The WI G.A.B. at least is appropriately named:

gab    [gab] Show IPA verb, gabbed, gab·bing, noun Informal.

–verb (used without object)

to talk or chat idly; chatter.

(Dictionary).

Good people of WI, time to crawl back into your underground dens. IMO, and its just my opinion, you are cowards, all of you.

Wonder if the infusion of money at the last of the campaign covered bribes. It takes a village to steal an election as we saw in Kentucky. We also saw that the only politician who cried foul of our US elections, Don Seigleman, was made a political prisoner. And still has not had his name cleared.

Guess that was meant to send a message. Assistant AG Kloppenburg seems to have gotten it. Guess she trusts the justice system to do the right thing more than we do since she is in the business.

Thank you Brad for your courage. Great voice for the media, by the way.We need international monitors at this point for all future elections. The criminality in our elections are systemic now.

Daily Kos has reverted back to the old gate keeper mode. Even guilesgoatboy didn't think producing the minutes was important.

All in all, there is plenty of evidence for a lawsuit if we had a justice dept.

As a resident of Wisconsin I would like to know what I can do to help guide our officials to make sure the custody of ballots is secure. Regardless of outcome, the fact that the bags were open, duct taped, given different serial numbers makes the election results suspect. How can I make sure my local and county clerk is doing their job properly?
How can I regain confidence in the integrity of future elections? The computers can only be verified if the ballots can be recounted. If the ballots are not secure than any recount is a valid as the computer tapes.

Questions to have been asked by Brad.
Why does wisconsin bother to write statutes meant to protect the integrity of the chain of custody if violating them means nothing?
Does violation of state statutes constitute a crime? If so and crimes were committed during the recount why is Kloppenburg willing to sweep them under the rug with the GAB? Has she considered the cynical attitude her actions will spread among people working for change thru the political system? How can she consider an election that contained likely voter fraud an expression of the will of the people? Sorry Brad I know you are a kind person but i think you let her off way to easy!

Oh and one more question for Kloppenburg. Since this was a CRUCIAL election and a very close one. And since she stated Wisconsin recount statutes need the candidate to raise objections why did she not make the 50 mile drive to Waukesha to observe the recount HERSELF?

Jon5 said @ 6 & 7:

Sorry Brad I know you are a kind person but i think you let her off way to easy!

Not in my defense, but by way of explanation, there is always a fine line when dealing with public officials (or any guests) who, frankly, don't have to give you their time, especially to answer a half hour of questions live on the air. For that, they are owed some thanks and respect, even as I still feel it is my job to ask tough, but fair, questions anway. Sometimes I walk the line well, other times not. I'll leave it to you and others to decide how I walked it this time. (I've got my own opinions about that, but it does not particularly matter.)

With that said, the questions you would have liked me to ask are all good ones, and none of them were avoided for any reason other than for lack of time on the short show. (As you may know, I generally prefer a longer format for such interviews, but don't have any choice about that in my weekly half-hour KPFK slot.)

Kloppenburg told me, at an earlier date, that she does not tend to read blogs. Though if she happens to read this one, and your comments here, I hope she'll feel welcome to answer the questions you raised herself, as other officials sometimes do in our comments section.

Short of that though, allow me a stab at a few of them, based on what I suspect may have informed some of her thinking, as gleaned through my discussions with her, her campaign, and the hard facts that I'm aware of...

Why does wisconsin bother to write statutes meant to protect the integrity of the chain of custody if violating them means nothing?

I think her letter to the GAB [PDF], calling for improvements in their enforcement of those violations, speaks, somewhat, to her concern about that. I got the sense, through the my conversations with her camp over the past month, that they were none too happy with the way the statutes were (or, more aptly, weren't) being enforced. And then, as we discussed during the interview above, there is some frustration that enforcement is, ultimatly, left to a candidate to either afford or not via legal challenge.

I suspect they share the frustration inherent in your question.

Does violation of state statutes constitute a crime?

As an Asst. AG, I'd guess that her answer would be "yes, of course!" However, short of hard evidence that statutes were purposely violated (versus, say, a ballot bag that came open during handling, innocently enough), it may be difficult to say whether statutes were violated or not for certain.

Making things murkier still, WI case law has determined that much of the election related statutes are "directory" versus "mandatory". In other words, counties are directed to seal their ballots in bags, but if they fail to, they have not necessarily violated a mandatory requirement.

That's a vaguish description from an admitted non-attorney, with a only a bare minimum knowledge of the full body of election-related case law in WI, but I offer it in case it adds additional light to your questions (and, again, not by way of either apologizing for or speaking for her...just sharing some of what I have learned about what may have gone into their thinking as to whether to file for a judicial review or not.)

An actual challenge via judicial review, obviously, would have allowed for much more discovery, under-oath testimony, etc. to get to the bottom of what really did or didn't happen, but that is expensive, as discussed during the interview.

But here's how she spoke herself to your question, a bit, in her concession speech [PDF]:

Back to your questions...

If so and crimes were committed during the recount why is Kloppenburg willing to sweep them under the rug with the GAB?

I'll not answer that at all, other than I don't believe that she believes she is helping to "sweep [crimes] under a rug". (Your opinion, of course, is welcome to vary as you see fit.)

Has she considered the cynical attitude her actions will spread among people working for change thru the political system?

I can't answer that one at all.

How can she consider an election that contained likely voter fraud an expression of the will of the people?

I can't answer that one either, but am jumping in to say that there is no evidence of "voter fraud", as you suggest, but rather election fraud. And, in her concession speech, she went out of her way to note that point by saying: "there is scant evidence of individuals trying to vote fraudulently."

As to how she considers the results to be "an expression of the will of the people", she can answer if she wishes. I did try to push her on that point as much as I could given the various constraints mentioned at the top of this comment.

Oh and one more question for Kloppenburg. Since this was a CRUCIAL election and a very close one. And since she stated Wisconsin recount statutes need the candidate to raise objections why did she not make the 50 mile drive to Waukesha to observe the recount HERSELF?

I believe she is refering to candidates raising objections by filing for a judicial review after the "recount" is certified, not the candidate, herself, being on hand at the count to object. To that end, she did have have an attorney present throughout the counting in Waukesha, everyday, to the best of my understanding, and he did file objections for the record in the recorded minutes (for whatever that was worth.)

And, again, I would certainly welcome her own thoughts to any or all of above, if she wishes to post them here, but hopefully I've added a bit of light, anyway, based on my last month or two of reporting on this story.

Appreciate your being such a gentleman and Kloppenburg taking the high road. You both will out last the hi jackers of this particular election. Sometimes , only time can tell the true tale. I eagerly await that to happen. Wisconsin could very well be the election where it all starts unraveling. Those people are smart and energetic. Reminded me more of the attitude in Egypt with their demonstrations than US protests. Change is going to happen.Taking the high road is the only way to win.

Daily Kos has this post up saying votes aren't matching up to demographics of voters going back to 2004. I'm not good at this kind of technical stuff. But do think it might be some good work.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/...eadsheets.html#wisconsin

Brad thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your answers were much appreciated. The whole chain of custody issue still puzzles me. If fraud has to be proven before ballots are disallowed what is the purpose of sealing the ballots any particular way if the lack of this procedure proves nothing? If a video is required of some clerk or other unknown person stuffing ballots into bags to show fraud happened then why are the ballot bags not video taped 24 seven? Because chain of custody means nothing at all in this case. it is a JOKE. My concept was if chain of custody was violated enough times in the obvious and clumsy manner it was in waukesha county it would set off ALARM bells that would cause instant and detailed investigation of the circumstances that surrounded this breaking of state statutes. Silly me.
And yes i meant to say ELECTION fraud. Thank you for pointing that out! And thank you for your wonderful and informative blog!

Imagine if the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" included giving defendants unfettered unsupervised access to evidence, witnesses, and depositions. Perhaps with some "recommendations" to not destroy evidence or bribe/threaten witnesses, etc. No one would ever be convicted, and our system of law would be seen as a bad joke around the world.

That is the state of our election system.

The only way to be convicted of election tampering would be for a "posse" of citizens to commandeer an Optiscan site, roll the cameras, open up the boxes and count all the ballots by hand.

You could bet that if that happened, no expense would be spared by the state to mobilize a SWAT team and take them out before they could finish counting the votes.

It is difficult to see how votes can actually be counted today in most places other than by "vigilante" action. Citizens have no rights within the law to have their vote counted.

#12

Good point.

#13

Do you read blackboxvoting? NH just slipped a bill in and got it passed which essentially keeps the public from seeing the ballots.

NH can make or break a candidate in the primaries.

Your headline quote says it all

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people
who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Indeed...