of investigation. No clues, no hunches, no leads just the voice of reason. Nixon would have completed two terms, the term Iran Contra would never have been coined and the Republicans would get away with fraud (because without the bloggers and others who shared a suspicion that something about the election wasn't right, this investigation would be an Election Day afterthought.

I have a feeling and a hunch that fraud occurred.

Published in Baltimore Chronicle

COMMENTARY:
Did Bush Lose the Election?
by Margie Burns

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/112204MargieBurns.shtml

As things stand right now, it seems unlikely that Mr. Bush won the 2004 presidential election.

As things stand right now, it seems unlikely that Mr. Bush won the election.
There are two major categories of problems. One affects the electoral vote. Release of the final exit polls conducted in all states shows a pattern that cannot be explained away. The exit polls were released (not to the general public) at 4:00 p.m. on Election Day by polling consultants Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

These are the genuine exit polls for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, taken before the outcome was known in any particular state. These are not the “exit polls” that organizations including CNN went back and retroactively changed after the election, making them conform more to vote tallies.

The exit poll results are laid out straightforwardly in a very clear list (tabulation). Compared to the vote tallies given the public, they seem amazing. Contrary to results in every election for the past twenty years, the variance between exit polls the published vote tally was more than two points--in other words a swing of 4% or 5% or more to Bush, in 33 of 51 jurisdictions. Regardless of which candidate won in those states, a big variance, always in the same direction, allegedly occurred in every single exit poll in all of them.

Exit polls from the next nine states down the list were also reversed by a smaller swing toward Bush in the published vote tally, including in the District of Columbia and Maryland. Thus, to sum up, a four-out-five-state swing to Bush is alleged in an election where every indication showed new voters, independent voters, and younger voters trending toward Kerry and/or away from Bush, and in an election where turnout increased, even though increased voter turnout generally favors the challenger against the incumbent.

Exit polls are not just polls. They are polls of people who actually showed up to vote, taken just after the voting, and weighted to take into account any preponderance of one group. Exit polls are used to check and verify the validity of elections in countries including Germany and Mexico.

Furthermore, this crucial swing occurred in all the close states: Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa all allegedly had the same “red shift.” Most seemingly shifted more than two points, in other words a swing of 4% or 5%, regardless of the size or region of the state, or whether it went for Bush or Kerry.

A paper titled “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy” has been published by Dr. Steven F. Freeman, whose Ph.D. in organizational studies came from MIT and who holds professorships at the University of Pennsylvania and at an international MBA program founded by Harvard. According to Professor Freeman, the swing between exit poll and vote tally is an anomaly even if you take just the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. “The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million," he says. "The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one.”

Disclaimer: I distrust opinion polls and much other polling. I have long worried that incessant polling can weaken the individual’s reliance on his/her own judgment, can plant suggestions, can intimidate reporters, and can manipulate public acceptance of the unacceptable. Following this election, an opinion poll has already been published suggesting that most people are relieved that the outcome was clear.

All well and good, if it was clear. But the integrity of counting votes is essential to our nation’s survival as a democracy. Obsession about who is ahead before the election, the “horse race” question, is often silly. But after the election, the question of who won is fundamental. No other question is nearly as important.

Exit polls are not just polls. They are polls of people who actually showed up to vote, taken just after the voting, and weighted to take into account any preponderance of one group. Professor Freeman’s paper points out that exit polls are used to check and verify the validity of elections in countries including Germany and Mexico; when exit polls contradicted the claim that Eduard Shevardnadze had won election in the former Soviet country of Georgia, he was forced to resign under pressure from the US among others.

Immediate investigation is most urgent in four states that the swing from exit poll to published vote tally also swung from Kerry to Bush: Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Iowa. The many problems already reported from counties and precincts in all four states more than corroborate the suggestion raised by the exit poll tabulation. These four states also add up to 59 electoral votes, more than enough to have tilted the election outcome.

The Electoral College is not the whole story. Questions have arisen that affect the popular vote count even in “safe” states. Stay tuned.

Margie Burns writes freelance in Maryland. She can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net.