General Discussion

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

65. I think I'm quite clear on the implications of the argument

Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:54 PM

Apr 2017

"The argument that they're not obligated to run a fair primary isn't about having employees with political opinions, it's a statement on the wide ranging power they have to shape the election as they see fit. "

I think you may be unclear - or possibly avoiding - the actual argument that I was talking about. Here it is again for clarity:

"It is true we talked about Bernie in emails and with each other in a way that indicates negative opinions of him. Someone even mentioned weakness he had that could be used against him. It not true that we acted on them in any way. We left it at talk. "

Are we clear on that now?

In what way does that statment above imply that they "are under no obligation to run a fair primary." In what way does that statement it indicate that they did not run a fair primary, or were not fair and honest in the running of the primary?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

161 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz [View all] TexasTowelie Apr 2017 OP

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #1

I don't know if you are serious or joking, but this is pathetic. Arkansas Granny Apr 2017 #2

Don't feed the troll. Throck Apr 2017 #4

Texas Towelie is not a troll. TT posts news stories from all different parts of tblue37 Apr 2017 #134

Oh, and BTW, he has been here since 2011 and has nearly 40,000 posts. tblue37 Apr 2017 #135

Texas Towelie does a great job on Texas issues Gothmog Apr 2017 #138

Sorry but liability disclaimers don't work on "attractive nuisances". n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #3

It was an undemocratic process elias7 Apr 2017 #5

Not sure what you mean.... Adrahil Apr 2017 #8

Are you objecting to the Caucuses? They are pretty undemocratic. Vesper Apr 2017 #41

Sore losers nt Trumpocalypse Apr 2017 #6

DWS called someone an ass? How thin-skinned ARE these people? betsuni Apr 2017 #7

In an EMAIL!! CURSING about someone!!! ehrnst Apr 2017 #22

You know the article says the lawsuit was filed before that revelation. Yes? Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #95

Yes, however, the emails are what this Hillary hating website states is "evidence" ehrnst Apr 2017 #98

That is pathetic Progressive dog Apr 2017 #9

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #15

What was the evidence for it? Because it as far as I cal tell boston bean Apr 2017 #16

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #20

Not quite sure what was 'confirmed' by Wikileaks ehrnst Apr 2017 #23

it's very curious... boston bean Apr 2017 #24

I'll be interested to see what evidence they present that those emails were acted upon by DNC. ehrnst Apr 2017 #28

Wrong. The lawsuit was filed after the initial hack and release of documents. DanTex Apr 2017 #52

The lawsuit was filed on June 28th, but the DNC email release came out on July 22nd. PotatoChip Apr 2017 #103

Umm, read the actual complaint filed, it explicitly cites the hacked documents. DanTex Apr 2017 #108

They were leaked, not hacked. PotatoChip Apr 2017 #125

Actually, yes they were hacked. By groups affiliated with Russian intelligence. DanTex Apr 2017 #126

Why are you guys so obsessed with Russia? PotatoChip Apr 2017 #128

"You guys". LOL. Well, Russia did hack the DNC and Podesta accounts in order to help DanTex Apr 2017 #131

Your not trolling at all with that question uponit7771 Apr 2017 #142

this obamanut2012 Apr 2017 #63

This is very insulting to African American voters in the south stevenleser Apr 2017 #10

What a surprisingly divisive take on that story ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #11

As long as economic issues specific to POC aren't dismissed as 'identity politics" ehrnst Apr 2017 #25

LOL - How is it divisive? JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #27

LOL ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #36

The divide is between what that person wants to believe and the facts presented. stevenleser Apr 2017 #80

LOL! George II Apr 2017 #46

LOL Amimnoch Apr 2017 #76

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #17

The Nomination JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #26

She was the nominee? George II Apr 2017 #47

What about us AA in the north.. coco22 Apr 2017 #105

If you have a point that relates to mine, state it. Since you didn't, I assume you don't have one. stevenleser Apr 2017 #114

here in California, we remember the AP story saying Hillary already won the night before the primary yurbud Apr 2017 #139

I remember Dewey defeats Truman too. No thumb on scale, just a mistake stevenleser Apr 2017 #140

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was yesterday, so what's the verdict? I read through some of seaglass Apr 2017 #12

I checked to see if there was an article on IVN or in the Sun-Sentinel TexasTowelie Apr 2017 #13

