Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[sangha]

Nope. They just decided not to prosecute. That doesn't mean that they believed there was nothing that could be properly prosecuted.

You are the wingnut, sangha*, and are not on speaking terms with reality.

Nope. There was nothing to prosecute. Voter intimidation requires that a voter be intimidated. No voters were intimidated.

But in wingnut world, the bush* administration was a liberal conspiracy that supported the Black Panthers.

Of course there was something to prosecute.

You really don't grasp the notion of "prosecutorial discretion."

No. In nobody's world would the Bush Administration, sangha*, be seen as engaging in a liberal conspiracy to support the Black Panthers.

Possibly the Obama* Administration, though.

That's right, I forgot....The powerful Black Panthers cowed the bush* admin out of prosecuting them

 

[Liability]

Nope. There was nothing to prosecute. Voter intimidation requires that a voter be intimidated. No voters were intimidated.

But in wingnut world, the bush* administration was a liberal conspiracy that supported the Black Panthers.

Of course there was something to prosecute.

You really don't grasp the notion of "prosecutorial discretion."

No. In nobody's world would the Bush Administration, sangha*, be seen as engaging in a liberal conspiracy to support the Black Panthers.

Possibly the Obama* Administration, though.

That's right, I forgot....The powerful Black Panthers cowed the bush* admin out of prosecuting them

Nope. It is evident that the Bush Administration simply chose not to take up the fight with the smarmy dishonest liberal media over what was incorrectly viewed by the Bush Justice Department as a case of relatively little significance. But, as I said, that decision was wrong.

It could have and should have been corrected by the Obama* Administration. But that would never happen.

Sorry sangha*. You are still just a miserable fail.

 

[sangha]

Of course there was something to prosecute.

You really don't grasp the notion of "prosecutorial discretion."

No. In nobody's world would the Bush Administration, sangha*, be seen as engaging in a liberal conspiracy to support the Black Panthers.

Possibly the Obama* Administration, though.

That's right, I forgot....The powerful Black Panthers cowed the bush* admin out of prosecuting them

Nope. It is evident that the Bush Administration simply chose not to take up the fight with the smarmy dishonest liberal media over what was incorrectly viewed by the Bush Justice Department as a case of relatively little significance. But, as I said, that decision was wrong.

It could have and should have been corrected by the Obama* Administration. But that would never happen.

Sorry sangha*. You are still just a miserable fail.

In wingnut world, the Black Panthers get treated nicely by the media

 

[Liability]

That's right, I forgot....The powerful Black Panthers cowed the bush* admin out of prosecuting them

Nope. It is evident that the Bush Administration simply chose not to take up the fight with the smarmy dishonest liberal media over what was incorrectly viewed by the Bush Justice Department as a case of relatively little significance. But, as I said, that decision was wrong.

It could have and should have been corrected by the Obama* Administration. But that would never happen.

Sorry sangha*. You are still just a miserable fail.

In wingnut world, the Black Panthers get treated nicely by the media

Also not what I said. You liberoidal wingnuts have serious comprehension problems. Or you are just basically dishonest.

On the other hand, the modern American liberal mainstream media does tend to excuse lots of shit done by Black Panthers. "We" must, evidently, all deserve their enmity.

Just like the fucking liberal media makes heroes out of scum like President Obama's asshole pal, Ayers.

 

[sangha]

Nope. It is evident that the Bush Administration simply chose not to take up the fight with the smarmy dishonest liberal media over what was incorrectly viewed by the Bush Justice Department as a case of relatively little significance. But, as I said, that decision was wrong.

It could have and should have been corrected by the Obama* Administration. But that would never happen.

Sorry sangha*. You are still just a miserable fail.

In wingnut world, the Black Panthers get treated nicely by the media

Also not what I said. You liberoidal wingnuts have serious comprehension problems. Or you are just basically dishonest.

On the other hand, the modern American liberal mainstream media does tend to excuse lots of shit done by Black Panthers. "We" must, evidently, all deserve their enmity.

