Democrats Distract From Hillary Clinton's Email Server Scandal Using Colin Powell

After years of stonewalling the Benghazi investigation, the Obama Administration's State Department that was led by Hillary Clinton was finally forced to produce some of the emails handed over from the private server by the former Secretary of State. FOIA requests and subpoenas were ignored as long as possible and half of the information was still destroyed by Hillary Clinton and her minions. The excuses and lies were numerous but pretending that her predecessors did the same thing is pathetic. The left leaning NBC's Meet the Press did their best to pretend that former Secretary of State under George W. Bush Colin Powell conducted his business much like Hillary Clinton without the uproar of course. An excerpt from TheHill.com is as follows:

Colin Powell: I used two computers at State

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he used two computers while leading the department, one for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.” 

“I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department,” Powell explained on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

“But it was mostly housekeeping stuff -- what’s the status of this paper, what’s going on here.”
Powell, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, has spoken before about his two computers, and said he wrote an entire chapter about it in his book. 

But questions about Powell’s private email setup came as another former secretary of State, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, has struggled to answer questions about why she used a private email account while conducting official business.

Colin Powell wasn't running his own PRIVATE email server and the same rules didn't apply to his use of email at the time.  The attempts to distract from the unethical and illegal conduct of Hillary Clinton by the media is disappointing and disgusting.  Just as the mostly left leaning media sought to protect Barack Obama at any cost so it must protect Hillary Clinton and her conduct under Obama, the liar in chief. The Obama legacy and the Hillary Clinton  run for POTUS 2016 are virtually intertwined and the compliant and complicit media will predictably assist in the obstruction and obfuscation by the Obama administration and the former of Secretary of State

Clinton didn't say much to Thomas, but said that calling the emails a "house keeping issue" was a "good suggestion.”

— Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) September 7, 2015

Why would Powell make the rounds?  He voted for Obama twice and isn't a conservative....


Hillary Intentionally Originated And Distributed Highly Classified Information

Other blogs of interest in the Hillary Clinton email scandal:
Hillary Clinton's Aide Doesn't Know What 'Wiping' a Server Means Either
Another 57 Clinton Email Threads Contain Classified Foreign Governments' Information
Dozens of Hillary Clinton Emails Were Classified from the Start, U.S. Rules Suggest 
State Dept. Suddenly Discovers Thousands of Emails from Top Clinton Aide
Hillary Clinton Will Turn Over Email Server to Justice Department
Hillary Clinton's Email Server Answers Avoid Key Questions 
Data in Hillary Clinton’s ‘Secret’ Emails Came from 5 Intelligence Agencies 
Hillary Clinton Email Scandal - Obfuscation & Obstruction 
Hillary Clinton Denies Being Subpoenaed: Investigators Release Subpoena
Hillary Clinton Email Scandal - Obfuscation & Obstruction
@AP 's FOIA Request Shows Extent of Hillary Clinton's Email Coverup 
A blog on the Benghazi - Syria connection
Obama Arms the Syrian Rebels & 'Overlooks' Their Use of Chemical Weapons 
A blog on the first days of media 'coverage'
Obama Media Machine in Full Deflection Mode after Embassy Attacks 

Hillary Clinton's Email Server Answers Avoid Key Questions

Byron York of the Washington Examiner has been following the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal closely and the reporting seems detailed and fair.  The following article is no exception.

Clinton email answers don't answer key question

It was lost amid news of President Obama's Iran deal, but this week Hillary Clinton released a 3,500-word explanation of her secret email system. While it is by far the most extensive statement the Clinton campaign has made on the issue, the explanation does not touch what has become a key question, if not the key question, of the email affair: Did Clinton withhold information from Congress?  

The statement is in question-and-answer form. In it, Clinton asserts that she carefully followed every law and regulation that applied to her emails as secretary of state. She did absolutely nothing wrong, she says. 

One of the questions asked is: "Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?" Clinton's answer is no, she did not. According to the Clinton campaign: "The emails that Clinton chose not to keep were personal emails -- they were not federal records or even work-related -- and therefore were not subject to any preservation obligation under the Federal Records Act or any request. Nor would they have been subject to the subpoena -- which did not exist at the time -- that was issued by the Benghazi Select Committee some three months later." 

