As though looking like the threeway love child of Anna Nicole Smith, Mr. Ed and Josef Goebbels weren’t enough to garner attention, Ann Coulter upped her “I’m gonna eat some worms” score today with this golden nugget:
Someone needs to explain to me why gassing Arabs is such a bad thing. I mean, aren’t these the same people that attacked us on September 11th? Look, the system is working; Arabs are killing Arabs, and that means in the future there will be fewer of them trying to kill us.
She went on:
I say we send them all the chemical weapons we have, and let them sort it out among themselves. Hopefully, when it’s all over we’d be left with some empty space to colonize. Personally, I’d like to see megachurches and Home Depots outside Damascus.
Astonishingly, even Fox and Friends found this one a little over the top. Shawn Hannity replied:
Don’t you think that’s a bit shortsighted? I mean, it seems to me like you’re advocating genocide. How can you possibly defend that position?“]
Challenge ACCEPTED.
Brian, this isn’t genocide. This is more like Breaking Bad, when Walt sees Jesse’s girlfriend choking on her own puke and doesn’t help her. It’s enlightened non-interference.
So, there you have it. That’s Ann Coulter in a nutshell. Forget Aristotle, Plato, even Ayn Rand;THIS is the face at the heart of Ann Coulter’s spiritual and moral center:
Corporate-owned as he is, host Brian Kilmeade couldn’t ride that train. Perhaps it suddenly occurred to him that might bounce back negatively if Fox were publicly seen applauding the ethic of a sociopathic meth dealer.
He stunned Horseface into 20 seconds of awkward silence with this:
Yes, but these are innocent human beings caught in the crossfire of a terrible civil war. Don’t you feel any empathy for them at all? I mean, Arabs are just as human as we are, and should be entitled to the same level of dignity and respect. Right?
Wow. Now that IS pretty enlightened. Especially for a guy who not two months ago told the leader of a violent anti-Muslim hate group “We got your back.”
Maybe that’s why Ann was so blessedly, blessedly quiet for so long. Cognitive dissonance.
But, not to worry…Ann’s never caught short of exonyms and accusations for those who dare to disagree with her:
That’s some liberal bullshit, Brian. Where’d you read that? The New York Times?
Appearing on Fox News Republican talk show “Hannity” Monday night, right-wing columnist Ann Coulter said she’s sad that not only does she think the Boston bombing should shut down the nation’s immigration reform debate, she would like to see the alleged bomber’s widow in jail too, not for committing a crime but for “wearing a hijab.”
“I don’t care if she knew about this,” Coulter said. “She ought to be in prison for wearing a hijab. This immigration policy of us, you know, assimilating immigrants into our culture isn’t really working. They’re assimilating us into their culture. Did she get a clitorectomy too?”
Hannity seemed momentarily puzzled at the sudden citation of female genital mutilation, stammering his reply. “I, uh, I don’t know the answer to that,” he said before confidently adding: “But your point is well taken.”
Hannity went on to say that he believes people who immigrated “from countries where perhaps they grew up under Sharia law” are definitely a threat and “I think we can make a safe assumption that they have been radicalized.” He added that even foreign students should be subjected to greater scrutiny, lest they too pose a threat.
“Our immigration policy has nothing to do with helping America,” Coulter insisted. “It has to do with solving the internal problems of other countries. We’ll take Russia’s radicals. We’ll take the illiterate, unskilled, low-skill workers from all these countries. We’ll take their old people and put them on our supplemental security and Medicare. No, immigration policies are supposed to make your country better, not to make it worse and to create all these problems.”
“Lindsey Graham was on some show this week saying this shows we need better tracking,” she continued. “I’m thinking this means we need better immigrants.”
Coulter and Hannity are just the latest conservatives to jump on the idea that because the Boston bombing suspects were born overseas, the nation’s whole immigration reform debate must shift gears into more regressive policy proposals, or just shut down in Congress altogether, as it did on Monday.
Fellow Republican talker Laura Ingraham said as much on Monday afternoon, suggesting that the U.S. shut down all immigration from majority Muslim nations. “I would submit that people shouldn’t be coming here as tourists from Chechnya after 9/11,” she said. “Dagistan, Checnya, Kergystan, uh-uh. As George Bush would say, ‘None of them stans.’”
