As you've likely imagined, I'm currently working on a number of items related to the Curtis/Feeney/Yang affair. Some small items I'll pop here shortly this evening, some larger fairly breathtaking items will be coming tomorrow or Monday. As well, I'm trying to get the original BradBlog.com moved over to a new server that can better handle the traffic so we can resume reporting back at home sweet home in the not too distant future.

Because of all of that, I have been unable to give the proper attention to the affairs on the ground relating to the recount in Ohio.

There have been some notable, and some disturbing developments over the last day or so however, and to that end, I associate myself with the good Mr. Joseph Cannon's coverage of some of those troubling events seeping out of the Buckeye State...

Check back for more soon...

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.

Some non-Curtis/Feeney/Yang news briefly...

"We definitely did not have a glitch-free election," said [U.S. Elections Assistance Committee] chairman DeForest Soaries Jr., a Bush appointee in what may be entitle him to the BRAD BLOG Understatement-of-the-Year Award!

It's from an AP item just hitting the wires headlined "Doubts Persist About the Election" which summarizes a lot of the more well-known problems with Election 2004 that regular BRAD BLOG readers are certainly well familiar with by now.

Also, of note, this quote from a Democrat in California (I am pointing to this in particular because I know that there are quite a few big time DNC'ers currently following this blog! Ignore this man's words at your own peril!):

RELATED...The U.S. House Judiciary Dems are today announcing an election forum they are holding this Monday in Ohio to be lead by ranking minority leader on the committee, Rep. John Conyers. At the Ohio State Capitol's "North Hearing Room", Monday morning at 10:30am. Official announcement to be posted shortly at the House Dems website.

A source inside the Dem Judiciary Committee confirms that "events on the ground in Ohio are moving quickly and the House Judiciary Committee is too."

UPDATE: I've just received this via email from a Judiciary Committee aide:

More kudos to the Dems on the House Judiciary Committee for putting up the good fight! Would that more Dems in the House and Senate (and the DNC!) demonstrated the kind of stubborn tenacity and care for the U.S. Constitution that the House Dems have shown over the past week or so!

According to the Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) website, a statement on the Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney charges is forthcoming. As of this morning, the following text now appears on the front page of the YEI website:

MORE...

The BRAD BLOG can confirm that all references to Mike Cohen, Mrs. Yang's executive secretary at YEI --- who was named in Clint Curtis' affidavit as having been in the October 2000 meeting with Feeney to discuss the "vote-rigging software" --- have now been removed from the YEI website and have been replaced by the name "Lowell Weaver" as of now.

Searches for "Mike Cohen" at the YEI site for the moment, will yield several documents though they no longer contain Cohen's name. A search at The Internet Archive Wayback Machine for those same documents reveal that Cohen's name was once were Weaver's name is now. Here's one of those cached pages revealing Cohen's name via the Wayback Machine. (Thanks to BRAD BLOG commenters for the tip!)

AND STILL DEVELOPING...

Unfortunately, over the last few days since breaking the "WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT" story, I've been stuck doing more answering to folks (media, etc.) than reporting on the story.

Many questions have appropriately been raised out in the net and beyond about the entire Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang Enterprises story, and --- occassionally --- my role in it.

Rather than answer the same questions so many times, I'll attempt to answer here some of the most frequently asked... And I'd encourage you folks out in Blogistan, who may see such questions or charges raised, to point folks to this document and/or any of the specific answers you may find germane to questions being asked.

As more arise, I'll try to answer them as the story moves along. Feel free to ask any you may have in comments here, and I'll do my best to speak to them. I'd echo the comments I reported earlier from Clint Curtis himself yesterday morning when I told him about all the questions coming up about his case: "Good! We want them to debunk as much possible, since that means they'll research the claims and find out how much is out there about it all...including stuff that I don't even know yet!"

In that spirit and in no particular order, but for the easiest (and most annoying one!) first...

I've been trying to prepare a FAQ on some of the most frequently asked questions I've been getting about the Clint Curtis story. It's taking longer than I had hoped because so much else is currently going on.

But since I get so many questions about that fourth page of the Affidavit, and why it looks different than the first three, let me post here at least an answer to that question right now! PLEASE feel free to point folks to this link or this information when you see them asking that particular question!

And keep being skeptical, which is good! (Though not cynical, which is not particularly helpful at all!)

Q. What's up with the fourth page of Curtis' affidavit [PDF]? The fonts and colors and pixellation were totally different than the first three pages! It must be a fake!

A. The original document was black and white except for the purple ink in the signature on the final page. The person who scanned it had the scanner set on an "Automatic" setting and the scanning program apparently kicked into Color mode only when it got to the purle signature on the last page.

