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
Recent comments
7 min 31 sec ago
20 min 7 sec ago
29 min 25 sec ago
36 min 28 sec ago
48 min 45 sec ago
52 min 32 sec ago
56 min 55 sec ago
58 min 17 sec ago
1 hour 2 min ago
1 hour 4 min ago
1 hour 20 min ago
1 hour 34 min ago
1 hour 44 min ago
1 hour 47 min ago
1 hour 47 min ago
1 hour 49 min ago
1 hour 53 min ago
1 hour 55 min ago
1 hour 55 min ago
1 hour 57 min ago