Bev Harris (and Brad) on the Alex Jones show today...
UPDATE: Bev Harris' promised update/clarification/retraction mentioned in the following story is now posted at her site here. The BRAD BLOG wishes to thank her for her thorough reply to our response to her original concerns, and we will investigate the additional items she mentions in her update over the weekend.
After appearing yesterday morning on the Alex Jones Radio Show I'd heard that he was planning to have Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org on today's show to discuss the Clint Curtis case and her ongoing investigations into alleged vote fraud in Florida and elsewhere.
On Tuesday, Harris had written a piece that was critical of Curtis' case, suggesting that she felt it was likely disinformation. After reading her piece I posted a detailed response here and asked that folks make sure she saw it.
Her original piece seemed to be working from a misinformed perspective about the case that she seemed to have gotten after reading Wayne Madsen's piece on Curtis. The publication of that article -- as I mentioned in both my original story on Curtis and my response to Harris -- was one of the released I posted my article earlier than I might have liked. To avoid such potential misreadings of the situation.
I contacted Jones to make sure he knew about my response to Harris before she came on the show, and he asked if I wanted to come on with her. I declined as I really had no interest in creating a public spat with Harris, I'd just wanted to get the correct information about the story to her so she'd better be able to assess it.
While Harris was on the show today, the producers called and again asked me to come on, and -- after hearing that they'd cleared it with her, since I really didn't wish for her to feel sandbagged -- I agreed.
I did a quick 15 minutes or so (which, as with yesterdays show, I'm still trying to get permission to post here) in which Harris said that she had seen my reply, and thanked me for it. She said it had cleared up quite a few issues, and that she'd since been able confirm some elements of Curtis' story herself independently.
To that end, she said she'd be posting a clarification/update or retraction on her site later today or tonight on the matter "even it means some egg on my face", she said on the show. Such things are not always easy to do, so I greatly commend her for that in advance.
So I'm happy to report that all now seems well in that regard! Thanks to those of you who helped her get my response, and thanks to Harris for the many kind words she had to say about The BRAD BLOG's work while on the show. (And thanks to Jones for allowing me the opportunity to speak with her on-air).
Hopefully that's one more potential distraction that can now be set aside from the troubling claims of Clint Curtis' actual allegations.
After appearing yesterday morning on the Alex Jones Radio Show I'd heard that he was planning to have Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org on today's show to discuss the Clint Curtis case and her ongoing investigations into alleged vote fraud in Florida and elsewhere.
On Tuesday, Harris had written a piece that was critical of Curtis' case, suggesting that she felt it was likely disinformation. After reading her piece I posted a detailed response here and asked that folks make sure she saw it.
Her original piece seemed to be working from a misinformed perspective about the case that she seemed to have gotten after reading Wayne Madsen's piece on Curtis. The publication of that article -- as I mentioned in both my original story on Curtis and my response to Harris -- was one of the released I posted my article earlier than I might have liked. To avoid such potential misreadings of the situation.
I contacted Jones to make sure he knew about my response to Harris before she came on the show, and he asked if I wanted to come on with her. I declined as I really had no interest in creating a public spat with Harris, I'd just wanted to get the correct information about the story to her so she'd better be able to assess it.
While Harris was on the show today, the producers called and again asked me to come on, and -- after hearing that they'd cleared it with her, since I really didn't wish for her to feel sandbagged -- I agreed.
I did a quick 15 minutes or so (which, as with yesterdays show, I'm still trying to get permission to post here) in which Harris said that she had seen my reply, and thanked me for it. She said it had cleared up quite a few issues, and that she'd since been able confirm some elements of Curtis' story herself independently.
To that end, she said she'd be posting a clarification/update or retraction on her site later today or tonight on the matter "even it means some egg on my face", she said on the show. Such things are not always easy to do, so I greatly commend her for that in advance.
So I'm happy to report that all now seems well in that regard! Thanks to those of you who helped her get my response, and thanks to Harris for the many kind words she had to say about The BRAD BLOG's work while on the show. (And thanks to Jones for allowing me the opportunity to speak with her on-air).
Hopefully that's one more potential distraction that can now be set aside from the troubling claims of Clint Curtis' actual allegations.
26 Comments:
Hi Brad,
I see a lot of discussion about this story over a DU and I'm wondering why the Dead Dog is now mysteriously absent from recent reports you've done on the matter.
Do you realize that you hold a crucial piece of evidence that would further Curtis's credibility, and as such yours?
