There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

by Guest Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:03 pm

Starts at 1.25

And another about it

by Guest Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:57 pm

CNN has had it's own issues with that 'TRUTH METER' and reliability for fair and honest journalism over these past 15 years ...in IMO

We've lost a lot of credible real journalism since the era of Walter Cronkite and his age group. Now it's all 'sensational - Hollywood' hyped up drama with few facts and more what-ifs.

But to this topic: unfortunately for good 'ole' Bernie' ...he's been hammered - ever so subtly by the media {printed or talking heads} with their word choices - for example:

Payback or not, Sanders and his supporters are justified in saying the mainstream media have not been entirely fair to him. But that isn't because Sanders was anti-establishment or because he has attacked the media's monopolistic practices or because he claimed to be leading a revolution or even because he was impatient with reporters who asked idiotic questions -- though he had done all of those things.

In The New York Times, that announcement was printed on page A-21, calling him a "long shot"

An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton's and Sanders' mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders' roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.

This may be the first time that social media compelled the MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect." In turn, Sanders' crowds were huge. His fundraising was large and notable for the number of small donations. And most of all, his poll numbers began rising.

To the media, his rise was a plot twist before the narrative wound its way to the inevitable conclusion. And, as Patterson wrote of the media, "What is said of the candidate must fit the plot." Here the plot was that Sanders was not going to win because he was not good enough to win.

***Went from this head line >>> Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a scathing takedown of The Times' most egregious offense: a March article by Jennifer Steinhauer on how Sanders functioned as a legislator. Headlined "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors," as originally published,
***To this watered down title >>>
Even the headline was changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." And this paragraph was added: "But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36432-did-the-press-take-down-bernie-sanders

Perhaps Bernie was the 'Don Quixote of his time' - perhaps his IQ was far to advanced for the media people asking 'those stupid redundant questions' that really irked ole' Bernie to no end ...but he just wasn't their darling and between the names that sold printed press like HRC and the anti-Christ of Chump-Trump for all those freebie air time ...the man just didn't stand much of a chance ...period.
But he put up a hell-of-a-decent battle and that's put him in the good book for me!

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:08 pm

Sounds like there are contested issues of fact. There has been a lawsuit filed. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

by Guest Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like there are contested issues of fact. There has been a lawsuit filed. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

But this dude on 'Redacted Tonight' says it like no other Razz

... and this attorney's been filing these 'lawsuits' since 2004 sooooooo

Yes, he's got a issue and he's probably got some foundation - but are the courts going to treat him with anything but Suspect

and a pat on his head?

Not likely!

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:49 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sounds like there are contested issues of fact. There has been a lawsuit filed. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

But this dude on 'Redacted Tonight' says it like no other ... and this attorney's been filing these 'lawsuits' since 2004 sooooooo

Yes, he's got a issue and he's probably got some foundation - but are the courts going to treat him with anything but and a pat on his head? Not likely!

Redacted Tonight is an excellent comedy show, along the lines of John Oliver.

The lawyer in the first clip does not offer much. He repeats the allegations, in a manner that is more spin than content. The other clip is more informative, but the proof is all narrative, when quantitative evidence is called for. As I've stated so often, you can't generalize from specifics. Besides, a blond-haired, blue-eyed witness from Orange County, commenting on Democratic politics, is highly suspect; sounds like a Republican plant, to me. Twisted Evil

The courts are reluctant to tread on political processes. When I first got into the field, there was such a thing as the "political questions" doctrine, where courts would not even enter. But the issue of reapportionment ended that. Still, there's the lingering feeling that courts don't belong.

This lawyer guy's problem is time. Unless he can get a preliminary injunction, the election process is just going to pass him by...as it did with Bush v. Gore. He doesn't have the ammo (facts) to get a preliminary injunction (need to show more probable than not one will prevail), and without a halt, the election will be history and a foregone conclusion.

by eddie Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:06 pm

Told you something was coming.
This has been on Twitter (and always gets removed) for days.

When things get removed pretty damn quick you know that it's something juicy.

by Guest Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:11 pm

eddie wrote:Told you something was coming.
This has been on Twitter (and always gets removed) for days.

When things get removed pretty damn quick you know that it's something juicy.

since 2004 > > > > something's coming

How confused

on the back of a box turtle Sleep

by eddie Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:15 pm

There's always corruption to be found.

by veya_victaous Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:50 am

by 'Wolfie Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:35 am

eddie wrote:
There's always corruption to be found.

.

There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media! 3489511464

by veya_victaous Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:17 am

by eddie Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:26 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
There's always corruption to be found.

.

That's funny because?

by Sponsored content

There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!

Re: There is a lawsuit that could prove election fraud and end Hillary's nomination. But you won't hear about it on the mainstream media!