Seems like it is up there in Maine:

“As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,” Freeman said, “it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.”

So, I called Snowe’s office. I told the staff member who answered that I was calling because I was very upset having just read Kennedy’s article and I wanted Sen. Snowe to look into the matter, read the article, call for an investigation. I’m sorry to not be able to quote his answer precisely, but the gist of what he said was, “the article was written by a Kennedy. We wouldn’t pay any credence to that.”  Read more 

I’ve been a little slow to formulate this rebuttal to Manjoo’s response, in Salon, to Robert Kennedy’s article on the Republican theft of Ohio 2004—perhaps because there’s so much detail (and rebuttal (never mind the obfuscation)).

But if you boil it down, it seems to me that what Manjoo is saying is that Kennedy didn’t prove there was fraud, therefore there was no fraud.

But the essence of fraud is concealment; Kennedy can’t produce absolute proof (absent confession, or an investigation by Democrats with subpoena power). So Manjoo’s article sets up a straw man.

But it really seems to be that the burden of proof is on the Republicans and their apologists to prove the election was clean.

Let’s simplify the example, leave out Ohio and votes, and do a little thought experiment.

Let’s say your friend was going to count out some money for you, that both you and your friend agree that you are owed. But you don’t know the exact amount of money you are owed. Can you trust your friend? I’d like to say yes, but let’s see. Here are the conditions:  Read more