The subpoena to which Clinton referred was issued March 4, 2015, after the committee learned that Clinton kept her emails on a separate, secret server. Clinton seems to be confirming that she destroyed her email records (and all backups, according to her attorney) in early December, which would be three months before the Benghazi committee subpoena. So Clinton's argument is: There's no way I was subject to a subpoena because I destroyed everything before the subpoena was issued. 

Putting aside the question of whether Clinton's emails were already covered by an earlier subpoena -- Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy maintains they were -- there is still the question of whether Clinton, all along, had a legal obligation to preserve her emails and hand them over to Congress. And on that question, there seems no doubt Clinton was legally required to do just that -- and despite that obligation destroyed the emails anyway.

On September 20, 2012, nine days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Clinton asking for "all information…related to the attack on the consulate." The letter told Clinton, "In complying with this request, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf." The letter specified emails as documents covered by the request.

The letter was clear. In response, the State Department produced not a single email to or from Clinton. The world now knows, of course, that Clinton did in fact possess emails covered by the request and did not turn them over.

How does Clinton's new explainer explain that? It doesn't. The campaign's new statement simply ignores that 2012 congressional letter demanding documents.

Continued:

..... For Clinton to argue that her "personal" emails were "not subject to any preservation obligation…or any request" is a non sequitur because the congressional request, beginning in 2012, was always for Benghazi- and Libya-related documents. Clinton had them and did not turn them over.

The Clinton explainer says that on December 5, 2014, she sent the State Department "30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails" from her time as secretary. But the Libya-related portion of those materials didn't make it to the Benghazi committee until recently, and even now a few documents are being withheld on some sort of claim of executive privilege.

Given all that, it seems beyond dispute that Clinton withheld Benghazi-related information from Congress beginning September 20, 2012. There are laws that govern such behavior. To give two examples: 18 U.S. Code 1505 says that anyone who "obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede…the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House, or any joint committee of the Congress" could face a five-year prison term, while 18 U.S. Code 1001 states that anyone who "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" in the course of "any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress" could face a prison sentence of up to eight years.

 While Mr. York goes on to say that he is not recommending charges necessarily be brought against Hillary Clinton and this is more evidence that merits and justifies further investigation of the former SOS Hillary Clinton. by Trey Gowdy.  I will have to say that her actions and intent were always criminal and the charges should be filed and a trial should begin forthwith. 

A few blogs to consker reading on Benghazi and the Coverup:

Hillary Clinton Denies Being Subpoenaed: Investigators Release Subpoena
Hillary Clinton Email Scandal - Obfuscation & Obstruction
@AP 's FOIA Request Shows Extent of Hillary Clinton's Email Coverup 
A blog on the Benghazi - Syria connection
Obama Arms the Syrian Rebels & 'Overlooks' Their Use of Chemical Weapons
A blog on the first days of media 'coverage'
Obama Media Machine in Full Deflection Mode after Embassy Attacks

Clinton Cash - Corruption Meets Coincidence

The Clinton political machine and it's allies in the media seek to control the narrative on the latest book called Clinton Cash, written by a right leaning author. Left leaning media outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Reuters have found the Clinton corruption worthy of investigation and reporting. The latest leftist publication to take a look and find questionable conduct and unanswerable questions is the New Yorker.  This is just ONE of the money trails ....

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company

1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it. 

This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question: 

2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Timeswrites, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me:

 the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation. 

Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work. 

This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled. 

And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.

ABC's Stephanopoulos reflexively goes on the defensive for his old bosses.....

3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Postnotes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.” 

4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.
5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?

Democrat MN Secretary of State changes Ballot and Amendments, Loses In Court

High Court: Voter ID, Marriage Amendments on Nov. Ballot
 
08/27/2012

 The Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday rejected a legal challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show photo ID at the polls.

The high court tossed out a lawsuit from left-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the amendment.

 In a separate decision, the court also threw out ballot titles written by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for the photo ID amendment and another amendment to ban gay marriage. Republicans had argued that Ritchie, a Democrat, overstepped his authority and was trying to influence voters to reject both amendments.

Both decisions were victories for conservatives. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed both proposed amendments through over opposition from Democrats including Gov. Mark Dayton. Dayton last year vetoed a bill to require photo ID, but has no power to block constitutional amendments that are sent directly to voters.

