Lets all just ignore possibly the most important admission in the history of court cases

Lets all just ignore possibly the most important admission in the history of court cases.

Yeah?

Awesome.

Whatever you do, don't look into #DNCFraudLawsuit

And DEFINITELY don't reply to any threads about it, especially this one. (No, not even to call me a libcuck or a Russian agent, sorry.)

"We could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right." ~Bruce Spiva, Lawyer for the DNC, in open court

jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

Other urls found in this thread:

jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf
underlore.com/liberal-hate/
judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-newly-released-emails-reveal-classified-information-transmitted-hillary-clinton-unsecure-server-clinton-foundation-employees/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Can I get a quick rundown on what this is and what it means?

interesting. this should be spread far and wide

People who claim to oppose the DNC and what it actually stands for, who are simultaneously aware of, and yet silent on, #DNCFraudLawsuit... are liars.
Their silence proves they want the DNC to persist.
"We could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right." ~Bruce Spiva, Lawyer for the DNC, in open court
jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf
The DNC officially asserted in court that they have zero obligation to run a legitimate election. Right or wrong, that changes everything.
There is literally no room to deny it.
With #SethRich you can (however baselessly) assert it's a meaningless conspiracy theory. But not so with #DNCFraudLawsuit. There can be no disputing statements made in court happened.
This one issues exposes the fact that the opposition between the DNC and RNC is staged.
This goes beyond topical partisan conflict and cynical belief systems about what's really going on. This is hard cold official proof. It's the difference between a personal conviction and an official announcement.
The DNC officially announced elections are a farce.
American society just admitted that democracy literally doesn't exist in the United States.
That has massive global implications well beyond even the staggering impact of the #SethRich events. (Which ultimately toy with global nuclear war, just for perspective.)
Silence on the #DNCFraudLawsuit issue and from where it's coming, especially from rightist and self labeled independent elements of society, is perhaps even more revealing and important than what is said about it, pro and con.
This issue is a near flawless litmus test for support for democracy itself.

Bump this is incredibly important too
Also for Obama repeatedly breaking our 4th amendment. Also for the awan brothers and their entire saga with clintons and dnc. There is soo much out there that can take down the dnc. Never stop talking about it.

Fraud lawsuit is the best of the set imo because there's no speculation required and it's not just a DNC member gaff or corruption it's the DNC itself speaking in court on the record.

Game changer imo.

Sliding

I'll try again tomorrow after this one inexplicably vanishes.

Seriously, why am I not even getting trolls and haters?

TLDR the bannana is Hillarys team

All of the trolls here are paid m8 keep up the good fight. I'm watching

Democracy is shit anyway
but solid gestalt and thank you burg

Nice thread, Brandon.

Thank you :)

That might be the first time anyone has called me by name on Sup Forums :P

Obviously I'm making such great efforts to hide my identity >.> X)

It's not a right vs left issue. Blindly supporting either side means you don't fully see the big picture. As long as Israel keeps this Trump shit up, all the newfags will continue to get sucked down into left vs right drama and ignore bipartisan issues. It's better when they fight each other, goy.

Agreed, since presumably the RNC could make the same argument the DNC, but my question is why doesn't anyone care?

The right should use it as a tool vs the left, and even if the establishment types are quiet to protect the two party system what about all the people not even aware of that angle? And what about all the independents that want to crush both?

What about all the so called trolls that shit on everything regardless?

I swear the silence on this speaks volumes.

Should add more quotes from the case... Like the one where they say they don't have to have an impartial primary, even though it's their own rule, because impartial isn't self-defining

See Both parties are guilty, generally speaking. The right is in bed with Israel and the left is working for the bankers/deep state/elite, whatever terms people come up with. In reality, it's more of the same.

Do it, the link to the pdf is right here, dig out some good ones. Make better threads hehe.

jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

I'm open to suggestions.

They're silent because, like you said, playing the sides and maintaining the illusion is critical. Both sides exist to do two important tasks - further an elitist goal, and adsorb and neutralize anybody who wants to oppose the other's elitist goal by pretending to fight them. The right needs to continue existing because it establishes the elite's financial and power infrastructure and absorbs people who oppose leftist social decay, and the left needs to exist to further its divisive social decay and absorb anybody who opposes the elite's infrastructure.