I think you desire to remain at the center of this story and your obvious goals are to promote the most credible parts of this story in order to maximize your own profile.
I would suggest that the interests of everyone you hope will pass this story on should outweigh your own.
Do you want people to look foolish when, and if, he is proved to be a liar.
Will you stick by your claims that he did indeed tell you his dog was shot if it becomes clear that it did not?
And finally how would that revelation affect your perception of the rest of Curtis' claims considering most are his word against others.
I have read most of the arguments that Brad presents on his Blog (I think) and I do not see him ANYWHERE claiming that Clinton Curtis' accusations are TRUE. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Brad does not have any way of verifying Mr. Curtis' accusations. Brad is simply relaying them to the public. If this seems inappropriate, please consider that mainstream reporters cite "anonymous sources" EVERY DAY for extremely serious claims and accusations. At least Mr. Curtis has come forth publicly and identified himself. Of course it remains possible that Mr. Curtis is lying and may even be "a Karl Rove" plant. Brad has acknowledged this possibility explicitly, and simply stated that he has "not seen any evidence for" Mr. Curtis lying. Altogether Brad seems a reasonable kind of guy who does not overstate his case and does not indulge in unfounded speculations or "conspiracy theories" as some on the Left unfortunately do.
www.tallahasseeprogressive.blogspot.com
I appreciate what you are saying however Brad goes a little further than that.
Brad says there was a police report filed and that we the reader are free to check it out if we want to.
Brad did not say...Mr. Curtis claims his dog was shot.
Maybe what I'm looking for is Brad to report that Curtis had claimed his dog was shot and those claims have been checked with officer so and so who says a report was filed on such and such date.
As it stands the claims are quietly being dropped but are sure to resurface just as this story looks like it might get legs.
Unless Brad retracts the claims or proves them this is a ticking time bomb.
Brad is the source. And he has been quite definitive.
To get past this 'dead dog' detail quickly, maybe someone who lives in that area should walk into that police station and check it out?
Seems to me this is merely a sidebar "fact" to get hung-up on.
If anyone goes to check with the police, it's also a good idea to see whether there were any complaints against the dog. It could be that the dog had bitten someone or had been keeping the neighbors awake at night, and that it wasn't related to the claims Curtis has made.
This thread brings to light an important point... With a vast cache of information relating to this case (and other republican dirty deeds) it would seem that every tidbit should be gathered and archived before it mysteriously disappears?
I have personally followed several leads in this case and have found several surprising facts, including various connections to other prominent names and events not yet mentioned in this case. I have saved some relevant info to insure I can come back later when it may become critical somewhere in my investigation to revisit the facts, but I may be following different leads than another investigator may be following. Other may have information I need and I may have info others are digging for...
My immediate worry is that the "powers that be" have the ability to make these facts disappear very quickly, and forever. Perhaps we should estalish repositories for our evidence that can be mirrored by several people to insure the integrity and availability of the facts?
Thank you again Brad, and everyone working and contributing to this case.
I'd be happy with proof the police report was actually filed.
That way all of Brad's claims and Curtis' at least pass the smell test.
Let everyone else speculate why. Right now they can say he's a liar with no proof to back up that claim or any of his claims that are mostly his word against everyone else’s.
Alright, I admit it. The dog is actually a clone I created to frame Karl Rove.
WHO CARES ABOUT THE F------ DOG!?
Don't get me wrong, I am sorry about this man's dog's death. But the death of dog would do NOTHING to prove Mr. Curtis' allegations. If Brad and/or Curtis are running a scam here, they wouldn't be dumb enough to talk about the dog and have it be unfounded. They would just shoot a dog.
Nevertheless, the police report should become part of this blog, at this point.
I agree, it's a non-issue but, to stop the spin a police report is needed here.
The dog nonsense on DU (and I have no doubt the same poster is now bringing it up here) was responded to many times over there, at the original BRAD BLOG, etc.
I will not jeopardize the safety of the individuals involved, or the best interests of the ongoing investigation by posting identifiable information on the internet.
If you wish to use that as a way to somehow discredit Mr. Curtis, you are welcome to do so. His personal safety is more important than your curiosity.
As I've said, a police report was filed on the matter, and anyone who cares as much as "Anonymous" has shown to both here and over at DU, can pick up the phone and check it out to confirm for themselves.
