Fox Overseeing Chicken Coops – Federal Election Commission Edition

Update 4/21/2010:  In defense of Caroline Hunter <read>


Velvet Revolution files Complaint To Disbar FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter For False Testimony In Voting Caging Lawsuit <read>

“Caroline Hunter lied to a federal judge about illegal vote caging by the RNC. She now sits on the Federal Election Commission where she continues to do everything possible to deprive Americans of the right to vote. We cannot allow someone like that to practice law. We are calling for her to step down from the FEC and if she does not, to be removed.

Velvet Revolution references the details on Raw Story:  FEC commissioner helped RNC conceal role in 2004 vote suppression <read>

In her affidavit , submitted under penalty of perjury, Hunter claims “the RNC is not initiating, controlling, directing, or funding any programs of ‘voter challenges’ … including the effort by the Ohio Republican Party to challenge voter registrations in Ohio.”

“Although representatives of the RNC were involved in the emails discussing the possibility of the challenges described above,” she continues, “the RNC has not initiated any challenges to the absentee ballots in Ohio or in any other state.”.

Burchfield tells the court that Hunter’s affidavit is proof the RNC isn’t violating the decree. Rather, he says, her statement demonstrates the party was diligent to avoid “initiating, controlling, directing or funding” any voter challenger programs….

“Miss Hunter’s information and belief,” he[Judge Debevoise] concludes, “is belied by the evidence developed during the brief period of discovery.”…

They also made clear that this was not a statement by a lawyer in open court to the judge, but rather an affidavit signed under oath by a witness in the case for one of the parties.

“If a lawyer makes a misleading statement in sworn testimony to the court,” said Hebert,[executive director at the Campaign Legal Center]  “and then the court not only finds that the statement was misleading but it turns out to be ‘belied’ by the actual facts in the case, I think a state bar would be interested in that.”

“It could be viewed as a serious ethical breach for an attorney, one that might warrant a review by the state bar in which she’s accredited and may be grounds for disbarment,” Hebert continued.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.