HUH??? Dems SUE GOP over Trump's "election is rigged" complaint

[ShootSpeeders]

This really is incredible. The case should be thrown out but since it was filed in a federal court, i suspect it won't be

Democrats sue Republicans over Donald Trump's 'rigged' complaints - CNNPolitics.com

oct 26 2016 The Democratic National Committee is suing the Republican National Committee for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged," claiming that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities.

The suit, filed Wednesday in US District Court in New Jersey, argues that the RNC has not sufficiently rebuked Trump for the line of attack, which he has used as a rallying cry and is assumed to be a way to explain away a potential loss on Election Day.

"Trump has falsely and repeatedly told his supporters that the November 8 election will be 'rigged' based upon fabricated claims of voter fraud in 'certain areas' or 'certain sections' of key states," the Democratic attorneys, including Hillary Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias, wrote. "Unsurprisingly, those 'certain areas' are exclusively communities in which large minority voting populations reside."

 

[Pogo]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So, the Democrats must be guilty, eh? Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Redpath]

Can they sue Trump to get back the money he has stolen from tax payers?

 

[defcon4]

The Democrats seem to be desperate, their fraud has been exposed and they have to be real careful not to get caught and be imprisoned if they wanna risk it.

 

[defcon4]

Can they sue Trump to get back the money he has stolen from tax payers?

We are talking about election fraud, your trolling is not really appreciated in Zone 2.

 

[Hossfly]

Can they sue Trump to get back the money he has stolen from tax payers?

Sure they can sue. They can sue anyone for anything.

 

[OKTexas]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

 

[Pogo]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Judge should throw it out. Sticks and stones.....

 

[gtarguy921]

So, the Democrats must be guilty, eh? Otherwise, why bother?

Then Trump must be guilty of sexual assault

 

[OKTexas]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

 

[Pogo]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

I guess you'll stay on Ignore until you've learned to read.

I questioned his legal basis. He hasn't seen the suit. None of us have seen the suit --- if there is one. All we have is a three-paragraph story. If you think that's grounds for "throwing out" an action then you know even less about Law than about reading.

 

[Clementine]

This really is incredible. The case should be thrown out but since it was filed in a federal court, i suspect it won't be

Democrats sue Republicans over Donald Trump's 'rigged' complaints - CNNPolitics.com

oct 26 2016 The Democratic National Committee is suing the Republican National Committee for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged," claiming that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities.

The suit, filed Wednesday in US District Court in New Jersey, argues that the RNC has not sufficiently rebuked Trump for the line of attack, which he has used as a rallying cry and is assumed to be a way to explain away a potential loss on Election Day.

"Trump has falsely and repeatedly told his supporters that the November 8 election will be 'rigged' based upon fabricated claims of voter fraud in 'certain areas' or 'certain sections' of key states," the Democratic attorneys, including Hillary Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias, wrote. "Unsurprisingly, those 'certain areas' are exclusively communities in which large minority voting populations reside."

Dems are idiots. They didn't sue Obama when he claimed in 2008 that the election may be rigged due to voter fraud.

They just don't want the issue of fraud even discussed because someone might dig and find evidence.

Recently, an illegal alien arrested for a serious crime was discovered to have voted in the last 3 elections. What that tells us is that it takes an intense investigation to even find the fraud going on. Most goes undetected because no one is looking too hard. Only cases that show up are those tagged by the computer, such as people voting twice. A more careful check often reveals dead people voting and some fraudulent registrations. No one is finding out whether voters are citizens or whether the voting machines are hacked. When complaints continue to come in, like they did in past elections, of the machines changing votes, you see that any computer can be hacked. If it was a glitch, as claimed, the votes could 'accidentally' switch either way. Only ones I've heard are those changing votes to Hillary. Rigged.

 

[OKTexas]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

I guess you'll stay on Ignore until you've learned to read.

I questioned his legal basis. He hasn't seen the suit. None of us have seen the suit --- if there is one. All we have is a three-paragraph story. If you think that's grounds for "throwing out" an action then you know even less about Law than about reading.

There is no legal basis, you can't be held responsible for the speech of someone else, especially political speech. It will be summarily dismissed.

 

[Pogo]

And why should it be "thrown out"?

What the fuck, you're a Judge now?

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

I guess you'll stay on Ignore until you've learned to read.

I questioned his legal basis. He hasn't seen the suit. None of us have seen the suit --- if there is one. All we have is a three-paragraph story. If you think that's grounds for "throwing out" an action then you know even less about Law than about reading.

There is no legal basis, you can't be held responsible for the speech of someone else, especially political speech. It will be summarily dismissed.

And you're gonna sit there and swallow everything that CNN says describing it without question, are ya?
SMFH

 

[OKTexas]

You fucking regressives got any more inventive ways to come up with accusations of voter suppression. I think the hildabitch is looking for an excuse for loosing.

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

I guess you'll stay on Ignore until you've learned to read.

I questioned his legal basis. He hasn't seen the suit. None of us have seen the suit --- if there is one. All we have is a three-paragraph story. If you think that's grounds for "throwing out" an action then you know even less about Law than about reading.

There is no legal basis, you can't be held responsible for the speech of someone else, especially political speech. It will be summarily dismissed.

And you're gonna sit there and swallow everything that CNN says describing it without question, are ya?
SMFH

Are you saying the clinton news network would lie?

My only question is why did they file in NJ, do you think they were judge shopping?

 

[OKTexas]

This really is incredible. The case should be thrown out but since it was filed in a federal court, i suspect it won't be

Democrats sue Republicans over Donald Trump's 'rigged' complaints - CNNPolitics.com

oct 26 2016 The Democratic National Committee is suing the Republican National Committee for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged," claiming that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities.

The suit, filed Wednesday in US District Court in New Jersey, argues that the RNC has not sufficiently rebuked Trump for the line of attack, which he has used as a rallying cry and is assumed to be a way to explain away a potential loss on Election Day.

"Trump has falsely and repeatedly told his supporters that the November 8 election will be 'rigged' based upon fabricated claims of voter fraud in 'certain areas' or 'certain sections' of key states," the Democratic attorneys, including Hillary Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias, wrote. "Unsurprisingly, those 'certain areas' are exclusively communities in which large minority voting populations reside."

Dems are idiots. They didn't sue Obama when he claimed in 2008 that the election may be rigged due to voter fraud.

They just don't want the issue of fraud even discussed because someone might dig and find evidence.

Recently, an illegal alien arrested for a serious crime was discovered to have voted in the last 3 elections. What that tells us is that it takes an intense investigation to even find the fraud going on. Most goes undetected because no one is looking too hard. Only cases that show up are those tagged by the computer, such as people voting twice. A more careful check often reveals dead people voting and some fraudulent registrations. No one is finding out whether voters are citizens or whether the voting machines are hacked. When complaints continue to come in, like they did in past elections, of the machines changing votes, you see that any computer can be hacked. If it was a glitch, as claimed, the votes could 'accidentally' switch either way. Only ones I've heard are those changing votes to Hillary. Rigged.

He wasn't an illegal alien, he was a resident alien, in the country legally.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough although there IS a suit filed, it's not because of what the OP says.

The Dems are filing a suit against the GOP because of the way they had poll watchers back in the 80's in NJ, and the way they went about intimidating people.

Trump is calling for them to do the same thing again.

Might wanna Google "poll watchers Trump" as well as "GOP divorces Trump polls" sometime.

The GOP really wants to get rid of Trump, or any association they might have with him.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't address my post in the least, does it?

This asshat on a message board, with no legal training whatsoever, wants to "throw out" a lawsuit he hasn't even seen, based on a three-paragraph article he found on the internets two minutes before?

The OP at least had the presence of mind to run away from that question. You --- not so much.

Since I'm fully aware of your history of hypocrisy I'm very sure you'd be taking my position if the situation was reversed. I, on the other hand would say it was a bunch of shit no matter who filed it. The 1st amendment is all about political speech and courts have historically shied away form cases involving it, even speech that would be slanderous in any other circumstance. They're definitely not going to hold a nation party liable for anything an individual candidate might say. This is nothing but another diversion trying to draw attention away form all the bad things coming out about the hildabitch, it a weapon of mass distraction. Right by the Alinsky play book.

Feel free to try to point to where I got it wrong.

I guess you'll stay on Ignore until you've learned to read.

I questioned his legal basis. He hasn't seen the suit. None of us have seen the suit --- if there is one. All we have is a three-paragraph story. If you think that's grounds for "throwing out" an action then you know even less about Law than about reading.

There is no legal basis, you can't be held responsible for the speech of someone else, especially political speech. It will be summarily dismissed.

And you're gonna sit there and swallow everything that CNN says describing it without question, are ya?
SMFH

Are you saying the clinton news network would lie?

I'm saying you gullible asshats who automatically start drooling over any half-baked article you think presents something that helps your partisan bullshit without taking a nanosecond to vet what it's really about could be sold a cheese straightener.