Skip to comments.Chris McDaniel Offering $1,000 Rewards for Evidence of Voter Fraud
Posted on 07/03/2014 10:00:39 AM PDT by Falcon28
Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel, the Tea Party candidate who narrowly lost a primary runoff against incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, is seeking the publics help to prove that his opponents victory was tainted by voter fraud.
State Sen. Chris McDaniel, R-Ellisville, gestures to his supporters after speaking at a rally in Flowood, Miss., Monday, June 23, 2014. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)
McDaniel refused to concede in the immediate wake of the runoff last week, and on Thursday his campaign announced that it is offering rewards for proof of voter fraud.
The Challenge is aimed at funding fifteen $1,000 rewards which will be paid to individuals who provide evidence leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in voter fraud on or leading up to the June 24, 2014, Republican primary runoff election in Mississippi, McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch said in an email. McDaniel issued the challenge on the heels of yet another allegation of criminal misconduct aimed at the Cochran campaigns effort to bring ineligible voters to the polls on June 24.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
We also need to set up million dollar rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Barrack Bizzaro Obama.
I love it. Cochran, the plantation, owner only paid $15 a vote.
$1000 for fraud evidence is quite generous, no doubt there will be some takers.
Bring it Chris, bring it! Let’s start smoking the criminal GOPe/DemocRAT conspirators out.
Now he needs to make sure and saturate the black areas with marketing saying “ $1000 cash reward for proof that this white Republican, who supported George Bush, cheated in the last election”
The only problem will be vetting out the frauds.
What a great counter punch to the GOP, using their very tactics.
Very Sun Tzu ( Art of War )
The real fraud is the open primary.
Nothing illegal at all about offering cash rewards for information leading to arrest and conviction of those responsible for a crime.
And the investigation should lead back to DC to the McConnell and Rove involvement with funding the PAC calling itself “Mississippi Conservatives”. It was posted that McConnell is involved to the tune of about $800,000 in funding this PAC for the runoff.
And the investigation should lead back to DC to the McConnell and Rove involvement with funding the PAC calling itself Mississippi Conservatives. It was posted that McConnell is involved to the tune of about $800,000 in funding this PAC for the runoff.
Senate Conservatives Fund is (finally) calling out all of the GOPe Senators who donated to Thud, or his Super PAC. They sent an email with a list of all the Senators names and phone numbers. I especially liked this line...
...If a Republican candidate can’t win a primary without race-baiting and courting Democrats with liberal policies, they should not be the Republican nominee....
The open primary isn’t a bad thing in statewide races.
I thought he had the evidence? Don’t look chaotic Chris. These things must be done methodically.
Barry’s and Holder’s people will jump all over that — they love to take other people’s money — no matter whose it is.
Now that is interesting. If you have a link or can post a copy of the email, please do.
I wonder if this news has made it’s way into the ‘hood yet....
Until a prosecutor is involved the rules of evidence fall under civil procedures and that means a preponderance of the evidence may be necessary.
Note that the McDaniel campaign cannot formally challenge the election until after the results are certified and right now the Barbour-Cochran camp are slow-walking the results in for certification to run out the clock. All that McDaniel’s laayers can do at this point is to prepare for legal challenges at the state and federal levels and give notices of intentions which they have done.
As to the insinuation that the efforts of McDaniel’s lawyers must be carried out methodically, I would think they know that. If you want to contribute you can research elements of proof of the various irregularities such as vote bribes and payoffs, fraud and conspiracy. Post your research here.
Maybe it is a red herring. He wants Cochran to think he does not have anything. That is what I would do. Make them think one thing to lower their guard and do another.
I think this is something separate from the illegal votes. It sounds to me like he wants those involved arrested, and being a lawyer - you have to have solid proof. He can get the proof of the illegal votes from the books, but he needs credible witnesses for the prosecution of those involved. JMO, of course.
It’s the first article at link. There’s another article, just below it, that also touches on the McDaniel race, FYI ....
Would you explain your reasoning?
There are some states in which crossover voters will commit early to a candidate, even going so far as to vote in the primary. A closed primary doesn’t always get the strongest candidate. In MS, as bad as it is, the result will be good if McDaniel wins. Already Cochran is damaged goods. None of that would have come about with a closed primary.
In a state like IL you have a Kirk, who, though he’s a RINO, votes with us on all kinds of issues and by more than 50%. Our other Senator is Durbin who votes against us 100% of the time. It is a simple political calculation to see that two Kirks are better than two Durbins from IL.
There are FReepers who demand absolute purity. They don’t fully understand the political process. Our form of government was designed for slow incremental change. That’s healthier than fast, forced change. See abortion via Roe v. Wade, Same Sex Marriage via judge, and Democratcare via Obama and a Democrat-run Congress. All of which are being forced down our throats.
If the GOP can hold on to Congress for a generation or two while at the same time implementing long term changes - ending deficit spending, lowering regulations and taxes, ending crony capitalism, encouraging federalism, etc. That’s better for our republic than an instantaneous change.
The political process is one of compromise, not perfection. For instance, would our SCOTUS be better off with one more Kennedy or one more Kagan? It’s unlikely we’ll get another Thomas or Scalia in the next two years, but we could get another Kennedy who is a swing vote, but better than Kagan or Sotomayer. It’s a matter of degree and possibility.
For Illinois I’d much rather have two Peter Fitzgeralds, but he was too good for the Ill-annoy GOP. Does that all make sense to you?