Court admits election was rigged
- Thread starter ThorOdinson13
- Start date
Massive misinterpretation of the courts actual order and the law.
In considering any motion for dismissal, a Judge/Court is REQUIRED as a matter of law (Rules of Civil Procedure) to basically make a presumption that the party who brought the suit COULD PROVE EVERY FACT THEY ALLEGE and that the defendant, likewise could not disprove any of the allegations.
As such, it's a "legal fiction" as there has been no evidence submitted to the court for them to make even an educated guess as to whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true or not. But the court has to presume them true and treat the Motion for Dismissal as if they were true.
The court in NO WAY actually even addressed the issue of the truthfulness or factual accuracy of the complaint. They merely addressed the Motion to Dismiss under a "presumption" as they are legally required to do. The ruling is in no way close to being a factual determination.
You think Bernie got a fair shake?
It really doesn't matter what I think about that. I am only here to address the clear and utter preposterous claims made in this "article."
Michael Sainato, the guy who wrote this should be ashamed of himself as he flat out does not know what the F he is talking about!
Just to double check, I looked up the court records on my PACER account, and make no mistake about it, there was never any hearings, witness statements, or testimony taken. Thus it is/was an IMPOSSIBILITY that the judge could make a decision based on the merits of the case. And he sure as shit didn't ADMIT that the DNC or Wasserman-Schultz "rigged" anything as part of his dismissal of the case.
Like I said, in making a determination as to whether to dismiss a case (for any variety of reasons) a Fed Judge is required to reach their decision on a presumptive basis that what the plaintiff alleges is/was true. So of course, the judge wrote the dismissal opinion in the way he did, using and taking that presumption as if it were actual "fact." But again, that's purely a legal fiction and in no way serves as an actual finding of fact. The judge's ruling to dismiss is based on the fact that the plaintiff's had no valid cause of action and had not submitted such a case to the court in a manner which established the court had subject matter jurisdiction. The Judge also found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit.
This notion, that somehow the Judge/Court made ANY finding based on the merits is freaking ridiculous and something any 1st yr law student would understand was NOT true.
Here's the relevant part of the dismissal order, which states EXACTLY what I said above and disproves the author's claims.
"This Order does not concern who should have been the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. At this stage, the Court is required to construe the First Amended Complaint (DE 8) in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and accept its well-pled allegations as true. See Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2008)."
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf
Michael Sainato, the guy who wrote this should be ashamed of himself as he flat out does not know what the F he is talking about!
Just to double check, I looked up the court records on my PACER account, and make no mistake about it, there was never any hearings, witness statements, or testimony taken. Thus it is/was an IMPOSSIBILITY that the judge could make a decision based on the merits of the case. And he sure as shit didn't ADMIT that the DNC or Wasserman-Schultz "rigged" anything as part of his dismissal of the case.
Like I said, in making a determination as to whether to dismiss a case (for any variety of reasons) a Fed Judge is required to reach their decision on a presumptive basis that what the plaintiff alleges is/was true. So of course, the judge wrote the dismissal opinion in the way he did, using and taking that presumption as if it were actual "fact." But again, that's purely a legal fiction and in no way serves as an actual finding of fact. The judge's ruling to dismiss is based on the fact that the plaintiff's had no valid cause of action and had not submitted such a case to the court in a manner which established the court had subject matter jurisdiction. The Judge also found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit.
This notion, that somehow the Judge/Court made ANY finding based on the merits is freaking ridiculous and something any 1st yr law student would understand was NOT true.
Here's the relevant part of the dismissal order, which states EXACTLY what I said above and disproves the author's claims.
"This Order does not concern who should have been the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. At this stage, the Court is required to construe the First Amended Complaint (DE 8) in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and accept its well-pled allegations as true. See Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2008)."
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf
I didn't even read the article. I made the thread strictly as click bait for lefties to see who and how hard they'd work to defend Dems and Hillary.
Toon must be headed back home where he's permabanned.
So, do you think Bernie got a fair shake?
I'm hardly defending anyone, when I pointed out that the article is complete bullsheet and the author is making a claim that is ludicrous on its face and shows a complete disregard for the truth and a lack of understanding of the law.