I was concerned that folks would get distracted by that, as silly as it is, when the scan was first sent to me, so I asked to have it rescanned and resent. They did so, and it came back the same way again. The person doing the scanning couldn't figure out how to change it, and then had to get to a meeting. So that's the version I had to go with as I had to get the story out (for reasons explained in our original story itself.)

Please note, these aren't 40 year old documents! This is not the Dan Rather story where shadowy, anonymous figures had presented documents claiming they came from unnamed sources. This affidavit was signed, notarized, scanned and sent to me on Monday of this week! And the guy who created them --- Clint Curtis --- has gone very public in saying so! He was on the radio yesterday morning continuing to do just that!

As well, the copies of the affidavit that have been received by congressional people looking into this, and the folks at CREW who are looking into Curtis' claim are copied from the original. Not from the scan that I released with the story on Monday.

In truth, I don't really even understand the charge of "the affidavit is fake!" in the first place. If it was a fake, I'd think the person whose name is on them as swearing it to be truthful under penalty of perjury would likely have come forward and told the world that the affidavit was a fake!

To that end, while the skepticism is healthy and I share Curtis' point (quoted here yesterday) encouraging folks to research his claims and attempt to prove them false, it would be more useful perhaps if folks investigated the substance of the charges contained in the documents signed by the guy who admits he signed them! Debunking the substance of Curtis' story is more useful to everyone than getting stuck on some archane technical concerns make no sense anyway if one bothers to ponder it.

I'm currently scheduled to discuss the Clint Curtis story on the Alex Jones radio show tomorrow morning (Thursday) during the 11am PT (2pm ET) hour.

The live web stream for the show, if you are inclined to listen, can be heard via one of these links...

UPDATE: I believe the interview went well enough. About 30 minutes. I'll try and post the audio here shortly.

UPDATE 12/10/04: I appeared again on Jones' show this morning at his request while Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org was the official guest. Details on that appearance and her reaction to my response to her statements on Curtis, all now posted here.

STILL...AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED...DEVELOPING...

Forgot to mention, Curtis interviewed yesterday with Air America Radio though I don't yet know the air date for it. They had originally hoped to schedule him for Marty Kaplan's show which airs on Saturdays, but as things are moving quickly on this story, they may be airing it sooner. Will update as I learn more.

The BRAD BLOG can also confirm that very high level folks have been informed about the Curtis issue (and have, in fact, visited this site).

He's also (as mentioned previously, but you may not have caught it here) been interviewed by several mainstream media folks. With more scheduled.

END OF DAY 2 on this story, and still no major holes in his story. (Or even minor ones yet that I know of!

RAW STORY, who's editor John Byrne has been doing some terrific reporting since we broke the FeeneyGate story, has another excellent piece confirming quite a few of the key points in Clint Curtis' story. Please give it a read.

While many internet folks have been all over this since yesterday (and on the Election 2004 issue in general for moreone exhausting month now), I can confirm as well that a number of very prominent mainstream media organizations are also currently looking into this. Even several organizations that The BRAD BLOG has been a a tad critical of over the last several weeks for not investigating and reporting on so many issues that have long been well-worthy of it. I am glad to see some folks are sitting up and taking notice finally.

C-SPAN is covering the Judiciary Committee Ohio Hearings tomorrow at 10am EST (another story which we also broke here on The BRAD BLOG - but please, sir, show some modesty!). I have been told, but cannot confirm, that NBC and MSNBC have announced they will also be carrying them live.

I hope I'll actually get time to watch them! And barring any breaking issues I need to deal with, I hope to have more answers to many of the "Frequently Asked Questions" about the Curtis case tomorrow.

I have been trying to get time off of the phone to answer many of the good questions that have been out there on the net about the Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang (YEI) / FDOT story. To put together a FAQ, if you will, since much of the speculation or attempts to debunk it that I've seen are very easily answerable by hard evidence.

There is much misinformation out there, and as I'm a primary source for much of the info that is out there --- having broken the story of Curtis' affidavit and having spent many hours interviewing him and others related --- I thought it would be wise to answer here to many of those questions.

I have been preparing a post on exactly that and hope to post it shortly.

However, since so many have sent me the Bev Harris (of BlackBoxVoting.org) article on her skeptical view of Curtis' claims, and it her article seems to contain so much misinformation, I thought it important to answer her questions immediately before their basis becomes "lore".

For the record, a perusal of the The BRAD BLOG (if you can get to it now, I can't) will show that I have been a supporter of Harris' efforts from very early on in all of this. I fervently support her continuing fraud investigations in Florida and elsewhere. I mean no disrespect in answering to some of her questions and suggestions, but it appears she may be working from a number of very incorrect assumptions about Curtis' claims.

That may be due to the fact that she is very busy, or --- more likely --- she is working off of some of the information that Wayne Madsen had posted in an article partly covering these issues.