Generally decisions aren't made at the hearings themselves, most likely in a few weeks. George II Apr 2017 #14

I wasn't sure how long it would take. There are no news articles about this happening yesterday as seaglass Apr 2017 #35

I don't expect a political party to hew to neutrality. Orsino Apr 2017 #18

The fact that there were no requirements that a candidate have a record of being elected as a Dem ehrnst Apr 2017 #29

Yeah. And I don't think I would have much trouble with putting in requirements like that. Orsino Apr 2017 #33

Sad Roy Rolling Apr 2017 #19

Accusing them of things they didn't do is equally mistaken and destructive. ehrnst Apr 2017 #31

I don't disagree with the intention or the topic necessarily Texas, Brogrizzly Apr 2017 #21

It will be interesting to see what the Outreach Director for the DNC has to say about this. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #30

I shudder to think. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #37

Oh please proceed. lol Cha Apr 2017 #88

I'm tempted ... But I'm also wise. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #89

i didn't Cha Apr 2017 #90

Of course ... But it's fun to imagine. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #91

That would be Mike Lux. Ask him. (n/t) Jim Lane Apr 2017 #92

If only the RNC emails were leaked to the media. betsuni Apr 2017 #32

My hope is that the DNC doesn't argue that they have every right to favor one candidate hughee99 Apr 2017 #34

Oh for fuck's sake. nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #39

You make a compelling argument. n/t hughee99 Apr 2017 #48

When you say "favor" that means actions, not simply opinions. Important distinction. ehrnst Apr 2017 #42

Yes, I'm saying "favor" as in actions, not simply opinions. You can't regulate people's opinions. hughee99 Apr 2017 #45

So then you have evidence of the "thumb on the scale?" Or that the DNC "argued that they were not ehrnst Apr 2017 #49

So you didn't read my post? hughee99 Apr 2017 #50

So you didn't read my post? ehrnst Apr 2017 #53

Hopefully this will clear this all up... hughee99 Apr 2017 #56

Actually, there is third possibility. ehrnst Apr 2017 #57

That's also a fine defense. hughee99 Apr 2017 #59

Not sure why they wouldn't use it if it's true. ehrnst Apr 2017 #60

From this post, it appears you don't understand the implications of the argument. hughee99 Apr 2017 #62

I think I'm quite clear on the implications of the argument ehrnst Apr 2017 #65

The DNC has argued already that they have no legal obligation to run a fair primary. hughee99 Apr 2017 #66

Oh, so that's your take on "fair." ehrnst Apr 2017 #70

So your contention is that the DNC did not argue that it's under no legal obligation hughee99 Apr 2017 #75

It's important not to assume that the enemy of your enemy is your friend ehrnst Apr 2017 #84

I'm not a lawyer, though do spend a fair amount of time hughee99 Apr 2017 #86

The DNC can't use that defense on this motion. They are going ONLY with what hughee99 said. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #93

Thank you for your expertise on this. hughee99 Apr 2017 #96

The issue of remedy is a big problem for the plaintiffs. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #101

Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't see the bias immediately. PotatoChip Apr 2017 #120

OK, then, maybe I'm too cynical. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #122

Well, we'll see what the judge says. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #100

It's easy to predict what the judge WON'T say. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #104

So would O'Malley have a case as well? (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #107

O'Malley donors might make a claim but would have bigger proof problems. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #110

But if "favoritism" for another candidate is an actionable offense ehrnst Apr 2017 #115

My answer, based on casual reading about the case Jim Lane Apr 2017 #121

Do the pleadings still contain that crazy claim that the DC consumer protection statute applies Gothmog Apr 2017 #137

I don't know if that claim is in there. I also don't know whether it's crazy. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #141

This particular claim was both ignorant and had no basis in the law Gothmog Apr 2017 #144

Have you read the DC law and any interpretive regs and any court decisions applying it? Jim Lane Apr 2017 #145

Yes-It is a typical Deceptive Trade Practices Gothmog Apr 2017 #146

Thanks for the link, but I'm not trying to give it the full-court press of legal research. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #147

I read the pleadings last year when the case was first filed Gothmog Apr 2017 #148

The lawyer you call "this idiot" has already accomplished something. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #149

You are wrong again Gothmog Apr 2017 #150

Thank you for your condescension, which is completely wrong. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #156

