This is a fascinating story involving Crazy Eddie, Donald Trump, and this year's election.
Here's what I want to know. Do Democrats across the country have a plan in place to collect usable data (usable in court) to document violation of the consent degree by the Republicans, should they do so?
Also, I'd like to compliment the actors for the excellent choreography, especially the reindeer.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"And who shall watch the watchmen?"
It's like the 1870s South USA, all over again. What next: poll taxes?
Good segment: but I really did not like the guilt by association for Trump's brother in law. Defending people and organisations in court is not a bad thing. (And his sister seems a competent jydge)I didn't like it when the repubs brought up Clinton's defense of a rapist and I did not like this either.
I agree with #3, it's pointless to try to discredit Trump by associating him with Crazy Eddie's lawyer, but I don't think that's the point of the story. Maddow was showing that there was a relationship and, therefore, Trump himself should know that he can't have poll police or whatever.
On the other hand, it may very well be defensible in court that Trump and the RNC aren't violating the restriction because these yahoo poll police aren't officially sanctioned in any way. I don't know, but if the courts can stick it to Trump for this stunt I'm all for it.
And Desertphile #2, we already have a poll tax. It's called an ID.
G127 and George: Nothing of the kind happened. No one has suggested guilt by association. The brother in law link is just for fun, one of those strange coincidences. Has nothing to do with the problem that the GOP candidate is telling his supporters to engage in active voter suppression activities.
George, that is exactly what I'm asking about here... the yahoos who might show up are not "officially sanctioned." However, I would argue that the candidate's words are official no matter what, when, or where he says them, if said publicly. I would also argue that he has already violated the consent agreement with what he has said so far.
I'm pretty sure a consent agreement extension like this is not bound by well defined tests that are hard to meet.
Greg #5 - I would certainly hope you're right, but I can foresee his lawyers taking the route I suggested earlier.
And I'm pretty sure that Trump has no idea what consent is. ;)
The general and common concern of all American citizens and cooperations must be that the USA will have fair and good elections on November 8, 2016. I wish you all good luck, responsibility and carefulness. Laren NH, Tuesday 25 October 2016, 20:15 Dutch time.
The general and common concern of all American citizens and corporations must be that the USA will have fair and good tax rates after November 8, 2016. I wish us all good luck...
The poll taxes are already here, they're called voterID laws.
@Chakat Firepaw: "The poll taxes are already here, they’re called voter ID laws."
Northern New Mexico is currently enjoying voter suppression for The Unwanted Class Citizens (Apaches and the descendants of people who came to live here in the 1600s from Spain) because they cannot show they live in the state. The governor thinks this will stop "voter fraud." One can guess her political party affiliation....
The governor is committing “voter fraud.”
Holy sweet mother of jaysus, Crazy Eddie. I was 22 yrs old in 1979 when I left New Jersey for Europe, and was a big fan of late night Film Noir, which is when all those cheapo ads used to run. I still haven't got the image of all those violated reindeer out of my head.
So I missed all the bruhaha over that gubernatorial race, and the obscure ruling against the RNC. I'd say Trump has pretty much caused (in advance) the consent decree to be violated. But what happens if the Rethuglicans do violate it, other than an 8-year extension of the decree? Do the election results get decided by a court then? Or is it just another useless slap on the wrist for the Rethuglican bullies?
The Democrats have filed suit. It is now in the hands of a judge.
I don't think results are filed by the court, but I'm not sure what the penalties are for violating it other than an extension. I would guess a hefty fine.
I would like to seem them told they have to take their candidate off the ballot. that would be fun
for more info, prior violations.