That's a conspiracy theory though, like technically.

"All trolls are paid."

Does that mean everyone here but you and me are working for the two teams? Are there no indies here? No pure anarchists that just wanna watch it all go down?

I mean surely there should be some debate on this around here, regardless, unless the whole thing is being managed.

But if that's the case why even allow my threads?

Bumping

It's not a conspiracy user. Look beyond this place to find your proofs. There have been so many oldfags banned for posting any independent thoughts or in some cases, even red pill threads, which used to be a staple here. The process of sharing information from oldfags to newfags has been decaying and it's not by chance. What's left has become a Trump (Israel) circlejerk. The people you're looking for are still around and some still lurk here.

In b4 ban, Kek posting, and shill.

libcuck.

sage'd

That's a bold statement. I'll need to think about that more. To think that there are no indies or anarchists here, all trolls really are bots and such. I need to think about ways to prove or disprove it.

bump'd

you have my attention

Dig into the transcript or Google it and make better threads than this one XD

I suck at this.

Bump

It is a bold statement and it's true. You think you're the only person to have made a thread here that went against the God Emperor Trump had it slid off or constantly called a libcuck, shill, or other tactics to discredit you without any argument at all?

See The only people that used to do that were the Stormfags but that's not the case anymore. And before any Stormfags come in here and start your bullshit, I don't give a fuck about you. I only hate when you shit up every thread and act no different than the very Jews you claim to hate.

I'm currently working but I downloaded the PDF of the case and I have a more than passing familiarity with federal law due to my job (I will not elaborate on that). I'll dig into this tonight/tomorrow and see what I can put together. Just skimming through it I found that one of their main arguments is that there is no such thing, legally speaking, as the Democratic Party. The absolute gall of this lawyer sickens me.

Bump

I think you'll agree if you dig into it that the #DNCFraudLawsuit is different.

Has any political party in American history admitted officially in court that they have no legal obligation to run a fair election?

Were I not watching it be ignored I would conclude that such a thing would have been the story of the century.

I mean imagine what you would have expected to happen if you were told in 2015 that was coming.

The relative silence is almost more shocking than the event itself.

I mean, we're not talking about some group or person that can be fired and problem solved.

This is the party ITSELF speaking in court.

There's no further evidence to get.

It's like the CIA saying in court they shot JFK or something and that shooting presidents is legal.

Indeed. They overtly argue that their entire charter is meaningless legally. It's mind numbing.

Lol

>Has any political party in American history admitted officially in court that they have no legal obligation to run a fair election?

Not that I'm aware of, but maybe another user would give insight to it. I agree with your post btw, I'm just trying to help you understand why things like this don't get the attention they used to.

Do you think the right could possibly be guilty of the same thing? Is that why the actual shills on this board don't want to touch it? Imagine if people realized the amount of corruption in the US government and this caused them to look into it. What would they find? How would that keep the divide going in this country so we can keep pointing the finger at each other?

Thank you. I guess I just never saw blatantly relevant issues being ignored like this on pol before.

Discussed ineptly sure but not outright ignored.

I don't think the RNC is as guilty of this specific type of election fraud because if nothing else they have lesser need.

Their base seems easier to please and manage. This is not to say right wingers are somehow lesser, it's just a logistical fact stemming from the fact that we have a single shared past by many possible futures.

This makes reformers much harder to unify by definition.

I wrote about this before:
underlore.com/liberal-hate/

This.
You don't even get to run for election unless you owe someone something.
Both sides work for the lobbyists.

>Do you think the right could possibly be guilty of the same thing? Is that why the actual shills on this board don't want to touch it? Imagine if people realized the amount of corruption in the US government and this caused them to look into it. What would they find? How would that keep the divide going in this country so we can keep pointing the finger at each other?

This kind of shit is what makes this whole political process feel so hollow. We all know and yet nobody wants to know. I always knew Trump's victory would be meaningless because there is no difference between the parties.

Well one big fucking difference right now is that one of them admitted in court they don't run fair elections.

#DNCFraudLawsuit

I think this needs a catchier title.

Bernie Redemption Lawsuit.

Bernie Justice Lawsuit

Bernie Would Have Won Lawsuit.

