Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

Guess what this really is.

They're trying hard to set precedence for future cases !!

((😆😬))

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no right that allows for infringement of another individuals rights.

None.

The DNC is lying.

Which ironically, IS considered free speech.

Until the dnc is held to account for this and such behavior ceases, I'm not sure I can vote democrat. I voted jill stein in the election after a lot of reflection, as I already knew some of this and knew Hillary was a war monger and wall st shill.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Guess what this really is.

They're trying hard to set precedence for future cases !!

((😆😬))

Well then people need to know what they are dealing with if this is really how primaries are.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I will always vote for the candidate that is for the most freedom.

Period.

I could give a fig if they have a D or an R or an I after their name.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I will always vote for the candidate that is for the most freedom.

Period.

I could give a fig if they have a D or an R or an I after their name.

Sure, but the parties generally need to be held to account. Watching NYC politics which I have friends working in, it gets dirty down to the lowest level. They even target real progressives or non establishment candidates at very low levels.

Once the DNC rules were written down.... they then became a legal obligation.... and that is where these people have a lawsuit. The laws the DNC broke are a lot like a companies employee manual.... it can be used against them just as it can be used against you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no right that allows for infringement of another individuals rights.

None.

The DNC is lying.

Which ironically, IS considered free speech.

It is also called Fraud and theft by deceit.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Removing Democratic politicians from the question and focusing just on people who support Democrats. How the hell is this tolerable for you? They take your money and then ignore your will and spend the money how ever they want. They then knowingly admit their illegal acts are actually legal under the 1st amendment? They also still have not removed super delegates from their primary system.

How is this acceptable to you guys?

To be fair, I don't think the average Democrat even knows...

a reply to: Xcathdra

I will never vote democrat again. The party must die and be reborn. No connections to the past. New blood all around. DC should be evicted.

originally posted by: Lumenari

No if only we can ban political parties and vote for the ideology of the candidate...

That's the most important bit, the American founding fathers wanted not..political parties, nor democracy, both bad words. Further, to avoid frivilous popularism, there came the electoral college with the intent to disallow the snake oil salesmen, or a total idiot, as a President. Probably, the intention there was to monitor a candidate for eligibility...well let's face it, it was. That didn't last too long though, nor is the electoral college a useful tool anymore..for a long time, since...damn it all, some dick thought it was a great idea to have political parties, and while those parties have the sway over the next Mr President, and all the caveats attached to that.
The thing is, the constitution wasn't written for today, it was written for yesterday...forward looking as it may have been at the time, but with a different conception, perhaps based on assumption, that things wouldn't change so much, as to be in the negative.
The law is pretty much all over the shop these days, re the constitution. It just does not work with political parties, and their institutions, as well as,[fill this space institutions] and ironically the advancement of knowledge and technology, (the real exceptionalism) and heightened awareness all round.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

No if only we can ban political parties and vote for the ideology of the candidate...

That's the most important bit, the American founding fathers wanted not..political parties, nor democracy, both bad words. Further, to avoid frivilous popularism, there came the electoral college with the intent to disallow the snake oil salesmen, or a total idiot, as a President. Probably,

the intention there was to monitor a candidate for eligibility...well let's face it, it was. That didn't last too long though, nor is the electoral college a useful tool anymore..for a long time, since...damn it all, some dick thought it was a great idea to have political parties, and while those parties have the sway over the next Mr President, and all the caveats attached to that.
The thing is, the constitution wasn't written for today, it was written for yesterday...forward looking as it may have been at the time, but with a different conception, perhaps based on assumption, that things wouldn't change so much, as to be in the negative.
The law is pretty much all over the shop these days, re the constitution. It just does not work with political parties, and their institutions, as well as,[fill this space institutions] and ironically the advancement of knowledge and technology, (the real exceptionalism) and heightened awareness all round.

In other words, you're fine with this, as long as it's your party doing it.

a reply to: elementalgrove

And how many are going the other way?

Becoming simmering violent revolutionaries because they feel there is no recourse? No party that will represent them and give them a legitimate voice? That's a danger too.

And final problem is that the DNC is killing itself if this goes on because they're exposing themselves as an anti-democratic institution. I understand that we live in a Republic and not a democracy, but the parties are there to promote candidates to the electorate and court the people, not court the people, take their money and then do whatever the heck they want regardless which is how it is starting to look.

I swear to GOD

The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: “There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign.”

But it's ok to forge law enforcement agencies in to a political weapon used by individuals that are unhappy they lost the presidential election.

I swear to GOD.

If there is any justice in this country.

The Democrat party burn to the effing ground.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

No if only we can ban political parties and vote for the ideology of the candidate...

That's the most important bit, the American founding fathers wanted not..political parties, nor democracy, both bad words. Further, to avoid frivilous popularism, there came the electoral college with the intent to disallow the snake oil salesmen, or a total idiot, as a President. Probably, (:lol

the intention there was to monitor a candidate for eligibility...well let's face it, it was. That didn't last too long though, nor is the electoral college a useful tool anymore..for a long time, since...damn it all, some dick thought it was a great idea to have political parties, and while those parties have the sway over the next Mr President, and all the caveats attached to that.
The thing is, the constitution wasn't written for today, it was written for yesterday...forward looking as it may have been at the time, but with a different conception, perhaps based on assumption, that things wouldn't change so much, as to be in the negative.
The law is pretty much all over the shop these days, re the constitution. It just does not work with political parties, and their institutions, as well as,[fill this space institutions] and ironically the advancement of knowledge and technology, (the exceptionalism) and heightened awareness all round.

Not true at all, actually. The founding fathers were looking at things that were happening in England, France, Spain, Italy. They put together a document that handled pretty much every contingency. Their only worry, if you read the papers, was the influence of the banks. The two current political parties are the embodiment of the banks.

The Constitution is not outdated. Sadly, the citizens are.

Now, we can go on about how, for at least the last 100 years, progressives have taken over the Democratic party, the Republican party and every other party to further their ideals. We can point out how they have infiltrated our schools, our government and our media. It is true. But that doesn't matter.

What matters is that we have a portion of our citizenry that is OK with being brought into the system, being indoctrinated to vote the right/wrong/left way and being taught to put their heads down and buy something. For the cause.

Now here we are.

We already have a rigorous social civil war going on, whether people want to discuss it or not.

Then we have the citizens that have not given a fig about politics most of their lives... they have just lived their lives without it. So when they got pushed, they went and voted. There was a reason Trump won.

The next push, in my humble opinion, will be entirely Constitutional.

It is alive and well, as much as people want it outdated, reworded, re-envisioned or refined.

Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

In case you missed it.

That is a de facto admission of guilt.

Which means Clinton was not the legitimate candidate to run against Trump.

If Muellers witch hunt continues?

It would be bull snip.

I am waiting for a rebuttal from our left leaning members.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the document.

Click link for full article...


So the first go around a Federal judge in Florida ruled the Federal courts dont have jurisdiction and dismissed the case, directing the complainants to use state courts. Not only did they file in state courts, they appealed the Federal courts ruling and won, getting the case reinstated at the Federal level.

The first go around saw the DNC lawyers argue that they could pick a candidate in a cigar filled backroom regardless of how Democrats voted in the primaries. They also argued the DNC never rigged any primaries. Apparently their new strategy is to not only admit they rigged the primaries against Sanders to help Clinton, but primary rigging is protected by the 1st amendment.

When will the insanity on the left end?

I think you're conflating the Democratic voters with the Democratic party. They're not the same.

I vote Democrat. I'm a registered Democrat. However, I don't pay dues to the party and I'm not involved in the decision making because I'm not a member of the party.

Those of us who vote but don't get involved are more like a football fan club. Like a fan club, we don't have much say over who ends up as the quarterback (but the investors, coaches, and team owners do.) But let's not kid ourselves that the candidates are people that are chosen by every single person who voted in the Democratic primaries or Democratic polls.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the document.

Click link for full article...


So the first go around a Federal judge in Florida ruled the Federal courts dont have jurisdiction and dismissed the case, directing the complainants to use state courts. Not only did they file in state courts, they appealed the Federal courts ruling and won, getting the case reinstated at the Federal level.

The first go around saw the DNC lawyers argue that they could pick a candidate in a cigar filled backroom regardless of how Democrats voted in the primaries. They also argued the DNC never rigged any primaries. Apparently their new strategy is to not only admit they rigged the primaries against Sanders to help Clinton, but primary rigging is protected by the 1st amendment.

When will the insanity on the left end?

I think you're conflating the Democratic voters with the Democratic party. They're not the same.

I vote Democrat. I'm a registered Democrat. However, I don't pay dues to the party and I'm not involved in the decision making because I'm not a member of the party.

Those of us who vote but don't get involved are more like a football fan club. Like a fan club, we don't have much say over who ends up as the quarterback (but the investors, coaches, and team owners do.) But let's not kid ourselves that the candidates are people that are chosen by every single person who voted in the Democratic primaries or Democratic polls.

You vote Democrat, but you do not pay dues to the democrat party so you are not a democrat?

a reply to: Byrd

That's priceless! The democrats are not the same as the democrats party. Therefore all voters are safe by degrees of separation from their party. Especially when there's fraud, rigged primaries, conspiracies, corruption and wrongdoing.

Does this mean that anyone who votes democrat are free from guilt or shame when things go wrong and get exposed?

a reply to: Xcathdra


So it was legal for the Democratic party to rob all the funds from Sanders campaign donations and then try to claim his entire base even though he was a way more popular candidate than ANY one else running? Look at photos from the road trips in speaking... his places were always packed; others had to narrow the view, force people to move in and squeeze together... to make it appear like people were showing up.

The funds go to the Party meaning it was the parties job to put the one that brought the most funds and voters to that side as their candidate... they were forcing the issue on Hillary who should have did the honorable thing and bowed out.

Of course theres an agenda and well those with that agenda want to push it as far as it can go to its breaking point before the reality of the situation is clear. Like the types that refuse to stop for directions even when knowing they are lost, or refuse to turn around before a dead end.

But whatever...