One of the reasons I released my story when I did --- slightly earlier than I would have liked --- was because of Madsen's article which tied in a number of unevidenced wide-reaching elements to into the Curtis/Feeney/Yang story which --- all by itself --- had some very good and hard evidence to look into!

I was concerned that folks might confuse Curtis' story with the broader picture Madsen was painting, and I have seen no supporting evidence to suggest that the two stories are in any way related. Not to say they aren't. I just have seen nothing to suggest they are.

As well, I have never heard Curtis speak of the broader Bush Family / CIA stuff that Madsen attaches Curtis' story too. And there is no reference to any of it in Curtis' sworn affidavit.

So far, I have been unable to find any disparities in Curtis' story, or evidence that he is not telling the truth. Again, not to say it's not out there. I just haven't found it. And believe me, I have been looking!

Harris is correct in taking Madsen to task as well for his implications that Curtis' story is in anyway "proof" that voting-machines in Election 2004 (or any prior to it!) have been rigged! That is not what Curtis has claimed in his affidavit or to me.

As well, I have defended previous claims made against Madsen, to a certain extent , in a previous BRAD BLOG article. Inasmuch as the charges Kieth Olbermann had made, attacking him for not having made direct contact with "the primary object of his reporting". The issue on which I defended Madsen was that Olbermann himself hadn't bothered to check in with Madsen --- the primary object of his reporting --- for reply. Not crack journalism when one is accusing someone of doing same. I checked with Madsen however, and while some of his claims I still had trouble with, I believe that Madsen would have had answers to many of the questions Olbermann had asked in his article.

So I am taking no sides here! I am only trying to clear up the facts of the case.

But there are many facts that Harris seems to simply have wrong about Curtis' story --- wherever she may have gotten them from.

It does not seem as if she read my report on Curtis' claims, and I would strong suggest she do so. That report can now be found here on BRAD BLOG TOO since the original version is so hard to get to because of heavy traffic over there.

I will italicize her text, and include my replies to them below in regard to what I know, and in hopes of clearing some of the air in --- and the facts of --- the issues she raises...

So far, so good here on the new souped-up BRAD BLOG server! We seem to be handling the higher traffic since posting our original https://bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm\">"WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT" story just fine.

Happy Holidays from all of us here at The BRAD BLOG (that would be just me)! And thanks for your continuing support!

The BRAD BLOG has learned that a D.C. Ethics watchdog group has met with, and is now investigating the claims made by Clint Curtis in an affidavit [PDF] that we released exclusively here yesterday.

According to a spokesperson Naomi Selligman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Curtis was referred to the group by aides on Capitol Hill after they recieved and reviewed Curtis' affidavit.

From Selligman's email to BRAD BLOG:

Seligman confirmed the email by phone, and has informed The BRAD BLOG that Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay has since sought to have CREW found in contempt of Congress for their role in having drafted the complaint against him.

FYI... Mr. Curtis' dog was shot and killed a few hours after I published my original story on the BRAD BLOG. This is the second time that Mr. Curtis has been the apparent victim of intimidation through such tacticts. Another one of his dogs was killed in 2002.

Here is part of an emotional note I wrote to my friend at Crooks & Liars just after I'd heard of the incident and while I was unable to post at the main BRAD BLOG site due to the heavy traffic after I published the story.

I have seen speculation that the dog story is a hoax or something. And I certainly don't expect anybody to take my word for it.

To that end, I hope to have info from a police report (and I don't know that one was yet filed or not, checking into it) when I can get it.

But as I believe folks have found most of my other reports (See the Raymond Lemme issue for example) have, in fact, been confirmed and are real, I hope you will give the benefit of the doubt until anything I have reported has been proven to be incorrect.

I encourage your skepticism in the entire affair. I have tried to remain equally as skeptical about all of these charges since I initially heard of them, at least until I have seen substantiation. Most have been substantiated with evidence. The most notable charges for this moment concerning election charges are clearly less substantiated with hard evidence. At this time.

MUCH STILL DEVELOPING...THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT!

I can report that there is much moving on this story.

So I can't post as quickly as I'd like to as I'm fielding calls, talking to folks, etc.

Curtis has been getting many interview requests and has spoken to a number of mainstream (and not as mainstream) organizations.

Will post here as much and as quickly as I can.

Hope to answer many of the "Frequently Asked Questions" I've seen lately on all of this, on Curtis, on the Affidavit (and even on me).

I encourage skepticism in everything here. Have tried to be as skeptical about it all myself from the beginning. And continue to be on every aspect of it.

So far, as I reported originally, I haven't found any holes in Curtis' story. And there are loads of paper trail on it going back years. Newspaper articles, public records (lots of those, since there have been many court hearings on all the Yang (FEI) and Florida Dept. of Transportation stuff, etc).

So to that end, I'll be posting here all day as much as I can, between all the off-line stuff I am now doing as well.