Bernie Bros Robbery Trial

No Trump's victory was meaningful, it's all the stuff afterwards that obviously is irrelevant. Trump was a symbol, a useful tool, and a point of unity that we let ourselves get too stuck on. We should have known that the guy never espoused our ideals, that a president won't, and can't, do what we need done. We should have seen that the election itself was the event horizon of Trump's usefulness and poured our energy into other productive endeavor. We won when we elected Trump but the idea that he could have ever been /ourguy/ was ludicrous.

Clinton Primary Riggers Lawsuit.

DNC Riggers

#NOREFUNDS

Agreed.

>I don't think the RNC is as guilty of this specific type of election fraud because if nothing else they have lesser need.

That's possible. The main question I asked myself was, "Why?" I'm not under the assumption that our government is completely incompetent, maybe on some issues it appears that way but not generally speaking. What would they gain by not exposing this?

I think it's because kek is in hibernation or whatever right now

I guess the answer there is because they know that the DNC is working for their bosses.

Same reason coke doesn't destroy Pepsi. But that only answers for a tiny political elite. Their entire base should demand the death blow.

Along with progressives and indies.

Bump

Here is an enjoyable read about the lawsuits going on

jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

The DNC lawyers have an incredibly difficult position of trying to go against a 1000 years of common law about fraud.

They try to position in the lawsuit transcript that the silly bylaw of being neutral is meaningless (admitting they will always play favorites) and that if the court makes them do something because of their internal rules, that it would be a breach of the first amendment.

Yup, its that long of a stretch for them to defend it.

Its worth the half hour or hour it takes to read.

To clarify, I linked the actual court transcripts.

The DNC are dead as an organization. This split was what threatened to happen with Perot and Paul.

Bumping

>Their entire base should demand the death blow.

It's always baffled me why this doesn't happen like it has in the past here and in other parts of the world. I think the public has gotten so apathetic about politics over the last several decades and is kept busy with things that don't matter as much like entertainment and all of these groups on the other side to be mad at.

Whether the Kek shit was manufactured or not, it was interesting to see how quickly just one spark can light the fire of millions of people, including people who never gave a shit about politics before. The idea that it can happen again is what still gives me hope for the general public, regardless if that was its intent.

Well, if the trolls here are all paid shills than the kek thing is fake too I suspect.

I agree. I can't imagine the judge is gonna have any grounds for granting the DNC's motion to dismiss.

If he does I genuinely think it will domino into civil war. That just isn't a realistic option for them.

The final de facto canceling of elections will rouse us or nothing will. It's a huge unacceptable gamble for them. Far worse than rolling the dice on nuclear war even. Not least because it might well lead there.

Anybody with half a brain has realized that the vote don't mean shit. A two party system is BS.

Bump

Important

#LockDEMup

Bump.

Belief is different from proof in the form of an official announcement in court.

Even psycho bums understand this which is why they often seek obsessively to prove their assertions and hypotheses.

The difference between a conviction and a fact is the difference between a religion and a result.

Not to go OT, but as I'm reading this

>The Court would have to find that these individuals were induced to give money to Representative Sanders --
sorry -- Senator Sanders

Fucking L O L. What is with them and never addressing someone with their proper titles? I keep seeing this behavior with other politicians, too. It's just a level of respect that they don't seem to have.

bump

Yeah that is rather odd, I guess it's just because habits die hard?

There are other funny bits in the transcript.

At one point the judge basically tells the crowd to shut up hehe.

Quote:
THE COURT: And I apologize. This is not your
problem.
MR. BECK: Okay.
THE COURT: But for those of you who are here as
spectators -- and there's at least one individual and maybe
two -- you are distracting the Court with your show of
exuberance in support of counsel's arguments. You might as
well be doing somersaults or backflips in support of counsel's
argument. So, you are distracting me. So, if you want to help
the side that you're here to support, let me listen to the
lawyer, and please stop distracting me.
Counsel, go right ahead.
MR. BECK: Thank you, your Honor.

don't fall into absolutes so quickly.

>a legitimate election
Primary election, as they reference choosing a candidate. It's still two teams trying to make more money than the other. Unless you're tapping into muh New World Order, in which case-

CRASHING THIS PARTY WITH NO REFUNDS

They certainly seem to be asking for it.

