Why I believe Trump and the RNC pulled a scam on the public with the TWO pledges they BOTH signed.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships

Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.

The law offices of Orly Taitz have been notified.

Oh, so it's too complicated to be true? Gotcha.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships

Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.

The law offices of Orly Taitz have been notified.

Why, yes! If you liken the facts to the Birther stuff it must make it totes untrue and nonsense.

pfft.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hate to tell you, but it's NOT legally binding. Lin k

"Ever since 1972, the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of political parties to control their own nomination process," Winger explained. That independence leverages the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. "Parties are private organizations," Winger said. "They have the right not to be merged with the government. They are associations of people that come together and work together for common political goals, and so essentially they're private." And therefore can control their own membership -- and candidates.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've been thinking kinda along the same lines... but kinda totally opposite too!

Trump is a businessman. He did not sign that pledge without getting something big in return. Given his friendliness to Cruz, I've been wondering if he and Cruz made a deal for VP if/when one of them won the nomination. But that wouldn't require signing the pledge, so I'm figuring he got some kind of promise from the RNC/Priebus too. I have no idea what though. I also suspect that it shook the RNC up quite a bit when Trump began taking donations, which is money right out of their coffers, so they may have been motivated to strike a deal with him.

It will be interesting to see if and how his campaigning manner changes after the pledge. It may be very telling in regards to their end game.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hate to tell you, but it's NOT legally binding. Lin k

"Ever since 1972, the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of political parties to control their own nomination process

That doesn't mean the contract DOES NOT AFFECT THIRD PARTIES. Like Trump donors. Legal agreements affect non-signing third parties all the time. As does this agreement.

Which is the entire point of my original post.

Hate to break that to you...again.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Did you bother to read the link? It is in fact NOT legally binding.

lin k....again

Ultimately, though, the loyalty oath depends on the good word of the candidate. If a candidate -- call him Ronald Bump -- were to pledge to support the Republican nominee but then decided to run as an independent, there's nothing that could be done to prevent him from doing so. The repercussions would be solely in the judgment of the voters. Which, for our hypothetical Bump candidate, might not be a significantly limiting factor.

a reply to: Boadicea

I have no doubt that every hand is washing another hand behind everything we are allowed to see.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships

Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.

The law offices of Orly Taitz have been notified.

Why, yes! If you liken the facts to the Birther stuff it must make it totes untrue and nonsense.

pfft.

It's about the credibility of controlled opposition.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Did you bother to read the link? It is in fact NOT legally binding.

What you quoted from SCOTUS only applies to political parties -- not donors who may have been defrauded thinking that Trump signed a binding pledge.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I used to say the pledge of allegiance in school, does that mean I am legally bound by oral contract to remain an American forever? No.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I used to say the pledge of allegiance in school, does that mean I am legally bound by oral contract to remain an American forever? No.

Great, so you agree it's a deceitful document and completely non-binding.

Moving on.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Or rather a customary practice, however with no legal strings attached.

Why the conspiracy? All parties knew at the signing it was a non-binding document.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why the conspiracy? All parties knew at the signing it was a non-binding document.

Again, the point of my original post is that there are third parties -- affected by the agreement -- who are not signing parties to the agreement. Donors. Voters.

Please read the post before commenting. Not to be rude, but I was clearly talking about third parties affected. I COMPLETELY acknowledged that BOTH signing parties were fully aware of what they signed.

The Pledge isn't legally binding, there would be ZERO fraud issues if Donald Trump goes back on it. It's really not worth the paper it's written on.

I'd say it's actually the smartest thing he's done so far.

By signing The Pledge, he quietens down all the naysayers and GOP establishment, and solidifies his position as front-runner.

However, if later on he goes back on The Pledge and runs as a third party candidate, his supporters are going to see this as a move basically sticking it to the Republican party mainstream, and they're going to LOVE HIM FOR IT.

Smart move by The Donald.

Again, the point of my original post is that there are third parties -- affected by the agreement -- who are not signing parties to the agreement. Donors. Voters.

You forgot the biggest influencers that will be affected by this - SUPER PACs.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why the conspiracy? All parties knew at the signing it was a non-binding document.

Again, the point of my original post is that there are third parties -- affected by the agreement -- who are not signing parties to the agreement. Donors. Voters.

Please read the post before commenting. Not to be rude, but I was clearly talking about third parties affected. I COMPLETELY acknowledged that BOTH signing parties were fully aware of what they signed.

Yes . It was kind of a sham to calm voter's and donor's nerves.And yes I did read the OP. When I stated that perhaps I should have also asked , What does that do for voters and donors ... A non-binding document does nothing for either.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: MrDesolate

I am pretty sure his birth certificate was released...it's his PASSPORT that hasn't been released despite public demand to see it.

Trump doesn't have a birth certificate he has a certificate of live birth. Which is funny seeing how he claimed that wasn't good enough for Obama to be President but it is good enough for him to be President.

originally posted by: babybunnies

Again, the point of my original post is that there are third parties -- affected by the agreement -- who are not signing parties to the agreement. Donors. Voters.

You forgot the biggest influencers that will be affected by this - SUPER PACs.

I did not think of them specifically, you are correct. But I would think they would have the same third party rights as the individual donors I was thinking of.

THANK YOU! It's a great point.

a reply to: Gothmog

If they donate under the belief that he has legally agreed not to break from the party -- donors have THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.

Just the same as if someone settles with a hospital after negotiating a medical malpractice case -- the person's medical insurance has THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. And they can collect reimbursement from the settlement money for any medical expenses paid that have been reimbursed. Even if the insurance company never signed off on the settlement agreement.

The legal analysis I quoted CLEARLY speaks about THIRD PARTY RIGHTS to contracts/agreements they were not a party to.