[EL] If elections can be rigged...

Tue Oct 18 17:22:45 PDT 2016

I do believe it is remarkably difficult to selectively edit comments into
people's mouths.  Take these doozies from the band of corrupt Democratic
operatives we found during our investigation (both from the lovely Scott
Foval, Americans United for Change):

   1. "No, I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do shit,
   make no mistake. Over the last twenty years? I’ve paid off a few homeless
   guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve
   also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower, and I put them in a program.
   Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people, especially, our
   union guys? A lot of union guys? They’ll do whateeeevvverrr you want.
   They’re rock ‘n roll."
   2. "It’s a pretty easy thing for Republicans to say, Well they’re
   bussing people in! Well you know what? We’ve been bussing people in to deal
   with you fuckin’ assholes for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now,
   we’re just going to find a different way to do it."

I don't know of anyone who has telepathic powers to make someone utter such
words.  Nor do I know how you'd magically edit a video to make these words
occur.  Occam's razor, and all that, seems to indicate this is activity we
should be concerned about, even if some, perhaps, don't care for the
messenger.

Forward,

Benjamin Barr
Counsel
Project Veritas Action Fund

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
>
> Such a credible source.
>
>
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> 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
> <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
> *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>
> 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 (voice)
> 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
> 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/20161018/2f09749b/attachment.html>