Both Boston bombing suspects came to the U.S. legally as children. Authorities say there is not yet any evidence linking them to any foreign terrorist organizations, but an investigation is still ongoing.
Additionally, the Partnership for a New American Economy said last year that about one in 10 Americans worked for an immigrant-owned business in 2012, which contributed more than $775 billion to the U.S. economy and over $125 billion in payroll.
This video is from Fox News’s “Hannity,” aired Monday, April 22, 2013.
It took Ann Coulter roughly three sentences to ruffle Whoopi Goldberg's feathers on Thursday's "View."
The controversial conservative pundit appeared on the ABC daytime talk show to promote her new book, "Mugged," in which she argues that civil rights only "belong to blacks" because the U.S. "has a legacy of slavery." She also writes that the O.J. Simpson trial verdict was "good for America."
As Coulter started to discuss her book, Goldberg grew seemingly frustrated.
"What are you talking about?" she demanded. Coulter attempted to continue, but Goldberg cut her off.
"Oh you know what, hold up Ms. Coulter, please stop. Please stop," Goldberg said. "If you are going to talk about race, at least, at least, know what you're talking about."
"What don't I know?" Coulter asked.
"Well tell me what you know about being black," Goldberg said. "Your facts are a little shaky. I mean, you're saying that because liberals have abandoned black people now—what? I don't get it. I don't understand."
"I don't think liberals ever cared about black people," Coulter said. "Five minutes after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they start calling everything that has nothing to do with black people a civil rights issue: abortion on demand, homeless rights."
Goldberg seemed to have had enough as Coulter continued answering more questions. She was eventually bleeped out when responding to Coulter, appearing to have used the word "bullshit."
Today, the Florida Conservative Political Action Conference gave primetime billing to right-wingprovocateurAnn Coulter. As isher style, she wasted little time hurling derogatory insults and venomous name-calling. Coulter called DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) a “hideous beast who has a voice like a hyena getting an abortion,” eliciting wild cheers from the audience. Watch it:
In her comments, Coulter referenced Rep. Allen West’s (R-FL) sexist attacks on Wasserman Schultz from earlier this summer, in which he called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives,” telling her to “shut the heck up” because “you are not a Lady.” ThinkProgress reached out to a CPAC spokesperson to see if they would condemn Coulter’s hateful comments. We have not heard back.
Motor City Liberal Comment: Honestly Ann Coulter looks like a zombie from "The Walking Dead" so Ann shouldn't be talking about how another woman's looks.
In Fox News' latest effort to demagogue James Hoffa's Labor Day speech urging supporters to vote out Republican members of Congress, Fox & Friends attempted to get Fox News contributor and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to decry Hoffa for supposedly using inflammatory rhetoric. Coulter has previously fantasized about poisoning a Supreme Court justice, suggested that Bill Clinton should have been "impeach[ed] or assassinate[d]," and is currently hawking a book in which she paints her political opponents as "demonic."
EMBED
Fox & Friends Tries To Get Coulter To Decry Hoffa's Supposed Inflammatory Rhetoric
Kilmeade Asks Coulter: "Would It Have Been That Hard For The President Just To Say ... 'I Can't Condone' " Hoffa's Rhetoric? From the September 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): The president again -- he had something happen that totally distracted his message. On Monday he wanted to give a little precursor to his big speech. But what ends up -- Jimmy Hoffa introduces him, introduces him or preceded him, and at which time he violates all that decorum that we thought we were going to instill in society last year that was urged on by our president. So Hoffa says, get those SOBs and the tea party and all these negativities --
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Take 'em out.
KILMEADE: The president won't condemn it. And least Jay Carney through the -- says the president won't condemn it. Let's listen.
JAY CARNEY (White House press secretary) [video clip]: Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. He speaks for the labor movement, AFL-CIO. The president speaks for himself. I speak for the president. You know, what the president was glad to do yesterday was have the opportunity to present his views on the importance of working Americans and on the importance of taking measures to help working Americans to create jobs and grow the economy.
KILMEADE: He was getting hammered by an ABC reporter. That, you know -- this was no --
DOOCY: Jake Tapper.
KILMEADE: -- conservative blogger.
