Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,092
- 136,663
2016 US Elections - Exlusive discussion thread
2016 US Elections - Exlusive discussion thread
- Thread starter BAK
- Start date
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,769
- 288,283
- Thread starter
- #1,122
Emotional kuhusu kuandika ukweli! Wewe vipi wewe!? Kawape pole basi na republicans ambao wameamua kumcritisize Comey, sijui na wao kipi kimewaumiza mpaka wamsemehe hovyo.
Usifananishe vitu ambavyo havina uwiano hata chembe au kujump to the conclusion kwamba niko emotional wakati huna ushahidi wowote ule wa kuthibitisha kauli yako.
Usifananishe vitu ambavyo havina uwiano hata chembe au kujump to the conclusion kwamba niko emotional wakati huna ushahidi wowote ule wa kuthibitisha kauli yako.
Daah hahahaa....naona uko emotional kweli hadi unashindwa hata kuelewa.
Comey kaumiza wengi, ukiwemo wewe
Pole sana.
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,092
- 136,663
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,769
- 288,283
- Thread starter
- #1,125
Prosecutors, Justice officials sign letter criticizing Comey decision
A bipartisan group of nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have signed a letter expressing concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
“Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him,” said the letter, which was released Sunday night by the Clinton campaign. “But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,” said the signatories.
“We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.”
The letter comes after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, sent a separate letter Sunday to Comey saying he may have violated a federal law that bars federal officials from using their authority to influence an election.
Here is the full letter:
As former federal prosecutors and high-ranking officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, we know that the impartiality and nonpartisanship of the United States justice system makes it exceptional throughout the world. To maintain fairness and neutrality, federal law enforcement officials must exercise discipline whenever they make public statements in connection with an ongoing investigation. Often, evidence uncovered during the course of an investigative inquiry is incomplete, misleading or even incorrect, and releasing such information before all of the facts are known and tested in a court of law can unfairly prejudice individuals and undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of our legal process.
For this reason, Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter. They are also instructed to exercise heightened restraint near the time of a primary or general election because, as official guidance from the Department instructs, public comment on a pending investigative matter may affect the electoral process and create the appearance of political interference in the fair administration of justice.
It is out of our respect for such settled tenets of the United States Department of Justice that we are moved to express our concern with the recent letter issued by FBI Director James Comey to eight Congressional Committees. Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him. But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed. We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.
Director Comey's letter is inconsistent with prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Moreover, setting aside whether Director Comey's original statements in July were warranted, by failing to responsibly supplement the public record with any substantive, explanatory information, his letter begs the question that further commentary was necessary. For example, the letter provides no details regarding the content, source or recipient of the material; whether the newly-discovered evidence contains any classified or confidential information; whether the information duplicates material previously reviewed by the FBI; or even “whether or not [the] material may be significant.”
Perhaps most troubling to us is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions. The admonitions that warn officials against making public statements during election periods have helped to maintain the independence and integrity of both the Department’s important work and public confidence in the hardworking men and women who conduct themselves in a nonpartisan manner.
We believe that adherence to longstanding Justice Department guidelines is the best practice when considering public statements on investigative matters. We do not question Director Comey’s motives. However, the fact remains that the Director’s disclosure has invited considerable, uninformed public speculation about the significance of newly-discovered material just days before a national election. For this reason, we believe the American people deserve all the facts, and fairness dictates releasing information that provides a full and complete picture regarding the material at issue.
Prosecutors, Justice officials sign letter criticizing Comey decision
A bipartisan group of nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have signed a letter expressing concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
“Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him,” said the letter, which was released Sunday night by the Clinton campaign. “But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,” said the signatories.
“We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.”
The letter comes after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, sent a separate letter Sunday to Comey saying he may have violated a federal law that bars federal officials from using their authority to influence an election.
Here is the full letter:
As former federal prosecutors and high-ranking officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, we know that the impartiality and nonpartisanship of the United States justice system makes it exceptional throughout the world. To maintain fairness and neutrality, federal law enforcement officials must exercise discipline whenever they make public statements in connection with an ongoing investigation. Often, evidence uncovered during the course of an investigative inquiry is incomplete, misleading or even incorrect, and releasing such information before all of the facts are known and tested in a court of law can unfairly prejudice individuals and undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of our legal process.
For this reason, Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter. They are also instructed to exercise heightened restraint near the time of a primary or general election because, as official guidance from the Department instructs, public comment on a pending investigative matter may affect the electoral process and create the appearance of political interference in the fair administration of justice.
It is out of our respect for such settled tenets of the United States Department of Justice that we are moved to express our concern with the recent letter issued by FBI Director James Comey to eight Congressional Committees. Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him. But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed. We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.
Director Comey's letter is inconsistent with prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Moreover, setting aside whether Director Comey's original statements in July were warranted, by failing to responsibly supplement the public record with any substantive, explanatory information, his letter begs the question that further commentary was necessary. For example, the letter provides no details regarding the content, source or recipient of the material; whether the newly-discovered evidence contains any classified or confidential information; whether the information duplicates material previously reviewed by the FBI; or even “whether or not [the] material may be significant.”
Perhaps most troubling to us is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions. The admonitions that warn officials against making public statements during election periods have helped to maintain the independence and integrity of both the Department’s important work and public confidence in the hardworking men and women who conduct themselves in a nonpartisan manner.
We believe that adherence to longstanding Justice Department guidelines is the best practice when considering public statements on investigative matters. We do not question Director Comey’s motives. However, the fact remains that the Director’s disclosure has invited considerable, uninformed public speculation about the significance of newly-discovered material just days before a national election. For this reason, we believe the American people deserve all the facts, and fairness dictates releasing information that provides a full and complete picture regarding the material at issue.
Prosecutors, Justice officials sign letter criticizing Comey decision
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,769
- 288,283
El Jefe
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 13, 2016
- 293
- 364
White House press secretary Josh Earnest stated that:
"Pres. Obama doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election,"
"The president doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party"
"Director Comey is a man of integrity, he's a man of principle, and he's a man of good character,"
Wow,
the 'Series' is so amazing, this episode is really awesome, I am eagerly looking forward to the next episode.Obama Doesn't Believe FBI Director Trying to Influence Election
ikisimama panda
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 3, 2015
- 2,726
- 2,402
wabongo bwana!! sawa huyu mama atashinda tunajua kwa njia yoyote ile tunajua lakini hakiwezi kua kigezo cha kuwafanya muache kuona ukweli..
huyu huyu ndo alimchezea rafu mbaya sana Bernie Sanders, huyu huyu ndo anavuta mpunga kutoka kwa waanzilishi wa isis, huyu huyu ndo anaomba marekani iingilie kuharibu uchaguzi wa nchi nyingine, huyu huyu ndo ana suggest wam drone jullian assange, huyu huyu ndo alifanya Libya kuwa failed state, huyu huyu ndo anapendekeza kudondosha ndege za Russia kwa wazo lake la kifala la ku enforce a no fly zone kwenye anga la syria, huyu huyu ndo inasemekana aliwapa manyanyaso ya kufa mtu victims wa abuse za mume wake, huyu huyu ndo aliingia akiwa na earpiece kwenye debate wakati hairuhusiwi, huyu huyu ndo anaonekana kwenye debate kama anatoa ishara flani flani kwa moderator, huyu huyu ndo apenyezewe maswali atayoulizwa kwenye debate in advance, huyu huyu ndo atumie private server kufanya kazi za serikali jamaaaani..
kama Comey amevunja sheria kiasi hicho kama mnavotaka kutuaminisha si bosi wake ampige chini leo leo kwanini asubiri mpaka Clinton aingie madarakani? mbona mume wake aliwahi kumfukuza head wa FBI kwanini Obama hafanyi hivyo??
binafsi naelewa hali ngumu alonayo mkali Comey kwa uamuzi wowote ambao angechukua kuhusiana na ishu ya emails. kwa mfano kama angekaa kimya kweli then baada ya huyo mama kuwa rais ndo akaja kusema actually handling ya zile email ilitengeneza jinai?? sawa atakua impeached ila sasa si atakua amemzibia nafasi trump ya kuwa rais? hiyo sheria ya siku sitini itajijua!! kama aliona kuna mambo significant ya ku address kwenye hiyo ishu basi ana moral responsibility ya kuuambia umma.
