Jackson Jambalaya

Since the requested relief is to throw out all our Republican votes here in Hinds County, I'd prefer all proceedings take place in Jackson. That would be more fair.

909 agree with u

i agree also. i guess all us republicans in hinds and madison just dont matter to the mcdaniel camp. do they really think ill vote for him in november if my vote is thrown out?

I think the shit/shinola test this case requires will be applied fairly in Jones County.

On the other hand, where there is no home cooking (and I expect none here) and a good judge, I have found it even more effective to go into the bully's home county or region to confront him. That can really be effective. But it is always a guess.

no matter what courtroom these proceedings are in, it will be the same judge, same attorneys, same witnesses, same exhibits [if any are allowed], and no jury. It could be held in Itawamba County and the outcome will be the same.

But, but, 11:29; We must allow these Barbour harpies adequate time and space to express themselves (Every three hours on the hour!)

This in one case where filming should be allowed. If not, the conspiracy theorists will spin frothy tales if things do not go their way.

11:53 a.m. -- we've been allowing you McDanielites to spin and spin and spin and spin and spew and spew and spew for months now..........do you really think you have a creditable case? The rest of us don't.

After they lose this, McDaniel should go back and challenge Thomas Carey's votes in the June 3 primary - throw those out and McDaniel won and there never was a runoff.

Say that anyone who wasted a vote on Carey did not intend to vote for the Republican nominee in November. If they did, they would have chosen one of the actual contenders - either Cochran or McDaniel. It isn't a great argument, but it is better than the black votes don't count argument.

2:28; No spin from this direction. All I've said (forty times) from the get go is that the man has a constitutional right to challenge and the Barbourites (his cadre of 23 year olds) need to STFU, go wash their Chevy 4x4s and let the process play out.

It's called 'The Judicial Process'. You were probably sitting in the room down at Repub HDQ, drinking Bud Lite when the decision was made to punt. Then you headed over to Hal and Mals for Tacos on Haley's ticket.

Is there someone at McDaniel's HQ who pays these idiots to make posts that make no arguments based on law or fact and who apparently exist only to attack those who actually do make arguments on law and facts? Please enlighten us, 6:10, exactly how will McDaniel survive the motion to dismiss his constitutional claim for lack of standing? (Do you even know what that means? ) How will he prove intent of voters who will not be testifying? There are serious legal questions to whether he can even raise the issue of voter intent. How will he prove fraud? What he has shown as his evidence so far isn't proof of fraud. What admissible evidence does he plan to submit? Where is the proof of vote buying? So instead of attacking to deflect from those who point out the extremely weak case, please enlighten us as to why he might win. (And I don't even know the Barbours, but I am a lawyer.)

610- ha, you forgot to mention a couple of yeti coolers. Sure they don't drink Schlitz? That's quite a belly he totes around.

6:10 an Yawn!

Yes, McDaniel has the right to be a stupid, sore losing asshole and to waste the court's time up to a point ( which he is quickly reaching).

And, I have the right to call BS on it!

And, I hope to hell the court will use their authority to throw the book at his lawyers for filing a frivolous suit!

TTV and McDaniel weren't satisfied to do due diligence, access what they needed and then present hard facts, they had to wildly make unfounded claims , sling mud and try to con people out of their hard earned money.

IF they had gone about this in any sort of rational way and presented evidence rather than nonsense, I would have reserved my judgment until the courts ruled!

They make a mockery out of our judicial system !

Continually omitted from discussion is evidence that many, many precincts in Hinds, Lafayette and other counties, poll workers DID NOT check to see if a voter in the runoff had voted in the Democrat Primary. Doing so is voting twice in the same election and is against the law. This means that thousands more voted twice than just the 3,500 proven. Poll workers broke the law, voters broke the law, GOP officials who were election officials for a primary broke the law themselves and encouraged poll managers and workers to break the law. The runoff election was corrupted and should be thrown out.

Barry, you can keep writing that, but it doesn't make it true or relevant!

Where's the proof ?

Where's the proof ,in the precincts you have that illegal crossover was a problem?

