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

a reply to: ausername

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.

Must be nice to be a democrat.

For the last year I've been called a racist,white supremacists because I voted for Trump.

originally posted by: c2oden
I am waiting for a rebuttal from our left leaning members.

I was hoping some liberal legal experts would come along and at least attempt to explain how the 1st amendment can be interpreted to provide the democratic party the "right" to rig their own primaries as they wish.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Xcathdra

When will the insanity on the left end?

Never.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is certifiably insane.

Talk about an understatement... For this b*tch, I think we need to create a new phrase/term to describe how horrible she really is...

I hope Trump tweets this.

Then they'd have to talk about it.

originally posted by: c2oden

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?

Wouldn't this BS fall under the RICO act? Fraud, Money laundering and Federal Campaign violations, off the top of my head.

Glad I'm not a Dem.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: c2oden

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?

Wouldn't this BS fall under the RICO act? Fraud, Money laundering and Federal Campaign violations, off the top of my head.

Glad I'm not a Dem.

It'd fall under the snip they are trying to get Gates,and Manafort for.

I wonder why Mueller isn't.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What do you think a “superdelegate” is lol?!?!!


Rigging the primary is legal.. contrary to public opinion. The gop and Dems are not special..

There is exactly as much legal protection for them as the Green Party..

Political parties are 100% separate from the US government .

If the gop just decided we don’t want trump, even though he won fair and square. It would be perfectly legal..

They likely lose their base and the party falls, but there would be nothing illegal about it.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

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?

A court in the UK ruled emails obtained by wikileaks could be used as evidence. If a US court takes the same road then the wikileaks emails dealing with this mess can be introduced in the US lawsuit. Essentially the DNC is saying they will take donations from Democrats however the DNC leadership can pick whomever they want, in violation of their own charter and state and federal laws.

Even if this is true, it's using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, as well as how primaries have been represented to the public.

This election cycle really solidified my view that at the top there is a corrupt establishment. I used to think it was just the Republicans but I've been disabused of that notion.

For the liberals on ATS, that isn't just theoretical. I work with former Obama and Clinton campaign staff. I've seen a lot of political hackery, cronyism, and political patronage first hand.

The second that the Bush family threw their support behind Clinton, alarms should've went off in anyone's head that has a brain. Sadly, those alarms didn't go off for many.

Who personified the Republican party more than George & Jr.? It was unprecedented in history for an ex president to support the opposing party.

But hey, it was because Trumps insane right?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

No because each political party is completely independent from the government.

It would be like me cheating a blind vote for “employee of the month” at my job..


It should be illegal.. if the gop and Dems are gonna make a monopoly out of the political system. Then there should be laws protecting against corruption..


For example.. if the gop decided to nominate someone else at their convention. Even though trump won fair and square. It would be perfectly legal.

All the federal protections don’t kick in until the actual election.

Each party is perfectly free to lie cheat and steal outside of the actual elections themselves.



THAT IS WHY ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING IT IS CRIMINAL ARE EITHER IGNORANT OR PPUSHING PROPAGANDA..

It really is sad how uninformed the gop base is...

Those propaganda whores will have them convinced some totally ridiculous stuff..

a reply to: ausername

Both parties CAN rig the primary any way they wish...

The legal protections don’t kick in until the actual election.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: burgerbuddy

No because each political party is completely independent from the government.

It would be like me cheating a blind vote for “employee of the month” at my job..


It should be illegal.. if the gop and Dems are gonna make a monopoly out of the political system. Then there should be laws protecting against corruption..


For example.. if the gop decided to nominate someone else at their convention. Even though trump won fair and square. It would be perfectly legal.

All the federal protections don’t kick in until the actual election.

Each party is perfectly free to lie cheat and steal outside of the actual elections themselves.



THAT IS WHY ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING IT IS CRIMINAL ARE EITHER IGNORANT OR PPUSHING PROPAGANDA..

It really is sad how uninformed the gop base is...

Those propaganda whores will have them convinced some totally ridiculous stuff..

Do you think that is right? Or is it ok because it suits your agenda?

Without going too far off topic, yes the corrupt politics and rigged systems are exactly what has at various times in history turned people to a revolutionary bent. If you don't give people legitimate establishment ways to fix things, it often makes them want to turn into revolutionaries. a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ausername

Both parties CAN rig the primary any way they wish...

The legal protections don’t kick in until the actual election.

Do you believe that most people who voted in primaries are aware of this?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Some said since they couldn't get their candidate and since the turn coating occurred they went with Trump knowing no one really wanted him in there.

But hey he appealed to the speak your minds and not think twice about it even if it does lead to failure stand up deny it happened very political qualification btw then keep on trucking.

All of people with failed this and that can really appreciate someone that has had them, failed marriage failed business but hey he keeps on going...

of course a kickstart from parents of 300 million would have retired many on the spot and had been dead from drugs and hookers in a week, so no he thought big and has tried to go empirical on his own,

I think thats where most of his respect is among the populace.

I'm an independent I dont do party lines I think the best person for the job,,, of course thats best kept on local levels as many states are corrupted by party lines. Where it is buddy buddy and easy money... some say thats how the world works deal with it, but thats sort of thing is why the aclu and aacp etc still exist because it is that way.

Many positions filled with idiots of all types because of not sreading equal power and opportunity, buddy buddy leads to idiots in power and then beauocraqcy leads to placement of less qualified idiots taking positions over those more qualified.

So it is dumbed down as a system from both ends,

a reply to: neo96

join the middle. get a bird's eye view of the dealings of both parties and stigmas attached.

the 2 party system is designed to be flawed. democrats were ok with Clintons corruption, thats why Bernie endorsed her at the end after saying all he said. he knows what the system is, and was ok with the corruption.

the two party system is like Intel and AMD. somehow, neither has completely taken the other out of business when every other sector companies consume other companies with ease. Intel and AMD are the same companies.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Xcathdra



Ummm...when will it end...?

When the last person identifying as a leftist finally hangs their head in shame and admits defeat...from their corner...of that round rubber room...they inhabit...

YouSir

Which will leave only one major party in charge of everything...
Just like Soviet Russia
Just like the People's Republic of China
Just like North Korea

Be careful what you wish for...

a reply to: the owlbear


Honestly it already is that way... the it isnt is capitalisms smoke screen so the markets arent easy to rig insider trading was legal for those in the know... the jig is up though

Insanity? At least they admit it, republicans do/did the same thing.

If the NRA is looked at as a terrorist organization by many on the left, then what does that make the DNC ?? They tried to rig a #ing presidential election, and are now stating it’s protected under the 1st Amendment rights?? Holy hell, you can’t make this up.. insane!