kwanza kwanini huyo mama anataka urais kwa hali yoyote kias hicho? kwanini kila establishment inamtaka yeye ndo awe rais?? kuna kipi kimejificha? wanamuogopa trump kwa lipi? Trump ni bora kwa hao wagombea wawili kwasababu walau yeye sio mnafiki kama hili libibi lichawi.. nyeusi anasema nyeusi
huyu huyu ndo alimchezea rafu mbaya sana Bernie Sanders, huyu huyu ndo anavuta mpunga kutoka kwa waanzilishi wa isis, huyu huyu ndo anaomba marekani iingilie kuharibu uchaguzi wa nchi nyingine, huyu huyu ndo ana suggest wam drone jullian assange, huyu huyu ndo alifanya Libya kuwa failed state, huyu huyu ndo anapendekeza kudondosha ndege za Russia kwa wazo lake la kifala la ku enforce a no fly zone kwenye anga la syria, huyu huyu ndo inasemekana aliwapa manyanyaso ya kufa mtu victims wa abuse za mume wake, huyu huyu ndo aliingia akiwa na earpiece kwenye debate wakati hairuhusiwi, huyu huyu ndo anaonekana kwenye debate kama anatoa ishara flani flani kwa moderator, huyu huyu ndo apenyezewe maswali atayoulizwa kwenye debate in advance, huyu huyu ndo atumie private server kufanya kazi za serikali jamaaaani..
kama Comey amevunja sheria kiasi hicho kama mnavotaka kutuaminisha si bosi wake ampige chini leo leo kwanini asubiri mpaka Clinton aingie madarakani? mbona mume wake aliwahi kumfukuza head wa FBI kwanini Obama hafanyi hivyo??
binafsi naelewa hali ngumu alonayo mkali Comey kwa uamuzi wowote ambao angechukua kuhusiana na ishu ya emails. kwa mfano kama angekaa kimya kweli then baada ya huyo mama kuwa rais ndo akaja kusema actually handling ya zile email ilitengeneza jinai?? sawa atakua impeached ila sasa si atakua amemzibia nafasi trump ya kuwa rais? hiyo sheria ya siku sitini itajijua!! kama aliona kuna mambo significant ya ku address kwenye hiyo ishu basi ana moral responsibility ya kuuambia umma.
kwanza kwanini huyo mama anataka urais kwa hali yoyote kias hicho? kwanini kila establishment inamtaka yeye ndo awe rais?? kuna kipi kimejificha? wanamuogopa trump kwa lipi? Trump ni bora kwa hao wagombea wawili kwasababu walau yeye sio mnafiki kama hili libibi lichawi.. nyeusi anasema nyeusi
ipyax
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 1, 2010
- 4,677
- 7,104
Inaonekana na wewe ni conspiracy theorist, baadhi ya tuhuma ulizoandika dhidi ya mama Clinton hazina uthibitisho isipokuwa ni uzushi tu kutoka right wing websites.
Trump ni racist toka zamani miaka ya 70 hakutaka blacks wapange kwenye majengo yake, kuwaita Mexicans, Latinos kwamba ni rapist (hapo amepoteza makundi mawili yenye nguvu sana kwenye ballot box). Trump ni sexist sana kwa kuwajaji wanawake kutokana na muonekano wao na pia ame wadhalilisha wanawake wengi tu kijinsia kwa kuwashika, kuwabusu bila ridhaa zao. Kashfa kama hii ilimuondoa Herman kaine kwenye uchaguzi wa chama cha Republican mwaka 2012.
Hawezi kushinda uchaguzi kwa sababu ame alienate makundi makubwa na muhimu sana katika uchaguzi ambayo ni blacks, Latinos na women.
ikisimama panda
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 3, 2015
- 2,726
- 2,402
sasa si atashinda bibi ako una wasiwasi gani black people?