Just because you want there to have been enough illegal voting to change the results, there's only ONE possible example in ALL of the court documents!


Where is the 3500 " proven" , Barry? It's not in those court documents. Just because McDaniel and Tyner claim it and you are gullible enough to believe it doesn't make it so!

My God, man, the " list " in the documents included life long Republican contributors!

That you don't recognize many of those names makes me wonder if you just moved here or are an out of town troublemaker!

There is no statute or case law specifically banning cross over voting in a primary run off election. The statute only bans voting twice on the same day by voting in both party primaries or by voting in two different places the same day. The State Attorney General has interpreted voting in a run off as a continuation of voting on the first election day. The issue is before Special Federal Judge Atlas in the True the Vote Petition.

Barry - list to 3:47. You havetn't listened to anyone else who has told you this, but maybe sooner or later you can get the message.

There is absolutely NO proof of what you say about Hinds or Lafayette County. None.

There is absolutely NO proof of any fraud in the election anywhere.

There is absolutely NO proof of any bribes having been paid, or of any improper payments being made to anyone other than the payment made to Rev Fielder to lie. And that payment was done by your side.

You can keep on with your crazy crap, but you are beginning to sound crazier than McDaniel, Tyner and Watson put together.

I'm glad they do, at least I know who the nuts are now.

12:22, you seem to be using "proof" in the sense that, if there were a video of thousands and thousands of envelopes stuffed with cash being handed out willy-nilly, would say, you know that video coulda been photoshop'd. There is plenty of evidence, which has not yet been used to prove guilt in a court of law. You don't have to believe the evidence; you can even say it is fake, if you have reason to think so (but your proof that it is fake will probably be subject to the same complaints you are voicing). Are you so anxious for the lawsuit to go away, that you are willing to discount testimony from all those people in all those affidavits as "no proof" of nothin?

6:57, all my money comes from my own efforts, nobody is paying me to be here (or for anything political). I see my own long-term interest as more or less identical with fair elections, and McDaniel is trying to make that happen. I'm no lawyer, either, but does not the phrase "discovery" have a place in the election-challenge lawsuit? We will see if there is hard evidence of a vote-buying operation, when we see the communications of the folks working for team Cochran during the month of June. That will tell us how many campaign workers were given one-time payments of $100 bucks or less each, and the rest of the evidence will fall into place to justify that headcount as legitimate above-board GOTV, or as illegal. Do you expect things to go differently, somehow?

5:03, besides the attyG opinion, there is also the election commission folks. See the instructions given in Hinds cty, from the election commission officials there, which site the sec state's office as the basis for rule#1 (paraphrased, if you voted in the 6/3 d-prime you cannot subsequently double-vote in the 6/24 r-runoff). See pink page embedded here....

http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2014/07/read-em-and-weep-hinds-county-precinct.html


As I understand it, the basis for this is not just the "same day" law, but also the logical outcome of the "intend to support the nominee" law... if you vote in the d-prime, you have to intend to support Childers in November, but if you voted in the r-runoff, you have to simultaneously be intending to support Cochran in November... pigeonhole principle.

Re: MS statute 23-15-575. No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

Aside from whether it's enforceable or not, the key word is INTENDS.
When I voted for McDaniel, I fully INTENDED to support the Republican winner. BUT, after hearing the disgusting ads Cochran's people paid for and seeing their criminal activities in conducting the election, I've since decided that I cannot support him. My INTENT in voting in the primary was not to disrupt the primary. Just sayin'.

Barry Neyrey @ 8:59AM Please tell me how Childress would be better than Cochran to advance conservative principles or are we to cut off our nose to spite our faces. Losers always can find an excuse.

Dear 11:13, Regarding my inability to support Cochran.
If we support Team Cochran's lying, race baiting and criminal behavior, we will get more lying, race baiting and criminal behavior. Bad behavior must be punished. I like to use an analogy. If the Coach of LSU football has a player who violates team rules, he benches the player. Even if it risks loosing the game or even loosing the championship. As much as it hurts, Bad Behavior Cannot Be Rewarded. Anyway, there is still a reasonable chance Cochran won't be on the ballot in November. Good news from the hearing today.