DNC Lawsuit, cheered by USMB conservatives, is dismissed

[Ted Frazier]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

 

[washamericom]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

she fell from grace. not sure what you are celebrating. she was eying the whitehouse.

 

[MACAULAY]

I am a Conservative, and I don't see this as an event which justifies crowing by half-wits* for any reason---particularly as a taunt to Conservatives.

It was a battle between "Out-in-the-Open Socialists" and "Socialists still masquerading as Democrats".

__________
*You seem to think DebbieWasserman-Shultz is now smelling like a Rose to Socialists and Demo-Socialists alike...which I think justifies the reference to "half-wit".

 

[Ted Frazier]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

she fell from grace. not sure what you are celebrating. she was eying the whitehouse.

Now you're pretending she was "eyeing the White House". LOL. She wasn't. Link? Gateway Pundit links don't count as links, by the way..

 

[Ted Frazier]

I am a Conservative, and I don't see this as an event which justifies crowing by half-wits* for any reason---particularly as a taunt to Conservatives.

It was a battle between "Out-in-the-Open Socialists" and "Socialists still masquerading as Democrats".

__________
*You seem to think DebbieWasserman-Shultz is now smelling like a Rose to Socialists and Demo-Socialists alike...which I think justifies the reference to "half-wit".

After posting tons of threads on the lawsuit, conservatives go "meh", because they lost. Predictable.

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm not sure it's something to cheer about from either side.

First, the DNC argument before the court was that the Democratic National Committee did not have to have an open, fair, or Democratic process to choose their nominee. The argument that the Court had no authority to enforce the DNC Charter was victorious, but really, do you want to win that argument?

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The full transcript is interesting. The DNC lawyers argued that they have a first amendment right to deceive you the supporters into believing you have a voice in the process of picking a nominee.

So yes, cheer the victory, the Bernie folks were shot down, and they're going to run right out and back the Democratic Party now aren't they? Well not so far they aren't. Fundraising numbers for the DNC is down big time.

This is actually the crux of the Democratic Party's problem. you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republicans is automatically a supporter of the Democrats. Not so far they aren't.

 

[easyt65]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

Why would Conservatives on this board give a hoot in hell about this internal DNC Leftists squabble, where a Socialist Unca Bernie supporter sues DWS, the ex-DNC Chairman and leader of the Terrorist-Connected Pakistani Spy scandal, over the DNC rigging the DNC Primaries, engaging in election fraud, and cheating in debates to help criminal Hillary do something she could not do by herself - beat Sanders?

Unlike Snowflakes, we are not living in the past and are not stuck on the 2016 Presidential election in which Hillary lost to Trump.

Our silence, or at least mine, is due to the fact that I don't give a damn about it. Not one bit.

 

[washamericom]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

she fell from grace. not sure what you are celebrating. she was eying the whitehouse.

Now you're pretending she was "eyeing the White House". LOL. She wasn't. Link? Gateway Pundit links don't count as links, by the way..

who decides which links or statues are permissible ?
debbie's running for higher office was no secret. sorry to bum out your thread.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure it's something to cheer about from either side.

First, the DNC argument before the court was that the Democratic National Committee did not have to have an open, fair, or Democratic process to choose their nominee. The argument that the Court had no authority to enforce the DNC Charter was victorious, but really, do you want to win that argument?

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The full transcript is interesting. The DNC lawyers argued that they have a first amendment right to deceive you the supporters into believing you have a voice in the process of picking a nominee.

So yes, cheer the victory, the Bernie folks were shot down, and they're going to run right out and back the Democratic Party now aren't they? Well not so far they aren't. Fundraising numbers for the DNC is down big time.

This is actually the crux of the Democratic Party's problem. you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republicans is automatically a supporter of the Democrats. Not so far they aren't.

