Posted on 11/02/2006 8:52:48 AM PST by marc costanzo
Prosecutors Eye Ann Coulter Voting Probe
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation into whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will probably be turned over to prosecutors, Palm Beach County's elections chief said Wednesday.Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the state attorney's office by Friday.Coulter's attorney did not immediately return a call Wednesday. Nor did her publicist at her publisher, Crown Publishing.Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.Anderson's office received a complaint in February that Coulter voted in the wrong precinct during a Feb. 7 Palm Beach town council election.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
"But the Dems want Same Day Registration with no proof of identification."
Amen! The biggest farce against freedom and democracy in American history.
You saying that it isn't true? Then what did happen?
I don't know any more than you do.
But I do know that Ann's attorney was ready, willing and able to discuss the matter with Anderson face to face, but Anderson refused. It also appears that somebody in Anderson's office wants to make political hay out of this mysterious "complaint" they received out of the blue by jumping on the phone to call the press.
So let there be an "investigation" (if the DA even wants to bother) and then you and I together can learn the facts. That way, we don't jump to conclusions. We wouldn't want to do that, would we?
Guilty! :)
I always wanted to "capture" what we all refer as the MSM... and what they do! - CHEERLEADING!
Well, I am taking requests... any more faces you people think we should add? LET ME KNOW!
Talking about Imus... I saw a bit this morning. To talk about being a fanatic liberal!... I do like the funny guys he has in the show... boy can they be funny!... They did a sketch about Kerry... and I was laughing silly :)
Face to face?
That isn't how it works, it never has worked that way, it never will work that way, and Ann's attorney has to know that.
Next thing you know, Customs will find a bottle of Viagra in Ann's luggage!!!
Say, just a thought... What kind of crime would a guy have to commit to be placed in the same cell with Ann?
Anderson has the right to leak information to the press?
Your bias here is stunning.
Ann's lawyer wants a face-to-face meeting to establish accountability of the information. Anderson wants a letter so he has plausible deniability - especially given the already established pattern of leaking info to the press.
That would only work if the information only went to Anderson and no further, which it could not do. Also, if this is such an innocent matter, what possible damage could come of the information getting out?
Actually, it COULD stop with him. If she is in compliance with the law - and I believe she has asserted she is - then he gets the info and butts out.
The danger is that her actual address gets published, creating serious security issue for her. Anderson has established that he will not or cannot control information coming into his office on paper. By providing the info directly to him - not in writing - it makes Anderson accountable for the safeguarding of the information. After all - it could only be gathered and leaked AFTER he had control of it, not before.
You have a stunningly active bias in this issue, FRiend.
He has to record the disposition of the case, along with the reasons for the disposition--and that goes into the public record.
The danger is that her actual address gets published, creating serious security issue for her.
Yeah, right, newspapers are going to actually publish her street address. The (extremely) hypothetical case of a newspaper editorial staff losing their collective marbles and doing something that exposes them jointly and severally to huge civil liability issues forms a mystical exemption to standard procedure.
After all - it could only be gathered and leaked AFTER he had control of it, not before.
Unfortunately, he would only have sole custody of it for a brief period of time, and then others would have custody as well.
You have a stunningly active bias in this issue, FRiend.
I am a conservative former cop who expects conservatives to either obey the laws of the land or to accept the consequences of breaking those laws. Obviously, that makes me a heretic.
So if Ann uses her right to remain silent, that means she is guilty?
Nine months worth of silent while pretending to want to not be silent raises questions.
Wow, talk about selective prosecution.
Are we going to have police outside of all the polling booths now - dragging off people who vote in the wrong precincts?
democRATS. Can't trust them.
The bias is your assumption that she has broken laws, solely on the word of this fisherman, Mr. Anderson. that is my meaning, FRiend.
After all, consequences should only accruse to those CONVICTED of having broken laws, not to those accused by innuendo, right?
And nine months worth of investigation doesn't raise concerns? If the authorities have evidence that a crime was committed, of what consequence is a statement from the suspect? How convenient that they are choosing to submit to the DA just days prior to the election. That is, assuming that they actually do so.
If I had any indications whatever that I was suspected of a crime, I would say absolutely nothing. Anything that I might wish to say could be said later. My advice to Ann would be to say nothing. What would your advice be?
Yes, this is a witch hunt on Ann....something needs to be done about this...
This could be resolved, one way or another, in about twenty minutes--but Coulter's attorney has to be willing to resolve it. Until that situation obtains, it's "under investigation."
If the authorities have evidence that a crime was committed, of what consequence is a statement from the suspect?
Potentially exculpatory or mitigating.
If I had any indications whatever that I was suspected of a crime, I would say absolutely nothing. Anything that I might wish to say could be said later. My advice to Ann would be to say nothing. What would your advice be?
That would depend on the circumstances. If she voted in the wrong precinct, but did not present a straw address, I'd tell her to just confirm that she gave the correct address and pay the fine.
If she presented a straw address, I'd recommend doing whatever she can to plead it down to a misdemeanor, and to do so immediately. "Convicted felon" is not a career enhancer in the media biz unless you're a rapper.
Exactly: this is impossible to prosecute, thanks in large part to Demonrat paranoia about harassment/privacy of dead voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.