I realize that Greene’s essential nuttiness leaves people groping for an answer, but sometimes the most obvious one is right in front of you.

Yes, and that obvious answer is that he has a second payment coming — but only if he plays along.

Someone, on another blog, posted that a poll out last week showed that close to 85% of South Carolina residents didn’t even know who Rawl was. So yeah, it seems as though people were picking between two people no one had ever heard of. That still doesn’t explain why Greene got into the race to begin with. Something is not right there.

How did such a person have the $10,440 filing fee (and willing to spend it on such a lark), not to mention the experienced motivation to go open a business account in a matter of hours when his personal check was rejected?

Alvin Greene may not be in on the plot, but he’s at the very least likely a puppet. The GOP has a long history of exploiting people to further their twisted political plans.

South Carolina has an open primary. Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary if they choose.

there is no information anywhere that suggests the republican party emailed or robocalled their constituants to get them to vote for Greene. none.

David, I find it quite strange you made no mention of the ten thousand dollar filing fee he had to put up. That omission raises questions in my mind whether you have an unstated agenda. This omission is not trivial.

Greene only bested former state legislator Vic Rawl with a little over 100,000 votes, compared to 60,000 – it wouldn’t take many crossover voters making mischief to secure a victory for Greene

flat out lie…

that assumption is based on the idea that Greene and Rawls had EVEN votes to start with. Fact is, the absentee ballots were 2 to 1 in favor of Rawls meaning that there would have to have been SIGNIFICANT republican cross0over to change the election in favor of Greene to the tune of 60% to 40%

an establishment candidate that did nothing for his candidacy either

another lie…

Vic Rawls campaigned, went to the Democratic functions, and spent $175,000 on a primary victory he was assured to get.

Perhaps the chair of the DSCC should be held accountable.

so in the “all publicity is good” department he might have actually improved the position for an opponent to Jim DeMint

what a ridiculous statement. The man holds a degree in political science from the University of South Carolina and was a career Intelligence Specialist with the Air Force and he pretended not to know what “indictment” meant during an interview.

He is pretending to be a moron while we all know he has a pending felony charge against him which could make him a sex-offender.

He applied for a public defender claiming indigent status (which you need in S.C. to get a P.D.) while, according to Alvin Greene, he had $10,400 “saved up” to plop down on a bid for the U.S. Senate.

Except didn’t a nobody beat the establishment Democrat for the right to ‘challenge’ incumbent GOP Senator Lindsey Graham in the immediately preceding cycle? What’s wrong with the SCarolina Democrats? I mean, the third-ranked Democrat in the House of Representatives (James Clyburn) is from SCarolina. Can’t he organize his party to avoid this kind of embarrassment, especially since it happened in 2008?

Easily the best comment, so far.

Bob Menendez…

COME ON DOWN…(!)

I suppose all those 2008 Obama voters in SCarolina might be induced to come out for Alvin Greene this fall, particularly if they are identity voters.

Much more likely than anything else: Jim DeMint saw the public polling that had him under or near 50%, perhaps private polling was even worse. A friend knew about Alvin Greene and paid his filing fee or gave him the money to pay the fee. Now DeMint is free to fly around the country this fall working for teabagger candidates, instead of tending his homefires like Harry Reid needs to in Nevada.

It could be any combination of circumstances, but I don’t think anyone believes this just up-and-happened. In others words, Alvin Greene isn’t just Alvin Greene. There’s too much information to support a number of other theories, any combination of which might be true.

I agree with that. This outcome sure isn’t what a 50-state strategy would produce.

You’ll want to check the latest news at bradblog.com

And be careful not to fall into the trap of running from the label “conspiracy theory” so hard that you run off a cliff in the dark.

That’s what happened with Daily Kos and election reform. The no-election-conspiracies rule implemented in the wake of the Bush mis-selections now overrides any rational discussion of the subject and is actually used as a bludgeon to shut down conversations on the subject that trouble those who feel that their local system must not be criticized… no matter what.

Thus all that’s left at the Great Orange Ostrich Haven is a few designated token “election reform” posters who don’t dare actually say anything new on the subject… and thus dkos has been left far behind in this area.

The entire national democrat party establishment is illegitimate as far as I’m concerned. There is no democrat party anymore, it’s called the corporate party.

From calling in the district in TX represented by the oldest and most incompetent Rep in the state, which the Dallas Morning News wouldn’t endorse after his more ridiculous eruptions, I have talked to many registered Dem voters who were amused that I was calling them, because it was their standard practice to register with that other party – Dems – to vote for the worst candidate when there was no contest, no observers were even allowed to watch the count of the vote and they knew their money had been spent to assure that the public would not be represented in TX.

thank you. I am very familiar with the Brad Blog vs Daily Kos vote hijacking battles. In my article I make an allusion to it.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/54345

We don’t even have the beginning of this story. There are WAY to many loose ends: 1. an indigent candidate who manages to post a $10K filing fee 2. a potential felon 3. a non-campaigner who gets enough votes to win 4. a Democrat who no Democrat actually knows 5. A university grad who is so inarticulate that he cannot answer simple questions in an interview 6. a former career intelligence specialist who apparently has no clue about answers to totally expected questions on national TV 7. equally clueless SC democrats? OH, and he’s a totally unknown black winner in where: South Carolina????

There’s more to this story, but what motive did either party have to put in a phony candidate? How stupid are the news pundits and newspapers in South Carolina? It seems as if the only reason the electorate could be this stupid is if their votes were changed. Of course, there’s no way that could happen…. Would this candidate make it easy for a rethug in November? You decide.

Teddy-

I have a great deal of respect for you…but to throw out that thesis with no proof is not up to your standards, and not in keeping with your track record, integrity-wise.

DeMint’s undeniably a dick, and may in fact have had some involvement in this mess…

But please, don’t put yourself in DeMint’s category by offering conspiracy theories without being able to offer back-up…

C’mon, Teddy…you’re better than that.

Book Salon up at the Mothership with Rita Cosby’s Quiet Hero: Secrets from My Father’s Past hosted by Dennis Showalter

I have been covering this story since it started and I have have answered many of these questions.

Picked to Lose: The Alvin Greene Story

Picked to Lose 2: Alvin “Forrest Gump” Greene Goes to Washington

Picked to Lose 3: Alvin Greene Holds a Degree in Political Science… and Doesn’t Know What an “Indictment” Is?

Picked to Lose 4: Alvin Greene and The Amazing Technicolor Voting Machine

SC also had a much watched primary for governor. The primary may be open but you have to choose which party ticket you will vote and don’t get to vote in both. Why would a Repub vote Dem when there was a more important race?

What is known is that SC does have touch screen voting with no paper trail. A small piece of code to add or divert votes to your candidate, $10G’s to get a poor sad sack as your candidate and presto! you have a winner. Just don’t pay attention to the precincts with more votes than voters. How do you prove the software was jiggered when it is proprietary and no one can look at it? Voter fraud doesn’t get any better than this!

Um, guys, This guy got more votes in 25 districts than there were cast. I suspect that there is a lot more going on than just all of the usual factors. His was not the only race to have this happen either.

From FiveThirtyEight.com Politics Done Right

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/something-fishy-in-south-carolina.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

Hee, hee, hee.

There are some mysteries with the let Alvin Greene be Alvin Greene explanation (and I’ve been tracking what facts have been coming out).

1. The post-election analysis of precinct level voting data is continuing so this is not the final word. But county-level voting data shows no correlation with the racial composition of the county. This means that the South Carolina primary for US Senate was decided by voting for an appealing post-racial candidate. And this holds based on looking at 46 counties.

2. It is easy to swing a total, but we are talking about a guy who won 42 of 46 counties without strong campaigning.

3. According to the results 2000 people in Greene’s home county voted for him, but no one there really seems to know who he is (according to what little journalism has been done).

4. Now that the FEC reports are in, the winner (African-American) of the Democratic race in SC-01 has disclosed payments for consulting work to Stonewall Strategies, which is run by a former staffer of GOP Rep. Joe “You Lie” Wilson. And the same is true for the candidate fielded against Rep. Jim Clyburn in SC-06.

5. There was zero buzz about his candidacy anywhere in the state, neither among Democrats or Republicans. Neither in the white or black communities.

7. The voting machines are Diebold, no audit trail, no paper backup. The kind of machines found other places that converted the votes for one candidate to those of the other candidate by errors in how the mouse position was read. But there are not yet any clear statistical indications of machine malfunction.

