DNC Email Leak

[Milliardo Peacecraft]

That sounds credible, got a source big guy?

Also: Juanita Broaddrick

 

[ttystikk]

So, what crimes were committed? Name them. I'm not aware of any charges. Or even anybody naming the laws that were broken. Its not that I don't think anything illegal happened, what I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any laws being broken. I'm no lawyer either. Maybe there should be a law.

Why are you so hot about the difference in our opinion? I don't get it.

I've heard more anecdotal talk than I can spit out about vote rigging, failure to count votes, disenfranchisement, etc, etc.

Why don't YOU prove no significant shenanigans happened?

 

[Fogdog]

That sounds credible, got a source big guy?

Also: Juanita Broaddrick

By the same standard that you have for claiming Hillary broke the law in whichever scandal you care to name, I can by that standard claim Trump raped that child. A civil trial is on the docket a woman claims he raped her and there is a witness. I'd say the evidence is better than the sleazy shit slung at Hillary for the past 25 years. And so, if you can claim Hillary is a criminal, then I can claim Trump is. He raped a child dude, don't you even care?

 

[Fogdog]

I've heard more anecdotal talk than I can spit out about vote rigging, failure to count votes, disenfranchisement, etc, etc.

Why don't YOU prove no significant shenanigans happened?

Hillary won the election. I'm not the one claiming fraud.

 

[Milliardo Peacecraft]

That just isn't credible man, unless you can provide a source and a conviction, that could just be an attempt to litigate money out of a billionaire (that NEVER happens, right?)

Look, Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. He settled the case in court for some $300,000 for a no fault verdict. The guy sexually importuned on an intern during his presidency and then lied about it under oath. The guy is a sexual predator, that much is known and not speculated by some Huffinton Post hatchet job. Sorry man, your narrative just isn't credible. Classic liberal deflection, accuse your accuser of your crimes. "THIEF THIEF" yells the pickpocket to confuse the crowd to evade capture. It's a Shakespearean trope.

 

[ttystikk]

Hillary won the election. I'm not the one claiming fraud.

Berkeley and Stanford professors both disagree with you;
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/

We do not live in a democracy while this is allowed to stand.

What I don't understand is, in the face of all the evidence, why you still stick your head in the sand?

 

[Fogdog]

Berkeley and Stanford professors both disagree with you;
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/

We do not live in a democracy while this is allowed to stand.

What I don't understand is, in the face of all the evidence, why you still stick your head in the sand?

We still live in a imperfect democracy. Obama beat Hillary with the same machine working against him.

So, all that media manipulation. Yet I voted for Bernie, so did you and about 12 million others. Why should I disrespect the 16 million people who voted for Hillary when the media "blackout" didn't affect me? I think the honest voter will filter that stuff out and make up their own mind just like me.

It takes more than an academic statistical study to convince me that Hillary STOLE the election. Reversing the result of an election is a big deal. But you have been ready for this conclusion from the beginning. There is a term used to describe a person's behavior when he looks only to information that confirms his belief. It's called confirmation bias.

The study you post is interesting. Did you read it? I'm only to page 6 and have to go do other things. This is what I'd like to put forth for you to rebut. Please tone down the bs, I mean rhetoric, OK?

1. This is an initial result and has not gone through peer review.
2. There were many modeling results. The millions to 1 odds that Hillary could only have won was from one modeling result. I haven't seen results from others, maybe later in the paper. If not then this looks like cherry picking but I don't know that yet.
3. There is a discrepancy in the report. Again, I've just had a look at the report but there is a lot of focus on favorability ratings going in Bernie's favor and how that conflicts with past election results. Conclusion, must be rigged. Yet, when the poll asked who would you like to see be the presidential candidate, Hillary was chosen, 49% for Hillary and 43% for Bernie. My conclusion is that voters chose Hillary because they thought he was more likely to beat the GOP nominee. Which aligns pretty well to what happened.
4. The funny data in the report is this: This is in stark contrast with the results in the non paper-trail states, where Clinton won the African American vote with 83%. In the paper-trail states, she only won them with 74% of the votes. The latter lying far closer to the polling results.
74% of the black vote is a whopping big margin of victory and hardly exhibits some sort of malfeasance. Why are there only 22 states counted on the graph that "demonstrates" the discrepancy. There were 12 states with a paper trail and 10 states without. What about the other 30 states? This is funny data and sets off red flags from whenever I see it. And I've seen it a lot as a technical professional. Usually somebody is hiding inconvenient data.
5. The assertion of this paper is not that the media blackout was a factor. The assertion is that somebody hacked the polling machines in every state that didn't have a paper trail. Wow, that's a big deal.

So, then yes, there is an accusation of crime here. But that paper would not hold it's own weight in court.

