It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile

page: 17
80
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I called it.

I knew that Hillary would not win vs Trump.




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still waiting on you to show a rigged Primary or Caucus.

Oops

Feel free to whine at fox being the source, go ahead and F3 "donna" on CNN.COM - hint, nothing.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still waiting on you to show a rigged Primary or Caucus.

Oops

Feel free to whine at fox being the source, go ahead and F3 "donna" on CNN.COM - hint, nothing.


Now, feel free to show me where there is a claim made that Sanders was denied a place on any ballot, or that any votes cast for him were not counted, or that there is any indication that there was voter fraud or election fraud in any Primary or Caucus in this country last year.

I'll wait ...



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Provided.. you should read it.
Again -
7 Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuithggh

Read the above. You will see the information addressed is linked to the court filings by the DNC as responses to the charges.

The key points -

1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.



2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.



3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.



4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.



5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.



6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact, conduct the 2016 primary fairly.



7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.




Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile


Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."


Still waiting on you to show us how D.B. / DNC lawyers are wrong and how you are right.

Cite your proof so we all can read it.


There is zero proof here about any Primary or Caucus that was faked, fraudulent or otherwise compromised. You keep posting the same thing, and I've responded three times now that this material says NOTHING about faked Primaries or Caucuses.

So I'll ask again. Do you have evidence that Sanders was kept off any ballot in the Primaries? Were votes for him sent to Clinton?

You're answering the question "Does the DNC claim to be able to favor candidates" and they did in the case that was thrown out. I have never disputed that ... but it does not address the claim that Sanders was cheated.

Sanders was on the Ballots; Clinton was on the Ballots.

Democrats voted.

Sanders lost; Clinton won.

Can you dispute that? Or not.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are just all over the place...

Any reason you dont beleive D.B. or DNC lawyers? Or the reports of Democratic voter rolls for the primaries being tampered with? Or how Clinton delegates were counted and during a recount Sanders delegates were omitted.

You have lost this argument. Time to accept the fact the DNC under Clinton used its members in a massive fraud in order to deceive the public in order to win the presidency.

Now where is this evidence you have that says DNC lawyers and D.B. are wrong and liars?

link please.
edit on 2-11-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I’m not all over the place.

I haven’t denied even once that individuals on the DNC acted unethically.

I haven’t disputed the claims of the DNC attorneys as you keep dishonestly claiming.

I have said and will keep saying that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Bernie Sanders was kep off any ballot, that votes for him were not counted, that the totals of delegates for Clinton from the Primaries and Caucuses was 54% and Sanders was less than that. Sanders lost. Clinton won.

That is my claim.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

I’m not all over the place.

I haven’t denied even once that individuals on the DNC acted unethically.

I haven’t disputed the claims of the DNC attorneys as you keep dishonestly claiming.

I have said and will keep saying that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Bernie Sanders was kep off any ballot, that votes for him were not counted, that the totals of delegates for Clinton from the Primaries and Caucuses was 54% and Sanders was less than that. Sanders lost. Clinton won.

That is my claim.


I will take the word of DNC lawyers and the DNC chair over yours.= - sadly that says a lot.

Still waiting for you to supply evidence DNC lawyers and D.B. are lying. Make sure your source is legal documents as the DNC info I provided come directly from the DNC legal brief.

Clinton won because she cheated. She is a liar who has ethics that would raise eyebrows in the court of Caligula.

Adolf Hitler is more trustworthy then Clinton.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Ok, here's what I don't understand....if Hillary made a deal with the DNC, in August 2015, to take care of Obama's 2012 campaign debt -- then why did Obama make a deal with the DNC, in September 2015, to help take care of his campaign debt?

Politico



Because he still had the debt. Clinton helping he DNC stay above water doesnt wipe away Obama's debt.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I haven’t made a claim that DNC lawyers are lying.

DNC lawyers did not claim that the Primaries or Caucuses were faked or fraudulent.

No Wikileaks email claimed that either.

