Did Bush commit election fraud?

I haven't covered electoral problems much recently, if only because Brad Friedman is doing work that cannot be matched.

Brad and I have had a minor ongoing dispute over nomenclature. He uses the term "election fraud" to denote computer shennanigans and related abuses -- i.e., the Diebold stuff. Brad uses "voter fraud" to refer to the largely spurious claims -- often made by GOP hit men -- that our elections are beset by numerous false registrations. The Rovians make these allegations because they want the vote restricted only to those who can show multiple forms of ID -- which poor people often do not possess.

By the way, for the latest word on these shennanigans, go here. Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers has come out with a great piece on the situation in Missouri, which we have discussed at length in previous posts.

At any rate, I use the punchy term "vote fraud" to refer to what Brad calls "election fraud." And I think the mythos promulgated by Rove and company should be called "registration fraud," not "voter fraud."

Yeah, the names I use may be a bit different, but the idea is the same: Registration fraud is an (alleged) offense committed by the voter. Vote fraud is an offense inflicted upon the voters.

Vote fraud occurs when someone looks at a dozen eggs and says "I count 11." Registration fraud is a Republican fable designed to keep brown eggs out of the carton.

Such are the terms I use. Now I just need to get everyone else to use 'em.

Michael Collins has written a new piece on all of this, and he has given permission for publication here. His nomenclature may differ slightly from mine, but his conclusions are solid. Everything after the asterisks is his.

* * *

Did Bush Commit Election Fraud?
Gonzales Story - Smoking Gun #1

By Michael Collins
Part 1 of a 2 part series

There is sufficient evidence in the public domain strongly to suspect that Bush committed election fraud in the handling of the U.S. Attorney firings.

Before examining the evidence, it's important to know the difference between the contrived construct of voter fraud and election fraud, a very real phenomenon.

A Critical Distinction: Voter versus Election Fraud

Lorraine C. Minnite, PhD of Barnard College, Columbia University makes the distinction in the introduction to her comprehensive study:

Voter fraud is the "intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter" ...willingly giving false information to establish voter eligibility, and knowingly and willingly voting illegally or participating in a conspiracy to encourage illegal voting by others. All other forms of corruption of the electoral process...(by) elected or election officials, candidates, party organizations, advocacy groups or campaign workers (is)...election fraud.

Minnite points out there were only 24 convictions or guilty pleas (page 9) for voter fraud at the federal level between 2002 and 2005. That's of real interest since the White House has an orchestrated campaign to promote the notion that this is a national epidemic.

While zero occurrences of voter fraud would be admirable, 24 hardly constitute an epidemic. The contrived voter fraud epidemic is used as justification for voter identification laws in at least 22 states which keep minority and poor voters away from the polls. The voter identification requirements, just one example of Department of Justice voter suppression, create a barrier to voting because the many minority voters lack the required identifications. Even the former head of the Department of Justice Voting Rights division agrees with the political use of voting laws since 2001.

Enough on voter fraud, whether real or contrived. Election fraud is the subject right now, the ultimate corruption of the electoral process.

New Mexico Meltdown

New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias is at the center of what may become a constitutional crisis.

Cong. Heather Wilson (R-NM) trailed her Democratic opponent in the first congressional district. She needed help. It appears that she requested a boost from U.S. Attorney Iglesias in the form of a timely pre election scandal involving a prominent Democrat. That's how Iglesias read her phone call concerning a pre election indictment.

Sen. Pete Domenici, (R-NM) called Iglesias as well. According to Iglesias, there was a clearly implied request for a pre midterm Democratic sacrifice at the altar of election injustice. Iglesias reports that when he refused on the grounds that he lacked evidence (one of those minor details that tends to annoy those in power), Domenici simply stayed on the phone...silent.

Iglesias was gone in a heartbeat for not cooperating with a prosecution that would influence the 2006 midterm elections in his state. But who made the decision? Fingers were pointed but nothing stuck until last week. The Albuquerque Journal reports that during talks with Sen. Domenici, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to fire Iglesias unless the president gave the OK.

Well, Iglesias was fired, wasn't he? Gonzales denied culpability, inferring his DOJ subordinate Kyle Simpson made those decisions. Simpson fired that charge back at Gonzales. But the Albuquerque Journal article provides the missing piece. Gonzales wouldn't move on Iglesias without a Bush sanction. How do these pieces fit together?

It's simple. Wilson needed help. Both Wilson and Domenici called Iglesias. No deal, Iglesias said. Then Domenici made the call to Gonzales who said, no way without a nod by from Bush. Iglesias was fired. Therefore, Bush is tagged for giving the order, Get rid of him. Gonzales passed the word and the deed was done.

That sequence of events points directly to Bush as the final decider. He's told us "I'm the decider" in public. Gonzales said as much to Domenici, no way unless the boss says so.

The problem is not only political but legal. Pressuring a U.S. Attorney into a bogus indictment is a federal crime. Domenici lawyered up after Iglesias described his conversation with the senator. Gonzales and Simpson both denied initiating the call on the firing. So it's Bush, and only Bush, as the author of a punishment delivered to a U.S. Attorney who failed to indict a citizen for purely political purposes.

Now that's what you call a high crime. Actually, it's called election fraud, which is defined as "corruption of the electoral process...(by) elected or election officials, candidates, party organizations, advocacy groups or campaign workers." Here we have politicians actively planning improper and illegal acts to influence an election through a contrived prosecution. It's not that complicated.

High Crimes

The New Mexico affair is critical to determining if and how election fraud was committed in the White House. We have a lot of people talking, some getting lawyers, and a critical conversation reported in the Albuquerque Journal, 15 April 2007:

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

That's the smoking gun. It's the vital link to Bush committing election fraud. He's a politician, the senior politician, corrupting the election process by replacing an honest prosecutor with someone who will cooperate the next time the Senator and the Congresswoman call with their requests that some prominent Democrat be indicted to give a hand to a campaign.

There is enough testimony, from a U.S. Attorney no less, to make a prima facie case that Bush committed election fraud. Ironically, the probable election fraud took place while the White House was promoting the Republican myth of voter fraud.

Let the impeachment process begin.