I'll go through this more carefully later and will reply back if I find anything to change my initial impression that this report is academic, not peer reviewed and sketchy.

 

[Fogdog]

That just isn't credible man, unless you can provide a source and a conviction, that could just be an attempt to litigate money out of a billionaire (that NEVER happens, right?)

Look, Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. He settled the case in court for some $300,000 for a no fault verdict. The guy sexually importuned on an intern during his presidency and then lied about it under oath. The guy is a sexual predator, that much is known and not speculated by some Huffinton Post hatchet job. Sorry man, your narrative just isn't credible. Classic liberal deflection, accuse your accuser of your crimes. "THIEF THIEF" yells the pickpocket to confuse the crowd to evade capture. It's a Shakespearean trope.

By your standard regarding Hillary's "crimes", I can definitely say that Trump is a pedophile child rapist. Not only that but he's disgusting because he raped a 13 year old girl four times in front of people. Yuck.

 

[ttystikk]

We still live in a imperfect democracy. Obama beat Hillary with the same machine working against him.

So, all that media manipulation. Yet I voted for Bernie, so did you and about 12 million others. Why should I disrespect the 16 million people who voted for Hillary when the media "blackout" didn't affect me? I think the honest voter will filter that stuff out and make up their own mind just like me.

It takes more than an academic statistical study to convince me that Hillary STOLE the election. Reversing the result of an election is a big deal. But you have been ready for this conclusion from the beginning. There is a term used to describe a person's behavior when he looks only to information that confirms his belief. It's called confirmation bias.

The study you post is interesting. Did you read it? I'm only to page 6 and have to go do other things. This is what I'd like to put forth for you to rebut. Please tone down the bs, I mean rhetoric, OK?

1. This is an initial result and has not gone through peer review.
2. There were many modeling results. The millions to 1 odds that Hillary could only have won was from one modeling result. I haven't seen results from others, maybe later in the paper. If not then this looks like cherry picking but I don't know that yet.
3. There is a discrepancy in the report. Again, I've just had a look at the report but there is a lot of focus on favorability ratings going in Bernie's favor and how that conflicts with past election results. Conclusion, must be rigged. Yet, when the poll asked who would you like to see be the presidential candidate, Hillary was chosen, 49% for Hillary and 43% for Bernie. My conclusion is that voters chose Hillary because they thought he was more likely to beat the GOP nominee. Which aligns pretty well to what happened.
4. The funny data in the report is this: This is in stark contrast with the results in the non paper-trail states, where Clinton won the African American vote with 83%. In the paper-trail states, she only won them with 74% of the votes. The latter lying far closer to the polling results.
74% of the black vote is a whopping big margin of victory and hardly exhibits some sort of malfeasance. Why are there only 22 states counted on the graph that "demonstrates" the discrepancy. There were 12 states with a paper trail and 10 states without. What about the other 30 states? This is funny data and sets off red flags from whenever I see it. And I've seen it a lot as a technical professional. Usually somebody is hiding inconvenient data.
5. The assertion of this paper is not that the media blackout was a factor. The assertion is that somebody hacked the polling machines in every state that didn't have a paper trail. Wow, that's a big deal.

So, then yes, there is an accusation of crime here. But that paper would not hold it's own weight in court.

I'll go through this more carefully later and will reply back if I find anything to change my initial impression that this report is academic, not peer reviewed and sketchy.

No, the Mr Obama vs Mrs Clinton contest was NOT the same, Mr Obama was a democrat.

I didn't read further.

You keep saying things that aren't true hoping to convince me of a bigger lie.

Wtf?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you think a crime was committed? Did Hillary break any laws?

If no laws were broken then maybe we should talk about making some new ones so this doesn't happen again.

These are the rules that have been identified as being broken by the DNC

There are no consequences I could find for breaking these rules, none of it is against the law

No, rules were broken. Why even have the rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?

How can you hold such a dismissive view of the blatant subversion of democracy in the democratic primary? They stole the election by breaking the DNCs own rules that aren't illegal (gee, I wonder why they're not illegal...). If Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders did the exact same thing, people would be screaming for legal action, but because it's Clinton, she and the DNC get another pass.

This is complete bullshit and you know it

Article 1; Section 4

Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party
full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, the
formulation of policy, and the conduct of other Party affairs, without prejudice on the basis of sex, race,
age (if of voting age), color, creed, national origin, religion, economic status, gender identity, sexual
orientation, gender identity, ethnic identity or physical disability, and further, to promote fair campaign
practices and the fair adjudication of disputes. Accordingly, the scheduling of Democratic Party affairs at
all levels shall consider the presence of any religious minorities of significant numbers of concentration
whose level of participation would be affected;

Section 7

Encourage and support codes of political ethics that embody substantive rules of ethical
guidance for public officials and employees in federal, state and local governments, to assure that public
officials shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably upon the office they
serve, shall not use their office to gain special privileges and benefits and shall refrain from acting in their
official capacities

Article 2; Section 2

The National Convention shall be the highest authority of the Democratic Party, subject to
the provisions of this Charter.