Yes. Everybody has always known that the DNC has always had the right to chose any candidate they wanted. It's exactly the same as the RNC in that way. Neither party is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. The RNC could have given the nomination to ANYONE. They weren't obligated to give it to Trump.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Ackers v Brazile et al gandce-17-03083 0003.0 (2) .pdf - PDF Archive

T:\IFP\Drafts\ackers-ifp-grant-frivolity.wpd (Ackers granted civil case.pdf) - PDF Archive

 

[theHawk]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

I fail to see what any lawsuit against the DNC would accomplish. A political party is a private entity and they can conduct themselves however they want. They clearly fucked over Bernie, but there is no law saying they had to give him a fair shake.

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm not sure it's something to cheer about from either side.

First, the DNC argument before the court was that the Democratic National Committee did not have to have an open, fair, or Democratic process to choose their nominee. The argument that the Court had no authority to enforce the DNC Charter was victorious, but really, do you want to win that argument?

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The full transcript is interesting. The DNC lawyers argued that they have a first amendment right to deceive you the supporters into believing you have a voice in the process of picking a nominee.

So yes, cheer the victory, the Bernie folks were shot down, and they're going to run right out and back the Democratic Party now aren't they? Well not so far they aren't. Fundraising numbers for the DNC is down big time.

This is actually the crux of the Democratic Party's problem. you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republicans is automatically a supporter of the Democrats. Not so far they aren't.

Yes. Everybody has always known that the DNC has always had the right to chose any candidate they wanted. It's exactly the same as the RNC in that way. Neither party is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. The RNC could have given the nomination to ANYONE. They weren't obligated to give it to Trump.

Yeah, when trying to defend something, don't insist that everyone else could do it.

The RNC did not want Trump. A large number of Republicn officials, elected and part of the Party establishment still don't want Trump. The RNC started the Opposition Research when it was painfully obvious that Trump was winning. They ended that research when Trump was the nominee chosen by the voters in the process. In other words the Republicans let the voters choose the nominee that everyone thought was going to lose.

The Democratic National Commitee decided to trick the voters, trick the supporters into thinking it was a fair and open process. It was grass roots baby. Trust us. When that became apparent that it wasn't, the Democratic Party shrugged and said you were the fools for thinking it was going to be open, and actually allow the voters to pick the candidate.

Now, let me tell you how it affected me, a person who voted Democratic my entire life. First, I swore I would not vote for Hillary about the day before she declared her nomination. I knew too much about her and her scheming to give her my vote. But I was still willing to vote for other Democrats. In fact, that was my original plan. Vote against Hillary and see if I could help get some Democrats onto the Local, State, and Statewide offices. Not to mention the House and Senate.

Over time, that changed. That changed when it became apparent that the Democratic National Committee was not playing fair. Hillary would have probably won the nomination anyway, the DNC was not taking any chances. They manipulated everything to make sure that Bernie lost. Bernie was supposed to be like Trump the joke candidate. Only the people were not laughing. They liked what Bernie had to say, and a lot liked what Trump had to say.

So about that time I decided to withhold my vote from any Democrat. I decided if the party was that corrupt, they did not deserve my vote. I had voted in every election since 1988, and I had voted Democratic every single time since that first election. Now, I was walking away from the party that I had supported my entire life. Not because I liked what the Republicans were. I think that Trump is wrong on a number of issues. But because I could at least say that Trump won fair and square.

The Democratic Party ran a sideshow pretending to be the party of the people. The Republicans accepted a terrible candidate because that's what the people wanted. The Democrats foisted a terrible candidate on the people pretending that she was their choice.

The Curtain fell, the Wizard was exposed. Then the emails were released, and that confirmed my belief, and my decision. The Democratic Party is free to pick anyone they want. I am free to vote against them in every election to come. I will, until they live up to their own charter, and actually become the party of the people they used to be.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure it's something to cheer about from either side.

First, the DNC argument before the court was that the Democratic National Committee did not have to have an open, fair, or Democratic process to choose their nominee. The argument that the Court had no authority to enforce the DNC Charter was victorious, but really, do you want to win that argument?

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The full transcript is interesting. The DNC lawyers argued that they have a first amendment right to deceive you the supporters into believing you have a voice in the process of picking a nominee.