If that's the best you are able to do in order to discredit Mr. Curtis -- given all that you could be doing to check out the years-long paper trail of newspaper reports and public records on the matter -- then that alone, I believe, speaks volumes for his credibility.
Those who *really* are interested in the Curtis story (as opposed to simply discrediting it with no evidence to do so) have been doing great work, have sent in much stuff, and reported much of it elsewhere. Keep up the good work.
To the dog-waggers, I would suggest you try to find something that actually serves to *debunk* Mr. Curtis' claims since -- so far, I've been unable to.
One other commenter (forgive me, I forgot the name and Blogspot doesn't let me go back and look easily) I have reported both what Mr. Curtis claims is true *and* much of what I have been able to confirm about those claims via other sources. I have found much more evidence to back up many of his claims, but have only posted some of it online for a number of reasons. Some of which I speak to above.
And thanks everyone for your tremendous support on this matter!
Dear Brad,
If you can't see I'm trying to help you perhaps adjusting your perspective..
You have never once suggested a single credible way you helping me verify this would endanger Mr. Curtis any further than you reporting the affidavit in the first place.
Please just tell me the police station the repot was filed at.
Or please tell me, and the world, why that would harm Curtis.
The dog story goes to the heart of his and your credibility.
When so much of the affidavit is Curtis' word against everybody else’s the dog becomes an issue because.....
YOU REPORT IT AS FACT. WITHOUT OFFERING ANY PROOF!
It must suck getting 'dogged' like this about such a simple fact. You'd think you would have just shut me, and others, up a long time ago by helping us prove it.
As a disgruntled democrat, I certainly want to believe this story, but I have to take some of it with a grain of salt. I have spent the past several days doing research in order to validate what I've read. Where Brad seems to be "Fair and Balanced", I think there could be a bit more information about the accuser. I'm not trying to make Curtis the victim, but this needs to be looked at from both sides. So, I've come up with several items that should be addresed.
1. Hai Lin (Henry) Nee is said to be Yang's quality control person, yet what I've read from news articles and other blogs says that he worked for Azure Systems during the time in question by Curtis. If he was an employee of Yang as stated, why did these articles, which were by mainstream media (AP, USA Today) not mention Nee as a Yang employee?
2. Clinton Curtis was part of a copyright infringement case dating back from 1997 and is accused of stealing Yang software as well. Two times being accused of copyright infringement/theft is more than most people run into; most are never accused as it's a hefty charge. Once maybe a coincidence; twice is a red flag. A settlement does not necessarily mean innocence. There must be records of this case that should be dug up; it appears that there may be a pattern here.
3. $200k is a lot of money and sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures; some of the accusations set forth seem a bit out of desparation. I have researched records and seen that a Curtis Clinton in Brevard County has had several judgements against him by Bank of America and there appears to be other records that are available for a fee. Not sure if this is him, but the name is spelled the same. He says he wouldn't take the money, but that's a hard pill to swallow. People, especially those whose finances aren't quite in order, if this is the case with Clinton, would certainly take the money.
4. There was a considerable amount of coverage of Curtis v. Feeney a couple years ago that I found online in the Daytona News Journal. It seems impossible to believe Curtis would not have brought these allegations against Feeney then, especially with an election on the line. I've read your FAQ about the fact he was more worried about espionage, but that doesn't quite pass muster. It sounds like the News Journal was listening to whatever Curtis put forth, so I doubt they'd have filtered this information.
5. Curtis says in the affidavit that he was shocked that "they were actually trying to steal the election", back in 2000, yet he says nothing then, when this information could have been used proactively as opposed to reactively where $200k is on the line.
I hope that these items can be addressed to add validity to this story, or debunk it as fiction by a disgruntled, bitter individual.
Dear Anonymous:
If you don't believe safety is an issue, why don't you post YOUR NAME, PHONE # HOME ADDRESS. I'm starting to believe you're the Karl Rove plant.
That way, anyone who has info can call you directly!
I notice Bev Harris' promised correction has come to pass this morning (Saturday).
Let's see...
First she clearly lit into the affadavit without reading it (!) and posted such ridiculous disinformation about it.
Then, after you (Brad) immediately addressed all her concerns, she still left it up for all to see from Tuesday to Saturday morning, and all her disinformation got spread all over the internet.
Now, finally, she has kinda-sorta-maybe-almost retracted most of it.
And you "commend" her for it -- Brad, all I can say is you must be much, much more charitable than I would be in similar circumstances.
