"The Bush administration has spent a lot of time talking about mythical cases of voter fraud and election improprieties," says the editorial in today's NY Times, "but the New Hampshire phone jamming case was the real thing."
Amen!!
The Times is endorsing the recent request by Representative Paul Hodes for a Congressional investigation, citing multiple actions by the now-disgraced Department of Justice that left many avenues unexplored or even blocked.
In other phone-jamming news, James Tobin's lawyers filed a motion (on September 14) for aJudgment of Acquittal on grounds that seem to me completely outrageous...more below the fold.
On Election Day, 2002, non-stop hang-up phone calls blocked Democrats' phones for hours -- the investigation was probably "slow-walked" though some small-fry did get jail terms--the biggest fish caught was political consultant James Tobin of Maine, a stringer for DCI Group who had been friends with the Virginia-based consultant Allen Raymond at least since the two of them worked to try to make Steve Forbes president.
Indicted shortly after the 2004 Presidential election (Tobin had moved up the political food chain to be New England Chair for Bush/Cheney 2004), James Tobin was quickly lawyered up at the expense of the Republican National Committee and has consistently refused to testify about what he did or who else knew of the plan to jam phones in NH. Appeals Court in Boston overturned Tobin's conviction by a NH jury, saying the NH Judge's charge to the jury defined "harassment" too broadly. Tobin was sent back to NH for re-trial; jury selection will start in early December.
As of September 14, Tobin's lawyers now claim that a new trial would contravene the intent of the Appeals Court and furthermore violate Tobin's Fifth Amendment rights.
Even more outrageous, at least to this non-lawyer, is their claim that Tobin is innocent unless his goal with the phone-jamming was to cause Democrats emotional distress. Never mind that any reasonable person would have known that non-stop hang-up calls on election day would cause distress. It's still not a crime unless Tobin's purpose was causing distress, say Tobin's lawyers. Goals like stopping Democrats from getting out their voters or disrupting the ability of Democrats to talk to one another on Election Day or keeping people who don't own cars from getting a ride to the polls--those seem perfectly fine to Tobin's lawyers.
I am not a lawyer, and I have not read all 32 pages of the appeal or the additional 32 pages of their Exhibit A and etc. If you are a lawyer and/or you want all the details, go the the NH Federal District Court website and sign up for an account with PACER.
I'd link to a mainstream news article on this if I could--but there's nothing yet. Maybe with this new push from the New York Times, there will be.