You and others have claimed that Sanders was cheated in the Primaries but have no proof.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still waiting for you to show a rigged Primary.



It wont be shown as it's a hyperbolic talking point from Warren. As with all things, some people take one opinion from a relatively unimportant figurehead and run with it as law and proof positive that there is something nefarious. There MAY be something nefarious, but it can't be proven by anyone on here.

Oh wait, I forgot, it can be....by the fake news that everyone keeps citing LOL


I'll admit, aside from the psychosis that is politics ... I'm unsure why today is the day to dredge up more crap about Clinton.

Did I hear that Kutchner will be indicted by the Mueller investigation as well; are they all providing smoke to the White House now???

Just to make sure, you see my point about this alleged "rigging" of the Primaries, right? Is there some way I can say it differently? I feel like I'm speaking in another language to the illiterate.


Of course, I see your point about the rigging.

I think where the rift is, is between viewing it from a completely logistical point of view (or literal point of view) versus perceived point of view.

It appears to me that they are arguing that the perception lacking proof but assumed by even some party heads is that the essence was one of being rigged for Hillary to win whereas you are literally posturing yourself to say that because Sanders name was on the ballot and because there is no definitive proof that any of the votes for Bernie were instead counted for Hillary, that it wasn't rigged. In my honest opinion, I think there is even a wide rift on the actual definition being used here with respect to "rigged"....maybe a definition of what it means is in order before trying to take any position on it.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Clinton won because she cheated..


There’s your claim.

Now the fact is that Clinton won because she had the most delegates won in the Primaries and Caucuses.

If Clinton “cheated” those totals, how was it done?

Back that up with evidence.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Yes.

The candidate with the most delegates won the nomination.

The delegates were assigned by popular vote in Primaries and Caucuses.

Clinton won that popular vote and that is how she won the nomination.

I can’t state it any simpler than that, LOL.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep. I agree, but some hear the aforementioned figurehead say "rigged" and they automatically assume it means the exact same as manipulated votes.


Sometimes you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to prevent your position from falling upon deaf ears. I've found that being the smartest guy in the room isn't always the best approach; sometimes it's more effective to be an idiot.


edit on 2-11-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So I have gone through this thread now and why do you keep copy pasting this like it actually proves your point?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'll wait ...

Keep waiting then. You asked for a proof of a rigged primary, you got it straight from the horse's mouth.
Gonna echo it once more since it probably rubs you real good;

Donna Brazile: "I found 'proof' the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton"

None of us who bothered following Wikileaks during the election (rather than screaming RUSSIAN HACKERS at it) are surprised. We're more surprised Donna is finally being honest.
edit on 2-11-2017 by 1337Kph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

I haven’t made a claim that DNC lawyers are lying.

DNC lawyers did not claim that the Primaries or Caucuses were faked or fraudulent.

No Wikileaks email claimed that either.

You and others have claimed that Sanders was cheated in the Primaries but have no proof.


You did by ignoring everything the DNC lawyers stated in their brief and everything S.B. exposed. Then you have the nerve to say no evidence has been provided.

Evidence has been provided.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Clinton won because she cheated..


There’s your claim.

Now the fact is that Clinton won because she had the most delegates won in the Primaries and Caucuses.

If Clinton “cheated” those totals, how was it done?

Back that up with evidence.


i did via the DNC legal brief where they said they rigged the primary and by D.B. who said it was rigged.

so either read and accept the facts or stop bitching about something thats been provided 10 times over all the while you have provided nothing to support your claim.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Xcathdra

So I have gone through this thread now and why do you keep copy pasting this like it actually proves your point?


Because the information in that brief is from the DNC lawyers during their defense. D. Brazile has said the same thing.

Why are you ignoring the very people who would know for certain what occurred?

Or, like I asked Gryphon66 who still cant support it - what info do you have that shows you are right and the DNC lawyers and former chair of the DNC are wrong?
edit on 3-11-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
TRIGGER WARNING
edit on 3-11-2017 by 1337Kph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join