Again, your attempts at analysis are amusing but wrong Gothmog Apr 2017 #157

I hope even nonlawyers can realize how absurd your posts are. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #158

Real lawyers do not think that this lawsuit is that meaningful Gothmog Apr 2017 #159

The public exposure of the DNC's attitude toward its own rules is meaningful. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #160

The so-called leaks of DNC emails was done by Russians Gothmog Apr 2017 #161

Yep. Talk about strawman. nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #51

Evasion, too. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #54

The DNC's lawyers ADMITTED to the favoritism. PotatoChip Apr 2017 #97

I'm interested to see if there is evidence that "favoritism" amounted to "rigging" ehrnst Apr 2017 #102

No, they did not admit to favoritism, that is a total lie. DanTex Apr 2017 #109

Yes they did. You obviously did not read the article I provided. It's right there. PotatoChip Apr 2017 #113

LOL. The article you provided is alt-left garbage. Read the actual legal brief. DanTex Apr 2017 #118

That's why I'm waiting for a neutral source to summarize the claims and defenses ehrnst Apr 2017 #116

The other option is to read the legal briefs themselves. Here is the one filed by the defense. DanTex Apr 2017 #119

As I stated before - that's not an option because I am not trained as a lawyer or judge ehrnst Apr 2017 #123

Sure, fair enough. DanTex Apr 2017 #124

My apologies if it was not you that I explained this to before. ehrnst Apr 2017 #127

No worries. DanTex Apr 2017 #129

If they have good lawyers, they will argue both. DanTex Apr 2017 #55

Do you think it's a good idea to argue that you have the right to do things in a primary hughee99 Apr 2017 #58

The lawyers need to to act in the best interests of their clients. DanTex Apr 2017 #61

What's in the best interest of the clients isn't always just about winning the case. hughee99 Apr 2017 #64

That's true, and like I said I don't know the ethics here. DanTex Apr 2017 #68

I'm not sure that going to trial is worse. hughee99 Apr 2017 #71

Maybe, but it would also draw the whole thing out. DanTex Apr 2017 #77

I think now is the time to do it. You're as far away from the next primary as you're going to get. hughee99 Apr 2017 #78

For sure, if there's a trial, make it as soon as possible. DanTex Apr 2017 #79

The legal ethics answer: This is up to the DNC and Wasserman Schultz. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #94

I read an early form of the petition and it was dreck Gothmog Apr 2017 #85

They won't because they didn't. No evidence of that in the email dump emulatorloo Apr 2017 #69

They already did make that argument in a case back in October. hughee99 Apr 2017 #87

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #38

I think that his statments - or silence - on this will be very telling. ehrnst Apr 2017 #43

+1 tallahasseedem Apr 2017 #74

Shouldn't they be out doing revolution stuff? leftofcool Apr 2017 #40

This is easier. ehrnst Apr 2017 #44

this lawsuit is like masturbation, without the positive aspects nt geek tragedy Apr 2017 #67

They've got no evidence. Because it didn't happen. emulatorloo Apr 2017 #72

because perpetual grievance against DWS is the most pressing issue in their lives nt geek tragedy Apr 2017 #73

Hence JPR where those who want to live their lives focused on non-existent grievances can congregate stevenleser Apr 2017 #81

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2017 #143

I proudly support Debbie Wasserman Schultz. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #82

I imagine it will be thrown out... Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #83

That website has a whole lot of Hillary hate. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #99

Oh, brother. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #106

This is why I say we move on work on electing people ...no hope to get the votes of people Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #111

This was filed 6/28/2016 HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #112

I have not seen any reports on the hearing Gothmog Apr 2017 #117

I checked the Sun Sentinel which is the newspaper for Broward County TexasTowelie Apr 2017 #132

This is strange in that there is normally coverage in high profile cases Gothmog Apr 2017 #136

Carol Wilding is a Stein supporter, so there's that. And this source isn't exactly journalism. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #130

See post #132. TexasTowelie Apr 2017 #133

Did this happen before or after his campaign stole Hillary voter data? nini Apr 2017 #151

Good question. I think the data hacking was first. n/t pnwmom Apr 2017 #152

The judge hasn't ruled yet. Here's the most recent account I could find. pnwmom Apr 2017 #153

This will not end well for Bernie Sanders underthematrix Apr 2017 #154

I guess you could call oral arguments lapucelle Apr 2017 #155