"Hear me clearly," "America is not a racist country."- Tim Scott

]2epo]v[an said:
Yeah except the last two elections showed the world we have a habit of rigging elections so pfft, who really even knows shit about the obama election.
Click to expand...

The USA court records prove the Republican Party has cheated in elections for decades

Remember why they were going to impeach Nixon


It was election cheating


The courts PROVE that the Republican Party cheats every election


They keep getting caught

It’s why the republicans an party was under a court ordered consent decree for DECADES


THE COURTS WOULDNT ALLOW THEM TO DO VOTER ROLL ELIMINATION WITOUT COURT SUPERVISION

THEY KEEP KICKING VOTERS OFF ILLEGALLY


SO THE COURYS HAD TO WATCH THEM


THERE IS NO LIKE RECIRD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY






republicans cheat


The Democratic Party doesn’t cheat
 
evince said:
The USA court records prove the Republican Party has cheated in elections for decades

Remember why they were going to impeach Nixon


It was election cheating


The courts PROVE that the Republican Party cheats every election


They keep getting caught

It’s why the republicans an party was under a court ordered consent decree for DECADES


THE COURTS WOULDNT ALLOW THEM TO DO VOTER ROLL ELIMINATION WITOUT COURT SUPERVISION

THEY KEEP KICKING VOTERS OFF ILLEGALLY


SO THE COURYS HAD TO WATCH THEM


THERE IS NO LIKE RECIRD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY






republicans cheat


The Democratic Party doesn’t cheat
Click to expand...
#SDS;)
 
martin said:
Mueller said he did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy. That is different from collusion of which there was plenty. Don't be too sure Cohen was lying. Because it satisfies you to think he was isn't much of a reason.
Click to expand...
Like i said i thought you were smarter the this
Collusion isnt a legal term (its a lay term) - nor have you shown any coordination with Russian govt.

There is another poster around here that says stuff like "with all these Russians around"
(like that is supposed to mean something). grotesque Russaphobia
 
dukkha said:
Like i said i thought you were smarter the this
Collusion isnt a legal term (its a lay term) - nor have you shown any coordination with Russian govt.

There is another poster around here that says stuff like "with all these Russians around"
(like that is supposed to mean something). grotesque Russaphobia
Click to expand...


That was my point. Mueller didn't investigate collusion for the reason you mentioned yet time and again we hear, including from yourself, that Mueller found there was no collusion.

I'll return your half a compliment. You strike me as too smart to have fallen for the endless self serving bullshit that is the epitome of Trump.
 
martin said:
That was my point. Mueller didn't investigate collusion for the reason you mentioned yet time and again we hear, including from yourself, that Mueller found there was no collusion.

I'll return your half a compliment. You strike me as too smart to have fallen for the endless self serving bullshit that is the epitome of Trump.
Click to expand...
how do you investigate collusion? where is your proof of collusion?
You can't, (and there was none..)end of story.

you can investigate a conspiracy.
But to make a FUCKING FEDERAL CASE out of a nothingburger like "collusion"
would just be an abuse of power -which there clearly was with fake FISA etc.
We've learned the whole thing was based on a pack of self serving Hillary funded lies like the Steele dossier

But go ahead and cling to such nebulous unfounded crap due to your Trump hate when there is no
empirical evidence of any of this.

Like I said the other guy writes such trash like "well there were all these Russians around"
and uses that as some kinna proof. sad!
 
evince said:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
Click to expand...


The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC 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. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.

On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.

Click here to learn more about voter caging.

Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.

Related Court Documents

2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (November 5, 2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (October 31, 2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (October 26, 2016)

2012
Petition for Rehearing (March 22, 2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (March 8, 2012)

2009
Debevoise Order (December 1, 2009)
Debevoise Opinion (December 1, 2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (June 26, 2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (June 26, 2009)
RNC Reply Brief (February 19, 2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (January 19, 2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (November 3, 2008)

2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (November 3, 2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (November 3, 2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (November 3, 2008)
Minute Entry (November 3, 2008)

2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (February 3, 2005)
Malone en banc Decision (November 9, 2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (November 1, 2004)
Malone Order (November 1, 2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (November 1, 2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (October 31, 2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (October 28, 2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (October 28, 2004)

2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (November 2, 2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (November 1, 2004)

2002 (New Jersey)
Order (October 31, 2002)

1990 (North Carolina)
Order (November 5, 1990)

1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (July 27, 1987)

Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (November 1, 1982)
Complaint (February 11, 1982)
 
Follow the link and you can click on any and all the court filed and recorded DOCUMENTS which prove the non stop Republican cheating in elections


Before 1981 guess what happened


NIXON’S cheating in elections


The Republican Party has hated Democracy for half a fucking century folks



The are the sociopathic anti Democracy party
 
dukkha said:
how do you investigate collusion? where is your proof of collusion?
You can't, (and there was none..)end of story.

you can investigate a conspiracy.
But to make a FUCKING FEDERAL CASE out of a nothingburger like "collusion"
would just be an abuse of power -which there clearly was with fake FISA etc.
We've learned the whole thing was based on a pack of self serving Hillary funded lies like the Steele dossier

But go ahead and cling to such nebulous unfounded crap due to your Trump hate when there is no
empirical evidence of any of this.

Like I said the other guy writes such trash like "well there were all these Russians around"
and uses that as some kinna proof. sad!
Click to expand...

I didn't say collusion could be investigated, just that it wasn't. Moreover, it couldn't be both because it is not criminal and is too amorphous a word for reasonable consensus on what conduct
satisfies the term and what doesn't. But if we accept as its meaning that it includes getting together for a common purpose then there was certainly evidence of that. Whether the "getting together" went as far as entering into some form of quid pro quo we don't know and neither apparently does Mueller who said only that his investigators found no evidence of it.
 
martin said:
I didn't say collusion could be investigated, just that it wasn't. Moreover, it couldn't be both because it is not criminal and is too amorphous a word for reasonable consensus on what conduct
satisfies the term and what doesn't. But if we accept as its meaning that it includes getting together for a common purpose then there was certainly evidence of that. Whether the "getting together" went beyond into some form of quid pro quo we don't know and neither apparently does Mueller who went said only his investigators found no evidence of it.
Click to expand...
so any meeting of the minds is "getting together for a common purpose" and is somehow what? illegal? immoral?
Take the Trump tower -it's standard for any campaign to want dirt on the opponent.
There are always all kinds of compromises sources involved.
we dont make a big deal about it "its politics" -so why the fuss?

I wont even go into the fact Mueller said the Internet Research Agency was a Russian government thing -it wasnt and he never showed it was.' He JUST SAID IT.
same with teh WIKILEAKS "cutout" -never shown any Russians involved

You and your ilk hear "Russia" and immediately jump to some Russiaphobic "collusion" narrative.
It has made us into a Cold War 2.0 situation where we are backing Ukraine (1/2 the country is loyal to Russia)
but all you care abut is sliming Trump with such noise
 
Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claim
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ndercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html


*The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

*The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

*There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.

*Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

*U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

*Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

*Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

*Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.

*John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
 
redfish said:
how is creating the lowest minority unemployment rates in history a racist act? How is providing long term funding for black colleges a racist act? How is making Ben Carson HUD secretary a racist act? How is Tim Scott a racist?

You are full of left wing dem propaganda and lies. the party of the KKK is the democrat party.
Click to expand...

WISE UP YOU RED HERRING!

SO those are you Republicans two Black guys huh?

AND WHAT HAVE EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO BLACK REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS DONE SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE? THEY CERTAINLY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO HELP BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT. NOT ONE FUCKING THING! MOSTLY OBSTRUCT PROGRESS!

Ben Carson abused his privileges of office by lavishly spending TAX PAYERS Money on himself. He is lucky he is not in jail for fraudulent spending like several other members of DOnald Trump's crooked cabinet members are now!

The last time I looked, the leader of the KKK is REPUBLICAN!

WHOOPTIDITY DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
Last edited:
Geeko Sportivo said:
SO those are you Republicans two Black guys huh?

AND WHAT HAVE EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO BLACK REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS DONE SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE? NOT ONE FUCKING THING! MOSTLY OBSTRUCT PROGRESS!

WHOOPTIDITY DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Click to expand...

Deflection, answer the question!
 
dukkha said:
so any meeting of the minds is "getting together for a common purpose" and is somehow what? illegal? immoral?
Click to expand...

It may or may not be depending on how far it goes. This is the trouble with the whole Russian connection. We know there were contacts and meetings but not what, if any, improper activity resulted.
We just don't know. So the correct answer about the Russian question is that we have no clear answer. In law that means Trump is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and cleared of wrong doing.
In real life it means he remains subject to the suspicions those contacts and meetings gave rise to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top