Trump, GOP Paying Consultant Dogged by Voter Fraud Charges

[red dog 1]

AP
November 5, 2016


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee have paid at least $1.8 million to a political operative whose roster of companies include several that have been repeatedly investigated for voter registration fraud, even as Trump has complained that the election is rigged against him.

Three employees of Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm owned by conservative operative Nathan Sproul, pleaded guilty in Florida four years ago to felony charges related to altering and destroying scores of voter registration forms.
There were no formal actions (taken) against the firm.

GOP officials considered the charges against his employees serious enough to fire his company in 2012.

Yet recent campaign finance reports show a different firm run by Sproul is now back on the payrolls of the Republican Party and the Trump campaign.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/600cc79ae6954d92acc48060445c461f/trump-gop-paying-consultant-dogged-voter-fraud-charges

[ProudProgressiveNow]

1. @

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gop-paying-consultant-dogged-by-voter-fraud-charges/2016/11/05/5c0b5f0c-a397-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

[red dog 1]

2. Thanks

[pat_k]

3. Unless the voters themselves...

... made the alterations, I'd call it "Election Fraud."

"Voter Fraud" implies that voters are doing something wrong. I try to avoid the term except for instances in which a voter has been found to intentionally vote twice or something.

This sounds like a systematic attempt to tamper with the election by an organization. Depending on the result (e.g., Did the alterations make it impossible for any registered voters to vote?) I might call it "Vote Rigging."

[red dog 1]

4. Destroying voter registration forms - not just "altering" them, (which is bad enough)

[pat_k]

5. Yes. Destroying is "vote rigging" for sure.

Or "election fraud." But certainly not "voter fraud."

I think we can probably bank on there having been some reason to believe the voters who had their registrations destroyed would vote Democratic.

[red dog 1]

7. I agree

The article should have referred to "election fraud" not "Voter fraud"