So yes, cheer the victory, the Bernie folks were shot down, and they're going to run right out and back the Democratic Party now aren't they? Well not so far they aren't. Fundraising numbers for the DNC is down big time.

This is actually the crux of the Democratic Party's problem. you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republicans is automatically a supporter of the Democrats. Not so far they aren't.

Yes. Everybody has always known that the DNC has always had the right to chose any candidate they wanted. It's exactly the same as the RNC in that way. Neither party is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. The RNC could have given the nomination to ANYONE. They weren't obligated to give it to Trump.

Yeah, when trying to defend something, don't insist that everyone else could do it.

The RNC did not want Trump. A large number of Republicn officials, elected and part of the Party establishment still don't want Trump. The RNC started the Opposition Research when it was painfully obvious that Trump was winning. They ended that research when Trump was the nominee chosen by the voters in the process. In other words the Republicans let the voters choose the nominee that everyone thought was going to lose.

The Democratic National Commitee decided to trick the voters, trick the supporters into thinking it was a fair and open process. It was grass roots baby. Trust us. When that became apparent that it wasn't, the Democratic Party shrugged and said you were the fools for thinking it was going to be open, and actually allow the voters to pick the candidate.

Now, let me tell you how it affected me, a person who voted Democratic my entire life. First, I swore I would not vote for Hillary about the day before she declared her nomination. I knew too much about her and her scheming to give her my vote. But I was still willing to vote for other Democrats. In fact, that was my original plan. Vote against Hillary and see if I could help get some Democrats onto the Local, State, and Statewide offices. Not to mention the House and Senate.

Over time, that changed. That changed when it became apparent that the Democratic National Committee was not playing fair. Hillary would have probably won the nomination anyway, the DNC was not taking any chances. They manipulated everything to make sure that Bernie lost. Bernie was supposed to be like Trump the joke candidate. Only the people were not laughing. They liked what Bernie had to say, and a lot liked what Trump had to say.

So about that time I decided to withhold my vote from any Democrat. I decided if the party was that corrupt, they did not deserve my vote. I had voted in every election since 1988, and I had voted Democratic every single time since that first election. Now, I was walking away from the party that I had supported my entire life. Not because I liked what the Republicans were. I think that Trump is wrong on a number of issues. But because I could at least say that Trump won fair and square.

The Democratic Party ran a sideshow pretending to be the party of the people. The Republicans accepted a terrible candidate because that's what the people wanted. The Democrats foisted a terrible candidate on the people pretending that she was their choice.

The Curtain fell, the Wizard was exposed. Then the emails were released, and that confirmed my belief, and my decision. The Democratic Party is free to pick anyone they want. I am free to vote against them in every election to come. I will, until they live up to their own charter, and actually become the party of the people they used to be.

So you were a republican from the start. Only a republican could believe the long list of lies they accused Hillary of. Neither of the parties are bound by any vote. The RNC only accepted Trump because they didn't want to upset the crazies and cause more division in the party than there already was. The law suit was stupid, and only an idiot would have believed it would turn out other than it did.

 

[Dragonlady]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

I fail to see what any lawsuit against the DNC would accomplish. A political party is a private entity and they can conduct themselves however they want. They clearly fucked over Bernie, but there is no law saying they had to give him a fair shake.

They didn't "fuck over" Bernie. He didn't win the nomination. He had nowhere near the number of votes of Clinton.

Bernie wasn't a member of the Democratic Party and served as an independent in the Senate. When he decided to run for President, he joined the Party knowing he would need their money and organization to have a chance. That the Party leaders weren't happy about an outsider trying to highjack the Party can't be a surprise.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

Why would Conservatives on this board give a hoot in hell about this internal DNC Leftists squabble, where a Socialist Unca Bernie supporter sues DWS, the ex-DNC Chairman and leader of the Terrorist-Connected Pakistani Spy scandal, over the DNC rigging the DNC Primaries, engaging in election fraud, and cheating in debates to help criminal Hillary do something she could not do by herself - beat Sanders?