Just like the fucking liberal media makes heroes out of scum like President Obama's asshole pal, Ayers.

Dishonest is trying to deny that the RNC is the only national party that has to operate under a court approved consent decree because a court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud like caging and voter intimidation in a systematic manner.

 

[Liability]

In wingnut world, the Black Panthers get treated nicely by the media

Also not what I said. You liberoidal wingnuts have serious comprehension problems. Or you are just basically dishonest.

On the other hand, the modern American liberal mainstream media does tend to excuse lots of shit done by Black Panthers. "We" must, evidently, all deserve their enmity.

Just like the fucking liberal media makes heroes out of scum like President Obama's asshole pal, Ayers.

Dishonest is trying to deny that the RNC is the only national party that has to operate under a court approved consent decree because a court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud like caging and voter intimidation in a systematic manner.

No. Dishonest is your pathetic transparent attempt to switch the topic when you get befuddled about the matter actually under discussion.

By the way: A 1982 consent decree (entered by agreement between the parties and actually involving the New Jersey activities relative to voter security) BY ITS TERMS constitutes no admission of liability or wrongdoing. So, other than the fact that it kinda sorta "sounds bad," which was your entire purpose in tossing out this effort at deflection, you have no point.

 

[sangha]

Also not what I said. You liberoidal wingnuts have serious comprehension problems. Or you are just basically dishonest.

On the other hand, the modern American liberal mainstream media does tend to excuse lots of shit done by Black Panthers. "We" must, evidently, all deserve their enmity.

Just like the fucking liberal media makes heroes out of scum like President Obama's asshole pal, Ayers.

Dishonest is trying to deny that the RNC is the only national party that has to operate under a court approved consent decree because a court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud like caging and voter intimidation in a systematic manner.

No. Dishonest is your pathetic transparent attempt to switch the topic when you get befuddled about the matter actually under discussion.

By the way: A 1982 consent decree (entered by agreement between the parties and actually involving the New Jersey activities relative to voter security) BY ITS TERMS constitutes no admission of liability or wrongdoing. So, other than the fact that it kinda sorta "sounds bad," which was your entire purpose in tossing out this effort at deflection, you have no point.

I see you're still in denial about the FACT that the court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud, inlcluding voter intimidation. Here's the proof

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

the court finds that there was intimidation particularly targeted at Native American voters

In wingnut world "there was intimidation" means there was no admission of wrongdoing.

 

[Liability]

Dishonest is trying to deny that the RNC is the only national party that has to operate under a court approved consent decree because a court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud like caging and voter intimidation in a systematic manner.

No. Dishonest is your pathetic transparent attempt to switch the topic when you get befuddled about the matter actually under discussion.

By the way: A 1982 consent decree (entered by agreement between the parties and actually involving the New Jersey activities relative to voter security) BY ITS TERMS constitutes no admission of liability or wrongdoing. So, other than the fact that it kinda sorta "sounds bad," which was your entire purpose in tossing out this effort at deflection, you have no point.

I see you're still in denial about the FACT that the court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud, inlcluding voter intimidation. Here's the proof

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

the court finds that there was intimidation particularly targeted at Native American voters

In wingnut world "there was intimidation" means there was no admission of wrongdoing.

LOL! You actually have the temerity to offer the "determination" of Judge Peirsol, close personal friend of plaintiff Thomas Daschle?

You transparent fraud liberal wingnuts have no shame.

 

[sangha]

No. Dishonest is your pathetic transparent attempt to switch the topic when you get befuddled about the matter actually under discussion.

By the way: A 1982 consent decree (entered by agreement between the parties and actually involving the New Jersey activities relative to voter security) BY ITS TERMS constitutes no admission of liability or wrongdoing. So, other than the fact that it kinda sorta "sounds bad," which was your entire purpose in tossing out this effort at deflection, you have no point.

I see you're still in denial about the FACT that the court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud, inlcluding voter intimidation. Here's the proof

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

the court finds that there was intimidation particularly targeted at Native American voters

In wingnut world "there was intimidation" means there was no admission of wrongdoing.

LOL! You actually have the temerity to offer the "determination" of Judge Peirsol, close personal friend of plaintiff Thomas Daschle?

You transparent fraud liberal wingnuts have no shame.

In wingnut world, everything is a liberal conspiracy.

 

[Liability]

I see you're still in denial about the FACT that the court found that the RNC had engaged in electoral fraud, inlcluding voter intimidation. Here's the proof

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf



In wingnut world "there was intimidation" means there was no admission of wrongdoing.

LOL! You actually have the temerity to offer the "determination" of Judge Peirsol, close personal friend of plaintiff Thomas Daschle?

You transparent fraud liberal wingnuts have no shame.

In wingnut world, everything is a liberal conspiracy.

Actually, in your lib wingnut universe, denial of reality is your way of life.

IF a judge is a former practicing attorney and represented a major political figure in his early days of being a politician relative to an election matter involving litigation -- then in your world, sangha*, should that judge possibly RECUSE himself from deciding a case where his former client is now a litigant?

Are you capable of grasping why a judge might have an obligation to at least consider recusing himself under such circumstances?

No?

I bet you would if the Judge had represented Thune instead of Daschle.

 

[sangha]

LOL! You actually have the temerity to offer the "determination" of Judge Peirsol, close personal friend of plaintiff Thomas Daschle?

You transparent fraud liberal wingnuts have no shame.

In wingnut world, everything is a liberal conspiracy.

Actually, in your lib wingnut universe, denial of reality is your way of life.

IF a judge is a former practicing attorney and represented a major political figure in his early days of being a politician relative to an election matter involving litigation -- then in your world, sangha*, should that judge possibly RECUSE himself from deciding a case where his former client is now a litigant?

Are you capable of grasping why a judge might have an obligation to at least consider recusing himself under such circumstances?

No?

I bet you would if the Judge had represented Thune instead of Daschle.

No and no.

Once again, you have been reduced to whining about your fantasies and once again, you have nothing to back up your lies.

Meanwhile, the RNC has been found, by a court of law, to have engaged in electoral fraud.

The RNC is the only party to argue that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

 

[sangha]

Another wingnut goes running when challenged to back up his wacky claims with some evidence

 

[Liability]

In wingnut world, everything is a liberal conspiracy.

Actually, in your lib wingnut universe, denial of reality is your way of life.

IF a judge is a former practicing attorney and represented a major political figure in his early days of being a politician relative to an election matter involving litigation -- then in your world, sangha*, should that judge possibly RECUSE himself from deciding a case where his former client is now a litigant?

Are you capable of grasping why a judge might have an obligation to at least consider recusing himself under such circumstances?

No?

I bet you would if the Judge had represented Thune instead of Daschle.

No and no.

Once again, you have been reduced to whining about your fantasies and once again, you have nothing to back up your lies.

Meanwhile, the RNC has been found, by a court of law, to have engaged in electoral fraud.

The RNC is the only party to argue that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

Ignoring the fact, sangha&, doesn't change anything. Sorry, lass.

The "judge" who "found" that the GOP had allegedly engaged in electoral fraud was a close personal friend and the former attorney for one of the parties. It appears to be quite unconsionable of him to have not recused himself.

Thune challenges "sham" ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Contact:

Dick Wadhams

John Wood

(605) 221-1010

JOHN THUNE TO CHALLENGE “SHAM” COURT RULING

SIOUX FALLS –John Thune will appeal the “sham” ruling made late last night by a federal judge with close personal and political ties to Senator Tom Daschle.

“This sham ruling will not stand,” said Thune for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “Daschle’s desperate move is nothing less than an attempt to steal this election in the dark of night by a political crony in a judge’s robe.”

The testimony presented at the hearing consisted of nothing more than the speculation of a single Daschle operative from Virginia who testified that all he observed was eye-rolling and note taking by observers.

“We will appeal this ruling in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Wadhams said. “We are going to order a transcript of the hearing and prove to the people of the State of South Dakota that this hearing was a farce and the decision is not supported by ANY evidence.”

Federal Judge Larry Piersol is a longtime personal friend and political ally of Daschle.

Piersol was Daschle’s personal lawyer in 1978 when Daschle first ran and won a contested election for Congress.

Daschle nominated Piersol for the appointment by President Bill Clinton for the federal judgeship Piersol now holds.

Piersol’s wife, Catherine, is listed as a supporter of Daschle in an ad appearing in today’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

 

[sangha]

Actually, in your lib wingnut universe, denial of reality is your way of life.

IF a judge is a former practicing attorney and represented a major political figure in his early days of being a politician relative to an election matter involving litigation -- then in your world, sangha*, should that judge possibly RECUSE himself from deciding a case where his former client is now a litigant?

Are you capable of grasping why a judge might have an obligation to at least consider recusing himself under such circumstances?

No?

I bet you would if the Judge had represented Thune instead of Daschle.

No and no.

Once again, you have been reduced to whining about your fantasies and once again, you have nothing to back up your lies.

Meanwhile, the RNC has been found, by a court of law, to have engaged in electoral fraud.

The RNC is the only party to argue that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

Ignoring the fact, sangha&, doesn't change anything. Sorry, lass.

The "judge" who "found" that the GOP had allegedly engaged in electoral fraud was a close personal friend and the former attorney for one of the parties. It appears to be quite unconsionable of him to have not recused himself.

Thune challenges "sham" ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Contact:

Dick Wadhams

John Wood

(605) 221-1010

JOHN THUNE TO CHALLENGE “SHAM” COURT RULING

SIOUX FALLS –John Thune will appeal the “sham” ruling made late last night by a federal judge with close personal and political ties to Senator Tom Daschle.

“This sham ruling will not stand,” said Thune for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “Daschle’s desperate move is nothing less than an attempt to steal this election in the dark of night by a political crony in a judge’s robe.”

The testimony presented at the hearing consisted of nothing more than the speculation of a single Daschle operative from Virginia who testified that all he observed was eye-rolling and note taking by observers.

“We will appeal this ruling in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Wadhams said. “We are going to order a transcript of the hearing and prove to the people of the State of South Dakota that this hearing was a farce and the decision is not supported by ANY evidence.”

Federal Judge Larry Piersol is a longtime personal friend and political ally of Daschle.

Piersol was Daschle’s personal lawyer in 1978 when Daschle first ran and won a contested election for Congress.

Daschle nominated Piersol for the appointment by President Bill Clinton for the federal judgeship Piersol now holds.

Piersol’s wife, Catherine, is listed as a supporter of Daschle in an ad appearing in today’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

I ignore your lies. I haven't ignored any facts you've posted because you haven't posted any

BTW, a press release from loser doesn't prove anything.

As always, you've got nothing to back you up

 

[Liability]

No and no.

Once again, you have been reduced to whining about your fantasies and once again, you have nothing to back up your lies.

Meanwhile, the RNC has been found, by a court of law, to have engaged in electoral fraud.

The RNC is the only party to argue that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

Ignoring the fact, sangha&, doesn't change anything. Sorry, lass.

The "judge" who "found" that the GOP had allegedly engaged in electoral fraud was a close personal friend and the former attorney for one of the parties. It appears to be quite unconsionable of him to have not recused himself.

Thune challenges "sham" ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Contact:

Dick Wadhams

John Wood

(605) 221-1010

JOHN THUNE TO CHALLENGE “SHAM” COURT RULING

SIOUX FALLS –John Thune will appeal the “sham” ruling made late last night by a federal judge with close personal and political ties to Senator Tom Daschle.

“This sham ruling will not stand,” said Thune for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “Daschle’s desperate move is nothing less than an attempt to steal this election in the dark of night by a political crony in a judge’s robe.”

