DNC Email Leak

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Actually it relates to the Democratic divide which I feel is a current and important issue

So do you think the American people should have a right to view private communications from DNC(as well as RNC) officials who are responsible for organizing free and fair public elections? If not, why not?

Do you support waging physical war with Russia if Putin or the Russian government is orchestrated in influencing the 2016 presidential election? Why/why not?
Click to expand...
Is it a .org?

That's your answer right there.
 
visajoe1

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
You can still have a hard copy..you just hit print once all signatures are collected..the software sends it back.
Click to expand...
Its not an original document though, which means nothing legally. You can digitally sign a pdf (registration process including SSN) and its binding, but who would do that for multi- million/billion dollar deals? Kinda amateurish. I signed a lease for my new restaurant a few months ago, thing was shipped across the world and back, because original documents is all that matters when it comes down to it. Just FYI
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
Its not an original document though, which means nothing legally. You can digitally sign a pdf (registration process including SSN) and its binding, but who would do that for multi- million/billion dollar deals? Kinda amateurish. I signed a lease for my new restaurant a few months ago, thing was shipped across the world and back, because original documents is all that matters when it comes down to it. Just FYI
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Hacked is entering the server without permission. Leaked is you obtain and distribute.

You can have a direct leak from someone who has permission to server.
Click to expand...
Hacking is actually usually infecting the server with something real quiet and granting yourself access from there.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws, Article 5, Section 4

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."
Click to expand...
"“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,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said

“There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.

“You have a charter that says you have to be — where the party has adopted a principle of even-handedness, and just to get the language exactly right, that they would be even-handed and impartial, I believe, is the exact language. And, you know, that’s not self-defining, your Honor. I mean that’s kind of like, you know, saying, Who’s a Baptist?”

Beck pointed out that the neutrality pledge isn’t only stated in the charter — former Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on national television many times referencing the charter and the DNC’s pledge to be neutral.



Spiva went on to argue that the court can’t really answer this question of meaning"

Full Article


So, who supports making the DNC bylaw, Article 5, Section 4 legally binding?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"“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,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said

“There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.

“You have a charter that says you have to be — where the party has adopted a principle of even-handedness, and just to get the language exactly right, that they would be even-handed and impartial, I believe, is the exact language. And, you know, that’s not self-defining, your Honor. I mean that’s kind of like, you know, saying, Who’s a Baptist?”

Beck pointed out that the neutrality pledge isn’t only stated in the charter — former Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on national television many times referencing the charter and the DNC’s pledge to be neutral.



Spiva went on to argue that the court can’t really answer this question of meaning"

Full Article


So, who supports making the DNC bylaw, Article 5, Section 4 legally binding?
Click to expand...
plug any fat chicks lately, curt?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
So when this was brought to attention during the primary, people said the rules were already set, and if we wanted to change them, do it following the correct channels after the primary. So now it's after the primary, and now we can see the arguments the lawyer representing the DNC is using in open, public court. He's essentially saying people who donated to the DNC or to other Democratic campaigns during the 2016 primary were not defrauded out of their money because there is no actual legal obligation for the DNC to abide by their own bylaws.

So, @Fogdog @Big_Lou @UncleBuck @SneekyNinja @ttystikk @londonfog @Corso312 @schuylaar @Unclebaldrick @mr sunshine @tangerinegreen555 @Grandpapy @Justin-case

Do you think we should make it a legal obligation? Do you believe the DNC should be legally bound to the Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws?

Article 5, Section 4;

"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."

Why/why not?
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So when this was brought to attention during the primary, people said the rules were already set, and if we wanted to change them, do it following the correct channels after the primary. So now it's after the primary, and now we can see the arguments the lawyer representing the DNC is using in open, public court. He's essentially saying people who donated to the DNC or to other Democratic campaigns during the 2016 primary were not defrauded out of their money because there is no actual legal obligation for the DNC to abide by their own bylaws.

So, @Fogdog @Big_Lou @UncleBuck @SneekyNinja @ttystikk @londonfog @Corso312 @schuylaar @Unclebaldrick @mr sunshine @tangerinegreen555 @Grandpapy @Justin-case

Do you think we should make it a legal obligation? Do you believe the DNC should be legally bound to the Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws?

Article 5, Section 4;

"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."

Why/why not?
Click to expand...

Impartiality and even handedness, does that mean they should include women as nominees every two hundred years or so?

Then yes, I agree


By the way, it's crash and burnie over this college fraud case.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So when this was brought to attention during the primary, people said the rules were already set, and if we wanted to change them, do it following the correct channels after the primary. So now it's after the primary, and now we can see the arguments the lawyer representing the DNC is using in open, public court. He's essentially saying people who donated to the DNC or to other Democratic campaigns during the 2016 primary were not defrauded out of their money because there is no actual legal obligation for the DNC to abide by their own bylaws.

So, @Fogdog @Big_Lou @UncleBuck @SneekyNinja @ttystikk @londonfog @Corso312 @schuylaar @Unclebaldrick @mr sunshine @tangerinegreen555 @Grandpapy @Justin-case

Do you think we should make it a legal obligation? Do you believe the DNC should be legally bound to the Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws?

Article 5, Section 4;

"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."

Why/why not?
Click to expand...
If they are going to make representations to be even-handed and impartial, then they have that obligation.

That obligation extends not only to donors who have financial standing, but members- whose right to vote gives them, if anything, even higher standing than mere money.

Otherwise there is no obligation to respect a citizen's right to vote at all and that isn't democracy.

It's tyranny.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
Impartiality and even handedness, does that mean
Click to expand...
Do you agree, yes or no?

"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."

Should the DNC be legally bound to follow their own bylaws and charter? Simple question
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
So far, the results are as expected. I knew it was all bullshit when they said we needed to unite together and fight the Republicans. As you can clearly see, they don't even unite to support Democracy.. Or that the DNC should be held legally accountable for upholding what Democrats vote for.. That is shameful.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"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."

If the DNC publicly states they don't abide by the bylaws and the charter, why would any Democrats donate to them?

Have they just fully succumbed to corporate donations to fund their campaigns? Forgotten about the middle-class?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top