Article 5; Section 4

The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as
may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In
the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the
Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.

Article 9; Section 8

To assure that the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States is
selected by a fair and equitable process, the Democratic National Committee may adopt such statements
of policy as it deems appropriate with respect to the timing of Presidential nominating processes and shall
work with state Parties to accomplish the objectives of such statements.

Section 9

The Democratic National Committee shall maintain and publish a code of fair campaign
practices, which shall be recommended for observance by all candidates campaigning as Democrats.

Article 10; Section 3

Each official body of the Democratic Party created under the authority of this Charter shall
adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules, which rules shall be consistent with this
Charter, the Bylaws and other provisions adopted pursuant to authority of the Charter, including
resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. The Democratic National Committee shall
maintain copies of all such rules and shall make them available upon request.

Section 4

Each recognized state Democratic Party shall adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance
with written rules. Copies of such rules and of any changes or amendments thereto shall be filed with the
Democratic National Committee within thirty days following adoption.

Bylaws, Article 2

h) Promoting and encouraging Party activities at every level, including but not limited to the
following:

(i) promoting and encouraging implementation of all Party mandates;
(ii) the fulfillment by the Party of its platform pledge and other commitments;

Section 17, Democratic Party Credo.

We Democrats are the oldest political party in America and the youngest in spirit. We will remain so,
because we enjoy the challenge of government. Time and again, for almost two centuries, the Democratic
Party has made government work -- to build and defend a nation, to encourage commerce, to educate our
children, to promote equal opportunity, to advance science and industry, to support the arts and
humanities, to restore the land, to develop and conserve our human and natural resources, to preserve
and enhance our built environment, to relieve poverty, to explore space. We have reached difficult and
vital goals.

We recognize that the capacity of government is limited but we regard democratic government as a
force for good and a source of hope.

At the heart of our party lies a fundamental conviction, that Americans must not only be free, but they
must live in a fair society.

We believe it is the responsibility of government to help us achieve this fair society.

• a society where the elderly and the disabled can lead lives of dignity and where Social Security
remains an unshakable commitment;
• a society where all people can find jobs in a growing full-employment economy;
• a society where all workers are guaranteed without question the legal right to join unions of their
own choosing and to bargain collectively for decent wages and conditions of employment;
• a society where taxes are clearly based on ability to pay;
• a society where the equal rights of women are guaranteed in the Constitution;
• a society where the civil rights of minorities are fully secured and where no one is denied the
opportunity for a better life;
• a society where both public and private discrimination based upon race, sex, age, color, creed,
national origin, religion, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic status, philosophical
persuasion or physical disability are condemned and where our government moves aggressively to end
such discrimination through lawful means;
• a society where we recognize that the strengthening of the family and the protection of children
are essential to the health of the nation;
• a society where a sound education, proper nutrition, quality medical care, affordable housing, safe
streets and a healthy environment are possible for every citizen;
• a society where the livelihoods of our family farmers are as stable as the values they instill in the
American character;
• a society where a strong national defense is a common effort, where promoting human rights is a
basic value of our foreign policy, and where

 

[Padawanbater2]

We still live in a imperfect democracy. Obama beat Hillary with the same machine working against him.

This is 2008, Clinton's donors v. Obama's donors;

"the same machine working against him" ?

So, all that media manipulation. Yet I voted for Bernie, so did you and about 12 million others. Why should I disrespect the 16 million people who voted for Hillary when the media "blackout" didn't affect me? I think the honest voter will filter that stuff out and make up their own mind just like me.

They won't, 95% of the time; Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Media manipulation has a HUGE impact on American democracy

 

[desert dude]

Pretty funny stuff here.

"Did Hillary break any laws?"

Trump, or Hillary? The US is screwed. It's hard to believe that one of these two is going to be president.

Johnson/Weld.

 

[UncleBuck]

That just isn't credible man, unless you can provide a source and a conviction, that could just be an attempt to litigate money out of a billionaire (that NEVER happens, right?)

