Quote:
|
....what Soaries says, and who the "players" from the CNP have been who have invested in the E-Vote industry....and the results that Soaries describes....how can anyone advocate a "hands off" approach to congressional investigation of the CNP and the cabal of right wing financiers and religious fundamentalist who direct the officials who they got elected, to funnel public funds and political power (control), in their direction....all in rigidly maintained, secrecy?
|
Bush appointed four commissioners (2 Repubs and 2 Dems nominated by the Senate Dems) to the
b-partisan Election Assistance Commission, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It appears you are implying that Soaries may have had undue control of the Commission. In any case, the confirmation hearings would have been the appropriate time to question any of these nominees on their background, qualifications, associations, etc.
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/200...03_hearing.htm
Quote:
|
Today six years later after spending $2.5 billion, we don't know what we don't know. We don't know about security, we don't know enough because the EAC never got enough money for research. The Congress passed a law that authorized $30 billion for research. EAC to this date has received zero of those dollars.
|
Now that we have conducted the first election under the new HAVA regulations overseen by the Election Assistance Commission, a Congressional investigation may be helpful in determining if HAVA is working, identifying problems encountered with voting machines, etc.
(That gets back to the role of Congressional investigations having a legislative purpose).
It still doesnt justify a Congressional investigation of the CNP unless you have further evidence of malfeasance by Soaries (or any of the other three equally accountable commissioners).
I would like to see the CNP exposed as well, but you have yet to convince me of the legitimacy of a Congressional investigation. I dont want the Dems going on fishing expedidtions, as attractive as the "catch" might be.