My certainty? I quote the report. Youre the one that called it an “import a vote program” to clear backlogs.

Conclusion

In the end, we are unable to make any conclusive determination whether White House officials sought to use the CUSA program as a means of increasing Democratic turnout in the 1996 general election. It is certainly true that the prospect of an impending general election was present in the thinking of a number of White House officials who pressed INS to accelerate its naturalization efforts. But that in itself is not necessarily indicative of any improper partisan motivation. The right to vote is, of course, a significant benefit of citizenship, and the opportunity to vote in a presidential election may, for many potential citizens, be the most important reason to seek citizenship.

You overstate your certainty in your wording given the actual body of the report, but I would expect no less.

I didn’t ignore them, its there.I’m fine with the IG report. It just doesn’t say what you think. but hte problem is that things i think aren’t such a big deal — lots of new legal citizens — are a problem for some.

“Now about that SCOTUS decision that shows no evidence of disenfranchisement, stef, still sticking to your guns?”

Saw all that fraud in 1868.

Plain for all to see.

Why did I know it was a waste of my time to point out the sections of the report I knew you were ignoring – Ickes involvement and refusal to cooperate with the investigation along with Rahm?

Because of your HYPOCRISY!!!!!Eleventy!!!

Your predictibility!!!!11!1!

Now about that SCOTUS decision that shows no evidence of disenfranchisement, stef, still sticking to your guns?

I sent you the conclusion. Which weighed all that evidence. You told me I was ignoring evidence. So I assumed that meant there was something else.

Like the part you quote says, people being aware of an electoral dimension is different than people having a partisan motivation. Of course the electoral effect is obvious.

“Here are a couple of contemporary news stories from lefty news sources confirming how fishy the whole deal smelled:”

hah. lefty sources. Nice. Looks like they’re just reporting on the IG report though.

There is evidence that the INS was given performance goals it couldn’t handle, but, like the article you send me to says:

“The report said there is no evidence that the 1996 presidential election motivated the crash program, but at least one official in Gore’s government-reinvention office told investigators he felt pressure to have the backlog erased in time for the new citizens to vote in November.”

But again, you’re going to find this improper and I wont. To me, its democrats being responsive to an important interest group for them. That an attempt to ameliorate a ridiculous backlog. But a plan to rig the election? Good luck.

Thanks

[Lots of comments have ended up in the filter in the past week, even mine. I'm not sure why it's happening but I'll check it as often as I can. -- DRJ]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/01/gore.immigration.ap/index.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EED9103DF932A3575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

These don’t exist either.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0007/whitehouse.htm#_Toc489261263

I particularly liked the fact that the OIG did not speak to Harold Ickes about his role in CUSA and he was intimately involved. In fact a number of Clintonites declined to speak with the OIG on the issue, which sounds like a familiar pattern regarding that frequently investigated group. Harold Ickes, you will recall, is a particularly odious character.

“Of course, as Commissioner Meissner told the OIG, the White House is not a “monolith” and it contains a number of officials whose agendas differ. Panetta told the OIG that he never discussed the issue of the naturalization backlog with Ickes, whose role he said was primarily, but not exclusively, to manage the White House campaign effort. Ickes’ involvement in addressing the naturalization backlog, however, indicates that there were discussions about the White House’s role in CUSA that Panetta may not have been privy to. Consequently, it follows that varying or mixed motives concerning the involvement of NPR in CUSA may have existed in the minds of different White House officials.

The evidence certainly does not support the contention that CUSA was created for narrow partisan gain. Nor does it support a claim that the White House and NPR hijacked the program to bend it toward such an electoral gain. The record does show, however, that particularly in response to calls by community groups and other concerned parties, White House officials were quite aware of the electoral dimensions of the naturalization backlog.”

“However, several former White House employees declined our request for an interview, including former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, former Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel,444 and former staff members John Emerson, Aracelli Ruano, and Jennifer O’Connor.”

The OIG founds a bunch of things that smelled fishy and the national media agreed.

“We found several pieces of evidence showing that the White House was aware of and interested in the connection between naturalization, voting, and the 1996 election. The evidence includes:

· The September 26, 1995, memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, drafted by Gerri Ratliff, to Kevin O’Keefe at the White House. The memorandum discussed INS naturalization initiatives and included a page entitled “Talking Points Re Voter Registration” that discussed INS’ limited role in facilitating voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. The memorandum noted that due to INS’ limited resources, it would have to rely on partnerships with other organizations to expand voter registration opportunities.

A 1-page cover letter dated September 28, 1995, from O’Keefe to Ickes forwarding Ratliff’s memorandum. The cover letter included two paragraphs on voter registration, including the statement that “the pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters.”

Statements that INS employees in New York said Lyons made specifically referencing the November 1996 election.

Farbrother’s March 28, 1996, e-mail to the Vice President noting that INS was not going to be able to “produce a million new citizens before election day.”

Kamarck’s April 4, 1996, memorandum to the Vice President stating that “[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters.”
We also found evidence that more specifically refers to, or could be interpreted as referring to, the potential benefit to the Democratic Party of naturalizing a million new citizens in FY 1996.503

The March 13, 1996, O’Keefe memorandum to Ickes discussing that Skinny Sheahan, “our best field organizer,” was trying to figure out how to handle voter registration at a large naturalization ceremony in Chicago.

A conversation between Farbrother and Kamarck in which, according to Farbrother, Kamarck spoke of the President’s desire to involve NPR because of his belief that the large number of people in California waiting for naturalization represented likely votes for him in the 1996 election.

The memorandum written for Ickes by Stephen Warnath of the DPC expressing the Hispanic Caucus’ prospective view that “faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election.”

The letters written by Daniel Solis and Father Vega to various White House officials that included comments about how enhanced naturalization efforts could increase the number of potential Democratic voters in the 1996 election.504 ”

Good thing that stuff doesn’t exist unless somebody points it out.