Is it possible that wasserman schultz or anyone else involved can be prosecuted for this?

What for?

The DNC - clinton camp collusion.

So, a political party can nominate whoever they want, they don't have to have primaries. The process can be "rigged".

In fact Bernie could have gotten more votes, and more delegates, and the DNC still could have made HRC the nominee, by roll call at the convention.

Prosecuted no. Sued by donors... maybe? I know of one group that's trying.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sande...esident-609582

Well the fact that they can nominate whoever they want doesnt matter. When bernies campaign applies to run as a democrat under the dnc there are certain expectations about fairness and that there isnt any deceptive or fraudulent conduct involved. Especially when this affects millions of people.

Just like any other contract between two people. I think its a pretty clear question to ask if there are any laws that regulates fraudulent or deceptive counduct like this.

Yes, and it's governed by the rules committee and bylaws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.


Its fraud imo.

lol like you clowns aren't thinking the exact same thing right now about pappadoofus (and Manafort once he invariably flips rather than face 10+ years behind bars to protect your idiot-in-chief)

So Hillary rigs primary dems support no punishment? Trump rigs general let's prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. That's why in good conscience feel extremely good about not voting for either Hillary or Donald. Both are corrupt and crooked and have their own self interests at heart. Its like having to choose whether I want to lose my hearing or my eye sight.

Except corruption is hardly the most important thing.

Also Hillary didn't "rig the primary," not that facts actually matter or anything.

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter. It’s not fraud. If people donate to a company while knowing nothing of how the company operates, it doesn’t mean fraud has occurred when the company operates in whatever way it decides to.

Would love to see the Internet lawyers define what the hell the conspiracy is without making complete asses of themselves

so the dnc was totally broke and had no real way to raise money. hillary has the ability to raise tons of money due to her connections and popularity. but its illegal for donors to just hand tons of money to individual candidates.

so hillary says, its ok, just ship all the mobnies to the dnc, which has much higher limits on donations. then force the dnc to funnel all that money to her for her campaign and other stuff she supports. thats the cost of not going bankrupt I guess. then after all the debts are paid off, hillary puts the dnc on subsistence (like tony did to junior) and keeps 99% of the money for her campaign.

whatever, dont see the big deal. she brought in the money. dnc leadership didnt need to agree to it. mebbe dont go bankrupt and learn how to run a competent party. not gonna blame hillary for acting in her best interest esp when she was the reason the money was being infused in the first place.

A lot of people are saying that the joint fundraising agreement Clinton's camp inked with the DNC proves riggage, while totally ignoring that Sanders' people signed one as well.

None of the primaries were "rigged," and as far as we know no vote counts were changed, so Hillary won it and essentially no one is disputing that.

A (valid) complaint is how DWS basically turned DNC finances over to the Clinton campaign before she had secured the nomination. That needs to never happen again. But even that doesn't prove, or even suggest, riggage in and of itself. It is definitely further evidence that the DNC preferred Hillary over Sanders, though.

Brazile had no problem giving Hillary the town hall questions ahead of time so she's like the last person who should be decrying riggage. She is perma-disgraced from that incident so she's got to get paid and this is how she's going about it. (No network will hire her, and no campaign that wants to win will ever hire her again)

And a lot of people were pissed at Perez et al for firing everyone who worked there when they took over. In hindsight that looks like not only a smart move, but the right move.

Your post describes subverting campaign contribution limits and you don't see the big deal in that?

If Hillary were president right now it would be hell right now just a different kind.

Even Lincoln suspended constitutional rights when it was a necessity.

Against trump, yeah, probably worth it to try to save our country from itself. Against a Bush or Rubio, nah, not the possible end of the country.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...g-signal-noise

I thought this was a fair summary of the DB revelations

Agreed. I think the media reporting this as the DNC rigging the primary for Hillary is really bad. It's shady as **** and further proof that Hillary and her gang of shysters shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the party, but it's like it's being spun to create unnecessary divisions in the party.

is that? presumably, the dnc, or rnc, is allowed to dish out the money as they see fit. did the rnc ship a ton of money to trump? did the dnc ship money to obama?

so maybe it was a problem, maybe not. depends on the laws and nuances and how often this happens.

Do you never get tired of defending Hillary no matter what she does? You start with the premise that whatever she did must have been good and then work backwards from there. This is the same behavior for that Trumpkins are admonished here all the time.

Noodle's Hillary apologetic are about as unhinged as anything the Trump slappies post.