[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 02:56:42 PDT 2016

ACORN did great work organizing low income people on the downside of power to have a voice in their communities. Most people in politics don’t care about them. Most advocacy groups don’t care about them because they are not a reliable voting bloc. ACORN’s focus was helping the poorest people to organize around poverty issues like poor public services, no storm drains, stop lights, predatory lending, and other issues that just are under the radar for grassroots groups oriented toward the middle class.

Project Veritas has no purpose other than producing false, defamatory “sting” videos. ACORN’s purpose had nothing to do with underage prostitution and we know that those videos were a vicious slander. 

I would stand with ACORN over Veritas any day of the week. 

RuthAlice 

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And "RuthAlice" you'd like to attach your reputation to a group promoting underage prostitution (hint:  ACORN)? It's your life. 
> 
> http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4j8aff/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-hos <http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4j8aff/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-hos>
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 1:56 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net <mailto:ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>> T <http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf>here are links to all the investigations here 
>> http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7780&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7780&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>
>> 
>> He showed video of himself presenting himself as a pimp on the video he published, but on the unedited video, he said he was a lawyer. If you want to attach your reputation to someone like him, it’s your life. 
>> 
>> RuthAlice
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu <mailto:mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I had not heard an allegation that the ACORN videos were dubbed. Source?
>>> 
>>> Mark Scarberry 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _____________________________
>>> From: RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net <mailto:ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>>> To: law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> People from ACORN were fired and resigned as well and those videos were dubbed, edited and designed to deceive. The thing is, the long list of malicious misrepresentation by O’Keefe is such that if he produced the NPR Christmas Yule Log film, I would assume the log is styrofoam and the fire is photoshopped. 
>>> 
>>> RuthAlice
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:59 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com <mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you elect not to review salient information concerning voter fraud, like the Veritas evidence this week, then the ostrich position of seeing no voter fraud is sensible, Professor Hasen. 
>>> 
>>> But since the White House and CNN are discussing our reports, maybe you should review them?  Especially after Bob Creamer, longtime buddy of Obama, has resigned from Democracy Partners and his co-conspirator, Scott Foval of Americans United for Change were also pushed out. 
>>> 
>>> Seems like our reports illustrating Democratic operatives engaged in this very pursuit is noteworthy and might merit your attention. 
>>> 
>>> Forward,
>>> 
>>> Benjamin Barr
>>> Counsel
>>> Project Veritas Action Fund
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> “Commit massive voter fraud.”
>>>  
>>> No evidence whatsoever of that. There are serious questions about what’s going on in Indiana, and I say let’s wait till we know all the facts.
>>>  
>>> And voter registration fraud does not generally lead to fraudulently cast votes. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making fundamentally honest arguments.
>>>  
>>> And I’ll let others continue this with you if they see it as fruitful.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: "JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:39 PM
>>> To: "rkelner at cov.com <mailto:rkelner at cov.com>" <rkelner at cov.com <mailto:rkelner at cov.com>>
>>> Cc: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>>>  
>>> What is hideous and unprecedented is this concerted attempt by liberals and Democrats to try to preclude a candidate from utilizing perfectly appropriate and legal means to ensure the fairness our elections by asking for a recount, if legally available under state law. This is particularly chilling here in Indiana when our State Police have just uncovered thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92 counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud. 
>>>  
>>> Click here: “Statement from Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter Regarding Possible Voter Fraud ” from Indiana Stat <https://local.nixle.com/alert/5757504/>
>>>  
>>> This looks like a one two punch to me. Commit massive voter fraud and then force a candidate to say in advance that he will accept the outcome on election day.  This is a serious attack of the Rule of Law and an attempt to subvert our elections.  Jim Bopp
>>>  
>>> In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:15:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rkelner at cov.com <mailto:rkelner at cov.com> writes:
>>> Of course a presidential candidate can contest results in the exceptionally rare case of a truly close election. But neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore would ever have hesitated to say, prior to the election, that they would respect the outcome of the election. That hideous distinction is now uniquely owned by Donald Trump.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:08 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>" <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some of those on this list serve may have taken note of this exchange:
>>> 
>>> Chris Wallace: "Will you accept the result of this election?"
>>> Donald Trump: "I will look at it at the time. ... I will keep you in suspense."
>>> Hillary Clinton: "That's horrifying."
>>> 
>>> Let me say that I think that Clinton's reaction was as phony and as it was absurd. Al Gore did not accept the results of the 2000 election. He sued for a recount in Florida which was not resolved until early December by a decision of the US Supreme Court. Only then, when no other legal recourse was possible, did he accept the results of the election. This, of course, was Gore's legal right to do. It would be ridiculous for Trump to say in advance that he will accept the election day count, if it would be appropriate to institute a recount.
>>> 
>>> State laws provide legal remedies to contest election or ask for recounts under certain circumstances. It is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to use these if legally available. Jim Bopp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>_______________________________________________
>>> 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 <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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/20161020/1a61fe44/attachment.html>