8. The first follow-up story on Greene was the accusation of the USC student who had him arrested in November.

If Alvin Greene was legitimately elected, I want to know how he did it and form my own consulting firm.

Basically true, but his service record is really unverified as is his reason or status of discharge. “Involuntary honorable discharge” doesn’t communicate much. It is known he was discharged in August 2009, arrested in November 2009, and filed in March 2010.

The check that he used to pay the filing fee (check TPM for the image) was a counter check drawn on National Bank of South Carolina (possibly the Manning, SC branch–it doesn’t seem to say Columbia) and was hand-printed “Alvin M. Greene for Senate”.

In South Carolina in some places, being a Democrat or supporting a Democratic candidate can get you fired. A bunch of volunteers from OFA, DFA, and the Democratic Party worked pretty hard trying to turn out the vote for the Democratic slate and for Vic Rawl.

There are some problems with the SC Democratic Party offices but the folks in the field worked as hard on this as they did on Obama’s campaign–but it isn’t a presidential year. So I don’t fault the rank-and-file SC Democrats for this one.

Yesterday I read both of the FiveThirtyEight articles you referenced.

They raise questions that need to be answered…

But don’t provide answers.

We already had questions…

Oy.

Vic Rawl is appealing for an official investigation into the election results based partly on the fact that Alvin Greene received more votes in 25 precincts than were actually cast.

It’s making headline news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNQgP0zPdEs&feature=player_embedded#!

Can you establish any relationship between Alvin Greene, and the AA winner in SC-01?

How about a link between Greene and Stonewall Strategies?

I’m guessing that proof of those links would be very, very valuable, Tarheel.

At the moment, Greene hasn’t filed his FEC report. That is the source of the information on the other two. They listed Stonewall Strategies in their list of outgoing payments.

I speculate a lot. It’s fun and hurts no one. I don’t expect people to take it seriously, I’m simply throwing out possibilities. I don’t care whether you like it or not, your respect isn’t important in this context.

… “battles”…?

Sorry, was never much of a “battle” on the part of the election reform community… just copious amounts of ridicule heaped on certain kos people who were trying to maintain that everything was hunky-dory in those primaries in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that included document trails, camera and video.

And I’ll add the caveat that most kossacks are decent, intelligent folks even when they differed from us on these subjects.

But some others were and are fools at best… hiding from uncomfortable facts behind an overly-broad policy.

Denying the facts about election-thievery was part of Markos’s ticket into the establishment. He never would have gotten tv gigs if he permitted that research and investigation — legitimate though it was — to continue after 2004/Ohio and many other places.

Can you explain why you are so eager to downplay what looks like a very crooked twisted problem in SCarolina? People asking questions and raising issues, and you insist that complicated relationships be entirely explained.

I’m not sure what motive you have for making this go away, but your insistence on “proof” every time someone raises questions and issues is suspicious in and of itself.

You may not be aware of how it appears, you should re-read the comments here.

Got to wonder about your points when you say that Diebold(Premier) are the machines when the machines are actually ES+S.

For more on ES+S( the LARGEST provider of Electronic voting machines in the U.S.)
see here and here.

Denying the facts about election-thievery was part of Markos’s ticket into the establishment

agreed. this is how certain bloggers buy their way into the mainstream… they prove they are “credible” by curtailing and undermining certain unpleasants facts of life.

Thank you Teddy for bringing up what most don’t have a clue about.

“Got to wonder about your points when you say that Diebold(Premier) are the machines when the machines are actually ES+S.”

correction… ES&S tried to buy Diebold, fell through and they changed names to P.E.S…. BUT…

“Bob Urosevich, the first CEO of Diebold Election Systems was also the founder of ES&S, a competing voting machine company now owned by the McCarthy Group. Together these two companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the United States. The current vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers”

its the same family so it might as well be the same company

edit

There is no such thing as an “Involuntary honorable discharge”; if you watched the interview of Greene with the SC reporter, you would see what a liar he is.

Diebold is what a South Carolina volunteer for Rawl said and provided a link to the State Board of Elections. I didn’t check the link, but it doesn’t matter as both systems have been found to be flawed and most other states have replaced them.

