[EL] If elections can be rigged...

Thu Oct 20 11:21:00 PDT 2016

I have viewed the O’Keefe tapes.  Sounds like “locker room” talk to  me.  I’m certain Foval actually has the greatest respect for Trump and Republicans, more respect than anyone else. ☺

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] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:00 AM
To: Joseph E. La Rue; John Farrell
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...

“What the New James O’Keefe Videos Show and What They Don’t”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87811>
Posted on October 20, 2016 9:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87811> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ed Kilgore<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/what-the-new-james-okeefe-videos-show-and-what-they-dont.html> for NY Mag:
Not being an election lawyer or someone trained to spot misleadingly spliced video material (something O’Keefe has been accused of<http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/james_okeefes_deceptive_ivy_league_hit_job_how_the_right_wing_journalist_stooped_to_a_new_low/> in the past), I am in no position to make a comprehensive assessment of the whole project. But it is reasonably clear from viewing O’Keefe’s first two videos that one of them is basically about an ethically dubious Democratic tactic that is not actually illegal, while the other is about a hypothetical illegal activity (cooked up, it seems, by O’Keefe) that does not appear to have occurred.
O’Keefe’s first video focuses on two independent contractors (Robert Creamer, formerly of Democracy Partners, and the exceptionally loquacious Scott Foval, formerly of Americans United for Change) working for Democratic groups who spend a lot of time boasting about their success in planting people at Trump rallies. The plants are designed, with their words or attire, to provoke violent responses from Trump supporters.
This is indeed news, and something the Democrats involved should be ashamed of. Perhaps they should even lose their jobs (as the two principal targets of the video actually have<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/james-okeefes-latest-costs-two-dem-operatives-their-jobs.html>). But deliberately making oneself the target of violence (1) is not illegal and (2) should not obscure the fact that the people committing the violence bear at least half the blame. There is no constitutional or statutory right to listen to your candidate rant and rave about criminal immigrants and Muslims and various “losers” and “rigged elections” without being exposed to the presence of someone who visibly disagrees — even if someone put them up to it.
The only illegal activity this video really alleges is that of forbidden coordination between the Clinton campaign and various “independent” pro-Clinton entities. But the main evidence of that is the use of the term “bird-dogging” for the violence-provoking actions at Trump rallies and the use of the same term in Clinton communications stolen and made public by WikiLeaks. As the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel points out<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/two-democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-james-okeefe-sting/>, “bird-dogging” can refer to all sorts of tracking and engagement operations other than those which court violence. So this guilt-by-association proves nothing.
The second video, by contrast, is all about illegal activity (though not necessarily the “massive voter fraud” O’Keefe, with his signature overdramatization, keeps talking about in the narration). But it revolves around a hypothetical scheme for getting illegal votes cast that O’Keefe seems to think of, which is then batted around by Foval, turned down by his alleged co-conspirator from the first video, and batted around some more by a third operative who is himself AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN! So whereas someone sympathetic to O’Keefe’s case might conclude it turns up shady talk worthy of investigation, a smoking gun it is not.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D87811&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20the%20New%20James%20O%E2%80%99Keefe%20Videos%20Show%20and%20What%20They%20Don%E2%80%99t%E2%80%9D>

From: <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of "Joseph E. La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 10:39 AM
To: John Farrell <jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com<mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] If elections can be rigged...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Veritas has been accused of "selective editing," which means that it has left out things that were said, spliced tape together, etc.  I don't think, however, that it has ever been shown to have spliced tape together so someone was shown saying sentences he/she didn't actually say.  Thus, when those on the Left dismiss this as "we can't know that the official actually said what we see him saying," it rings hollow with many of us on the Right.  The point is, the comments were made.  Perhaps the men said more than was shown.  But they at least said what was shown.  And those remarks should be roundly condemned, not excused because one doesn't like the filmer.

Joseph
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.*
cell: 480.737.1321
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>

* Licensed in Arizona and Ohio

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the message.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Farrell <jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com<mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com>> wrote:
But Democrats have condemned the apparent comments and both men have been terminated.  And I don’t trust the video to accurately portray what was actually said because that source has doctored tapes before.

John W. Farrell
Attorney at Law

[cid:image002.gif at 01D22AC4.054AA3E0]<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/>

11350 Random Hills Road | Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7421
tel (703) 934-1182 cell (703) 507-1182

website<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/> | bio<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/attorney/john-w-farrell/> | vCard<http://www.dynasend.com/signatures/vcard/jfarrell-at-mccandlishlawyers.com.vcf> | map<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=11350+Random+Hills+Road,+Fairfax,+VA+22030&hl=en&ll=38.857288,-77.338471&spn=0.028874,0.038409&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.206892,78.662109&vpsrc=6&hnear=11350+Random+Hills+Rd,+Fairfax,+Virginia+22030&t=m&z=15> | email<mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com>

[cid:image003.gif at 01D22AC4.054AA3E0][cid:image004.gif at 01D22AC4.054AA3E0]<http://www.facebook.com/McCandlishLillard>[cid:image005.gif at 01D22AC4.054AA3E0]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/mccandlish-&-lillard-p.c.>[cid:image006.gif at 01D22AC4.054AA3E0]<http://www.youtube.com/user/McCandlishLillard>

This email is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, unless otherwise expressly provided in writing, to (1) constitute or provide legal advice or counsel, unless the recipient already has an attorney-client relationship with the firm or me; (2) create an attorney-client relationship; or (3) contain my electronic, or other implied, signature.

On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Joseph E. La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>> wrote:

No, Zach, it didn't.  And, while it doesn't necessarily mean that the DNC has a plan to rig the election, it did show a Democrat official talking about Democrats rigging elections through vote fraud.  Rather than pretend it didn't happen, wouldn't it be better for the Liberals and Progressives on this Listserve to condemn the comments?  And, while they are at it, shouldn't they seek to ensure that their fellow Democrats aren't actually doing this, rather than ignoring it because it doesn't fit their preferred theory (i.e., there is no significant vote fraud)?  By the way, I'm not saying that Democrats actually have committed vote fraud for 50 years.  I'm simply saying that it seems a better response is to condemn the comments, rather than (1) pretend they weren't made or (2) pretend Veritas doctored the tape and the Democrat official never said what he clearly said.

Joseph
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.*
cell: 480.737.1321<tel:480.737.1321>
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>

* Licensed in Arizona and Ohio

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the message.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Zach West <zachwest1 at gmail.com<mailto:zachwest1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Did this Project Veritas reporting involve a boat<http://www.salon.com/2010/10/04/james_okeefe_sex_boat_post/>?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com<mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<tel:%28310%29%20576-1233>
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3296 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1160 bytes
Desc: image003.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1136 bytes
Desc: image004.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1069 bytes
Desc: image005.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1132 bytes
Desc: image006.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/aba6bb26/attachment-0004.gif>