Repeating the BBC's coup d'etat paragraph at the beginning and the end of this piece cost it points for style. Its accusatory tone makes it sound unfair and failure to offer anyone in the administration or congress the chance to respond to his charges causes the story to lack balance. Yet, if true - and his evidence looks damning - this could be a very important story based on factual evidence that changes the context of Gonzales-gate completely. Time will tell if this has legs.

The detailed and supported allegations and documents reflect the best in journalism. The corresponding lack of coverage by the corporate US media, and the ignorance of the congress critters provides a stark contrast where a major crime is in evidence.

I want to not like Palast's writing style, but I have to admit he makes it a little more interesting. Omits the significant fact that Congress had to ask Goodling what caging means, and she gave a poor, actually incorrect description.

Unfortunately, I doubt this story has legs since Americans don't seem interested in investigating the possibility that the last two Presidential elections were stolen. But perhaps that will change. The first hyperlink provided gives lots more well-sourced detail on "caging" and how extensively it was used by the GOP in the 2004 "election." And much more here in a lengthy recent interview of Palast: http://beta.newstrust.net/webx?14@@.f0af63a and some video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjBOkkUARD4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebradblog%2Ecom%2F%3Fp%3D4551

If this story gets picked up with the same verve the Attorney Generals' Firing story got picked up, and if Congress starts investigating, this may lead to explosive revelations about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Very important issue & investigation, but I wish the article had referenced some corroborating sources (a link to the BBC report, maybe?) and provided a bit more detailed information.

Totally one-sided story full of assertions with no backing. I don't know if 'caging' is a felony, but I do know that challenging voters based on residency is legal. Oddly enough, even Democrats do it. And, illegally registered voters (to the extent that they existed at all) won the governor's race for a Dem in 2006. Was bradblog and the BBC all over that one? This 'story' is, to date, rubbish.

I keep trying to read this Palast thingie, but stumble over the word "blonde-ling." Palast's writing style, as always, makes it nearly impossible to care about the very important stories he covers. I hope someone better picks this up.

[This report's link was incorrectly entered. The link has been corrected and active.] AG

This is what is "missing" from a corporate run/biased media tha would bring us "bread and circuses" rather than the "real" story of what is increasingly happeneing to our democratic/constitutional rights. It seems so late in the "story" for american citizens to "WAKE-UP" to what has been an insidious process on too many fronts to rob us of our constitutional right to have our VOTE express our true feelings.There are many other sources with information about these illegal and constitutionally damaging actions and reporting about this is NOT just "accustory" bit a record of what has been happening!!!

The story sounds great but the link is dead. The blog page is a 404. EDIT>> I found a video version of this compelling, ground breaking, story at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254 This needs to be at the top of the news for the mainstream media soon! I have a hunch that congressional investigations are around the corner. I guess that's what it will take to get the media activated.

one of the few investigative journalists left.