Why “Vote Caging” Should Have You Rioting in the Streets

3 million votes were challenged AFTER they were cast in the 2004 election, and it turns out that many of them may be from a GOP tactic called “Vote Caging”, here’s how it works. Bare with me, this is a thick and tangled web of scandal.

When ex-Alberto Gonzales aide Monica Goodling testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee she mentioned the term “Vote Caging” several times, in reference to Karl Rove’s protégé Tim Griffin (more on him later). The term was unfamiliar to many and it prompted Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., to ask Goodling, to explain the term. Goodling fumbled and muttered something about it being a “direct mail” term.

Monica was right; Vote Caging does use direct mail. But she left out the most important aspect of vote caging; it’s used to suppress votes.

This is how it works;

Step One: Send registered, first class mail to black people. Mark the letter “do not forward” so if they happen to be fighting in Iraq it will not go to them.

Step Two: Every letter that comes back “undeliverable” can then be challenged as being fraudulent. Voters are purged from the rosters, and the ones that demand their right to vote cast provisional ballots, which are less likely to be counted anyway.

Step Three: Repeat in every tight race in the country.

It’s a complicated GOP tactic that’s been used since the 80’s to win races with slight margins of victories.

You might remember that Tim Griffin was installed as a U.S. Attorney for Arkansas after Bud Cummings was fired. Of course Griffin immediately went to work “vote caging” and the focus of Monica’s testimony was in exonerating him from wrongdoing. She claimed there were good reasons for it, and that he did not believe anything he was doing was wrong.

If that’s the case then why did Tim Griffin resign? Because it seems like he’s worried that a contentious confirmation hearing might draw attention to the fact that the GOP has been subverting democracy.

This story was cracked open by BBC reporter Greg Palast. He’s an American but has to travel across the Atlantic to find a worthy news agency the hire him. I could tell you what he did, but let’s just listen to him. The part at 5:20 is particularly relevant.

I suggest watching the whole series, its long, but FUCK, your country is being stolen.

These articles are the base of this story.

Here is one on Greg Palast’s site

Here is another on Think Progress

New Twist to an Old Scandal

<- Lying Jackass

Apparently US Attorneys were not the only ones to have been politically screened for their jobs. Kyle Sampson, disgraced and resigned chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales, had his lawyer disclose that Federal Immigration Judges were also vetted by political affiliation. The revelation adds another charge against this administration, violation of civil service laws designed to preserve the independence of the Justice Department. This has been going on since early 2004. During Monica Goodling’s testimony (scroll down), she said that Sampson had told her that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said that immigration judges did no apply to the civil service rules that prevented taking political affiliation into account.

It’s a sad day when the department in charge of law enforcement goes out of its way to break laws. Unfortunately for us, that day happened years and years ago and we’re just finding out about it. Worst President in History!

Goodling Testifies, Says Next to Nothing

It wasn’t quite as juicy as I would have liked to be honest with you. She didn’t roll over on her old bosses, and only admitted to violating a statute designed to keep politics out of bureaucratic positions, a violation which she is protected from. She also indicated that she was not the one who the White House worked through, apparently, they only dealt with Alberto and Sampson …

Here are some highlights from the coverage.

CNN’s coverage emphasized Goodling’s lack of communication with the white house. The Washington Post’s coverage focused on Goodling’s politically bias hiring practices. Below is a series of quotes that sum up the important points from her day-long testimony.

• "I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan."
• Referring to mastermind Karl Rove and Bush’s lawyer Harriet Miers she said,
• "And I'm certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney,"
• "I was responsible more for what happened after the plan was implemented rather than maybe the plan itself,"
• "I do acknowledge I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions, and I regret those mistakes."
• "Although I'm prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006."
• She also testified that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty lied to congress.
• "Despite my and others' best effort, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision."
• Paul McNulty was the first Justice Department official to testify. He said the fired US Attorneys were let go for “performance reasons”.
• Obviously that’s been proven to be a sack of horseshit, the Justice Department’s internal review process found many of the fired attorneys rated excellent. In one example, shortly before Carol Lam was fired she had won a high-profile case against Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery.
• McNulty has been privately saying he was mislead by Goodling. Her testimony today refutes that position and casts McNulty and DOJ colleague William E. Moschella’s testimony in a criminal light.