The machines ARE ES+S DRE’s; guess you forgot my earlier posting at your diary here

The whole service record is sketchy. Can someone validate his claims without him releasing the records? If he remains the candidate, that demand will certainly be made.

Understood but this -and most other states have replaced them- is not accurate unless you’re speaking of the VVPAT additions some States went ahead and bought.

I’ll take your word for it. I don’t think SC has sprung for verified voting.

http://www.eielson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123117744 ; I ‘guess’ that an UOTCH could be considered an ‘involuntary honorable’ except for the fact of “Other than Honorable Conditions”.

Nor has Georgia and I’ll NEVER forgive Chambliss for his attacks on Max Cleland.

And Re Georgia and Chambliss: “Chambliss was elected from the Macon-based 8th District, after six-term incumbent J. Roy Rowland retired. He was elected with 63% of the vote—an unexpectedly large margin since the 8th had never elected a Republican. ” AND those were Diebold touchscreens without VVPAT’s.

Jon Walker is upstairs!
Valuing Natural Allies over Existing Animus: Lessons from the Anti-Saloon League, Part Three

Please open comments back up on this, post is a few days old, now that it’s on the front page it needs to be refreshed.

I didn’t think I’d be first to say this, but it bears repeating: South Carolina uses electronic voting.

That really does explain EVERYTHING.

For the record in this thread.

An Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge is the most severe form of an administrative discharge. This characterization represents a significant departure from the conduct expected by a service member. Significant departures include security violations and the use of violence. Recipients of UOTHC discharges are generally barred from enlisting into any component of the Armed Forces and the majority of veterans’ benefits are unavailable.

So which was it “security violation” or “the use of violence”?

No not everything. And not even the totality of the results. But it could have been a factor in certain precincts, whether a glitch or malicious.

Does anyone also know when the Pentagon started its policy of not commenting or verifying the status of a servicemember’s discharge? Used to be, employers could call and check. I guess no longer. I wonder why that is?

Sorry if I struck a nerve, Teddy…but I have to ask?

What exactly makes my remark any more questionable than your unsubstantiated assertion that this didn’t “just up-and-happen(ed)”?

I have no desire to “make this go away”…on the contrary.

I’d love to know how Alvin Greene become the Democratic candidate for Senator in South Carolina, and I’d love to believe that Jim DeMint’s fingerprints are all over it.

I have read the two articles at FiveThirtyEight on this subject, to include comments by, and the opinions of, people far more comfortable with the analysis of election statistics than I am…and their findings are inconclusive.

I can’t do any better than FiveThirtyEight.

If that makes my own comment suspect in your eyes…so be it.

My first reaction to this was that this must be another round of dirty SC politics, for which the GOP is particularly famous for in SC. But after reading everything I could find, and watching the interviews Greene has given thus far, I’ve concluded there is a fair chance that there is no conspiracy here. A few points:

1. The GOP cross-over theory doesn’t explain why Republicans would cross over to vote in the DeMint race on the Democratic side (when the odds are about 99.9% that DeMint is going to win) when there was quite an exciting gubernatorial primary in which a Republican vote was pretty meaningful. It was a four horse race, and Haley did not get 50% of the vote, forcing a runoff.

2. Those that argue Rawl actually campaigned need to do more than cite how much money he spent. He obviously did no opposition research on his opponent. And evidently neither did the press in SC, given that it took less than 8 hours for the felony charge to surface after it was clear he won and no one in the state knew who the hell he was.

3. About that felony charge. It’s a bit prejudicial to make a big deal out of this without knowing more of the facts. It’s clear the USC student’s mother was freaked out by the incident, but I can easily see how it might be a lot less obscene than it’s being made out to be. So the guy made a pretty lame, ineffective, and embarrassing attempt to hook up with a co-ed. This hardly makes him the “sex offender” some are painting him as. I can also see why he would not want to spend his own money to fight such a charge if in fact it was the mother who was the one really offended. Greene is a big guy, and I can understand how the co-ed could have been frightened, but I have seen absolutely NO evidence he did anything threatening.

Full disclosure: I’m originally from SC, having been in TX since ’84, and I’m as fascinated by this as anyone. But I’m not throwing the kid under the bus until I see some hard evidence. Greene has embarrassed the hell out of the establishment Democratic party in SC by exposing the fact they failed to do much more than lift a finger to contest DeMint. I’m not holding that against him until I see some hard evidence.

~~~Comments are now open on Jon Walker’s post. Sorry for the delay.~~~

I’m a South Carolina native with friends still there. I agree with 1, 2, and 3. But I can’t agree that there is no mystery about someone winning 100,000 votes over all 46 counties (and winning 42 of the 46) without anyone knowing who he is. If this is legitimate, I want to bottle it and sell it to progressive challengers all over the US.

But the Republican shenanigans theory has problems on several scores other than cross-over voting. Who organizes 100,000 votes to turn out and successfully does it under the radar? But there are rumors that DeMint’s internal polling had him only in single digits ahead of Rawl. DeMint is sacrificing popularity in SC by trying to get on the national stage. And a lot of independents didn’t particularly like his Waterloo comment.

The felony charge is the ringer. He was discharged from the military in August 2009, arrested in November 2009, and even with that charge decided to run for the US Senate in March 2010. He seems that clueless, but that charge is mighty convenient to take down a plant. And Greene can’t comment on the charge because he has a public defender who doesn’t want to lose his case, one who was off camera making sure that Greene said only “no comment” every time he was asked about it on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. And then there is the matter of a person so indigent as to require a public defendant and yet can come up with a $10,440 filing fee out of his own funds.

The South Carolina Democratic Party legally cannot exclude candidates from filing but they also failed to do due diligence to find out the background of this candidate (or any other for that matter because most of the others were longtime pols).

When he files or does not file an FEC report a lot of the ambiguity about the campaign itself will disappear as it has in SC-01 and SC-06.

I don’t know, Teddy, but if they don’t reply to employer requests, I can suspect several reasons and would see how close to 1993 that change occurred.

Could Alvin Greene just be a naive idealistic guy unfamiliar with politics who believed all that stuff he heard about one person being able to make a difference? I know it’s a stretch. The $10,400 is certainly a big commitment for him. But I also know he sees an American condition in Manning and the rest of the SC lowcountry that is badly in need of more progressive policies. And coming home to that after having served in Korea, I can see him wanting to find a way to make a difference. I admit it’s a stretch, but … we’re talking SC.

Spencer Ackerman is upstairs!
‘If The Moral Value Of The Force Starts To Lower, Then We Shouldn’t Be Given The Power We’ve Got’

Yes, it could be possible that he is a naive guy wanting to make a difference. And naive enough to believe that a November 2009 arrest wouldn’t come out or make a difference. But a lot of naive folks run. How many gather 100,000 votes over 46 counties (and win 42 counties) without campaigning and without folks hearing him speak. Or leaving any sort of a media trail. And he got 2000 votes in his home county, Clarendon County, but people say they don’t really know a lot about him. See the coverage by the Columbia Free-Times and WaPo for some details.

Incidentally, the FEC has opened an investigation, and the 5th Circuit Court has opened an investigation as well (probably into whether he lied about his need for a public defender).

Orly Taitz got nearly 400,000 votes in CA, without really campaigning or advertising.
There are a lot of people who will vote for someone they know nothing about.

The only way I can make sense of the votes is that the voters went to the polls to vote in the gubernatorial race, and found when they got to the ballot that there was a senate race to vote on as well. I don’t live in SC and am not in touch with the SC media, but like PJ above, I’m not that convinced the voters knew anything about either one of them. And I don’t remember Rawl being a common name in SC politics from my youth.

Orly Taitz is well known. The debate is degenerating into posturing.

We get it. You’re “too cool” for conspiracies.

TarHeel the crossover theory is a red herring. If anybody could have organized it (and risked their gubernatorial candidate losing on the GOP side) somebody would have bragged about it by now. The electronic machines are the key. They are notoriously prone to miscounting without malice. With a little malice the count can easily go the way someone wants and how would you know? The machines must be “opened” for each voter with a hand held electronic key, 2 to a machine. What if one key was programmed to cast your vote for you every other time or 2 times out of three? No paper, no trail. Now for the proper conspiracy. What if this is just a trial run to see if it can be run in other states in Nov? With the changeover to electronic voting and many of them paperless, the GOP confidence about November results may not be misplaced, but rather already confirmed.