COULTER: Right.
KILMEADE: So what do you think? Would it have been that hard for the president just to say, "I don't -- I can't condone this"?
COULTER: I'm glad you bring this up, because I think you're being ironic when you say we all expected rhetoric to change.
[...]
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): But back to the actual message where he called out the tea party and sort of this rhetoric that the president said that everyone should lay off of after Gabby Giffords was shot. Do you find it ironic that the White House now does not have a response to that?
COULTER: No. No. Like I say, I think you are playing when you pretend to be shocked.
DOOCY: There is a double standard. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/7/11]
Unlike Hoffa, Coulter Has A History Of Violent Political Rhetoric
Coulter Was On Fox To Hawk Her Most Recent Book, Which Portrays Her Political Opponents As "Demonic." Coulter's most recent book, published in 2011, is Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America. In the book, Coulter writes that "[t]he demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic," and later adds, "The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob." [Ann Coulter, Demonic, Crown Forum, 6/7/11, via Google Books]
Coulter Described The Kent State Massacre As "What You Do With A Mob." From the June 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
COULTER: Americans have always understood the danger of mobs. They are always dangerous, they are always demonic. Thus, the Shays' Rebellion, creating our constitution, the Boston Tea Party, not being so warm, feeling so warmly about that. You had during the Civil --
SEAN HANNITY (host): I like the Boston Tea Party though. Taxation without representation.
COULTER: Well, it was very peaceful. The only thing more peaceful than the original Boston Tea Party are today's tea parties. Where they leave the Mall cleaner than when they got there. Then during the Civil War, you had, again, Democrats in New York engaging in massive, horrible mobbings against blacks in New York -- lynchings, draggings by genitals. And Abraham Lincoln seized another Democrat mob -- they're always the Democrats -- sends the military a little detour up to New York, crushes the mob, goes back, wins the war, and then Abraham Lincoln carries New York in the next election. So we've had mob uprisings before, but we've always known you can't reason with a mob. I think conservatives, I think a lot of peaceable Americans have forgotten that. We did have something as close as this country got to the French Revolution in the 60s with the Weathermen and SDS and the bombings.
HANNITY: And you have some interesting stuff in here about our buddy Bill Ayers, which was pretty -- I'm not going to give it up because I want people to buy it. Alright --
COULTER: A small item but the point is Nixon came in, shut it down. There was the shooting at Kent State and gosh, I know, liberals don't like it and you look on Nexis and oh, the whole country was embarrassed. We'll I'm not embarrassed. That's what you do with a mob. They were monstrous at Kent State. It was being led by Bill Ayers. [Fox News,Hannity, 6/6/11, via Media Matters]
Coulter Compared Former Education Department Official Writing The Forward Of A Book To Polanski "Anally Raping A 13-Year-Old." From the October 1, 2009, edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Here's where this gets to be a big problem, Ann, because he even admitted in 2000 himself that this sophomore, who he said -- he said -- is 15 years old, came to him and said that he was having a relationship with an adult male. His advice was not to tell the authorities, because by definition by definition that would be, as The Washington Timessaid, statutory rape. His advice was to ask if he was wearing a condom.
COULTER: Right. I mean, I think that story to avoid the squid ink of the left claiming that this is an anti-homosexual thing -- tell the same story where it's a girl who's having sex with an adult man in a bathroom at a bus stop. I mean, that's the point here. And I liked your list at the beginning of all the problems Obama's had with the czars, and appointees, and cabinet nominees. But I have a slightly different list.
You have ACORN encouraging and counseling these two, well, actors as it turns out, how to avoid taxes, how to bring Salvadorian sex slaves into the country, underage girls. You have all of Hollywood and media elites defending Roman Polanski for anally raping a 13-year-old, and now you have this guy [then-Department of Education official Kevin Jennings] who's written the introduction to Queering Elementary Education. I mean, that is the issue here. And you mentioned Bill Ayers.
Can't you just let kids be kids? No, they want to sexualize kids. And forget the homosexual aspect of it, just sexualizing kids generally. And teaching them about how to come out or how to deal with homosexuality in kindergarten -- it's monstrous what they're doing. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/1/09, via Media Matters]
Coulter: "Zeke Emanuel Is On My Death List." From the August 12, 2009, edition of Fox News'Hannity:
COULTER: By the way, totally ironically, Zeke Emanuel is on my death list. Hold the applause. I'm going to be on the death panel, then I'm in favor of them.
