Did The DNC Help Hillary Clinton Beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

Interesting read, And pics.

Was Bernie roughed up?

If Bernie was roughed up, and his wife threatened by Hillary/DNC "goons", what would he stand to lose now, by confirming that it happened? The "sympathy" support he'd receive would be YUGE.

Maybe with twin terrors PEREZ and CLINTON running things, he's more intimidated than ever?

a reply to: carewemust

True! Perez is just awful.

I am recalling a thread here on ATS that described
this incident, if you know the thread please link.

a reply to: Flatfish

There is a full investigation into voter fraud now, which for some reason the democrats don't want, so we will see how the illegal votes were shared out and to whom.
I suspect much higher than 3m for the democrats..

a reply to: UKTruth

Ya know a part of me thinks the Democrats / DNC (those in the Clinton circle anyways) tried to rig the election and something went wrong. I know there was a big push for people to use paper ballots instead of electronic machines. I am curious if that threw a monkey wrench in the gears.

The reaction from the left (media / politicians / etc) all thought it was in the bag. The way the "deep state" is going after Trump... Something is wrong.

As for the DNC lawsuit the Democrats royally screwed themselves. In order to get out of the fraud charge they argue they have every right to ignore the will of the people / democrats / the DNC charter. It's like being in court on a burglary charge and telling the judge if im found not guilty do I get to keep the stuff I stole.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Flatfish

There is a full investigation into voter fraud now, which for some reason the democrats don't want, so we will see how the illegal votes were shared out and to whom.
I suspect much higher than 3m for the democrats..

How about a little wager?

How about I'll pay you one dollar for every case, (up to 3 million) of in-person voter fraud that this investigation substantiates and you pay me one dollar for every one of the alleged 3 million that can't be proven?

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

a reply to: Flatfish

What's your definition of proof in that bet, just curious.

a reply to: Flatfish

Not to throw a damper on your wager but its the responsibility of the states to investigate voter fraud. The states is where the info will be coming from and if anyone wants to google / yahoo / what have you search you will find a lot of people illegally voted.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge it for obvious reasons. Jay Leno said it best when we had the huge issue with using the term illegal alien with people wanting to call them undocumented aliens. Leno said it was more like undocumented Democrats.

Imagine if they lose this case in 2018 right before the midterms, another wipe out.

Makes me think Ron Paul people could have sued the RNC in 2012 for their shenanigans, to have Romney win.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Imagine if they lose this case in 2018 right before the midterms, another wipe out.

Makes me think Ron Paul people could have sued the RNC in 2012 for their shenanigans, to have Romney win.

does the RNC charter promise impartiality?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

What's your definition of proof in that bet, just curious.

It's really pretty simple. Just provide documentation that an individual physically voted more than once in the 2016 presidential election, physically voted in the election while not eligible to vote and/or physically voted while dead.

Being registered to vote in more than one place does not count. Being registered to vote while dead does not count.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flatfish

Not to throw a damper on your wager but its the responsibility of the states to investigate voter fraud. The states is where the info will be coming from and if anyone wants to google / yahoo / what have you search you will find a lot of people illegally voted.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge it for obvious reasons. Jay Leno said it best when we had the huge issue with using the term illegal alien with people wanting to call them undocumented aliens. Leno said it was more like undocumented Democrats.

Internet searches don't count. Anyone can say anything on the internet and they do on a regular basis.

Yes, the states will provide the info and right now, the states aren't saying anything remotely similar to 3 million illegal votes.

And if they did, it would make them look pretty bad at their job of orchestrating a vote, now wouldn't it?

a reply to: Flatfish

So if the conclusion is this happened, but they don't have documentation you accept, then for you it doesn't count? Because part of the Democrats modus operandi is to destroy documentation. In fact that is their official stance on ID's given to illegals, destroy all documentation provided. Keep no records so it's hard to prove even though it happened.

a reply to: Flatfish

More votes than voters in many Detroit precincts

About 37 percent of precincts in Wayne County, Michigan, where Detroit is located, showed such discrepancies, the newspaper reported, citing records prepared at its request by the county.

www.reuters.com...

Not sure why the thread has a question mark. They did tilt the primary towards Clinton. This is a given. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was fired over it. The court is just going to determine whether it was legal.

Democracy was not allowed in the Democrat primary. It's ironic Hillary supporters are still whining about the popular vote in the general, conveniently forgetting that in the primary she was given numerous states that Sanders received more votes in.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

So if the conclusion is this happened, but they don't have documentation you accept, then for you it doesn't count? Because part of the Democrats modus operandi is to destroy documentation. In fact that is their official stance on ID's given to illegals, destroy all documentation provided. Keep no records so it's hard to prove even though it happened.

Look, I don't know where you come up with all these crazy hypotheticals but it's not that hard to understand.

If it won't hold up in court, then it won't hold up for me.

I don't want to hear a bunch of stupid crap about how you'd have the evidence but......

Prove your case or shut the hell up.

Unlike our dumbass president, I still have faith in our courts and system of justice.

a reply to: Flatfish

Hypotheticals?

New York City on Friday claimed a victory in its fight to protect undocumented immigrants when a Staten Island judge ruled, after four months of deliberations, that the city could destroy personal documents

www.nytimes.com...

It can't be proved in court, because they intentionally destroy the evidence for the sole purpose of making it impossible to prove, and the justice system you have faith in has sanctioned it.

More than one million people have applied for the IDNYC card since 2015. The card has been popular with immigrants living in the city without legal authorization

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

More votes than voters in many Detroit precincts

About 37 percent of precincts in Wayne County, Michigan, where Detroit is located, showed such discrepancies, the newspaper reported, citing records prepared at its request by the county.

www.reuters.com...

Then it's incumbent on those counties to provide the proof to substantiate their claims and to prosecute those responsible.

You know what they say....."pictures, or it didn't happen."

In this case, proof and prosecution or it didn't happen.

a reply to: Flatfish

Exactly what I thought. You don't care if it actually happened. You don't care Democrats are intentionally trying to make it impossible to prove.

I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, ah well.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

Hypotheticals?

New York City on Friday claimed a victory in its fight to protect undocumented immigrants when a Staten Island judge ruled, after four months of deliberations, that the city could destroy personal documents

www.nytimes.com...

It can't be proved in court, because they intentionally destroy the evidence for the sole purpose of making it impossible to prove, and the justice system you have faith in has sanctioned it.

More than one million people have applied for the IDNYC card since 2015. The card has been popular with immigrants living in the city without legal authorization

So what!

Are they using that card to vote?

Are voting precincts accepting those cards as a substitute for voter registration?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

Exactly what I thought. You don't care if it actually happened. You don't care Democrats are intentionally trying to make it impossible to prove.

I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, ah well.

Yeah well, you just keep on believing in un-provable stuff and see where that gets you.

Maybe it was 3 million ghosts who illegally voted and then destroyed the proof.

PLEASE!!!!!