The lawsuit that sought to strike the photo ID measure from the ballot seized on the relatively brief language, with the League of Women Voters and other groups arguing that voters weren't being given enough information to properly understand what was at stake. Critics of photo ID say it will work against Minnesota's popular same-day voter registration.

The court majority wrote that the photo ID ballot question "is not so unreasonable and misleading" that it should be taken off the ballot. The justices said striking the question from the ballot would have been "unprecedented relief" and that the voters will be "the sole judge of the wisdom of such matters."

After the Legislature approved the ballot questions, Ritchie changed the title on both, sparking an outcry from Republicans who accused him of trying to sink the amendments with prejudicial language.

Ritchie changed the title for the marriage ban from "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman" to "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."

He rewrote the photo ID title from "Photo Identification Required for Voting" to "Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Blog on the leftist Secretary of State's meddling with the voters and the ballot process:
MN Sec. of State Mark Ritchie Alters 2nd Ballot Amendment Title for Election 2012 
MN Secretary Of State Mark Ritchie- Against ID, For Widespread Fraud


#voterid #markritchie #secretaryofstate #newparty #secretaryofstateproject #markdayton /#loriswanson #dfl #mndfl #democrats #voterfraud 

MN Sec. of State Mark Ritchie Alters 2nd Ballot Amendment Title for Election 2012

Leftist Sec. of State Mark Ritchie Alters 2nd Ballot Amendment Title for Election 2012

 The following stories show the Democrats will stoop to any level to change the result of an election. The change made to the wording of  the marriage amendment ballot title is the most egregious. Just compare the Title to the wording of the Amendment. Here is the story as reported by the local news after this little background on Mark Ritchie,Voter ID and ballots from @kstp
04/14/2012
"Thrust into the partisan hothouse of back-to-back statewide recounts, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went out of his way to take on a referee persona despite the "D" after his name. But on the voter ID constitutional amendment now headed to the November ballot, he's openly taken a side.
Ritchie has steadily increased his opposition as the proposal advanced, to the point of arguing it will deprive voters of their rights. In the process, he has drawn blowback from Republicans and other supporters of the voting-law change, who accuse the state's top elections officer of going too far.
Ritchie acknowledged that he's stepped outside of his default "stay out" approach to politics."
Sec. of State Ritchie Steps into Voter ID Battle  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Ritchie Alters Title for Voter Photo ID Amendment

Created: 07/09/2012 12:53 PM KSTP.com By: Leslie Rolander
Mark Ritchie Alters Title for Voter Photo ID Amendment

'Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has reworked the title for a constitutional amendment seeking to impose a photo ID requirement for voting.

The state elections chief announced in a news release Monday that the ballot question would carry the following title: "Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."

Sponsors of the measure had set the title previously as "Photo Identification Required for Voting."

The announcement comes as Ritchie, a Democrat, was sued for substituting a title on the amendment to define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman.
Backers of the amendment object to his reworked title and say he is casting their measure in a negative light and overstepping bounds by crafting his own.

Ritchie has declined comment.'

(The new title doesn't even mention ID requirement)
My Voter ID Blog
Voter ID - Recommended by the Carter-Ford Commission & Long Overdue

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Mark Ritchie Sets New Marriage Amendment Ballot Title

Created: 06/28/2012 12:04 PM KSTP.com By: Lauren Radomski 

excerpt-

Mark Ritchie Sets New Marriage Amendment Ballot Title

"Ritchie's title language was approved earlier this month by Attorney General Lori Swanson, a fellow Democrat.
Ritchie said he had the power to change the title because Gov. Mark Dayton, also a Democrat, vetoed the legislation that originally proposed the amendment. The measure still made it on the ballot because in Minnesota, proposed constitutional amendments only need to be approved by a majority in the Legislature - not the governor.
That legislation was approved in the Republican-controlled Legislature, and Dayton has acknowledged that his veto was symbolic."

 Ballot title changed from:
"Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."
To:
"Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."

No loaded words like" limiting", marriage as a status and the nice pc phrase opposite sex couples. Which phrase applies better to the description on the ballot below?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-


 Created: 07/09/2012 11:32 AM KSTP.com by Scott Theisen

New Titles of Minn. Ballot Measures Stir Backlash

"Those words are definitely considered negative and misleading, and I believe they're created to sway the voter," said Limmer, who sponsored the same-sex marriage bill placing the issue before voters.
  