HANNITY: In other words, you get to pick who dies.
COULTER: Right. I have a list. Should I start with the As? [Fox News, Hannity, 8/12/09, viaMedia Matters]
Coulter On Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee: "They Shot The Wrong Lincoln." Coulter titled her August 30, 2006, syndicated column on the Rhode Island Senate race: "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." The headline was a reference to then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), whom she excoriated throughout the piece while expressing her support for his challenger in the September 12, 2006, Republican primary, Stephen Laffey. [Human Events, 8/30/06]
Coulter Suggested NY Times Staff Members Should Be "Executed." After radio host Melanie Morgan asserted that if then-New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason for publishing leaked information she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Coulter wrote in her July 12, 2006, column: "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution." That same day, during an appearance on the radio, Coulter again suggested thatNew York Times staff members should be "executed." [Media Matters, 7/13/06, 7/14/06]
Coulter: Bill Clinton "Was A Very Good Rapist." From a January 3, 2005, New York Observerinterview with Coulter:
[Gurley] What should we remember about Bill Clinton?
[Coulter] "Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten." [New York Observer, 1/10/05, via Media Matters]
Coulter Said That Debate Over Clinton Should Have Been "Whether To Impeach Or Assassinate" Him. Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether Clinton "did it," but "whether to impeach or assassinate" him. The quotation appeared in Coulter's 1998 book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton:
In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate. [Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, via Media Matters]
Coulter Later Asserted That Her Suggestion Came In The Context Of A Description Of "The Entire History Of Impeachment, Which We Got From The British." On the August 31, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Colmes challenged Coulter to distinguish her suggestion that the issue was "whether to assassinate or impeach" Clinton from the film Death of a President (Borough Films), which dramatically portrays the assassination of President Bush. Colmes asked: "I guess it's OK to joke about assassinating a president, but it's not OK to represent it in a dramatic presentation, right?" In response, Coulter asserted that her suggestion came in the context of a description of "the entire history of impeachment, which we got from the British. I explained how we changed it here in America. In Britain ... one of the punishments [for impeachment] was hanging." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 8/31/06, via Media Matters]
Even During Her Appearance On Fox & Friends, Coulter's Rhetoric Was Too Extreme For Co-Host Carlson. During her appearance on Fox & Friends, Coulter attacked school teachers as "useless," a statement from which co-host Gretchen Carlson immediately disassociated herself:
COULTER: But what I really think needs to be attacked about this that no one is mentioning is: This is Jimmy Hoffa, president of the Teamsters. They used to be truck drivers, and pipe fitters. But now --
DOOCY: They've got a history.
COULTER: Now, he's representing public school teachers. What, kindergarten teachers? Cafeteria workers? Fighting for every last bit of their government pension? What a pathetic downfall.
DOOCY: Right.
COULTER: And moreover, how about a little of this tough talk back when the Teamsters supported drilling in ANWR. You know, real jobs for real men as opposed to kindergarten teachers. And how about --
KILMEADE: And they're not all fired up about --
COULTER: And how about fighting for nuclear power plants being installed? This should -- that is evidence of the decline of the nation that he's not even representing men who have actual jobs.
DOOCY: Good point.
COULTER: He's representing useless public sector workers.
KILMEADE: Who doesn't want the free trade agreements passed, who's not thrilled about a potential amnesty for illegal immigrants.
COULTER: Who wanted ANWR. We all want ANWR. We want gas prices and --
CARLSON: Well, OK. I don't --
COULTER: They want hundreds of thousands of jobs or at least they used to. That's the old Teamsters.
CARLSON: I don't know if we can call kindergarten teachers useless, though. I don't want to say that.
COULTER: I don't think they need to be government workers with fully paid [unintelligible].
CARLSON: OK. But I don't want to say that teachers are useless.
COULTER: No, I will. They are government workers. Let's turn it over to private, to vouchers, to charter schools. No, they fight for every last dime. They get summers off. They're off at two. And they make more money than most of those pipe fitters who no longer have jobs.
CARLSON: But back to the actual message where he called out the tea party. [Fox News,Fox & Friends, 9/7/11]
Motor City Liberal Comment: Hold up, let me get this right to whine about political hate speech the losers at Fox and Friends got the transgender queen of political hate speech Ann Coulter? What's next? Fox and Friends are going to book the cast of Jersey Shore to talk about how much of an negative influence Teen Mom is?
Despite a long history of anti-gay slurs, controversial pundit Ann Coulter has never really suffered any damage to her career. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that she doesn't think homophobia is much of a big deal. Even if Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly treated it as such.
New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was forced to explain Monday after he told Orthodox Jewish leaders that children shouldn't be "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality" is acceptable.
"That's not how God created us," Paladino said of being gay, "and that's not the example that we should be showing our children."
He added that children who later in life choose to marry people of the opposite sex and raise families would be "much better off and much more successful
"I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option," he said.
"I'm not a homophobic," he told ABC's George Stephanopolous.
"I have no reservations whatsoever about gays, only except for marriage," he said.
The candidate said that he disagreed with his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, who took his children to a gay pride parade.
"I was at one in Toronto one time. We stumbled on it, my wife and I. It wasn't pretty. It was a bunch of very extreme type people in bikini-type outfits grinding at each other and doing these gyrations and I certainly wouldn't let my young children see that," Paladino explained.
When pressed by Stephanopoulos, Paladino said that he wasn't sure if homosexuality was a choice.
"I've had difficulty with that," he said. "I believe that young people should not necessarily be exposed to that."
"You want to stick up for Paladino, do you?" Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Coulter Monday.
"I think someone on this network should [defend] this great warrior," Coulter said.
The conservative columnist noted that Paladino's audience was conservative Jewish leaders. "It's like being in Chicago. You say 'Go Cubs!'" she said.
"Did that help him [get votes]?" asked a shocked O'Reilly.
"Yeah, I think so," replied Coulter.
In the end, O'Reilly didn't buy Coulter's argument that Paladino's remarks were going to bolster his standing with voters.
"The bottom line on this is, I think everybody but you in the world agrees this isn't going to help the guy. He wants to win the election. He needs independents to come over," said O'Reilly.
"I just want everyone to know that we're fair and balanced and Coulter thinks that Carl Paladino was helped by that exposition. Everyone in the world thinks he wasn't."
Despite her past of making anti-gay remarks, Coulter was chosen to attend GOProud's Homocon 2010, a conference for conservative gays. But it cost her because World Net Daily dropped her from their "Taking Back America" conference.
In the spring of 2007, the Associated Press and other media outlets speculated that controversial conservative pundit Ann Coulter might get "blacklisted" after calling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."
"Following her use of a gay slur about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards this month during remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference, some on TV are wondering whether her shelf life is expiring," AP Television Writer David Bauder wrote in a column titled "Has Ann Coulter reached her tipping point?"
Jump ahead three years later and rather than being banned, Coulter is now being hailed as the "Judy Garland of the right" by a gay Republican group, and getting crucified by some of the same folks who once lionized her for calling liberals "godless."
Coulter doesn’t exactly have a clean record with gay slurs herself, and defending Paladino would make her quite the unique (read: attractive to the camera) commodity on cable news these days, so it isn’t completely shocking that she would take Paladino’s declaration that he wasn’t a homophobe at face value, if only to play devil’s advocate.
This video is from Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast Oct. 11, 2010.
By Brad Friedman
Will Ann Coulter finally be held accountable for having committed voter fraud? We may find out on October 14th when the matter will come up at a public hearing by Connecticut's State Elections Commission after an extraordinarily long two-year delay since the complaints about her allegedly illegal absentee votes in 2002 and 2004 were filed.
As The BRAD BLOG spent years documenting beyond a shadow of a doubt concerning her voter registration fraud and voter fraud in a different state, Florida, Ann Coulter committed third degree felony voter registration fraud, along with a first degree voter fraud misdemeanor, when she lied about her residency and then knowingly voted at the wrong polling place in Palm Beach County, FL in 2005.
