Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded

[MADem]

Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor" of the state convention "ignoring the regular procedure and ramming through what they wanted to do."
— Jeff Weaver on Tuesday, May 17th, 2016 in a television interview on CNN

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.

Sanders backers say the continuing nature of the presidential primary necessitated more rule changes.

The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a previous statement, the campaign detailed several allegations of misconduct from the state party, which we considered as part of this fact-check. "At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," the campaign said in that statement.

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/


The whole thing is a good read....

[ViseGrip]

1. Ed Schultz said tonight, CNN should be ashamed for using the word 'violence'.

Ed had Nina Turner on, his show on RT America, and went through everything that went down, and laced together a nice portrayal, of an orchestrated effort on behalf of the party and well, the campaign to create a negative message, and to harm his campaign.

That is a criminal violation, CNN, last time I looked.

[MADem]

4. Yeah, nothing "violent" about death threats against a woman and her grandchild.

smh!

[sheshe2]

12. Death threats are no longer violent?

They are on tape.

[eastwestdem]

19. Oh please. We've seen the videos. We've heard the tapes. There was violence.

Perhaps the people you listen two have some sort of agenda.

[seabeyond]

2. Entitled to a win by gosh, and facts do not matter to these people. Get it any way they can. Nt

[dgauss]

7. The irony is deep on that one.

[Mnpaul]

3. Plenty of problems

as pointed out by the Kern Law Office. They even violated their own charter
http://kernlawoffices.com/NSDP/Final%20Draft%20Rules.pdf

[MADem]

5. Try again.

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

[Mnpaul]

6. Violating the party charter is not misconduct?

only in Hillaryland.

[MADem]

8. LOL--you didn't read the article. Obviously.

They violated NOTHING.

Here, just read this bit:

Tensions were already mounting in the weeks before the convention, with a small group of Sanders supporters filing a lawsuit against the state party (which was dismissed by a Las Vegas judge) and creating a petition demanding the convention rules be changed.

The fight over rules had been going on since April, according to an email chain posted by Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston, between Sanders superdelegate Erin Bilbray and party chairwoman Roberta Lange.

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.

[Mnpaul]

14. The rules were changed

In 2011 party membership wasn't required. It states that numerous times. In 2011 the precinct vote was non binding.
http://nvdems.3cdn.net/01b23d3384a57026dc_unm6ib15k.pdf

"largely the same"

not really

[Eko]

9. All I saw

was a lot of accusations of bias and some recommendations, I didn't see where they violated the charter, care to point it out?

[Mnpaul]

21. The rules allowing no amendments at the state convention

The State Central Committee members are chosen for a two year term and shall be elected at the convention

are two if you read the link

[Eko]

24. I am assuming you mean this

"III.
a. “There shall be no amendments to the Charter and Bylaws of
the Nevada State Democratic Party at the State Convention.”

PROBLEM: This is a direct violation of the Rules and Bylaws."

How is it in direct violation? Where exactly does the rules and bylaws say this is wrong?
And as for this "The State Central Committee members are chosen for a two year term and shall be elected at the convention " I think you are wrong about that. The bylaws actually state "Officers of the CCCC shall be elected by the members of the CCCC and shall serve a term of (2) two years or until their resignation, removal, or the election of their successors. "
The important part is "two years or until" so if there is no election of their successors they can serve more.

[Eko]

28. Still waiting for an answer.

[Mnpaul]

22. So you can't refute any of the points presented?

you like what polifact is saying so you are going with that, got it.

[DURHAM D]

10. Jeff is auditioning for a Fox News gig.

Should work out swell for him.

[MADem]

11. I think you're right. He'll fit right in. nt

[sheshe2]

13. From your link

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

snip//

Regardless, upset Sanders supporters rushed the main stage, hurling obscenities at Lange and other members of the party’s executive board and booing over remarks from California Sen. Barbara Boxer delivered on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Thanks MADem.

Lies.

[w4rma]

15. Gaveled in while Sanders delegates were in line. Clinton delegates allowed to bypass registration.

A voice vote on a rules change that Politifact says never happened, that required a 2/3's majority, but was said to pass on a voice vote where there were probably more nays, than yeses. Clinton delegates ripping up their registrations and leaving disgusted.

[SidDithers]

17. The oligarch rulers told them to say that...nt

Sid

[w4rma]

18. Indirectly. But, Politifact fucks up sometimes. They screwed up, big time, here.

The question is, that when they are presented with contradicting evidence, will they change their story? They have changed their story in the past, as when Clinton lied about fundraising for the state parties. Although, Politifact should have labeled it "Pants-on-Fire", rather than just downgrading to "Half". That still shows some bias towards Clinton.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/may/05/george-clooney/george-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/

[MADem]

25. LOL! It's all their fault! GRR!

Conspiracy theories and the PTB!!!!

[Setsuna1972]

23. Unfounded ???

Just watch the goddamn videos people made and posted online from the Nevada convention !!!

[Number23]

26. Ummm... "Politifact is owned by someone's who's third cousin was a REPUBLICAN! How can you trust

that trash??!" Errr... "No one reads Politfact anymore!! I stopped reading them the first time they posted something that didn't swaddle Bernie in wet kisses!!!" Errrr.... "they're a part of the pro-Clinton MA-CHINE!!11"

Did I get all of the predictably and hysterically stupid denunciations and denials out of the way?

[MADem]

27. They are members of the "oligarchy" - in the pockets of the PTB!! LOL! nt