The only valid point she raises is the Qui Tam question -- I, too, would like to see that point addressed. Can you ask Curtis about that? Can you get a knowledgeable attorney to speak to the Qui Tam issue in general? (However, the uber-fuss Bev's making about it being misspelled doesn't hold much water -- google Quitam and you still get plenty of hits.)
As to the dog -- I can understand if you are not telling us where Curtis is for his own protection - but how do you expect us to call for a police report when we don't know where he is?
Thanks, Brad.
In one sense, all of the points that the last commentator are worth investigation. Brad should investigate them, if he wants to be seen as an investigative journalist. But ultimately, none of this can prove that Curtis' story is true, and most of it (such as the claims that Curtis has outstanding debts or may have committed copyright infringement) cannot prove that Curtis' story is false, either. I do not accept the notion that "credibility" is the criterion of truth. Curtis could be a mass murderering homeless guy and still be telling the truth, or he could be the President of the United States and still by lying. The bottom line is that so far its Curtis' word against Feeney's. I don't see this going anywhere. I think I am going to focus on election fraud issues that can be objectively verified.
Now let me be clear: Whether Curtis is telling the truth or not, and whether or not any fraud occurred in recent elections (which Curtis has NOT alleged, by the way) ELECTRONIC VOTING IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I am not sure what the solutions are but we must accept that there is a MAJOR problem and the voting system is vulnerable to massive fraud by Democrats or Republicans or random fanatics of any stripe. I think the Curtis-Feeney scandal may be nothing but a distraction from the real issues (unless some objective evidence is offered). This scandal, if it gets mainstream coverage, would contribute to the polarization of the election reform debate along partisan lines. I don't object to Brad reporting the facts that he discovers, but I think I've pretty much lost interest.
Why did Curtis wait four years before doing anything about this?
I will try here to answer the "disgruntled democrat's" questions above. Again, I will tell you what I know of them, and you can continue to look further into them for confirmation or debunking.
1. Hai Lin (Henry) Nee is said to be Yang's quality control person, yet what I've read from news articles and other blogs says that he worked for Azure Systems during the time in question by Curtis. If he was an employee of Yang as stated, why did these articles, which were by mainstream media (AP, USA Today) not mention Nee as a Yang employee?The charges brought against Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Nee) concerned business activities with Azure Systems. A company that was being run out of Nee's house prior to dates in question when Curtis was working with Nee at YEI.
I will be reporting more on that Nee case shortly. But to assuage your concerns, I have copies of YEI "Weekly Time Reports" signed by Nee demonstrating his work for them. As well as contemporaneous Email from YEI employees acknowledging same.
I have shared those documents with both other media organizations and legal entities for independent investigation.
I hope to be sharing some of it with you here as well soon, though I admit I find myself walking a delicate balance between helping to tell the story with jeopardizing either the safety of the individuals involved or the integrity of the ongoing investigations.
I am trying to be particularly careful to find the best balance and to get the story right in the meantime. Which is not always easy to do as you may guess.
2. Clinton Curtis was part of a copyright infringement case dating back from 1997 and is accused of stealing Yang software as well. Two times being accused of copyright infringement/theft is more than most people run into; most are never accused as it's a hefty charge. Once maybe a coincidence; twice is a red flag. A settlement does not necessarily mean innocence. There must be records of this case that should be dug up; it appears that there may be a pattern here.Records have been, and *are* being dug up. The 1997 case, as I understand it at this time, was settled out of court with no wrong doing found, and both sides paying their own attorneys fees (Mr. Curtis countersued after the original suit against him was filed).
The Yang case is a different, and still pending, matter which I speak to a bit in Question #9 of my "Questions Answered" article in a bit more detail. Please refer to that for more info at this time.
3. $200k is a lot of money and sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures; some of the accusations set forth seem a bit out of desparation.Mr. Curtis has made it clear to me, and several others (on several occassions) that he does not want the $200 Reward that has been offered for evidence of vote tampering in Election 2004. Furthermore, it's quite clear that even if he *did* want it, the information he's provided would not qualify him for that reward based on the rewards very specific criteria.
I have researched records and seen that a Curtis Clinton in Brevard County has had several judgements against him by Bank of America and there appears to be other records that are available for a fee. Not sure if this is him, but the name is spelled the same.His name is actually Clinton (or Clint) Curtis. Not "Curtis Clinton" as you mention above. Not sure if that was your typo, or you were looking up records for a different person.
