[EL] If elections can be rigged...

[Rick Hasen]

1.       No sites are banned Jim. I didn’t stop Benjamin from posting a thing. Criticizing something is not the same as banning it, as you should well know.



2.       Here’s a bit from Snopes on why Project Veritas deserves no trust for their selective editing: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87688.  Unlike Project Veritas, a link on ELB leads to the full source.  A big difference.  I think I also don’t have a record of falsifying information.


3.       If you don’t like the selection of articles, you can continue to send your own.  Or you can unsubscribe to this list. Or you can do with my posts what some list members tell me they do with yours: delete without reading.

Rick

From: jboppjr <jboppjr at aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:35 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...

As I have observed, editors always edit, even hosts of a list serve. Rich, you have posted numerous articles where the writers selectively quote people. So tell me, what did the Democrat operatives say that was not clear?

It does bother me that Veritas is banned but numerous hard left sites are eagerly posted. Really, the participants in this list serve are mature enough to decide what to believe.

And one final question, what other sites are banned?  Bopp



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Date: 10/18/16 6:29 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jboppjr <jboppjr at aol.com>, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...
Jim,
Veritas has been found to have selectively edited and doctored videos in the past.  This is not the raw tape.
And really “Lying scumbags,” Jim?


From: <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of jboppjr <jboppjr at aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 3:03 PM
To: Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...

The trashing by liberals about the "source" is misplaced. Veritas is not the "source." The Democrat operatives are on tape and are the source. And they are explaining exactly the illegal voter fraud activity they are engaged in. So are the liberals here saying that these Democrat operatives are what? Lying scumbags? Not nice. Jim Bopp



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
Date: 10/18/16 5:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...
Seems credible. As a result of Veritas reporting, Scott Foval (Americans United for Change) and Bob Creamer (Democracy Partners) have been pushed out/resigned/fired yesterday and today. Seems significant.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>> wrote:
Such a credible source.

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Benjamin Barr
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Schultz, David A.
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...

Why do you suppose democratic operatives have bragged<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs> about having bussed people for 50 years to engage in voter fraud?

Forward,

Benjamin Barr

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu<mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>> wrote:
If elections can be rigged, either party can do it.  The secretary of state (or commonwealth) is the chief election officer in each state and they would have the ability to manipulate the election system to the benefit of their favored candidate.  Of the 50 states, 27 are Republican.  Among the 11 swing states that are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,  Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, only four, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, are controlled by Democrats.  Republicans control nearly two-thirds of the secretaries of state in the critical swing states and presumably would not have an incentive to rig the election in favor of Clinton.

--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858<tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
651.523.3170<tel:651.523.3170> (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161018/5bf56b4b/attachment.html>