Turns out Jeb isn't the only one...

Faraj said Long was referring to other technical issues that were later resolved, not the Hispanic flaw. This was also in the article. So it seems that the hispanic flaw was not in view, nor is there any evidence it was ordered.

Stick to the facts Galatian.

Question on the 60 day issue, is that 60 days after the investigation is complete? I would think it would be since an ongoing investigation could be compromised by release of records. But I don't know. Does any know what the law states?

 

The article didn't say that. The article expressly refuted that. You show once again that you are not interested in facts, but will gladly ignore them to make your point. The fact remians that you still haven't shown Bush to be guilty of any wrongdoing. Perhaps one day you will find something. I hope until then that you will quit cluttering up this board.

Apparently you missed the question. The question, found at the very last part of my post, was: Does any know what the law states? As you can plainly see, I did not ask you to repeat what the paper says. I already knew what the paper said. I was interested in the law. Believe it or not, papers do get it wrong, and don't always tell the whole story. It may well be that the law does not specify the end of hte investigation. But the question is about the law, not about the paper. If you do not know what the law says, then don't comment on it.

 

I didn't say it did prove anything, I said it was evidence that Jeb Bush was very much involved with the voter purge.

Did you omit this little part because it proves what I have been saying, and denies what you have tried to show? Why else would you? Why wouldn't you, in the interest of fairness, present the evidence for the position you don't hold?</font>[/QUOTE]As we are not supposed to quote the entire thing, I quoted the part which was relevant to the point I was making. I provided the link for your convenience so you could plumb the article for whatever you thought supported your point. I am not obliged to argue your case for you - that's for you to do. (That's one of the silliest complaints I've encountered here).

I've never actually denied it, but if he says he wants the state to get it right, why did he also insist that it go ahead when there was no time to "get it right" or train the poll workers?