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

[easyt65]

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

The New Black Panthers did this for Obama, carrying clubs at a voting location, for which they were arrested. Not to worry - Eric Holder showed up and had all the charges dropped.

 

[bodecea]

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

Why should he? What's your legal argument for dismissal?

 

[bodecea]

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

The New Black Panthers did this for Obama, carrying clubs at a voting location, for which they were arrested. Not to worry - Eric Holder showed up and had all the charges dropped.

Yes, we know those TWO guys EIGHT years ago still scare you silly.

 

[bodecea]

Like I've mentioned before, where I vote we can't have "poll watchers" because the parking lot is too small. They'd be standing in the street. Or across the road in the ditch. But we are an open carry state, and I don't like the idea of snarling Trump supporters with AR-whatever's over their shoulders glaring at voters as they walk into the voting places elsewhere. It serves no purpose, except to intimidate voters. What is watching going to catch? Really?

There are bunches of official watchers in the polling place (and NO, TN, they aren't all Democrats!) to see things go according to the rules. Maybe the DNC is taking Trump's comment too seriously by bringing a suit, but maybe some of Trump's supporters have got the wrong end of the stick and think it's a good idea to go menace anyone who isn't going to vote for Trump.

Around here, they'd get decked for trying, at least I hope so. Trump will probably win around here, but it isn't even considered polite to ask a person who they voted for, so it wouldn't go over well having people messing about at the polling place.

How do you spin "watch for fraud" into voter intimidation? Especially coming from these slimy hypocritical hacks?

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

Yeah....cracks me up......

 

[jc456]

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

The New Black Panthers did this for Obama, carrying clubs at a voting location, for which they were arrested. Not to worry - Eric Holder showed up and had all the charges dropped.

Yes, we know those TWO guys EIGHT years ago still scare you silly.

just factual.

 

[easyt65]

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

The New Black Panthers did this for Obama, carrying clubs at a voting location, for which they were arrested. Not to worry - Eric Holder showed up and had all the charges dropped.

Yes, we know those TWO guys EIGHT years ago still scare you silly.

No, I was just pointing out that people have been arrested for 'intimidation' at the polls. Anyone who does so need to be escorted from the premises.

Hey, if college students can demand and get their own 'safe zones' then voters should be able to.

 

[jc456]

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

The New Black Panthers did this for Obama, carrying clubs at a voting location, for which they were arrested. Not to worry - Eric Holder showed up and had all the charges dropped.

Yes, we know those TWO guys EIGHT years ago still scare you silly.

No, I was just pointing out that people have been arrested for 'intimidation' at the polls. Anyone who does so need to be escorted from the premises.

Hey, if college students can demand and get their own 'safe zones' then voters should be able to.

these libturds can't ever clear the irony.

 

[Tom Horn]

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

Yep...they sue us for wanting to watch them cheat us......nothing to see here, folks.

 

[OldLady]

Like I've mentioned before, where I vote we can't have "poll watchers" because the parking lot is too small. They'd be standing in the street. Or across the road in the ditch. But we are an open carry state, and I don't like the idea of snarling Trump supporters with AR-whatever's over their shoulders glaring at voters as they walk into the voting places elsewhere. It serves no purpose, except to intimidate voters. What is watching going to catch? Really?

There are bunches of official watchers in the polling place (and NO, TN, they aren't all Democrats!) to see things go according to the rules. Maybe the DNC is taking Trump's comment too seriously by bringing a suit, but maybe some of Trump's supporters have got the wrong end of the stick and think it's a good idea to go menace anyone who isn't going to vote for Trump.

Around here, they'd get decked for trying, at least I hope so. Trump will probably win around here, but it isn't even considered polite to ask a person who they voted for, so it wouldn't go over well having people messing about at the polling place.

How do you spin "watch for fraud" into voter intimidation? Especially coming from these slimy hypocritical hacks?

I asked first, answer my question: What is "watching" going to catch? What do watchers do? They stand outside the polling place and look at people as they walk in and out. Did I get that wrong? So maybe they could watch the same person walking in twice, if they're very good watchers and actually remember every single face they see. Like I said, some zealot will take advantage of his open carry rights and .... armed people staring at me is twice as bad.
A bunch of people standing and staring at me as I walk into the polling place and as I walk back out is intimidating--and do you really think they'll be silent, these watchers?
It's a bad idea. And I really want to know what exactly these watchers will accomplish. Not generally, but specifically, TN.

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. Not in my town, but in places where folks carry their AR-s to protests, like Texas for example. I'm not trying to exaggerate, unless you take some of the folks here seriously, which I suppose I shouldn't.

 

[jc456]

Like I've mentioned before, where I vote we can't have "poll watchers" because the parking lot is too small. They'd be standing in the street. Or across the road in the ditch. But we are an open carry state, and I don't like the idea of snarling Trump supporters with AR-whatever's over their shoulders glaring at voters as they walk into the voting places elsewhere. It serves no purpose, except to intimidate voters. What is watching going to catch? Really?

There are bunches of official watchers in the polling place (and NO, TN, they aren't all Democrats!) to see things go according to the rules. Maybe the DNC is taking Trump's comment too seriously by bringing a suit, but maybe some of Trump's supporters have got the wrong end of the stick and think it's a good idea to go menace anyone who isn't going to vote for Trump.

Around here, they'd get decked for trying, at least I hope so. Trump will probably win around here, but it isn't even considered polite to ask a person who they voted for, so it wouldn't go over well having people messing about at the polling place.

How do you spin "watch for fraud" into voter intimidation? Especially coming from these slimy hypocritical hacks?

I asked first, answer my question: What is "watching" going to catch? What do watchers do? They stand outside the polling place and look at people as they walk in and out. Did I get that wrong? So maybe they could watch the same person walking in twice, if they're very good watchers and actually remember every single face they see. Like I said, some zealot will take advantage of his open carry rights and .... armed people staring at me is twice as bad.
A bunch of people standing and staring at me as I walk into the polling place and as I walk back out is intimidating--and do you really think they'll be silent, these watchers?
It's a bad idea. And I really want to know what exactly these watchers will accomplish. Not generally, but specifically, TN.

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. Not in my town, but in places where folks carry their AR-s to protests, like Texas for example. I'm not trying to exaggerate, unless you take some of the folks here seriously, which I suppose I shouldn't.

you stated you saw armed people watching the voting centers. did you or not?

 

[OldLady]

Okay. You win. Dems wear black hats, Republicans wear white hats. Since I've always been an independent, it's all the same to me, so long as people are fair about it.
All that matters, despite the dirty tricks the parties use to gain power, is the policies they enact and the decisions leaders make. That's what counts. I just can't get worked up about the wikileaks stuff, the video of ...Creamer, was it? ... because that's how it is, and there's no changing it. Maybe I'm too cynical. Or too tired. Something.

Didn't mean to suggest one wears 'white hats' and the other wears 'black hats'. As you pointed out, both DO 'bad' stuff. It's just so far in this election period we have seen the DNC, Hillary, and Obama going all out to take this election.

I fully understand the frustrating level. Every 4 years we can expect negative campaigns, dirty tricks, illegal tactics, and violence...and it keeps getting worse and worse.


I like Cheryl Crow's idea - make the 'campaign season' a LOT shorter. I would add in 'fining' / punishing any campaign that resorts to / is caught resorting to illegal / unethical / negative campaigning (which you can't do due to the 1st Amendment, I know). I wish we could limit candidates to promoting themselves, their ideas, and what they can / will do,

A MUCH shorter campaign season would be tremendously helpful, as well as seriously limited polls. The way to limit candidates to promoting themselves is to refuse to support those that engage in a mud slinging campaign. It seems the populace is enamored of it, though. Keeping it clean didn't work for Kasich or Sanders.

 

[OldLady]

Like I've mentioned before, where I vote we can't have "poll watchers" because the parking lot is too small. They'd be standing in the street. Or across the road in the ditch. But we are an open carry state, and I don't like the idea of snarling Trump supporters with AR-whatever's over their shoulders glaring at voters as they walk into the voting places elsewhere. It serves no purpose, except to intimidate voters. What is watching going to catch? Really?

There are bunches of official watchers in the polling place (and NO, TN, they aren't all Democrats!) to see things go according to the rules. Maybe the DNC is taking Trump's comment too seriously by bringing a suit, but maybe some of Trump's supporters have got the wrong end of the stick and think it's a good idea to go menace anyone who isn't going to vote for Trump.

Around here, they'd get decked for trying, at least I hope so. Trump will probably win around here, but it isn't even considered polite to ask a person who they voted for, so it wouldn't go over well having people messing about at the polling place.

How do you spin "watch for fraud" into voter intimidation? Especially coming from these slimy hypocritical hacks?

I asked first, answer my question: What is "watching" going to catch? What do watchers do? They stand outside the polling place and look at people as they walk in and out. Did I get that wrong? So maybe they could watch the same person walking in twice, if they're very good watchers and actually remember every single face they see. Like I said, some zealot will take advantage of his open carry rights and .... armed people staring at me is twice as bad.
A bunch of people standing and staring at me as I walk into the polling place and as I walk back out is intimidating--and do you really think they'll be silent, these watchers?
It's a bad idea. And I really want to know what exactly these watchers will accomplish. Not generally, but specifically, TN.

so have you seen an armed person standing and watching or are you just over exaggerating this?

I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. Not in my town, but in places where folks carry their AR-s to protests, like Texas for example. I'm not trying to exaggerate, unless you take some of the folks here seriously, which I suppose I shouldn't.

you stated you saw armed people watching the voting centers. did you or not?

Nope. Read that again, slowly this time.

 

[easyt65]

I have seen them reported on TV but never personally in my precinct.

 

[Tom Horn]

A MUCH shorter campaign season would be tremendously helpful, as well as seriously limited polls. The way to limit candidates to promoting themselves is to refuse to support those that engage in a mud slinging campaign. It seems the populace is enamored of it, though. Keeping it clean didn't work for Kasich or Sanders.

I see now that Megyn Kelly has hired a big-shot entertainment agent, Sheryl Crow of all people appears on her show. And Megyn, obviously star-struck, made a fool of herself, as usual. The real issue is what campaigns cost and they cost what they cost because the media charges what they do for advertising. What would stop that is the FCC requiring broadcast licenses to provide a certain amount of FREE AIR TIME to major party candidates or anybody with say 25% support in major polling.

 

[paperview]

For your reading pleasure, from earlier suits:

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
April 1, 2009

In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.

Click here to learn more about voter caging.

Related Court Documents
2012
Petition for Rehearing (2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (2012)

2009
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (2009)
RNC Reply Brief (2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
Debevoise Opinion (2009)
Debevoise Order (2009)

2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (2008)
Minute Entry (2008)

2004 (Ohio)
Malone Motion to Intervene (2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (2004)
Malone Order (2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (2004)
Malone en banc Decision (2004)
Malone Dismissal (2004)

2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle SD Complaint (2004)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (2004)

2002 (New Jersey)
Order (2002)

1990 (North Carolina)
Order (1990)

1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (1987)

Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Complaint (1981)
Consent Decree (1982)

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree

 

[OldLady]

A MUCH shorter campaign season would be tremendously helpful, as well as seriously limited polls. The way to limit candidates to promoting themselves is to refuse to support those that engage in a mud slinging campaign. It seems the populace is enamored of it, though. Keeping it clean didn't work for Kasich or Sanders.

I see now that Megyn Kelly has hired a big-shot entertainment agent, Sheryl Crow of all people appears on her show. And Megyn, obviously star-struck, made a fool of herself, as usual. The real issue is what campaigns cost and they cost what they cost because the media charges what they do for advertising. What would stop that is the FCC requiring broadcast licenses to provide a certain amount of FREE AIR TIME to major party candidates or anybody with say 25% support in major polling.

Excellent idea. To give us citizens a break, the candidates' coverage should be limited and equal, as well. Commentary shows would be exempt, but they could be held to the equal time rule, as well.
I've always thought the amount of money being spent on campaigns was obscene and unnecessary. It pretty much precludes a poor lawyer born in a log cabin from running for president, doesn't it?

 

[TNHarley]

A MUCH shorter campaign season would be tremendously helpful, as well as seriously limited polls. The way to limit candidates to promoting themselves is to refuse to support those that engage in a mud slinging campaign. It seems the populace is enamored of it, though. Keeping it clean didn't work for Kasich or Sanders.

I see now that Megyn Kelly has hired a big-shot entertainment agent, Sheryl Crow of all people appears on her show. And Megyn, obviously star-struck, made a fool of herself, as usual. The real issue is what campaigns cost and they cost what they cost because the media charges what they do for advertising. What would stop that is the FCC requiring broadcast licenses to provide a certain amount of FREE AIR TIME to major party candidates or anybody with say 25% support in major polling.

Excellent idea. To give us citizens a break, the candidates' coverage should be limited and equal, as well. Commentary shows would be exempt, but they could be held to the equal time rule, as well.
I've always thought the amount of money being spent on campaigns was obscene and unnecessary. It pretty much precludes a poor lawyer born in a log cabin from running for president, doesn't it?

thank goodness. The last one was terrible

 

[OldLady]

A MUCH shorter campaign season would be tremendously helpful, as well as seriously limited polls. The way to limit candidates to promoting themselves is to refuse to support those that engage in a mud slinging campaign. It seems the populace is enamored of it, though. Keeping it clean didn't work for Kasich or Sanders.

I see now that Megyn Kelly has hired a big-shot entertainment agent, Sheryl Crow of all people appears on her show. And Megyn, obviously star-struck, made a fool of herself, as usual. The real issue is what campaigns cost and they cost what they cost because the media charges what they do for advertising. What would stop that is the FCC requiring broadcast licenses to provide a certain amount of FREE AIR TIME to major party candidates or anybody with say 25% support in major polling.

Excellent idea. To give us citizens a break, the candidates' coverage should be limited and equal, as well. Commentary shows would be exempt, but they could be held to the equal time rule, as well.
I've always thought the amount of money being spent on campaigns was obscene and unnecessary. It pretty much precludes a poor lawyer born in a log cabin from running for president, doesn't it?

thank goodness. The last one was terrible

? What have you got against Abe Lincoln? Wait--don't tell me.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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

Why should he? What's your legal argument for dismissal?

That is my argument. Sticks and stones. It is a frivolous lawsuit. The DNC can't prove any damage occurred. The GOP could do the same thing and sue because Dems have been meanies to them, as well.

 

[Tom Horn]

Excellent idea. To give us citizens a break, the candidates' coverage should be limited and equal, as well. Commentary shows would be exempt, but they could be held to the equal time rule, as well.
I've always thought the amount of money being spent on campaigns was obscene and unnecessary. It pretty much precludes a poor lawyer born in a log cabin from running for president, doesn't it?

It's not a new idea but the network execs want nothing to do with it and are too powerful to be messed with. This is the kind of rigging of the system Trump is talking about and why 90% of the media hates his ideas about campaign finance reform and everything else....lucky for us he had $100M to spend on his own campaign or he'd have been frozen out of the picture.