Unlike Snowflakes, we are not living in the past and are not stuck on the 2016 Presidential election in which Hillary lost to Trump.

Our silence, or at least mine, is due to the fact that I don't give a damn about it. Not one bit.

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

Why would Conservatives on this board give a hoot in hell about this internal DNC Leftists squabble, where a Socialist Unca Bernie supporter sues DWS, the ex-DNC Chairman and leader of the Terrorist-Connected Pakistani Spy scandal, over the DNC rigging the DNC Primaries, engaging in election fraud, and cheating in debates to help criminal Hillary do something she could not do by herself - beat Sanders?

Unlike Snowflakes, we are not living in the past and are not stuck on the 2016 Presidential election in which Hillary lost to Trump.

Our silence, or at least mine, is due to the fact that I don't give a damn about it. Not one bit.

You just embarrassed yourself. Here are threads stated by excited conservatives.
Did You Hear bout the Lawsuit Against he DNC? ME Neither Till Now.....

Lawyer suing DNC for fraud received voice-disguised call from D. Wasserman-Schultz's local office

DNC in middle of lawsuit over vote rigging for Clinton over Sanders

Media Not Reporting – Bernie Sanders Supporters Sue DNC

DNC lawyers tell Bernie Sanders supporters that they don't owe anyone a fair process

Sanders supporters, here's your chance.

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm not sure it's something to cheer about from either side.

First, the DNC argument before the court was that the Democratic National Committee did not have to have an open, fair, or Democratic process to choose their nominee. The argument that the Court had no authority to enforce the DNC Charter was victorious, but really, do you want to win that argument?

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The full transcript is interesting. The DNC lawyers argued that they have a first amendment right to deceive you the supporters into believing you have a voice in the process of picking a nominee.

So yes, cheer the victory, the Bernie folks were shot down, and they're going to run right out and back the Democratic Party now aren't they? Well not so far they aren't. Fundraising numbers for the DNC is down big time.

This is actually the crux of the Democratic Party's problem. you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republicans is automatically a supporter of the Democrats. Not so far they aren't.

Yes. Everybody has always known that the DNC has always had the right to chose any candidate they wanted. It's exactly the same as the RNC in that way. Neither party is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. The RNC could have given the nomination to ANYONE. They weren't obligated to give it to Trump.

Yeah, when trying to defend something, don't insist that everyone else could do it.

The RNC did not want Trump. A large number of Republicn officials, elected and part of the Party establishment still don't want Trump. The RNC started the Opposition Research when it was painfully obvious that Trump was winning. They ended that research when Trump was the nominee chosen by the voters in the process. In other words the Republicans let the voters choose the nominee that everyone thought was going to lose.

The Democratic National Commitee decided to trick the voters, trick the supporters into thinking it was a fair and open process. It was grass roots baby. Trust us. When that became apparent that it wasn't, the Democratic Party shrugged and said you were the fools for thinking it was going to be open, and actually allow the voters to pick the candidate.

Now, let me tell you how it affected me, a person who voted Democratic my entire life. First, I swore I would not vote for Hillary about the day before she declared her nomination. I knew too much about her and her scheming to give her my vote. But I was still willing to vote for other Democrats. In fact, that was my original plan. Vote against Hillary and see if I could help get some Democrats onto the Local, State, and Statewide offices. Not to mention the House and Senate.

Over time, that changed. That changed when it became apparent that the Democratic National Committee was not playing fair. Hillary would have probably won the nomination anyway, the DNC was not taking any chances. They manipulated everything to make sure that Bernie lost. Bernie was supposed to be like Trump the joke candidate. Only the people were not laughing. They liked what Bernie had to say, and a lot liked what Trump had to say.

So about that time I decided to withhold my vote from any Democrat. I decided if the party was that corrupt, they did not deserve my vote. I had voted in every election since 1988, and I had voted Democratic every single time since that first election. Now, I was walking away from the party that I had supported my entire life. Not because I liked what the Republicans were. I think that Trump is wrong on a number of issues. But because I could at least say that Trump won fair and square.