 Limmer said the new language is faulty because state law already defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The substitute title, he said, creates the impression that the state's posture toward marriage is changing.  New Titles of Minn. Ballot Measures Stir Backlash 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
 Follow the money:
Marriage amendment opponents raise $3.1 million since January

Marriage amendment opponents raise $3.1 million since January    

Posted at 1:09 PM on June 19, 2012 by Catharine Richert

"Minnesotans United for All Families has attracted some big-name support, including Gov. Mark Dayton, who is hosting a gay pride reception today.
Indeed, the Dayton name is spattered throughout the finance report. Dayton's sons Andrew and Eric earlier this month pledged $200,000 in matching funds. According to the report, the two contributed more than $25,000 each to the group, and other members of the Dayton family donated as well.
Meanwhile, William Messinger, the current husband of Dayton's ex-wife Alida Messinger, donated $10,200 to the cause.
Alida Messinger, the daughter of John D. Rockefeller III, is a prominent liberal donor who played an instrumental role in getting Dayton elected in 2010. Minnesotans United for All Families received a donation of $15,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund; Eric Dayton serves as one of the fund's trustees, according to a 2010 federal tax document."




Once you investigate Mark Ritchie, his connection as 'friend' of the New Party, Barack Obama's membership in the New Party, felons for Franken, Soros's secretary of state project and the last election disaster,  this meddling and its purposes will be clear. The democrats can only deceive, game and abuse the system to further their agenda.


#minoritarian #culturalmarxism #ballotmanipulation #markritchie #markdayton #voterid #marriageamendment #newparty

Voter ID - Recommended by the Carter-Ford Commission & Long Overdue

 Here are a few excerpts from this 2005 Report on Election Reform. The report backs the argument requiring Voter ID is overdue and necessary. A country should value the vote of the citizens and even a poor country like Mexico has a Voter ID.  Mexico's national voter IDs part of culture 

 Building Confidence in U.S. Elections Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform September 2005

'Our Commission on Federal Election Reform was formed to recommend ways to raise confidence in the electoral system. Many Americans thought that one report — the Carter-Ford Commission — and one law — the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) — would be enough to fix the system. It isn’t. In this report, we seek to build on the historic achievement of HAVA and put forward a bold set of proposals to modernize our electoral system.'
 
'Still, our entire Commission is united in the view that electoral reform is essential and that our recommended package of proposals represents the best way to modernize our electoral system. We urge all Americans, including the legislative and executive branches of government at all levels, to recognize the urgency of election reform and to seriously consider the comprehensive approach outlined herein.
We present this report because we believe the time for acting to improve our election system is now.'
Jimmy Carter  James A. Baker, III
Co-Chairs of the Commission on Federal Election Reform

' Second, to make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the "REAL ID card" or an equivalent for people without a drivers license. To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.'.

"..Commission recommends that states use "REAL ID" cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law in May 2005, requires states to verify each individual’s full legal name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship before the individual is issued a driver’s license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical vehicle because the National Voter Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a driver’s license and registering to vote. The REAL ID card adds two critical elements for voting — proof of citizenship and verification by using the full Social Security number."

 To improve ballot integrity, we propose that federal, state, and local prosecutors issue public reports on their investigations of election fraud, and we recommend federal legislation to deter or prosecute systemic efforts to deceive or intimidate voters. States should not discourage legal voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities, but they need to do more to prevent voter registration and absentee ballot fraud.'

 'Finally, we recommend strengthening and restructuring the system by which elections have been administered in our country. We propose that the EAC and state election management bodies be reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis to become more independent and effective. We cannot build confidence in elections if secretaries of state responsible for certifying votes are simultaneously chairing political campaigns, and the EAC cannot undertake the additional responsibilities recommended by this report, including critical research, without gaining additional funds and support.'

------------------------------------------



 Other Links on Voter ID  Voter ID Does NOT Equal Disenfranchisement


 The Battle of Athens Tenn 1946

#newparty #markritchie #secretaryofstateproject #soros #ballottitle #voterid #carterfordcommission