>we're not even getting into the question of widespread reports of irregularities at polling locations in various states relating to the actual voting in the primary. There's widespread reports of voting machine irregularities, voter suppression, strange purging of the rolls.

And she still lost. It gets me everytime.

bump

>The other part of their injury here appears to be that Mr. Sanders -- Senator Sanders would have done better had the party supposedly been more evenhanded than it was.

Lmao, they did it again.

Bro, you gotta capture your audience's attention first.
Start off with a strong Seth Rich reference, show a lil hate to the nigger race and then slowly transition into a strong topic like this.

Nice work on the gestalt, and also thanks for keeping us all informed. Valhalla will have a special place for patriots such as yourself.

kek, this faggot actually thinks of himself as an agent. paid shitposter does not an agent make.

What makes you think I think I'm an agent?

I don't even own a sport coat.

Adding the plaintiff's response to this:

>And, quite frankly, if what defendant -- or what the DNC has just said is true -- and I really hope it's not true, but if what he said is true, then I think it's a really sad day for democracy in this country. Because what essentially the DNC has now stated in a court of law is that it believes that there is no enforceable obligation to run the primary elections of this country's democracy in a fair and impartial manner.

>And if that's the case -- and I think counsel just said it himself -- then really, you know, the sky's the limit in terms of what the DNC and any party, for that matter, can do.

Took them this long to realize that? Jeez.

Captcha: Arabian aviano

Yeah, Beck is awesome. He's on twitter.

@JaredBeck

What the actual fuck
Bum bump bump

You're missing the point.

It's not about previous cynical belief.

It's about what the DNC admitted in court on the record through their attorney.

It's like the whole DNC as a person sworn in under oath answering a really direct question.

"Do you feel you are legally obligated to run a fair election?"

"No."

That is wholly different from us simply knowing they are full of shit and corrupt which of course we all knew already heh.

But this is old news?
I don't thinks it's unworthy to talk about. But look at it's reception. There is none.

Nobody fucking cares about this, they all knew. When they all knew it becomes like everything else that is disclosed or leaked. Ignored, because it's so easy to accept cause nothing really changes in the life of the average individual.
Go ahead, talk to someone you know about this right now. See how much they care. To what degree this is information that relates to them.

There is no hope until people see hardship.

>THE COURT: Okay. And what imminent future injury do the plaintiffs allege?

>MR. BECK: Well, I think that the imminent future injury -- and this has -- sort of, I think, become apparent perhaps in the course of today's hearing, but the imminent future injury is that elections occur on a cyclical basis. And so, unless the Court -- if we prove our claims, and unless the Court issues a remedy to prevent the --

>THE COURT: DNC.

>MR. BECK: -- the DNC from engaging in this type of conduct in future elections, then there's nothing that's going to be stopping them.

So the DNC lawyers are basically, up to this point, saying we dindu nuffin and the classic, "I don't know/remember anything." I'm doing other things atm so it's taking me a bit to get through it, but I'm gonna make it!

Ahhh, that's an interesting argument. That because everyone knew them admitting it is irrelevant.

But if that's the case, how do you explain why anyone cares about seth rich or any other gaff scandal or controversy with regard to corruption?

It's like the snowden leaks, wikileaks troughout the last decade and such.
Nothing comes from it. We who care see it, but others ignore it because what the fuck? What real difference does it make?

Asserting the Snowden leaks had no impact is insane.

It did, but in the minds of everyday people it didn't. The majority of people do not really read news. They read headlines, some people watch news. But that's us. There are so much more of them then of us.
People just have no fucking clue as a mass of what the snowden leaks actually is.

So what does it change that the DNC admitted it?
I'm not saying it don't, it does. But it really kind of don't. Cause enforcing it opens the enforcer up to a counter argument of the same. There is no side to take it on. What the fuck is gonna change?

cunts
DNC needs to be dissolved

>how do you explain why anyone cares about seth rich

Easy digestible memes that can be circulated. Make an infographic with your proof/source and something eye catching. Post it in redpill threads or anything relating to corruption. Use burners for social media spreading, etc.. the usual stuff.

this must be why the catalog is full of shite

checked, enjoy the slide

Yeah I see what you mean, in terms of day to day impact, directly attributable to X. Not much.

But why do people care enough to make memes of seth rich in the first place and not this?

I'll try to make more memes. Feel free to post good background pictures and or quotes. I'll text them like my picture in the OP. (not with a shitty website hehe)

>page 8

judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-newly-released-emails-reveal-classified-information-transmitted-hillary-clinton-unsecure-server-clinton-foundation-employees/

hoohoo

>But why do people care enough to make memes of seth rich in the first place and not this?

Those leaks played a huge role in exposing the corruption in the DNC and the cost for that was Seth Rich's life. Assange did an interview implying that he was killed over supplying them with the leaks, which further supported the corruption claims. Also, the tension around that time period was pretty high. Scandal after scandal, leaks, pizzagate, corruption, investigations opening again over Clinton's emails, etc... So it was pretty easy to latch on to for political gain considering the presidential election was around the corner. Plenty of people have been killed that were investigating DNC corruption and things related to it, but I think it was the politcal advantage that helped turn it into a big deal.

Because this is complicated.
Seth got shot in the back in a robbery without being robbed. Then you add on everything else, that's easy to understand, cause you've heard the words before. "wikileaks, russia, DNC, Hillary, emails"

"We could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right." ~Bruce Spiva, Lawyer for the DNC, in open court

DNC says in court, there's not a law against rigging elections.

That's pretty simple.

Getting evidence for Seth is the usual connect the dots evidence chain game that will hopefully one day hold up IN court but here the evidence ORIGINATED in court. X)

I think they'd rather have us chasing tail on yet another JFK than camped outside the judge's house making sure he rules correctly.

We can do both of course but I think the silence proves that this scares them more then Seth.

They ignored Bernie too right up until they didn't have a choice.

MR. SPIVA: And the Court would have to basically tell
the party that it couldn't change that rule, even though it's a
discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with.
The Court would have to find that these individuals
were induced to give money to Representative Sanders --
sorry -- Senator Sanders on the basis that there would be this
neutrality that there purportedly was not, and that they
wouldn't have -- they relied on that, and that they wouldn't
have given that money otherwise.
And same with DNC members. The Court would have to
define who is a member of the Democratic Party nationwide.
There is no national registration for either of the major
parties. And so, this Court would have to determine what it
means to be a Democrat and then determine whether the class
that the Court defined was injured in some way by the
allegations.
I think through each of these questions, your Honor --
and there are more -- they are not justiciable, because they
are political questions that courts have repeatedly said
they -- that they are not the province of the civil courts.
It's not redressable, because if the Court were to seek to
answer those questions and impose burdens upon the party, it
would violate the First Amendment rights of the party for free
association. And so it's not redressable.
And, really, I think there's an impossible showing of
causation. I mean the Court would have to find that people who
fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn't
know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to
Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there
was this purported favoritism.

>This one issues exposes the fact that the opposition between the DNC and RNC is staged.

How does that follow?

Adding the defendant's response

>MR. SPIVA: Thank you, your Honor.
First, I just want to say -- because in response to my hypothetical that the party could choose its nominees in a smoke-filled room, I want to just reiterate that the party ran the process fair and impartially, and does not do that and doesn't plan to do that. But these, again, are political choices that either party is free to make and are not enforceable in a court of law.

It's like knowing a fight is rigged by the obvious pulling of punches.


If the RNC really wanted to bury the DNC, they'd be on top of #DNCFraudLawsuit 10x harder than any scandal in the past.

The DNC admitted in court that they are legally allowed to rig elections.

They fact that they are utterly silent on this shows they don't actually want to win.

They want the illusion of competition forever. They are in bed with the DNC as much as the DNC is in bed with the people that own both parties.

It's a puppet show.

The RNC is always going on about voter fraud, but clearly they don't actually care about election integrity, which we knew, or about winning elections, which we didn't.

See The Leaf said it best.

so what you're saying is kick them both hard in the balls?

Agreed. That argument is absolutely solid with regard to the RNC itself and the actions of the right wing party proper and it's media allies.

I always understood that. My question was why people didn't care. I guess the thread being still alive shows some do care, for now anyway heh. But really I'd expect to see a lot more.

I still don't see how it follows.

Neo-cons and neo-libs are depressingly similar - but that doesn't mean that Clinton threw the election to Trump, and that the billion dollars she spent were all a hoax.