The testimony presented at the hearing consisted of nothing more than the speculation of a single Daschle operative from Virginia who testified that all he observed was eye-rolling and note taking by observers.

“We will appeal this ruling in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Wadhams said. “We are going to order a transcript of the hearing and prove to the people of the State of South Dakota that this hearing was a farce and the decision is not supported by ANY evidence.”

Federal Judge Larry Piersol is a longtime personal friend and political ally of Daschle.

Piersol was Daschle’s personal lawyer in 1978 when Daschle first ran and won a contested election for Congress.

Daschle nominated Piersol for the appointment by President Bill Clinton for the federal judgeship Piersol now holds.

Piersol’s wife, Catherine, is listed as a supporter of Daschle in an ad appearing in today’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

I ignore your lies. I haven't ignored any facts you've posted because you haven't posted any

BTW, a press release from loser doesn't prove anything.

As always, you've got nothing to back you up

Actually, as always, it is you, sangha*, who has nothing.

You are far too feeble to post intelligently.

There is no question but that Piersol represented the young Mr. Daschle early on in Daschle's political career. Daschle himself SAID so, you moron. Daschle is the one who referred to Peirsol as his longtime friend. These are all historical FACTS.

You can deny them until hell freezes over, but that won't change them. Facts remain facts despite your churlish ignorance.

Did you realize, asshole, that when Peirsol served as a lawyer FOR Daschle, it was related to an election matter? I'll even give you a hint. 1978.

Funny, eh?

And who is it that "recommended" Peirsol FOR the Federal Bench?

Oh yeah. That's right. That would be (and was) Daschle.

EDITED TO ADD:

Might want to consider Daschle's OWN words.

* * * * First, I got my start in politics thanks to lawyers... rather, one lawyer in particular. In 1978, I won my first election to the House by 14 votes. Don’t laugh, in South Dakota, that’s 60 percent of the vote. Apparently undaunted by that landslide of support, my opponent sued to contest the election. I was fortunate to be represented by a great lawyer and a dear friend, Larry Piersol. It took one year and 21 days, but here I am 25 years later.

* * * *

Remarks of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
National Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Sunday, July 20, 2003, http://www.atlanet.org/private/daschle.pdf

 

[sangha]

Ignoring the fact, sangha&, doesn't change anything. Sorry, lass.

The "judge" who "found" that the GOP had allegedly engaged in electoral fraud was a close personal friend and the former attorney for one of the parties. It appears to be quite unconsionable of him to have not recused himself.

I ignore your lies. I haven't ignored any facts you've posted because you haven't posted any

BTW, a press release from loser doesn't prove anything.

As always, you've got nothing to back you up

Actually, as always, it is you, sangha*, who has nothing.

You are far too feeble to post intelligently.

There is no question but that Piersol represented the young Mr. Daschle early on in Daschle's political career. Daschle himself SAID so, you moron. Daschle is the one who referred to Peirsol as his longtime friend. These are all historical FACTS.

You can deny them until hell freezes over, but that won't change them. Facts remain facts despite your churlish ignorance.

Did you realize, asshole, that when Peirsol served as a lawyer FOR Daschle, it was related to an election matter? I'll even give you a hint. 1978.

Funny, eh?

And who is it that "recommended" Peirsol FOR the Federal Bench?

Oh yeah. That's right. That would be (and was) Daschle.

EDITED TO ADD:

Might want to consider Daschle's OWN words.

* * * * First, I got my start in politics thanks to lawyers... rather, one lawyer in particular. In 1978, I won my first election to the House by 14 votes. Don’t laugh, in South Dakota, that’s 60 percent of the vote. Apparently undaunted by that landslide of support, my opponent sued to contest the election. I was fortunate to be represented by a great lawyer and a dear friend, Larry Piersol. It took one year and 21 days, but here I am 25 years later.

* * * *

Remarks of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
National Convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Sunday, July 20, 2003, http://www.atlanet.org/private/daschle.pdf

So what?

Once again, all you've got is political bs.

There's no there there