El Jefe
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 13, 2016
- 293
- 364
Imekubidi urudi nyuma miaka 46 kutafuta racism allegations za Trump?. Trump was just 24 years old in 1970. That was basically 6 years after the highly fought Civil Rights Act was passed. Trump sio racist. Unajua Trump alikulia katika mazingira gani?. During those times there was high level of racism ambayo imepungua katika miaka ya karibuni.
Uliza watu unaowajua waliokaa US miaka ya 70 (mimi nimeuliza), kama waliamini kuwa US wangeweza kumchagua Rais Mweusi mwaka 2008. This generation of Americans is much better and I believe racism is gonna go away. But politicians like to play the race card incorrigibly during US election times.
In 1996, (32 years after Civil Rights Act was passed) Hillary called African American kids super predators, without conscience or empathy, that need to be brought to heel. But I don't have to go 20 years back to find Hillary's racist comments because I am aware the situation was worse back then.
What we have right now, is Mr. Trump who is backed by many African Americans and Latinos, men and women, poor and rich, famous and non-famous, adults and kids. You probably know many of them, people like Ben Carson, P Diddy, Mike Tyson, Ice Cube, Pastor Mark Burns, Malik Obama, the list is a billion miles long. All you have to do is listen to the African American and Latino voices.
By the way, Bill Clinton aache kumkana kijana wake mweusi Danny Williams ambaye amehangaika kwa mda mrefu kukutana na baba yake huyo. Danny anadai Hillary amemzuia kwa mda mrefu kuonana na baba yake na anadhani anakataliwa kwa sababu ni mweusi. Bill na Hillary wanakwepa sana kuzungumzia swala hilo.
Trump is not a racist (beginning 7.01 min)
Trump was the Boss of Miss Universe Organization running international beauty pageant, muonekano wa mwanamke hasa mshiriki ni wa muhimu. But lets not forget, Trump like to give statements jokingly, that's why a lot of women have come forward to say that Mr. Trump do care about women.
Na vipi kuhusu wabakaji? Bill Clinton is a convicted rapist na iwapo Hillary akishinda ina maana mbakaji atakaa East Wing ya White House. Sio hivyo tu, Hillary attacked the women who were abused and raped by Bill Clinton. Sasa huyo kweli ni metetezi wa wanawake?
Hillary alimtetea mwanaume mwenye miaka 41 aliyembaka binti wa miaka 12 na baadae Hillary alimcheka binti huyo alipokuwa kwenye mahojiano baada ya mbakaji kuachiwa wakati ushahidi ukionesha wazi kwamba binti alibakwa. Huyo ndiye mtetezi wa watoto wa kike?
Kama kweli Hillary anajali wanawake, kwanini Clinton Foundation inapokea contributions kutoka kwa wakuu wa nchi zenye rekodi mbaya ya kuwadhalilisha wanawake?
Ni wapi amewa-alienate?
kui
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 2, 2009
- 6,467
- 6,500
One more 'Potential' vote for Hillary. 🙂
Nephew: George W. Bush may vote for Clinton
..The Texas land commissioner made the comments while addressing a small Republican rally in San Marcos, Texas, on Tuesday night, saying that both former presidents in the family may "potentially" vote for the Democratic presidential ticket come Election Day...
Nephew: George W. Bush may vote for Clinton
..The Texas land commissioner made the comments while addressing a small Republican rally in San Marcos, Texas, on Tuesday night, saying that both former presidents in the family may "potentially" vote for the Democratic presidential ticket come Election Day...
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,769
- 288,283
- Thread starter
- #1,136
Trump Campaign Was Just Ordered To Appear In Court For Voter Intimidation
By Grant Stern
Posted on November 2, 2016
A federal judge in Nevada just dragged the Trump campaign into court to answer for accusations of using minority voter intimidation tactics alongside the RNC. This case is on similar grounds as the national suit, and accuses the Nevada state GOP of violating the surviving provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, seeking to deprive American citizens of their civil rights, in this case, the right to vote.
A federal judge Tuesday ordered representatives from the Donald Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican Party to appear at a hearing in his courtroom Wednesday afternoon in a lawsuit filed by Nevada Democrats accusing them of the engaging in voter intimidation tactics. U.S. District Judge Richard Franklin Boulware also ordered the Trump campaign and state party to turn over any training materials they provided to “poll watchers, poll observers, exit pollsters or any other similarly tasked individuals.”
At the hearing, the Trump campaign and the Nevada GOP should be prepared to respond to the motion for a temporary restraining order that the Democrats requested in the lawsuit, the judge’s order said.
In other new, there was an order issued in the national voter intimidation case against the RNC that we’ve been following. A federal judge just ordered the Republican National Committee to turn over their entire geographic targeting plan for poll watching after Democrats filed a lawsuit last week under a 35-year old binding legal agreement to prevent minority voter suppression by the GOP.
At a court hearing this morning, top RNC officials were ordered to testify under oath and reveal all knowledge about poll watching or observation programs to be enacted by RNC volunteers.
Trump’s campaign manager, Republican VP candidate Mike Pence, two GOP state party chairs, and longtime wingnut Trump operative Roger Stone all stand accused of violating the agreement by instituting or speaking about illegal “ballot security programs” in recordings and to the media.
Republicans “ballot security” ideas need to be pre-cleared 10 days in advance by Democrats and the federal court according to the 1982 agreement, and nowhere have GOP lawyers asserted that they asked for such clearance to date. Judge John Michael Vazquez ordered:
ORDERED that Defendant [Republican National Committee] shall also produce to Plaintiff [Democratic National Committee] no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, November 3, 2016, and file on the docket the following: An affidavit or affidavits by a person or persons with personal knowledge setting forth in detail Defendant’s efforts regarding poll watching or poll observation’ in connection with the 2016 Presidential Election.
Defendant’s efforts shall apply to those efforts by any employee, agent, or servant of Defendant, including volunteers and independent contractors/vendors. The affiant(s) shall be an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant. The affidavit(s) shall set forth all material terms of any such efforts, including any geographic areas which are being targeted for poll watching or poll observation and the reason(s) those areas are being targeted. Any training materials or advice, whether written, electronic, or verbal, provided to poll watchers or poll observers shall also be provided.
Democrats have requested injunctive relief from the court to stop Republicans from flooding polls in minority areas with “poll watchers” seeking to prevent, challenge or intimidate voters from casting their votes, rather than ensuring the rights of voters to make their choices.
Just yesterday, another long list of court ordered disclosures was made public, and it included the Republican party’s response to the Democrats stiff demands for sanctions and contempt of court against the Republican party’s violators.
In the GOP’s response they notably failed to defend the Pennsylvania state GOP chair (who is also a member of the RNC and therefore fully bound by the agreement), who disclosed that he was trying to change state law to allow voters from suburban counties around Philadelphia to flood into polling places in the urban areas where there’s a majority of minority voters.
Oral arguments in the case are happening tomorrow, and it’s expected that the court will issue a decision in the case.
Oddly, Republicans are facing these numerous lawsuits because they “won” a court battle over the 1982 consent decree which prevents them from intimidating minority voters, that forced Democrats to sue for state party activities separately from the national party, even though many of those activities are the same and all of the top state party officials are part of the RNC themselves.
Now, there are three other states where the Republican state parties are facing legal action by Democrats for ballot security programs, which might violate both the aforementioned Ku Klux Klan Act or the Voting Rights Act or both.
By Grant Stern
Posted on November 2, 2016
A federal judge in Nevada just dragged the Trump campaign into court to answer for accusations of using minority voter intimidation tactics alongside the RNC. This case is on similar grounds as the national suit, and accuses the Nevada state GOP of violating the surviving provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, seeking to deprive American citizens of their civil rights, in this case, the right to vote.
A federal judge Tuesday ordered representatives from the Donald Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican Party to appear at a hearing in his courtroom Wednesday afternoon in a lawsuit filed by Nevada Democrats accusing them of the engaging in voter intimidation tactics. U.S. District Judge Richard Franklin Boulware also ordered the Trump campaign and state party to turn over any training materials they provided to “poll watchers, poll observers, exit pollsters or any other similarly tasked individuals.”
At the hearing, the Trump campaign and the Nevada GOP should be prepared to respond to the motion for a temporary restraining order that the Democrats requested in the lawsuit, the judge’s order said.
In other new, there was an order issued in the national voter intimidation case against the RNC that we’ve been following. A federal judge just ordered the Republican National Committee to turn over their entire geographic targeting plan for poll watching after Democrats filed a lawsuit last week under a 35-year old binding legal agreement to prevent minority voter suppression by the GOP.
At a court hearing this morning, top RNC officials were ordered to testify under oath and reveal all knowledge about poll watching or observation programs to be enacted by RNC volunteers.
Trump’s campaign manager, Republican VP candidate Mike Pence, two GOP state party chairs, and longtime wingnut Trump operative Roger Stone all stand accused of violating the agreement by instituting or speaking about illegal “ballot security programs” in recordings and to the media.
Republicans “ballot security” ideas need to be pre-cleared 10 days in advance by Democrats and the federal court according to the 1982 agreement, and nowhere have GOP lawyers asserted that they asked for such clearance to date. Judge John Michael Vazquez ordered:
ORDERED that Defendant [Republican National Committee] shall also produce to Plaintiff [Democratic National Committee] no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, November 3, 2016, and file on the docket the following: An affidavit or affidavits by a person or persons with personal knowledge setting forth in detail Defendant’s efforts regarding poll watching or poll observation’ in connection with the 2016 Presidential Election.
Defendant’s efforts shall apply to those efforts by any employee, agent, or servant of Defendant, including volunteers and independent contractors/vendors. The affiant(s) shall be an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant. The affidavit(s) shall set forth all material terms of any such efforts, including any geographic areas which are being targeted for poll watching or poll observation and the reason(s) those areas are being targeted. Any training materials or advice, whether written, electronic, or verbal, provided to poll watchers or poll observers shall also be provided.
Democrats have requested injunctive relief from the court to stop Republicans from flooding polls in minority areas with “poll watchers” seeking to prevent, challenge or intimidate voters from casting their votes, rather than ensuring the rights of voters to make their choices.
Just yesterday, another long list of court ordered disclosures was made public, and it included the Republican party’s response to the Democrats stiff demands for sanctions and contempt of court against the Republican party’s violators.
In the GOP’s response they notably failed to defend the Pennsylvania state GOP chair (who is also a member of the RNC and therefore fully bound by the agreement), who disclosed that he was trying to change state law to allow voters from suburban counties around Philadelphia to flood into polling places in the urban areas where there’s a majority of minority voters.
Oral arguments in the case are happening tomorrow, and it’s expected that the court will issue a decision in the case.
Oddly, Republicans are facing these numerous lawsuits because they “won” a court battle over the 1982 consent decree which prevents them from intimidating minority voters, that forced Democrats to sue for state party activities separately from the national party, even though many of those activities are the same and all of the top state party officials are part of the RNC themselves.
Now, there are three other states where the Republican state parties are facing legal action by Democrats for ballot security programs, which might violate both the aforementioned Ku Klux Klan Act or the Voting Rights Act or both.
El Jefe
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 13, 2016
- 293
- 364
Potential vote!!! There is no distraction this time, Hillary is finished. Just pray she is not indicted before 11/8.
There is this democratic pollster and longtime Clinton ally Doug Schoen who decided he is no longer supporting Hillary Clinton, did you miss that?
Longtime Clinton Ally Stuns Fox News Host, Withdraws Support of Hillary on Live Television
Similar Discussions
-
Kiongozi Mkuu mpya wa Iran ameomba poo, ataka maongezi na Trump- Started by Pdidy
- Replies: 76
-
Rais wa Ujerumani: Trump ni chanzo cha mpasuko wa Dunia- Started by Waufukweni
- Replies: 11
-
-
Mkurugenzi Mkuu idara ya kudhibiti ugaidi aliyejiuzulu majuzi anachunguzwa kwa tuhuma za kuvujisha nyaraka za siri
- Started by Uzalendo wa Kitanzania
- Replies: 23
-
Rais wa Marekani Donald Trump aishtaki BBC akidai fidia ya Dola Bilioni 10- Started by funaku
- Replies: 8