The Democratic Party ran a sideshow pretending to be the party of the people. The Republicans accepted a terrible candidate because that's what the people wanted. The Democrats foisted a terrible candidate on the people pretending that she was their choice.

The Curtain fell, the Wizard was exposed. Then the emails were released, and that confirmed my belief, and my decision. The Democratic Party is free to pick anyone they want. I am free to vote against them in every election to come. I will, until they live up to their own charter, and actually become the party of the people they used to be.

So you were a republican from the start. Only a republican could believe the long list of lies they accused Hillary of. Neither of the parties are bound by any vote. The RNC only accepted Trump because they didn't want to upset the crazies and cause more division in the party than there already was. The law suit was stupid, and only an idiot would have believed it would turn out other than it did.

Great, all of those long list of things were untrue? Awesome. Then perhaps you can explain a few things. Now, I post these because things that actually happened, things that are factual, are usually considered Truth.

First we must begin with the Bimbo Eruptions.



Again, it happened. Hillary assasinated the character of the women who Bill slept with. I don't care if he slept with every woman East of the Mississippi. But attacking the women, that's just a bit slimy don't you think?

But wait, there's more. Now Hillary is in the White House, and she wanted the Travel Office personnel fired. She ordered the staff to do it, and they ginned up a criminal prosecution that took the Jury about twelve minutes to come back with the not Guilty verdict. At first we were told Hillary had nothing to do with it. That was just Conspiracy Theory nonsense. Then a memo surfaced that showed she was in fact the instigator of it. Then the excuse was that Hillary as First Lady had no authority to order it and the staff were morons who followed her instructions because they were too stupid to know better. Again, it happened. It is factual.

White House travel office controversy - Wikipedia

Haitian Minimum wage? Snopes and Poltifact say that yes Hillary's state department pushed to stop Haiti from increasing the Minimum Wage to 61 cents an hour. But the excuse is that it was just a continuation of the Bush era policy, so Hillary isn't solely to blame.

Haiti and Hillary Clinton

I'm glad that isn't actually true, I mean, wow, if it was. Wait it was true after all?

Where is the long list of lies that I keep hearing about. Because the FACTUALLY true seems to be winning so far.

Hillary's State Department violating International Sanctions to arm Islamic Jihadist Rebels in Libya? That has to be false right?

Hillary Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban

Damn it. I'm sure we'll come across a false one that influenced my decision eventually right?

Ambassador Stevens. You know why he was in Benghazi in the first place right? I mean, how often do Ambassadors leave the Embassy, you know where they work, to visit a Consulate. The phrase not often is not quite enough. But the reason he was in Benghazi is he was doing the State Department's oversight and coordination with the CIA to run guns to Syria to arm the Islamic Jihadist Rebels in Syria. Again, this is factual, not Conspiracy Theory nonsense.

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

Well, that is just nonsense right? I mean, it's not like it was reported in the real news.

Arms Airlift to Syrian Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid

Now, which of those were just lies? Come on debunk that which has been accepted by even the Administration of Obama as the truth. Hillary ran out and crowed that we had overthrown Gaddaffi didn't she?



I mean sure we violated international sanctions to do it, and we started a civil war that still ravages the nation today. But that is all nonsense right?

Before you say that it never happened, let's go back to Travel Office. The Clinton White House admitted it happened. So are we busy rewriting history now? Memo Places Hillary Clinton At Core of Travel Office Case

The problem with Hillary wasn't the lies. My problem with Hillary was the truth. She was a terrible Secretary of State and got how many wars fired up that have caused unimaginable suffering and agony? Italy and Europe are nearly swamped in "refugee's" from Hillary's violation of international sanctions in shipping weapons to Libya. Yeah, Gadaffi was a bad guy, but there weren't any good guys to take over. Now we have a civil war that has been going on for years and nobody is in charge of the country. People are in charge of small sections or vast swaths of desert.

So are you going to deny the truth of what I've written, or are you going to rush off and comment somewhere else because you won't admit the truth?

 

[Ted Frazier]

Have you noticed that message board people post tons of threads announcing lawsuits against people they don't like... But if the verdict doesn't fit their narrative they don't even report it?

Well, it has been days since the fraud lawsuit against DNC leader Debbie Wasserman filed by a kooky Bernie supporter was dismissed.

Conservatives here are quiet. All you hear is crickets.

Now go do a search on "dnc Lawsuit" and you'll see how interested and excited they were before the verdict.

Losers are invited to come out of hiding in this thread.
Feel free to accuse Debbie Wasserman of yet another crime she will never be indicted or convicted for, if it makes you feel better.



Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

she fell from grace. not sure what you are celebrating. she was eying the whitehouse.

Now you're pretending she was "eyeing the White House". LOL. She wasn't. Link? Gateway Pundit links don't count as links, by the way..

who decides which links or statues are permissible ?
debbie's running for higher office was no secret. sorry to bum out your thread.

No. Debbie wasn't looking to run for President. Show links instead of repeating your bullshit.

 

[easyt65]

You just embarrassed yourself. Here are threads stated by excited conservatives.
Did You Hear bout the Lawsuit Against he DNC? ME Neither Till Now.....

Lawyer suing DNC for fraud received voice-disguised call from D. Wasserman-Schultz's local office

DNC in middle of lawsuit over vote rigging for Clinton over Sanders

Media Not Reporting – Bernie Sanders Supporters Sue DNC

DNC lawyers tell Bernie Sanders supporters that they don't owe anyone a fair process

Sanders supporters, here's your chance.

'Excited Conservatives'? More like 'SLOW NEWS DAY'.

Bernie Sanders is the other side of the FAILED 2016 DNC Presidential Election Coin.

The treasonous ex-DNC Chairwoman and facilitator / ringmaster of the terrorist-connected Pakistani Spy Ring worked in collusion with Hillary and top Liberal leaders to completely FU@K the members of the Democratic Party by rigging their primaries, engaging in election fraud, and cheating in debates to help Hillary defeat an 110yo Tales From The Crypt' Socialist Crypt Keeper - something she could not do on her own.

Hillary was under multiple FBI investigations, which should have driven her out of the race, for crimes she DID commit. Now she is a criminal 2-time loser rejected again as candidate to be President and spends her days attacking anyone and everyone she blames is the reason for her defeat.

DWS is a disgraced, exposed, traitor who helped give terrorist-connected Pakistani spies access - multiple times - to classified House information on US Intel, Homeland Security info, and Foreign Intel, and more - successfully compromising our National Security.

The woman who filed the law suit is a deranged snowflake who ids appalled at the revelation that the DNC lied to her, manipulated her, and stripped her of any right / power to actually choose who the DNC candidate was going to be. She never had such power - it was all a lie/illusion the DNC allowed her to believe.

The DNC's House is NOT in order.
- Their members have sued them.
- Their rigging elections has been exposed.
- Their engaging in election fraud has been exposed.
- Their illegal voters have been exposed.
- Their cheating in debates has been exposed.
- Their racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic personal e-mails were exposed.
- Their crimes have been exposed

...and they continue the crusade against Trump as hopeful distractions to it all.

The fact that the crack within the DNC was exposed by this lawsuit pails in comparison to all the other revelations...a mere drop in the bucket.

 

[easyt65]

No. Debbie wasn't looking to run for President. Show links instead of repeating your bullshit.

Debbie was a treasonous toady who returned to her mistress after being fired for her betrayal and espionage.

 

[Ted Frazier]

No. Debbie wasn't looking to run for President. Show links instead of repeating your bullshit.

Debbie was a treasonous toady who returned to her mistress after being fired for her betrayal and espionage.

You guys should start threads about how Debbie will in your opinion be charged with treason and Espionage. LOL.

Then, when you realize that she is never going to be charged, tell us how you were not even interested at all.