Let’s just for a moment assume that this guy is genuine. I’m going to lay out a case … with the caveat that I have no clue for real.

#1 The “impossible” $10,400 filing fee. It turns out. not so impossible at all. As noted previously, he had a legitimate military career that appears to have lasted for a while. He had been out for 8 months. It is hardly impossible that he had saved up several thousand dollars – I have military friends with considerable savings (better than my own, sadly).

#2 Then how did he get a PD? The reason seems to be the way the SC code is written:

For purposes of this rule, a person is indigent if that person is financially unable to employ counsel. In making a determination whether a person is indigent, all factors concerning the person’s financial condition should be considered including income, debts, assets and family situation. A presumption that the person is indigent shall be created if the person’s net family income is less than or equal to the Poverty Guidelines established and revised annually by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and published in the Federal Register. Net income shall mean gross income minus deductions required by law.

Checking the HHS guidelines, this means that if his income is less than (by odd coincidence) $10,400 annually he counts as indigent. Unemployed probably fits that bill.

#3 On his first interview. He seemed scared as hell, and also like he was trying to get coached from off camera. This was the guy’s first time on camera, EVER. National TV. I’ve heard an awful lot of stories about folks freezing up under way less pressure and embarrassing themselves. Looked like amateur handling and a transmission delay to me. Which hardly seems surprising. There is no expectation that a ploy sci degree or MI career would make someone instantly articulate under high pressure. Looked like he choked.

#3. On him being “unknown to Democrats”. The guy made his own filing fee – who does that? He is clearly not a political mover and shaker. If they didn’t reach out to him after he filed, is it Greene’s fault no establishment Democrats know him? They didn’t think he had a chance and totally ignored him. Crap way to run a party … someone willing to file their own $10K to run? Why didn’t they try to recruit him for a more appropriate first race? And how did national miss this? That last one is rhetorical, National missed it because they can’t fart without Rham’s permission – and he’s such an arrogant idiot that anyone not in his power game is invisible.

#4 On his winning. First is the widely touted, and not implausible, name placement/attractiveness explanation (Greene is a way better name for an unknown snap decision IMO, pretty race-neutral in a black/white formula).

#5 This observation from a comment over at fivethirtyeight was also very interesting regarding the implications of the amazingly low name ID. This assumes zero name ID for Greene.

The polling says that that 82 percent never heard of Rawls, 14 percent know but don’t approve, 5 percent know and approve. (Obviously there’s some rounding being done.) So wouldn’t you expect Greene to get 41+14 and Rawls to get 41 +5? In other words, polls predict a 55-46 victory for Greene. That’s pretty much what happened. And if you look at the poll, the 5 -14-82 favorability was among all voters. Among liberals and moderates even more were unfavorably disposed towards Rawls. So given that these people are more likely to be voting in the Democratic primary, the margin you’d expect for Greene would be slightly bigger.

#6 RE The 2/1 early vote for Rawls. He campaigned and spent more than $100K and was the establishment candidate. Establishment Dems are by and large the folks who vote early. It follows that the participants on voting day would not include those establishment Dems who had voted early, and establishment Dems would be expected to vote for Rawls. It doesn’t seem implausible that this would cause a depletion of specific Rawls voters, especially considering the AMAZINGLY low name ID in the race.

So, anyhow. There’s my devils advocate case for why Greene could be totally legit. If he is, and if his only skeleton is he showed an adult a dirty movie and propositioned her unsuccessfully … I like him WAY better than DeMint. I’ll bet he isn’t lying when he says his major issues are jobs and prison reform. If I were the SC Dems, I’d slide him some backdoor help immediately to keep him from embarrassing himself and actually do some warp-speed research to see if they can sell the guy. Rawls was toast from the get-go, what do they really have to lose? This might have just become a high-profile race that could pin DeMint in SC for the general. The LA GOP is running a guy who hired hookers to change his diaper for goodness sake, if the Dems can’t manage a “looking at internet porn” incident … they are embarrassingly lame.

Try to make him the anti-Palin. His current narrative really seems to be largely what she pretends. The GOP would be livid.

There may have been new developments on this story, but I want to know why David ignored the ten thousand dollars when he established this thread.