If you have such records as you mention, please feel free to forward them to me, and I'll look into them to see what -- if any -- relationship they have to this case and Mr. Curtis.
4. There was a considerable amount of coverage of Curtis v. Feeney a couple years ago that I found online in the Daytona News Journal. It seems impossible to believe Curtis would not have brought these allegations against Feeney then, especially with an election on the line. I've read your FAQ about the fact he was more worried about espionage, but that doesn't quite pass muster. It sounds like the News Journal was listening to whatever Curtis put forth, so I doubt they'd have filtered this information.My experience on this case, even with the sworn affidavit, is that media organizations are very careful about reporting on unevidenced information. The case you mention reading about in the News Journal related to the charges made to the ethics committed concerning Mr. Feeney's relation to YEI as a registered lobbyist and corporate attorney at the same time he was a Florida Legilator (the only known registered lobbiest in the 160 member legislature at the time).
My understanding, is that Curtis did report the vote-rigging information to investigators at FDOT at the time that he and Mavis Georgalis both filed their complaints against the over-billing, software undelivered, and other concerns about YEI to the FDOT inspector generals office.
5. Curtis says in the affidavit that he was shocked that "they were actually trying to steal the election", back in 2000, yet he says nothing then, when this information could have been used proactively as opposed to reactively where $200k is on the line.Again, there is no $200k on the line as Curtis -- even if he wanted it -- would not be eligible for that money from everything I can tell of the rules required to "win" it.
It would not be accurate to say that he "says nothing then" in 2000, since he claims that he did speak to several folks about it contemporaneously, and not long thereafter, spoke to the FDOT IG's office, and other law-enforcement agencies and corporate investigators.
There is *some* corroborating information for that, and more is actively being looked into and sought.
Hope those answers are useful.
From Tallahasse Joe (I think):
"Now, finally, she has kinda-sorta-maybe-almost retracted most of it.
And you "commend" her for it -- Brad, all I can say is you must be much, much more charitable than I would be in similar circumstances."Issuing retractions/corrections for anybody is difficult. So I appreciate that she's done so (even though there are still some problems with her update, which -- she has told me -- she will also be clarifying shortly). As well, I have no interest in a public pissing match with her, or anybody else, on the issue. That, I believe, would be an unhelpful and unnecessary distraction from investigation of Curtis' case.
I spoke to her comments originally only to try and help keep the story straight. Not in order to dress her down or get into a public fight with her.
The only valid point she raises is the Qui Tam question -- I, too, would like to see that point addressed. Can you ask Curtis about that? Can you get a knowledgeable attorney to speak to the Qui Tam issue in general?Attempting to do so this weekend. As always, will report what useful info I can find/offer on the matter.
Thanks for the comments!
Brad,
This (very likely) stolen election issue may be the single most important issue since Columbus discovered America. Under the circumstances, YOU might want to consider personally researching it and providing solid facts. Otherwise, my thinking agrees with others who now appear to question YOUR credibility.
The question is with the story's facts, not Brad's trust...seems Brad et all is doing just fine within the limits of what there is to work with. If personal safety is an issue, and I believe it should be, than steps should be taken to secure those folks before all hell breaks loose. I'm assuming that aspect is in the works.
In time, though, too many folk will begin to lose interest unless, or until, all of this can be published.
Using the excuse of 'personal safety' can start to wear thin.
In the meantime, be carful not to kill the messenger, folks.
Brad,
You seem so concerned for the safety of Curtis, yet there doesn't seem to be any concern for the safety of those being implicated in this indictment. I'm sure you're not too naive to realize that this story's explosive nature will bring about a gamut of emotions from people. You published this story without any fact checking whatsoever; how about the people that are being assailed by Curtis? Just because someone signs an affidavit does not mean it is the truth. Maybe you should keep this in mind next time.
Brad:
You misattributed the following remark to me:
"Now, finally, she [Bev Harris] has kinda-sorta-maybe-almost retracted most of it.
And you "commend" her for it -- Brad, all I can say is you must be much, much more charitable than I would be in similar circumstances."
I did not post that remark, nor does it express my views. The remark was posted by Anonymous (it is one of the preceding comments on this post).
I read Ms. Harris statement of clarification on the Curtis-Feeney issue and it seemed quite sensible, and in my view she does deserve credit for being willing to change her position. Her initial criticisms were, as you pointed out, apparently based on misunderstandings of Mr. Curtis' affidavit. On the other hand, Ms. Harris' continuing reluctance to embrace Mr. Curtis' allegations is also appropriate and laudable, given the lack of objective evidence. Activists too often jump to conclusions and then cling desperately to unfounded conclusions or reccomendations, thus losing credibility. Ms. Harris seems to avoid this pitfall.