However, in Connecticut, where officials complaints were filed in 2009 --- by a conservative activist --- that she also committed absentee voter fraud in the years prior to moving to Florida, when she allegedly voted illegally from her residence in New York, there is no such statute of limitations for voter fraud.
After a 20-month delay, Coulter's case is finally coming up for a vote at a public hearing before CT's State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) on October 14th at 9:00am, 20 Trinity St. in Hartford CT, according to an email from the commission's MaryAnn Stratton and confirmation from the Commission's Director of Communication...
In June of 2009, some five months after the original February 2009 complaints had been filed by conservative activist Daniel Borchers, we filed a report on the case asking what the extraordinary delay was about, given that other voters charged with almost identical crimes, as we detailed at the time, had seen their cases resolved with the SEEC in just two or three months.
In Coulter's Connecticut case, the fraud in question occurred in 2002 and again in 2004 when she lived in New York City but apparently voted as still registered at her parents address in the Nutmeg State. Our June 2009 story reported on a number of similar cases, including that of NY resident Daniel Jarvis Brown who had been registered to vote at his parent's home in CT and illegally cast a ballot in the November 2008 election. His violations of Connecticut General Statutes 9-23g, 9-140, 9-172, 9-359 and 9-360 were resolved in just three months after he cooperated with officials and was allowed to remit a civil penalty of just $1,500 when investigators had determined that he had no prior cases and lacked "specific knowledge concerning registration requirements".
Coulter, a constitutional attorney at the time of her several alleged instances of voting improprieties in the state of CT, would have a difficult time making such the same claim that Brown did. The statutes she is alleged to have violated, just as Brown did, allow for thousands of dollars in fines, several years in prison, and referral to the Chief State's Attorney, U.S. Attorney, or U.S. Department of Justice.
But the SEEC has been extraordinarily tight-lipped about the Coulter affair for some reason. Despite the best efforts of Borchers, sending email inquiries on the status of the case every month or two since February of 2009, generally receiving little more than a terse "This matter is still pending" or "No information is available at this time" in reply, and our own efforts to keep an eye on new material posted at the commission's website and sending our own inquiries from time to time, information on the issue has been completely blacked out from the SEEC.
And then finally, on Monday, Borchers received the following, somewhat cryptic email from Stratton in reply to his latest missive asking about the disposition of the case:
This case is scheduled to appear on the October 14, 2010 public session. We expect the Commission will vote on this matter at that time. Our agenda can be viewed on www.ct.gov/seec
Exactly what the Commission will be voting on at this time --- to convict Coulter, ask law enforcement to take up the matter, agree to a settlement with her (as in the Brown case mentioned above), remand it for additional investigation, or dismiss the case all together --- remains a mystery for the moment.
In attempting to get more specific information on the upcoming agenda, we followed-up with Stratton and received a response from Nancy S. Nicolescu, the SEEC's Director of Communications, Legislative Affairs and Candidate Services, to whom Stratton had forwarded our inquiry.
Nicolescu responded to say, almost as cryptically, that "At this time, the case you reference 2009-010 is expected to be presented in public session on October 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. for a Commission vote. The October 14th agenda will be posted early next week."
She adds that the case has been discussed by the Commission, up until now, only behind closed doors.
"As you may know, this case was previously discussed in Executive Session at the September 22, 2010 meeting," she wrote. "I am providing you with a link to our Commission Procedures which provides a brief description of the process relative to the Executive Session, I mention and will outline Commission resolutions and or actions that may be taken on October 14th."
Unfortunately, the linked document from Nicolescu is similarly vague in offering hints as to what the public may expect at the October 14th hearing.
In a follow-up call phone interview, Nicolescu told us that the document was purposedly vague, in that it only explains the many possibilities of what could be coming up for a vote, repeating again that because it is a "pending case" and "currently under investigation" she couldn't offer any more information at this time, though she did reveal that the case has been "docketed" by the Commission's Enforcement Unit, it's "legal subdivision".
She explained that "this case was, in fact, docketed and has been assigned to a staff member for investigation." She says that docketed cases are "investigated, evidence is collected and documented and appropriate interviews are taken," but added again that she could not offer "info on this particular case, because it's pending."
"They have been tenacious in withholding everything from public and media inquiries," Borchers told The BRAD BLOG this week, "including such simple points of fact such as whether Coulter has voted in recent elections and whether she is currently registered to vote in Connecticut."
He too seems flummoxed by what he describes as a "long 20-month investigation into what seems to be a simple, and simply-proved, case of voter fraud."
Nicolescu offered some insight into what had seemed an extraordinarily long investigation process. She says the Commission's size and duties have been expanded in recent years and that their "median" time for handling cases has ballooned. She claims that, "on average, this case falls within the median for length of time for open cases."
Will Justice Finally Be Served?
"Will the integrity of the voting system be reinforced, or will a conservative celebrity be given another free pass based upon her popularity, power, and the cadre of elite relationships she has courted throughout her career?"
"Whether justice will be served remains to be seen," Borchers wrote via email. "Will the integrity of the voting system be reinforced, or will a conservative celebrity be given another free pass based upon her popularity, power, and the cadre of elite relationships she has courted throughout her career?"
Though he is a conservative, Borchers has been extremely critical of Coulter over the years, charging that she's a dangerous opportunist who is anything but conservative, and who has given true conservative philosophy a bad name. [DISCLOSURE: Borchers has guest blogged for The BRAD BLOG from time to time over the years on related issues.]
Republicans have, for years, built much of their electoral strategy on false charges of "massive Democratic voter fraud", despite the lack of evidence for any such thing, even from George W. Bush's own Dept. of Justice. That contrasts with the great deal of evidence documenting that insider election fraud is far more prevalent, particularly as a "conspiracy" as small as one is able to flip the results of entire elections on electronic voting systems with little possibility of detection.
Given the Right's frequent, if evidence-shy campaign against "voter fraud" --- remember, their desire to bring false voter fraud charges against Democrats before the 2004 election was at the heart of the Bush/Rove U.S. Attorney Purge --- the fact that one of the GOP's former superstars may be charged with it is no small matter.
While Fox "News" has spent uncountable hours stoking unfounded fears of "voter fraud" by groups like ACORN --- part and parcel of the GOP's strategy to create a false "epidemic" of fraud in hopes of encouraging polling place photo ID restrictions which, as non-partisan public interest groups have documented, would actually disenfranchise millions of legal minority, elderly and young (read: Democratic-leaning) voters --- Coulter remains on the Fox payroll as an analyst.
She has not been asked about her own voter fraud in Florida on the Republican "news" channel since former Fox host Alan Colmes asked her about it in 2006.
"I think the syphilis has gone to their brains," Coulter fired back at Colmes when he asked about the allegations of voter fraud made against her by the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections.
"Did you knowingly vote in the wrong district?" Colmes followed up. "No, I live in New York," Coulter indignantly --- and perhaps incriminatingly --- lied in response. "This is all false, I'm telling you."
Had Coulter actually "live[d] in New York" at the time, as she claimed to Colmes, and as she had the year before when she voted absentee in Connecticut, she would have violated CT law, which she appears to have done.
To our knowledge, despite regular appearances on the channel, she has never been asked about the pending allegations of her own voter fraud in Connecticut, even though Fox "News" regularly reports Republican allegations (and requests for investigations) of "voter fraud" by Democrats as if such allegations are the same as actual crimes. In fact, ACORN has never been charged with voter fraud or even voter registration fraud, or assisting in same, despite Fox and its "analysts" falsely reporting as much time and time again. We can't say the same for Republican voter registration outfits, as we were forced to reveal on Fox ourselves. Almost every single alleged "investigation" against ACORN for voter fraud or voter registration fraud has been quietly dropped --- usually just a few months after an election, when such charges are no longer helpful to Republicans --- without a peep about it from Fox "News".
"Preservation of the rule of law - which Coulter frequently invokes - necessitates that Coulter be held responsible for her misbehavior and held to the same standards to which everyone else is held," writes Borchers in a follow-up email this morning. "Throughout her high-profile career, Coulter has survived controversies of her own making while claiming to be the victim (and her fans accept her assertions). ... Coulter has flaunted her prestige, power, and connections to elude - and even eviscerate - the rule of law."
She has indeed been able to flaunt the rule of law in the past. Her Florida voter fraud is only one such example. The only question now is: will she be able to do it yet again in Connecticut? We may found out next Thursday.