Look, Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. He settled the case in court for some $300,000 for a no fault verdict. The guy sexually importuned on an intern during his presidency and then lied about it under oath. The guy is a sexual predator, that much is known and not speculated by some Huffinton Post hatchet job. Sorry man, your narrative just isn't credible. Classic liberal deflection, accuse your accuser of your crimes. "THIEF THIEF" yells the pickpocket to confuse the crowd to evade capture. It's a Shakespearean trope.

wow, you really are a dumb child. too daft and moronic to even understand the double standard that you are employing. let me attempt to explain it to you.

you have called hillary a criminal even though she has not been convicted of any crime. using that very same standard, we can say that donald trump is a pedophile who rapes 13 year old girls, because he is on trial for that right now in federal court. he's also on trial for fraud and racketeering in multiple states right now, so he's guilty of that too.

in a final pathetic and desperate attempt to take the focus off your racist, child-raping, bankruptcy declaring con man of a hero, you then accuse someone who is not even running for president of rape.

what you ignore is that fact that donald trump has settled a rape charge before to avoid standing trial for it.

in 1997, donald trump raped jill harth and covered it up with hush money. that was after he settled a rape case involving his own ex-wife.

donald trump routinely hangs around with convicted pedophile jeffery eppstein as well.

donald trump is definitely a pedophile and a rapist many times over.

 

[doublejj]

anyone but Trump

 

[NLXSK1]

Hillary is too big to fail!!

 

[UncleBuck]

Pretty funny stuff here.

"Did Hillary break any laws?"

Trump, or Hillary? The US is screwed. It's hard to believe that one of these two is going to be president.

Johnson/Weld.

are you rooting for the guy who privatizes prisons because you are a wannabe cop, and think you have a chance at being a corrections officer instead?

or is it because he has hired so many incredibly racist staffers, like the guy behind the willie horton ads and a whole bunch of birthers?

seeing as how you are a white supremacist cop wannabe, i figure it could be either one, george.

 

[Milliardo Peacecraft]

wow, you really are a dumb child. too daft and moronic to even understand the double standard that you are employing. let me attempt to explain it to you.

you have called hillary a criminal even though she has not been convicted of any crime. using that very same standard, we can say that donald trump is a pedophile who rapes 13 year old girls, because he is on trial for that right now in federal court. he's also on trial for fraud and racketeering in multiple states right now, so he's guilty of that too.

in a final pathetic and desperate attempt to take the focus off your racist, child-raping, bankruptcy declaring con man of a hero, you then accuse someone who is not even running for president of rape.

what you ignore is that fact that donald trump has settled a rape charge before to avoid standing trial for it.

in 1997, donald trump raped jill harth and covered it up with hush money. that was after he settled a rape case involving his own ex-wife.

donald trump routinely hangs around with convicted pedophile jeffery eppstein as well.

donald trump is definitely a pedophile and a rapist many times over.

Alright Buck, pull up the court record of the settlement. Public record, shouldn't be hard. Trump banned Epstein from all his properties immediately following the charges, while just a few months ago, Bill Clinton was discovered on the flight records of Epstein's pedo plane an additional 12 times from what he originally declared. You obviously didn't follow the House Oversight Committee's hearing for Comey's decision not to recommend indictment, as he spoke on record that she lied under oath when she said that "nothing was marked classified at the time the emails were sent or received". Lying under oath.... hmmmm.... wasn't her husband impeached for just that?

So let's see it Buck, where is the Trump rape settlement lawsuit? Juanita Broaddrick's case is right here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
That wasn't even the only settlement for sexual impropriety by Bill

And here's the new Epstein plane findings:
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/05/13/bill-clinton-ditch-secret-service-detail-fly-pedophiles-plane/

 

[ttystikk]

This is 2008, Clinton's donors v. Obama's donors;

"the same machine working against him" ?

They won't, 95% of the time; Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Media manipulation has a HUGE impact on American democracy

THANK YOU. The research you do is very important.

It's important because people like @Fogdog need to know the truth; that our democracy ISN'T unless the candidates are treated fairly.

 

[Fogdog]

No, the Mr Obama vs Mrs Clinton contest was NOT the same, Mr Obama was a democrat.

I didn't read further.

You keep saying things that aren't true hoping to convince me of a bigger lie.

Wtf?

I don't give a shit what you think or do or whatever.

This is 2008, Clinton's donors v. Obama's donors;

"the same machine working against him" ?

They won't, 95% of the time; Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Media manipulation has a HUGE impact on American democracy

How much did media manipulation affect you or Ty? I'm pretty sure you think you are immune. So, you aren't affected but others are?

 

[Fogdog]

THANK YOU. The research you do is very important.

It's important because people like @Fogdog need to know the truth; that our democracy ISN'T unless the candidates are treated fairly.

This is 2008, Clinton's donors v. Obama's donors;

"the same machine working against him" ?

They won't, 95% of the time; Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Media manipulation has a HUGE impact on American democracy

He ran against Hillary and her organization. It's basically the same organization and Democratic Party insiders that Nader ran against in 2004. Read his take on what it was like. They were dirty and did every trick they could to suck funds from him. That's politics in the real world. You seem to think that Hillary should have given Bernie a handicap. Really?

I can't believe you guys. What do you want? Maybe Bernie should have been just handed 100 delegates just to make it even?