Since I called Ms. Harris' more recent comments on the Curtis-Feeney controversy "sensible", I should point out that I do take issue with one aspect of them. Ms. Harris mentions that as she was investigating Mr. Curtis' claims, some other, unidentified person contacted Ms. Harris with other, unrelated allegations of vote fraud against Mr. Feeney. I think it was inappropriate for Mr. Harris to mention this publicly before some evidence is publicly available. Anyone can make accusations - the threshold for activists (as Ms. Harris is) to call public attention to an accusation should be fairly solid evidence. Otherwise, as Ms. Harris herself points out in connection with the Curtis-Feeney affair, the public will view activists as "the boy who cried wolf". To clarify, Ms. Harris has not, to my knowledge, accused Mr. Feeney of anything. But it is my opinion that her merely mentioning an unsubstantiated accusation by someone else is inappropriate given her activist role.
My impression is that Ms. Harris is smart and dedicated and unfortunately overwhelmed at the moment, which is understandable.
As this Blog is now being spammed by anonymous posters commenting again and again as multiple people, I've been forced to require registration before commenting.
Didn't want to have to do that, because it's a pain, but had no choice. Registration is free, so sign-up and comment away! It won't keep the comments "troll" free, but it may help a bit.
A few comments up, one of the anonymous posters said "You published this story without any fact checking whatsoever". The anonymous commentor, of course, is entirely wrong, as evidenced by the fact that nothing I have reported as of this time has been disproven or debunked in any way. Not to say it won't happen...it just hasn't happened in the week since I published the original story.
Talahassee Joe - My apologies for the misattribution! Due to the way Blogspot comments work, I was unable to easily check whose comments those were (can't wait to get the old BRAD BLOG back up on a server that can handle the traffic! urgh)
As to the specific comments on Ms. Harris, I'll let her defend herself on those matters as she see fits. You can leave comment on her forums at BlackBoxVoting.org where there is some discussion of her comments.
First off, Brad, thank you for turning off Anonymous comments. (I believe one of the founding principles of this country is that people can face their accusers, and know who they are?)
Now, to the issue (raised by Anonymous, above):
Anonymous said...
Brad,
This (very likely) stolen election issue may be the single most important issue since Columbus discovered America. Under the circumstances, YOU might want to consider personally researching it and providing solid facts. Otherwise, my thinking agrees with others who now appear to question YOUR credibility.This is a very good hypothesis, and it would be absolutely wonderful to implement. (Brad is, to the best of my ability to tell, digging up public records on his own as best as he can.) However, there's another issue here: Unless I mistake my guess, Brad doesn't have the training of an investigative journalist.
(Several years ago, on The West Wing, there was an issue where a high-ranking staffer was photographed by a blogger in a compromising situation. Said high-ranking staffer called up said blogger, and proceeded to make several choicely insulting comments, "off the record"... which then were posted on the blog. Bloggers aren't journalists, don't receive the same training as journalists, and perhaps most importantly, can't be held to the same standard as professional journalists because of that lack of training. That's why he's not trying to do it all himself -- if he did, he would probably stumble into the tinfoil references.)
That said, though, I have yet to see or hear anything that debunks anything that Brad has posted, and the information that he has shared with independent news organizations has not come up with any refutation as of yet. That speaks volumes -- and even if it is refuted at a later date, by someone with more training in investigative journalism... how on God's green Earth would he have been able to dig it up, if it took weeks or months for someone with more training in technique?
No, Brad's credibility isn't at issue here. He's an ordinary joe who's doing his best to manage this huge influx of calls and media attention... while presenting the information that he has in a clear, concise, and precise manner. I could only wish that I had him as a paralegal, with the same energy and drive to find information that I need. :P (I'm not a lawyer, but I sometimes do need to get legal references for various things I do.)
I am a libertarian, with fiscally liberal leanings. I'm unhappy with the current regime. But, because I believe in my country, I must sincerely and fervently hope that these allegations are without merit. The prospect of our nation (which, by the way, was kicked off the UN "Fair Elections" committee after the 2000 debacle) being stolen is anathema, at best... and crippling both within and without, at worst.
Post a Comment
<< Home