Check out all the frauds of MA Democratic Party fighting to be delegates for Hillary. These are the same people who call press conferences on the issue of the day, claim the high ground in front of as many cameras and microphones as possible, then don’t do a goddamn thing for the cause except false hustle.
Lois Pines? Bahahahaha. The bottle bill is not a come back either.
What greater accomplishment is there than to have the privilege of paying your own way to Philadelphia, spend three days in an packed sports arena/concert hall waiting for that one moment when someone with clipboard asks you how you vote and you proudly declare “Hillary Clinton”.
Good for you!
That’s what these people do; acquire useless trophies. Like high school and college seniors suddenly joining lame no-show-extra-curricular activities to dress up college applications and job resumes.
In the sports world these are the same people who pay money to go on cruises with professional athletes. They’re bodies. That’s all they are. Sure everyone is nice to them but really, do you think they’re respected?
These are the people whose entire self-worth is centered on being a Hillary delegate.
—
The mayor turning over subpoenas (if they exist) to the Globe is an interesting exercise in the esoteric world of law.
The public records law is great public policy and the more openness there is the better, however there are necessary exceptions. Some are valid and some are horse crap.
Right now the Boston Globe is seeking public records from the city of Boston regarding any subpoenas it or its employees received from the feds.
The city says because there is an on-going investigation and although not required the letter from the feds with the subpoenas requests that the city not disclose to others because it could compromise the investigation. This is a boilerplate letter or lecture that goes with every witness or subpoena the government has ever called.
Got all this? Here’s my angle. Local and National prosecutors should be chirping in on this and say that as a matter of public policy government entities should not be required to make public any document or witness subpoenas simply based on public records law?
Why you ask?
Here’s why.
A public records request can be generated by the hundreds and on a monthly or periodic basis a newspaper or other moneyed entity can request information on government subpoenas from every single entity in Massachusetts thereby obfuscating every criminal investigation where information was sought from any state agency, city or town..
The issue is not Boston and this particular case. It’s law enforcement being able to protect investigations from being announced to whomever would be interested.
Obviously the US Attorney’s office in Boston would never take that position in this case. They’re out to destroy the mayor.
Plus the Globe must know about subpoenas and what’s in them because the feds told them all about it. Most likely Fred Wyshak talking to Shelly Murphy. Remember, she sold her soul to the devil, I mean Fred Wyshak, years ago.
…for delegates for both candidates. Candidates do get to sign off on delegates. After all, we like our delegates to actually mean what they say when it comes to candidate commitment unlike a certain other party. As a DSC member I have lost count of the recent emails and calls I have received soliciting my support. We will make our selections on Saturday and are by no means obligated to elect either candidate’s preferred slate. I am “shocked” that the Globe didn’t get the whole story regarding internal party procedures!
My impression from this article and from talking to others that we may not have a choice of Clinton-pledged delegates tomorrow.
…just like we had a choice at the CD caucuses even though delegates have to be approved by the campaigns. Here is the list of PLEO and at-large delegate candidates. As you can see there are many more interested than there are spots. Plus, I’ve lost count of the number of outreaches I have gotten from supporters of both candidates, which I’m sure you have gotten as well.
We’ll see tomorrow.
I could have won a beer or something off of you! 😉
First, I never would have agreed to a bet on general principles:)
In all seriousness, though, just to update everyone, the Clinton campaign DID strike some people for reasons passing understanding, but not all the way down to exactly the right amount. We were then presented with a list of approved candidates, but among those only those on the official slate were formally nominated. We then voice-voted acclamation which was hardly unanimous and some of us even thought the nays prevailed. I heard that the others on the approved list willingly withdrew (though I’ve also heard that disputed), but I think that could have been communicated better. A couple of the Clinton delegates not on the slate will still go to convention as members of convention committees designated by the campaign. The Sanders campaign opted not to strike candidates, but did present a preferred slate, most of whom in fact were elected.
We have paper ballots. With campaign reps only there to proctor.
Is this like the voice votes in the House?
…for contested elections, which you also have to sign. The voice votes I referred to were for the elections where there were only as many candidates nominated as slots to be filled, so no contest.
You were talking about voice votes where you thought the Nays prevailed. So…people were voting AGAINST uncontested candidates? Why WERE they uncontested if that was the sentiment?
And what would you have done if the vote HAD been negative? We take nominations from the floor for all the slots.
Before anyone knew what was happening the Chair entertained a motion to close nominations, which he ruled prevailed. He then called for a motion to accept those who had been nominated by acclamation. I voted no because it felt like a fixed process, which is why I suspect others did as well. I confirmed with the parliamentarian that had the nays prevailed it would have been in order to re-open nominations and try again. It was only after this vote that someone addressed the body to explain that other candidates on the list had asked not to be nominated, something I would have liked to have known BEFORE the acclamation vote. Personally, I don’t like motions to close nominations as it feels to quick. If I were presiding I would have asked, “Are there any more nominations?” I would pause for a couple of seconds and then say, “Hearing none, without objection nominations are closed.”
who didn’t even get the chance to speak, because of the process.
Maybe the confusion was such that you didn’t know…. but this process was a disgrace and there were many strong Hillary supporters who did a ton of work for her campaign in MA and NH who felt completely slighted by the process and the state party.
I know state party members who were disgusted by what happened.
Only one person representing each candidate spoke at all, and only to inform the DSC who the preferred slates were.
Neither the state party, nor any officer or subset thereof, had any role in determining who could run. That was entirely on the campaigns.
…I know many of the candidates personally including a couple name-dropped by the Globe article. They are all hard-working Democrats and absolutely do not deserve to be labelled frauds!
Another poorly written Globe story. I don’t understand what the issue is.
Of a 4th grade girls club whose members regularly cut girls who don’t dress right. I used to belong to one and we were mean.
it is jim o’sullivan. what do you expect, other than a search for a scandal around every conner?
reporting that the covention was fixed against Marisa DeFranco. Douchenozzles!
I would have a look at the statements and biographies of some of the candidates here on the State Committee webpage. I guarantee that you will feel better about the MA Democratic party if you read this.
that there is politics going on within a political party!