This my friends is the first time one of our resident attorney's has ever uttered these words. Please make a note, it won't happen again. I personally don't believe him.
Jesus, Thor. Clickbait? You?
The super delegates were what they were. It's not exactly a secret.
Yet totally miss the spirit of the thread.
@Medic007 what are your thoughts on the machinations of the Democratic party in as far as it represents their left-leaning constituency?
Or, maybe he didn't miss the spirit of the thread at all, but used the situation to make a different point.
Been, what are your thoughts on the machinations of the Democratic party in as far as it represents their left-leaning constituency?
I think Bernie was screwed and it is pretty sad that the DNC did that to him. Politics is a dirty business and politicians can't be trusted. They are all beholden to someone and all are looking to pad their personal bank accounts.
The Socialist might have done a better job against Trump than the Seizurist.
Inability to read the entire thread before jumping to defense can be a real bitch.
Actually wasn't going to point out how you crawdadded back into a corner once @hollywood made you realize what an asinine OP you had made...
So Bernie got fair treatment by the DNC?
The most humorous part of the DNC coronation is it benefited Trump much than Hillary. Still makes me chuckle.
A quick note that's long overdue: Like clockwork, supposedly liberal medic reminds everyone he's giddy that the dems lost and Trump got elected. The schtick is its own caricature now. He defends white supremacists, republicans, conservative politics, and constantly criticizes everything liberal, constructs liberal straw men to rip, digs up assistant professor ramblings to lampoon anything liberal, celebrates their defeats.... but he's a liberal. Dude needs to be genuine and quit forcing a msb character to play. Another entry in the Who's Who of Right Wing Crackpots.
BUT CHICAGO!
That's just your asinine interpretation. I said what the intent was and I still haven't read the article. Look at all the libs wanting to defend Hillary's corruption.
How about you? You think Bernie got a fair shake? You ready to admit that the only corruption within the election was by Hillary and the Democrats?
Edit: at the moment @syskatine is the only one willing to acknowledge the corruption.
Last edited:
You don't pay much attention - maybe you can get @Medic007 to share a dose or two. HRC - awful candidate. DWS - borderline criminal manipulation of the primaries. If you care to you can go back nearly a year to see if this has been consistent.
Just to show how fair and unbiased I can be - DJT is a buffoon. Happy now?
And as to "the only corruption" ... laughable assertion while we have several ongoing investigations...
Not laughable until proven guilty. You've just already made up your mind. As of right now, all the Dems. I thank you for the honesty.
It was rhetorical, although you boot licking cucks had no issue looking past it. Fine, we'll settle for Hillary (YES! fist pump) cuz she's gonna smoke Trump's ass! I'm with her!
Oops, now she's a deeply flawed candidate (shrug, kick the can, and wait patiently and obediently for the next instructions).
See that is a notable difference. I have a strong opinion on DWS absent any need for definitive proof. You on the other hand will challenge any negative assertions like a good Trumpet....
If your looking for some kind of apology for opposing the current disaster in chief look elsewhere.
With all due respect, it seems out of character for you to post a link to an article which you didn't even bother to read. It also seems out of character for you to mislead in the title of your post. I recognize that you say you didn't even read the article so your title was just taken from the headline, bit the headline was misleading as Wood pointed out.
Bernie didn't get a fair shake. There is evidence of corruption within the election by Hillary and the Dems. It is a big leap of faith to believe it was the only corruption in the election.
That's fair and correct, I usually read articles before posting and I don't generally troll. I was looking at twitter and drinking, saw the headline and just threw it out to see who would rush to defend. I honestly had no idea which way it would go. I am guilty of taking it at face value to a degree.
Oppose away. No skin off my back. Just acknowledging how some of you curled up into a fetal position and took whatever the DNC served up. I couldn't care less myself.
I criticized the Syria strike and the McMaster selection on here. I'm not pleased with Bannon, Mooch, and Gorka being gone. The neocons have basically infiltrated the entire admin. I give two shits about Afghanistan, pull out now.
That pic made me hungry AF.Funny. Lefties like you on Bernie's fisting...
