Court confirms DNC fixing prelims for Hillary

Which should raise a red flag smart one
What should raise a red flag? That the court "assumed" that the allegations in the complaint were true at the dismissal stage? The court is obligated to do that on a motion to dismiss. It "assumes" arguendo that the allegations are true to determine whether, if true, the court would have jurisdiction. That doesn't mean or even indicate whether the allegations have any basis in fact.
 
Last edited:
While I think the DNC certainly made sure Hillary was going to win, the article is written in a poor manner which doesn't address what is going on.

Long story short the judge is saying that even if everything stated in the testimony were accepted to be true then there still isn't a law which was broken and therefore there isn't anyway the lawsuit can go forward. The court IS NOT saying that all of the testimony was true... unfortunately this was all a misinterpretation of what the judge said.

It's not a misinterpretation. It's an intentional mischaracterization.

It's easy to ask a lawyer what the court means and to get the general answer that @Quipling already provided. Presenting it the way it was presented is only done so that those people who don't have someone better informed to ask will reach an erroneous conclusion about the subject of the story.

This is standard hearing/motion procedure in many jurisdictions - assume all of the alleged facts are true and then decide who the law would support. It doesn't have any relationship at all to if the facts are true or provable in court.
 
Hahahahah!! As others have stated, the court didn't 'confirm' anything. The court HAS TO assume all the contentions in the Plaintiff's complaint are true in order to decide a Defendant's motion to dismiss. There's a similar standard for Summary Judgment motions.

Fake news!
 
Which should raise a red flag smart one.



Probably not, but when you're arguing ethics to convince someone to vote you, then you should do your best to not be a complete piece of shit, no?

I would say Trump has even less ethics, which is both shocking and true.

Also, even if all of this is true, it's still not a crime and it was just a shitty thing to do and the punishment has already doled out. Talk about wasting taxpayer money with a bogus lawsuit.

Hillary didn't win, CNN lady got fired, and Debbie no long has any major role in the DNC.

In short, Hillary lost, get over it.
 
http://www.dailywire.com/news/20271...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Legitimate lol, Leftists/Democrats can fix literally everything on the way to the election and have the nerve to blame others for their fuck ups.



@Jack V Savage Defend your bitch now

that is not what that passage says.
I am assuming it means the Court is ruling on a 12b6 motion to dimiss and is assuming the allegations in the complaint are true for puposes to see if the Court is allowed to take this to trial not that the complaint is in fact true.
 
Back
Top