GOP ‘stolen vote’ investigators say Dems’ explanations ‘implausible’

Republicans grew frustrated with House Democratic floor aides — and indicated they found much of their testimony implausible — during a second, sometimes contentious day of hearings on the so-called “stolen” vote of Aug. 2, 2007.

While Tuesday’s hearing was marked by a consensus that the Democrats’ rule banning the holding open of votes for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome is unenforceable, Wednesday’s final day of public hearings on roll call vote 814 was marked by partisan divisions.

{mosads}The three Republicans on the Select Committee on Voting Irregularities — Mike Pence (Ind.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) — specifically seized on the testimony of Democratic floor aide Caitlin O’Neill, who repeatedly stated she could not recall the content of her conversations with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), presiding officer Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.) and the House parliamentarian leading up to McNulty’s closing of the vote at 214-214, which gave Democrats the victory on the Republican’s motion to recommit.

O’Neill’s inability to recall what Hoyer conveyed to her and what she then relayed to McNulty was inconsistent with what witnesses heard, what Hoyer himself testified to on Tuesday and what the video showed, Republicans suggested.

“Despite the fact that Majority Leader Hoyer clearly stated to Ms. O’Neill that he wanted the vote closed, we remain frustrated that she has no recollection,” Pence said following the hearing.

“Which is why we believe that the evidence supports our conclusion that, one, Republicans won the motion to recommit and, two, the Democratic leadership pressured the chair,” Pence added.

Hoyer, who testified on Tuesday, admitted he urged McNulty to close the vote at 214-214.

McNulty on Tuesday said he was unable to hear the majority leader calling for a close to the vote, and that he closed the vote only in accordance with the Democrats’ rule — clause 2(a) — preventing the extended holding open of a vote.

“I don’t find it plausible that Mr. McNulty was acting to impose clause 2(a),” Pence said on Wednesday.

Reps. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) and Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), chairman of the select committee, said their review of the evidence yielded no clear conclusions that anyone, including Hoyer, was pressuring anyone, including McNulty, to close the vote.

“And if Mr. McNulty testified that any pressure he felt was in regard to [clause] 2(a), then you wouldn’t be in a position to contradict that, would you?” Davis asked Jay Pierson, the floor assistant to the Republican leader who also testified on Wednesday.

“No,” Pierson replied.

But minutes earlier Pierson had called McNulty’s explanation of enforcing clause 2(a) “a stretch.”

“Which is ironic, because I think he’s one of the best chairs the Democrats have,” Pierson said.

Pierson said that McNulty’s succumbing to the pressure of his party’s leaders was evident in his calling of the vote without reading the tally slip — handed to the presiding officer by the tally clerk.

“I can’t read his mind, so I don’t know what he’s thinking up there. But he’s been in the chair many, many, many times. You always use the [tally] slip. He didn’t. And just at the time he called the vote, it went 215-213 [on the electronic board].”

Because of an apparent malfunction with the electronic board during the roll call vote — which added to the confusion — both Republicans and Democrats on the committee indicated they were poised to recommend a rule requiring the presiding officer to refer to the tally slip before calling a vote.

Beyond that, the committee may have reached a stalemate.

“Our ideal outcome is, at best, for one member of the majority on the panel to join us in our description of what happened that night,” Pence said. “What we’re struggling with here as the minority is adding things up that don’t quite add up.”

The panel has been tasked with producing its report before Sept. 30.