Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Documentary Proof of RBC's "Stop Hillary" corruption

The PROOF of RBC Fraud

A document included as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The document is a tentative list of state primaries and caucuses, and is dated September 13, 2007. The listing for Florida says (“P” designates a primary)

1/29/08 Florida P Date of state primary; date violates rules; Non-Complia

But there are also listings for the four pre-window states, that note that these states cannot move their dates before the date set in the Delegate Selection Rules: (“C” designates a caucus)

1/14/08 Iowa.....................C Allowed to go no more than 22 days before 2/5/08
1/19/08 Nevada..................C Allowed to go no more than 17 days before 2/5/08
1/22/08 New Hampshire...P Allowed to go no more than 14 days before 2/5/08
1/29/08 South Carolina....P Allowed to go no more than 7 days before 2/5/08

EXCERPT FROM EXHIBIT B
not_allowed1

(The whole page can be seen here. The entire PDF document submitted to the courts (which includes the DNC and RNC delegates selection rules as Exhibits A and C) can be accessed here.)

This document makes it clear that the “pre-window” states were NOT ALLOWED to move their primary/caucus dates under the DNC rules, and by moving them should have been subjected to the automatic loss of 50% of their pledged deleates, and all of their superdelegates, as required by by Rule 20 C 1 a, which, which states

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules…the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. [emphasis added]

The words “shall be” means that the penalty is not optional – and the only way that the state can avoid sanctions is by demonstrating that it had taken “provable, positive steps” and acted “in good faith” to comply with the timing provision of the Delegate Selection Rules.

Rule 20 C 1 b, which prohibits campaigning in states penalized because of violations of the timing rule, would also come into play. The rule states:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. [Emphasis added]

It is clear from the language that the rules is designed to entirely prohibit campaigning in states that violate the timing rules – the “may, however” construction makes that clear.

The rule made it impossible for any of the candidates to win delegates in either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, and turning those states into mere “beauty contests” for anyone who campaigned there. (Nevada, which held its caucuses as required by the rules on January 19th, would have been the only “pre-Super Tuesday” state to hold a contest in which delegates were at stake.

It is clear that the RBC violated its own rules for political reasons – to stop Hillary Clinton. Without the opportunity to beat Clinton in one of the early states in a meaningful primary or caucus, Clinton’s advantages going into Super- Tuesday would have been impossible to beat. The corrupt officials of the RBC were part of a “stop Hillary” movement, and chose to ignore their own rules in order to make it possible for someone other than Hillary Clinton to get the nomination, and the complete and utter corruption of James Roosevelt, Alexis Herman, Alice Germond and the rest of Obama’s supporters on the RBC is no longer in doubt.

0
No votes yet

Comments

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

Manchester Union Leader via Democracy for New Hampshire

Michigan's challenge to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary will cost the Great Lakes State all of its delegates to next summer's Democratic National Convention.

Yesterday party officials granted New Hampshire a waiver allowing the state to keep its 30 delegates to the national convention while stripping Michigan of its 156 for moving its primary ahead of the Feb. 5 opening of the party's nominating calendar.

Under a timeline approved by the Democratic National Committee, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina had been allowed to hold contests before Feb. 5. Michigan and Florida then moved their primaries into January to be among the first states in the selection process, forcing New Hampshire and the other three states to move their contests even earlier than had been allowed.

Meeting in Vienna, Va., yesterday, the DNC's Rules and ByLaws Subcommittee voted 28-2 to strip Michigan of its delegates, while granting New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina a waiver by the same 28-2 vote.

Nevada does not need a waiver because it is holding its caucus on the day set in the Democratic schedule, Jan. 19.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

the two no votes in those 28-2 votes??

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

that's the whole point.

There wss no evidence of positive,provable steps that the state party and all Democratic election officials had taken in good faith to prevent the primary from being moved -- and given that Florida had already been sanctioned 100% of its delegates and been relegated to a "beauty contest" not rational for moving its primary.

Moreover, as was pointed out by Carl Levin, by moving its primary BEFORE the Nevada caucuses, NH violated the clear INTENT of the timing provisions -- that there were supposed to be TWO caucuses before the first primary.

The only reason that Nichigan moved up ITS primary was because SC and NH announced that they were moving up their primaries -- Michigan asked if SC and NH would be sanctioned, and got no answer....

dogooder's picture
Submitted by dogooder on

the RNC also stripped Michigan and Florida of half their delegates... Let's have some equal-opportunity outrage.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The RNC followed their own rules. If only the Dems had done the same. They even punished New Hampshire, who should also have been punished by the DNC.

What is there to be outraged about?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

The RNC set its rules, and enforced those rules as written.

The DNC used its rules as an excuse to do whatever it wanted -- which was mostly to act like Eric Cartman in "Respect my Authority" mode, regardless of the rules themselves, or the intention of the rules.

The whole point of the DNC delegate selection rules was to eliminate the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire on the nomination process -- and NOT to disenfranchise voters because of the actions of some Democratic elected officials. Thus, the automatic sanctions included not just a 50% reduction in pledged delegates, but

1) 100% elimination of the states superdelegates

2) prohibition against candidates campaigning in a state under sanctions -- and denial of ANY pledged delegates to any candidate who did campaign in a sanctioned state.

By imposing the 100% sanction on Florida, the RBC actually made it possible for candidates to campaign there without penalty -- and only the "four state pledge" that had nothing to do with the DNC stopped them from doing so. The rule that was designed to ensure that timing violators were ignored by the candidates (and thus the media) was rendered moot by the very people who created the rule in the first place.

And in allowing NH and SC to move their primaries, the RBC acted contrary to the entire purpose of the timing regime -- to end the dominance of two overwhelmingly white states in determining who the candidate would be. Nevada was SUPPOSED to go second, because it had a very ethnically/racially diverse population (the caucus participants were 65% white, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 3% Asian, and 3% "Other" -- primarily, Native American) and a fairly strong labor presence.

By ignoring its own rules -- and the intent of those rules, the RBC pretty much determined the outcome of the primaries. The National SEIU -- the service workiers union whose Iowa chapter had supported Edwards -- was expected to endorse Edwards before the Nevada caucuses. But Edwards was doing poorly in pre-primary polls in NH, and as a result, the SEIU endorsement went to Obama.

Now, imagine for a moment what would have happened had the order stayed the same. Edwards would have likely come in a strong second (or even first) in Nevada, and Obama would have probably come in third. Obama's Iowa momentum would have been stopped, and Edwards would have been seen as the "not-Hillary" going into the New Hampshire primary...

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

The dates were listed in the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules (pdf).

while the intent of the rules is clear, the wording of the early states timing provision is so poorly constructed (its not a sentence, but a extended dependent clause) that it leaves room for interpretation.

The document above is unambiguous -- and makes it clear that Florida moving its own primary was not a reason for providing a waiver to early states.

Step Beyond's picture
Submitted by Step Beyond on

I have to disagree. The rules are not ambiguous at all as to when the four early states may hold their primaries. And it is important that the rules are clear on this, because those are the rules upon which the RBC should have based their decisions.

Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

If you say the rules "leaves room for interpretation" that is not only false, but gives shelter to the RBC for interpreting rhe rules any way they wanted. I don't want to be nitpicky about this, but I don't want to have to start fighting the meme that the rules regarding the schedule were ambiguous. It's hard enough to fight the already existing false memes like that they couldn't remove their names from Florida ballot or the RBC could give waivers to states that moved up their dates in response to another state moving up their date.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

They couldn't remove their names from the Florida primary ballot, they wouldn't be able to keep them on the GE ballot.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Step Beyond's picture
Submitted by Step Beyond on

Aeryl, you are saying that is a false meme right?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I have seen says that I'm right, and that is not a false meme, because it's not false.

If you have proof I'm wrong, I'll gladly look at it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Step Beyond's picture
Submitted by Step Beyond on

I did a diary at Talk Left which included debunking that.

Basically, the candidate who wanted to withdraw AFTER their names were on the list presented to the Department of State would have had to sign an affidavit declaring they had no intention at the time to be a candidate at the upcoming nominating convention (note that it isn't general election ballot). But that list didn't make it to the Department of State until Nov 7.

Prior to Nov. 7 the FDP controlled the list until the end of October. A candidate could have gone through them to be removed without any affidavit to the state.

And on Nov 6 the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee meets to vote on the list. Any candidate could have asked them to remove their name via a vote. No affidavit would have been required there either.

Hope that clears it up. The diary I linked to has the links to the information I've given here.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

the problem is that its not a sentence -- and the ambiguitity lies in the fact that "provided" can mean "contingent upon", rather than "required to". If one reads it as "contingent upon", then the penalty imposed upon Michigan should not have been applied.

The INTENT of the wording is obvious because we know what the rule is trying to accomplish -- the wording itself is, however, ambiguous to some extent.

Auntie Meme's picture
Submitted by Auntie Meme on

Paul--what do you think is the probably outcome of this case? What recourse do Florida and Michigan (Nelson) have against the DNC? Isn't this a case where the DNC will try to postpone and drag out the case until August and then the point will be moot in respect to who is annointed candidate at the convention?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

who knows? One of the unknowns is what happens in the Geller v DNC case (I found the document cited above while working on a longer piece examining Geller v DNC... I'm still working on that).

The other unknown is what will happen to Obama over the next two and a half months -- my guess is that the GOP wants to wound Obama during this period, but not fatally. The idea being to make it look like Obama is unlikely to win in November, but not a definite loser, creating dissension within the Democratic party between the Obots and the people who understand that the Republicans can and will destroy Obama the minute his nomination becomes official.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I forgot to mention that the Nelson case was thrown out of court, based on some really specious reasoning...and Nelson chose not to file an appeal....

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

this is interesting.

all the more so for its great detail.

as an aside,

does there exist a written copy of the motions the rnb committee of the dnc voted on on may 31?

i'm mostly curious to know if there was even a hand-written agenda in the afternoon session.

or if everything was oral,

in addition to being behind closed doors.

Submitted by hipparchia on

from the florida state legislature, various changes made in florida election laws in 2007:

(3) A candidate’s name shall be printed on the presidential preference primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State, prior to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary January, an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention.

that sounds to me like taking your name off the primary ballot means it won't be on the ballot in the general, although it leaves some wiggle room.

Step Beyond's picture
Submitted by Step Beyond on

Obviously that isn't the case for everyone. Not every name possible is printed unless they submit an affidavit (btw nominating convention is not general election ballot just the Dem convention in this case).

That becomes applicable at a certain point. That point is when the list is given to the Department of State. Even the statues state:

Each person designated as a presidential candidate shall have his or her name appear, or have his or her delegates' names appear, on the presidential preference primary ballot unless all committee members of the same political party as the candidate agree to delete such candidate's name from the ballot.

Note that you don't have to ALSO submit an affidavit. Just have a unanimous vote. Heck you could even object to them removing your name and they can still remove you.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

A candidate could remove their name if they weren't planning on trying to get the nomination at the convention. So Obama or Clinton would have had to submit an false affadavit to get off the FL ballot.

So neither candidate could get their name of the FL primary ballot, which is what everyone was saying.

The correct reason is that they couldn't get off the ballot if they actually wanted to be the Democratic nominee, not that they couldn't be on the GE ballot.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Step Beyond's picture
Submitted by Step Beyond on

Except they didn't need to submit the affidavit if they went through the FDP or the PCSC to have their name removed.

I'm not arguing they should have submitted the affidavit. It would have been dishonest to do that. But no affidavit is required from the FDP for them NOT to submit a candidates name. Nor did the PSCS require an affidavit to remove a candidate from the list submitted by the FDP.

You want to argue that the affidavit made it impossible to remove their name. I agree, but only at the point where the affidavit came into play.

The state of Florida allows the political parties to submit their lists without ANY restrictions. It is entirely up to the FDP and RPoF to create their own lists. Who they include or don't include is not governed by the state.

The PCSC allows candidates included against their will or not included to then try to get off or on the ballot. No affidavit is required for that, only a unanimous vote from the reps from your party.

After that list is passed, and only then, does the affidavit come into play.

Submitted by lambert on

Paul, is there a timeline in the Nelson vs. Dean lawsuit material? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find that useful for context...

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

... one can agree or disagree on the basis of actual evidence that people can go look at and decide about for themselves... As opposed to tapes or DVDs that may or may not exist.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi