“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.”
They argued this in court. If they ran a fair election, they could have just provided the evidence. Instead they told the court that they don’t have to run fair elections. Why would they say that, if they ran a fair election?
They argued this in court. If they ran a fair election, they could have just provided the evidence. Instead they told the court that they don’t have to run fair elections. Why would they say that, if they ran a fair election?
That was simply the easiest case to argue which is what lawyers do.
It didn’t say they cheated.
“We don’t have to play fair. We can cheat if we want.”
“It didn’t say they cheated.”
In this case the court agreed with the DNC that they didn’t cheat so who are you quoting?
No, the court agreed that they are allowed to cheat.
Cheating is when you don’t play by the rules not when you disagree with what the rules should be.
That’s why the DNC won this case.
You can keep dancing around the fact that they cheated all you want. I find it very telling that you can’t even keep your original argument straight.
That Clinton got more votes then Bernie?
Dear God, are you an eight year old or just acting like one?
“How was Jon Jones cheating? He literally won”, how the fuck is that a rebuttal of the original statement?