That Politifact fact checker that claimed there was no fraud in NV is wrong - here is the proof!

[jillan]

They have a reputation for this, don't they

About the first vote on the rule change from Politifact's website:

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

So, according to Politifact the first vote was held 40 minutes after 9:00 am.

Here lies (pun intended) the problem:

You will also need to complete the Delegate Intent Form/Statement of Candidacy by 10:00 am, Saturday, May 14th 2016.

This is from the Official Page of the Nevada Dem Convention
http://nvdems.com/caucus/caucus-to-convention/

Votes that effected the outcome were being held while people were still in line signing in. Votes that effected the outcome were being held BEFORE the official sign in time as stated in the rules of the Convention.
And Politifact backs that up.

If I was there, I'd be pissed too.

Those of you that care about the truth, please make sure people know this.

[libdem4life]

1. The victor writes the history.

[ViseGrip]

2. We have 'out facted" Politifact many times before. Just another 'prop' column for rags.

[boston bean]

3. oh dear god. please help those who can't help themselves with the truth.

[Duckhunter935]

4. They do have a history

[2cannan]

5. Good find, jillian--thanks! nt

[casperthegm]

6. I like politifact and rely on them often

But they are not infallible. These points regarding the stated start time vs the time the vote was actually taken are clear. Nobody can dispute that, right? And if anyone cares to watch the video out there on youtube, there were calls (cordial ones) for them to wait and officially count the vote after everyone had a chance to get there. Instead, they used the early vote as the official numbers. Anyone dispute that? Anyone think that is fair?

Here's the deal- in the end it's not a game changer in the overall outcome. But this is another clear example of a rigged system. And, since HRC supporters are so fond of pointing out that they've got this thing wrapped up, what is the point of continuing to rig the system?

[YouDig]

7. The event started at 9. You could still sign in until 10. It's not a conspiracy, it's the schedule.

They let people sign in even after the convention started, which is not at all unusual, if you've ever been to any kind of event.

If they hadn't let people do that, the conspiracy theories would have complained that they shut of registration the second the event started, and didn't let latecomers register. The conspiracy theory always survives.

[jillan]

8. You do not hold votes while people are checking in WITHIN the allotted time!

Unless you are purposefully trying to deny a democratic process.

[YouDig]

10. Yes, you can. If the event is scheduled for 9, you can hold votes at anytime after 9.

If people want to attend the entire event, they should show up before the start time. When you organize an event, you can decide to cut off registration as soon as it starts, and turn away anyone who shows up after the start time.

Of course, if they had done that in Vegas, you would have complained about that too.

[jillan]

11. Maybe you should try reading -

. In-person registration for the State Convention shall begin no later than 5:00 p.m. on
Friday, May 13, 2016. Registration shall open no later than 7 a.m. and shall close at
10:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2016. Every delegate and alternate in line at 10 a.m.
shall be registered.

http://nvdems.3cdn.net/ea5a7f0df495b0cf4c_z2m6bnqh5.pdf

I didn't write this. The Nevada Dem Party did

[YouDig]

13. You're seriously complaining that they gave delegates extra time to register after the event started

Have you ever been to any event of any kind? Do you think the Bernie delegates are too dumb to read a schedule and know the difference between "start time" and "registration deadline".

Like I said, when you plan an event, feel free to kick anyone out who shows up late. A lot of events allow people to register even after the event started. This is not some weird uncommon thing.

[Sparkly]

20. Registered to be

among the individuals going to the national. But the numbers were already decided from caucuses; it was just a matter of WHO.

The convention started (late) with a review of the delegate counts, already decided. It didn't keep the people in line from registering for a chance to go.

Am I wrong?

[ISUGRADIA]

23. It also states

That the Convention would start at 9 AM. So if people had actually read the documents and planned ahead they could've been registered on Friday night or Saturday morning before 9 AM. As it was the convention did not convene until 9:40 AM

[ISUGRADIA]

9. Reading Compression is good

The 10 AM deadline was to considered to become elected as a delegate to the DNC Not the STATE CONVENTION.

[jillan]

12. What do you think this convention was about?? Hello??? It was to organize the Nev delegation.

[Sparkly]

19. Right, so...

PolitiFact:

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

As I understand it (correct me if wrong):
- The state convention is where the candidates' share of delegates were confirmed, based on caucuses. Clinton had more. This was to start at 9, but began 40 minutes late.
- The state convention is ALSO where people can register to be chosen as one of those people going to the national convention. That process was underway and continued.

Lange was announcing delegate counts based on caucuses. There wasn't going to be a change in those numbers, and didn't effect the people in line who were hoping to be the individuals to go to the national.

Correct or no?

[ISUGRADIA]

21. Really?!

I've went to plenty of Democratic conventions on the state and local level. It's not unusual to have the Convention start before the cut off for delicate sign in. You just need to have the established quorum present. This is no big bombshell for those who have any knowledge of these conventions actually work.

[JackRiddler]

18. You seem to have "compressed it" to a simple enough idea.

Not actually a relevant idea, but whatever!

(In reply to)

Thu May 19, 2016, 12:09 PM

ISUGRADIA

Reading Compression is good

View profile
The 10 AM deadline was to considered to become elected as a delegate to the DNC Not the STATE CONVENTION.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. That Politifact article is a train wreck.

That site is no more credible than any other news site. They are ok sometimes but just having the word "fact" in the name doesn't make it particularly reliable.

[MaeScott]

16. A pitifully shameful hot mess of lies, who got paid?

[JackRiddler]

15. An outfit that claims to be the one-stop for rating "facts" is already dodgy.

And then then they get themselves involved in this? The facts are not particularly in dispute (unless they want to take on the "chair-throwing" and "violence" claims - an interesting choice to avoid those, although they are much more clearly definable as facts with clear options of true or untrue). The meaning is in dispute, and these would-be heroes of positivism have no special authority.

This is an editorial stance, not a "fact check."

[Tarc]

17. The fact that Sanders people can't read a schedule and figure out a deadline is on their heads

Not Lange's or the party.

This isn't like high school, where you cajole your teacher to extend your homework deadline for the 19th time.

[J_J_]

22. Thanks for posting!

It is so obvious they purposely disinfranchised Bernie supporters.

The way they are making up so many lies afterward proves they were up to something and can't be trusted.

It is just so hard to know whether to respond to their lies?

They are getting paid to do this all day but the rest of us have lives to lead.

But if we do not keep at it, they just keep on making shit up and new people that missed the real story come along and believe them.

So thank you for continuing to fight the lies.