Voter fraud: Multiple-voting Melowese Richardson gets a federal pass
Eric Holder's Justice Department wastes no time suing states over their voter ID laws — to protect the franchise, he says. But a fraudster who repeatedly voted for President Obama? Why, she gets a pass.
Consider the celebrity status bestowed upon Melowese Richardson, the Ohio poll worker who admitted she voted six times for President Obama in 2012. Typically, voting just twice for president is enough to draw a federal felony charge.
Ms. Richardson was charged and convicted under state law in Ohio and sentenced to five years in prison last year. But after serving a mere eight months, a state judge dismissed her conviction and allowed her to plead “no contest” to four counts of illegal voting, reports J. Christian Adams for Breitbart.
Recently, Richardson turned up at a “voting rights” rally in Cincinnati, where she was warmly received and embraced by Al Sharpton. (Of course.)
But she's not on Justice's radar — even though the feds routinely go after criminals previously subjected to state charges, such as police officers accused of brutality, Mr. Adams reports.
Did we mention that Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Springer, the district election officer in Cincinnati, is an Obama campaign contributor?
Rest assured that in the run-up to the midterm elections, Mr. Holder's ideologically driven Justice Department will ensure that every person's vote counts — even multiple times for the same candidate. After all, fraud is such an ugly charge when an offender's heart is in the right place, right?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The climate summit: Down for the count
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory