RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
Yep that's what's going on.
Oklahoma Parking Lot Convention Delegates Convention at OKGOP live stream tonight!
- Thread starter flybeech
- Start date
Yep that's what's going on.
lib3rtarian
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,704
Is the media there? Had you invited them?
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
Contact: Lukus Collins FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cell: 405-371-2574
Email: [email protected]
Ron Paul Supporters Submit Challenge to Oklahoma GOP State Convention
Attorneys representing grassroots supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul delivered a letter, dated Tuesday, May 22nd, to Oklahoma GOP Chairman Matt Pinnell challenging the “the legitimacy and legality of the purported selection of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention at the May 12, 2012 Oklahoma Republican Party Convention.” The letter contends that the election of the State Republican Executive Committee’s national delegate slate is void because convention chairman Marc Nuttle failed to conduct the vote by roll call ballot as required in party rules. Instead, Nuttle called only for voice and standing votes, which do not take into account proportional
weighting by county.
“We’re simply asking for the rules to be followed,” stated Lukus Collins, a national delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th congressional district. “This is not a grudge match. This is a black and white issue. State party rules as well as the convention rules clearly require a roll call vote by ballot for the election of national delegates, and that didn’t happen inside at the state convention.” According to Collins, a draft of the letter was presented to Chairman Pinnell over the weekend in an effort to resolve the matter privately, but the offer was ultimately declined.
The letter cites further rules violations, including improper adjournment while convention business was still outstanding.
Following the sudden and chaotic adjournment – which included the lights being turned out and wall partitions cutting off nearly one-third of the delegates from the rest of the convention – nearly 400 delegates gathered in the parking lot outside to continue business as a rump convention. During the outdoor proceedings, an alternative slate of national
delegates and alternates was elected by roll call ballot, according to Jake Peters, who was elected to chair the continued convention.
The challenge letter requests that the delegates and alternates elected at the outdoor convention be recognized by the Oklahoma GOP as the legitimate at-large delegation, and that national delegation credentialing be forestalled until the challenge is resolved. The letter indicates that the petitioners are prepared to take their challenge formally to the national Committee on Contests.
Steve Dickson, a precinct chairman and state delegate, said, “It is unfortunate that we are forced to take this action compelling compliance with our own rules. I hope that our efforts can prevent more problems, in particular the seating of our full delegation in Tampa, by addressing the blatant violations that occurred now rather than later.”
For more information, please visit RonPaulOK.com or contact Lukus Collins at 405-371-2574 or [email protected].
Cell: 405-371-2574
Email: [email protected]
Ron Paul Supporters Submit Challenge to Oklahoma GOP State Convention
Attorneys representing grassroots supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul delivered a letter, dated Tuesday, May 22nd, to Oklahoma GOP Chairman Matt Pinnell challenging the “the legitimacy and legality of the purported selection of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention at the May 12, 2012 Oklahoma Republican Party Convention.” The letter contends that the election of the State Republican Executive Committee’s national delegate slate is void because convention chairman Marc Nuttle failed to conduct the vote by roll call ballot as required in party rules. Instead, Nuttle called only for voice and standing votes, which do not take into account proportional
weighting by county.
“We’re simply asking for the rules to be followed,” stated Lukus Collins, a national delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th congressional district. “This is not a grudge match. This is a black and white issue. State party rules as well as the convention rules clearly require a roll call vote by ballot for the election of national delegates, and that didn’t happen inside at the state convention.” According to Collins, a draft of the letter was presented to Chairman Pinnell over the weekend in an effort to resolve the matter privately, but the offer was ultimately declined.
The letter cites further rules violations, including improper adjournment while convention business was still outstanding.
Following the sudden and chaotic adjournment – which included the lights being turned out and wall partitions cutting off nearly one-third of the delegates from the rest of the convention – nearly 400 delegates gathered in the parking lot outside to continue business as a rump convention. During the outdoor proceedings, an alternative slate of national
delegates and alternates was elected by roll call ballot, according to Jake Peters, who was elected to chair the continued convention.
The challenge letter requests that the delegates and alternates elected at the outdoor convention be recognized by the Oklahoma GOP as the legitimate at-large delegation, and that national delegation credentialing be forestalled until the challenge is resolved. The letter indicates that the petitioners are prepared to take their challenge formally to the national Committee on Contests.
Steve Dickson, a precinct chairman and state delegate, said, “It is unfortunate that we are forced to take this action compelling compliance with our own rules. I hope that our efforts can prevent more problems, in particular the seating of our full delegation in Tampa, by addressing the blatant violations that occurred now rather than later.”
For more information, please visit RonPaulOK.com or contact Lukus Collins at 405-371-2574 or [email protected].
Last edited:
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
Mr. Matt Pinnell
Chairman
Oklahoma Republican Party
4031 N Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Re: Challenge to Legitimacy of Oklahoma State Republican Convention Selection of
At-Large Delegates & Alternates to the Republican National Convention
Dear Mr. Pinnell:
We represent and are writing to you on behalf of the following individuals:
• Steve Dickson, in his capacity as a duly-credentialed delegate to the Oklahoma State Republican Convention held in Norman, Oklahoma on May 12, 2012;
• Lukus Collins, in his capacity as a duly-credentialed delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District to the Republican National Convention to be held in Tampa, Florida during August 27-30, 2012;
• Jerry Essary, Jr., in his capacity as Chairman of the Beckham County Republican Party; and
• Jake Peters, in his capacity as one of the at-large delegates and alternates to the
Republican National Convention elected in Norman.
Purposes of Letter
The purposes of this letter are to: (i) challenge the legitimacy of the purported selection of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention at the May 12, 2012
Oklahoma Republican Party Convention; and (ii) request you take certain actions to ensure that Oklahoma Republicans are represented at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida during August 27-30, 2012 by a delegation selected in accordance with the Oklahoma State Party and Convention rules and procedures.
2
The Convention
There were numerous irregularities at the Convention held in Norman, but we focus in this letter on some of the most egregious.
Prior to the state convention, and pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Republican Party1 (hereinafter “Party Rule”), the Oklahoma State Republican Party Executive Committee nominated a slate of 25 Delegates-at-large and 25 Alternates-at-Large.
Pursuant to Rule VI.A.1 of the Rules and Order of Business of the Oklahoma Republican State Convention of May 12, 20122 (hereinafter “Convention Rule”), the State Executive Committee reported to the Convention the Executive Committee’s at-large slate of nominees.
Before conducting a vote on the slate in its entirety, as provided for in Convention Rule VI.A.2, the Convention Chairman Marc Nuttle entertained a motion to allow a competing complete slate of candidates for Delegate and Alternate positions to be elected by ballot and roll call vote. The Convention Chairman announced that motion failed.
Following that, the Convention Chairman called for a voice vote on the Executive Committee’s slate. That vote failed to reveal whether the slate had received a majority, whereupon the Chairman called for a standing vote, and on the basis of that vote, the Convention Chairman declared the Executive Committee’s slate of at-large delegates and
alternates to have been elected.
The ruling of the Convention Chairman was appealed. The Convention Chairman called for a voice vote on the appeal from the ruling of the chair. When the outcome of that vote did not reveal if the appeal was successful, the Chairman called for a standing vote and, based on that standing vote, announced that the appeal from the ruling of the chair had been
defeated. A roll call vote was called for, as required by party rules, but was ruled out of order by the Convention Chairman.
The convention moved quickly to the National Committeeman election, the platform and, finally, “other business,” whereupon delegate Brady Wright raised a point of order noting that the at-large delegate slate of the Executive Committee had not been elected by a roll call vote as required by the Party Rules. The Convention Chairman ignored the point of order, invited a motion to adjourn, and purportedly adjourned the Convention, calling for a standing vote without regard to chaotic conditions then prevailing. As there were still items of business pending, the motion to adjourn was out of order. See Convention Rule IX.D. Thus, Delegate Jake Peters declared the chair vacant and offered to take nominations for a new chair which was submitted to a vote and Peters was elected the new chairman as the convention proceeded
in the parking lot outside of the hotel, the time for holding the convention inside the hotel having expired.
At that point, duly-credentialed delegates using proper procedures, including a roll call vote, elected a complete slate of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention outside.
The Rules
Party Rule 18(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
At the State Convention convened for the purpose of electing Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at-Large to the Republican National Convention, qualified nominations of the States Executive Committee shall be placed before the convention by the State Chairman.... Election of the Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at-Large shall be by roll call vote. [Emphasis added.]
Convention Rule IV.D requires that a roll call vote shall be conducted by at least 3 tellers “who shall count the vote” and would proceed, as follows:
(a) “the Convention Secretary shall call the Permanent Roll by delegations, announcing the number of votes to which each delegation is entitled in accordance with that Roll”;
(b) “Voting in open delegations shall be mathematically apportioned by dividing the number of votes allowed to that delegation by the number of delegates voting on that ballot, provided that no one delegate shall cast more than two whole votes”; and
(c) “the Chairman of each delegation ... shall announce the new ballot vote of the delegation, the cumulative decimal vote total of all county delegations shall be the final vote and the total of any delegation vote shall not exceed the total allowed by the Permanent Roll of this Convention.”
Thus, the requirement of a “roll call vote” is not a mere formality. Rather it is
required to be carefully conducted to ensure that: (i) only the votes of credentialed delegates
entitled to vote are counted as provided in Party Rule 16(g); and (ii) the vote is taken into accordance with the proportional weighting of delegates by county as required by Party Rule 16(e).
And, further to fulfill the purpose of preserving a written record of the vote should there be a later challenge, Convention Rule VI.B.1 prescribes that the vote be “conducted by ballot for the slate of candidates recommended by the State Executive Committee.” (Emphasis added.)
The Challenge
Neither a voice vote nor a standing vote meets the specific requirement of a roll call vote by ballot, and neither serves the important purposes underlying the rules requiring a roll call vote. Yet that is how the Convention Chairman determined that the State Executive Committee’s slate of at-large delegates and alternates were elected while the convention was meeting inside.
Our clients objected to that process at the Convention, and now, with this letter, renew that objection to that extra-legal process. In short, our clients claim that, because the process by which at-large delegates and alternates were selected did not comply with Party Rule 18(d)
and Convention Rule VI.B.1, the inside convention in Norman failed to elect legitimately any at-large delegate or alternate.
Rule 15 of the RNC’s “The Rules of the Republican Party”3 supports this claim.
Subsection (a)(1) of that rule states that “Delegates at large and their alternate delegates shall be elected ... n accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state.” Any election conducted by a process which is contrary to a state party rule, such as here, would, for that reason alone, be void.
Relief Requested
On behalf of our clients, we respectfully request that you exercise your duty and power as Chairman of the state party to ensure that only lawfully-elected delegates and alternates attend the Republican National Convention.
Should you agree that all delegates and alternates selected outside are legitimate, our clients would ask that you certify them to the Republican National Committee and to the Republican National Convention.
3 http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf (as adopted by
the 2008 Republican National Convention on September 1, 2008, and amended by the
Republican National Committee on August 6, 2010).
5
On the other hand, should you believe that no delegates and alternates have been lawfully elected, our clients ask that you take steps to maintain the status quo until properly selected delegates and alternates are chosen. Specifically, our clients request that as to the delegates and alternates unlawfully selected:
• no delegation caucus or other meeting take place,
• no National Convention committee assignments or elections occur,
• the Republican National Committee is advised that the delegates and alternates
selected inside were improperly and unlawfully selected, and
• you make every effort to cease and desist from normal pre-convention actions,
pending the state party’s issuance of a new call for a state convention, and the
selection of delegates and alternates at that convention according to party rules.
Remedial Action
In view of the foregoing facts, we ask that you respond to this letter immediately, and advise us whether you are willing to recognize the delegates and alternates elected outside, or whether you intend to issue a new call for a new convention to select delegates and alternatives to the Republican National Convention — this time, in accordance with all applicable rules. If not, you will force our clients to take other action to ensure that the Party Rules are followed.
Should you choose not to take corrective action, our clients are prepared to make every effort to make sure that the at-large delegates and alternates chosen in violation of the Party and Convention Rules are challenged by at-large delegates and alternates that were elected in compliance with those rules immediately after the unlawful effort to terminate the May 12, 2012 convention. For example, plans have begun for the delegation that was properly elected to travel to Tampa to present their case to the national Credentials Committee.
Additionally, we have been asked to investigate the possibility of taking this matter to court in association with local counsel in Oklahoma. While courts “are traditionally reluctant to interfere with the internal operations of political parties,” and while we also highly regard the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association that protects the autonomy of political parties, even political parties are legally bound to abide by their own rules and procedures.
See Reform Party at 760. Political party autonomy is protected, but only when it concerns matters of internal management and political affairs. See Redfearn v. Republican State Committee, 362 F. Supp. 65 (D.Del. 1973).
Chairman
Oklahoma Republican Party
4031 N Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Re: Challenge to Legitimacy of Oklahoma State Republican Convention Selection of
At-Large Delegates & Alternates to the Republican National Convention
Dear Mr. Pinnell:
We represent and are writing to you on behalf of the following individuals:
• Steve Dickson, in his capacity as a duly-credentialed delegate to the Oklahoma State Republican Convention held in Norman, Oklahoma on May 12, 2012;
• Lukus Collins, in his capacity as a duly-credentialed delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District to the Republican National Convention to be held in Tampa, Florida during August 27-30, 2012;
• Jerry Essary, Jr., in his capacity as Chairman of the Beckham County Republican Party; and
• Jake Peters, in his capacity as one of the at-large delegates and alternates to the
Republican National Convention elected in Norman.
Purposes of Letter
The purposes of this letter are to: (i) challenge the legitimacy of the purported selection of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention at the May 12, 2012
Oklahoma Republican Party Convention; and (ii) request you take certain actions to ensure that Oklahoma Republicans are represented at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida during August 27-30, 2012 by a delegation selected in accordance with the Oklahoma State Party and Convention rules and procedures.
2
The Convention
There were numerous irregularities at the Convention held in Norman, but we focus in this letter on some of the most egregious.
Prior to the state convention, and pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Republican Party1 (hereinafter “Party Rule”), the Oklahoma State Republican Party Executive Committee nominated a slate of 25 Delegates-at-large and 25 Alternates-at-Large.
Pursuant to Rule VI.A.1 of the Rules and Order of Business of the Oklahoma Republican State Convention of May 12, 20122 (hereinafter “Convention Rule”), the State Executive Committee reported to the Convention the Executive Committee’s at-large slate of nominees.
Before conducting a vote on the slate in its entirety, as provided for in Convention Rule VI.A.2, the Convention Chairman Marc Nuttle entertained a motion to allow a competing complete slate of candidates for Delegate and Alternate positions to be elected by ballot and roll call vote. The Convention Chairman announced that motion failed.
Following that, the Convention Chairman called for a voice vote on the Executive Committee’s slate. That vote failed to reveal whether the slate had received a majority, whereupon the Chairman called for a standing vote, and on the basis of that vote, the Convention Chairman declared the Executive Committee’s slate of at-large delegates and
alternates to have been elected.
The ruling of the Convention Chairman was appealed. The Convention Chairman called for a voice vote on the appeal from the ruling of the chair. When the outcome of that vote did not reveal if the appeal was successful, the Chairman called for a standing vote and, based on that standing vote, announced that the appeal from the ruling of the chair had been
defeated. A roll call vote was called for, as required by party rules, but was ruled out of order by the Convention Chairman.
The convention moved quickly to the National Committeeman election, the platform and, finally, “other business,” whereupon delegate Brady Wright raised a point of order noting that the at-large delegate slate of the Executive Committee had not been elected by a roll call vote as required by the Party Rules. The Convention Chairman ignored the point of order, invited a motion to adjourn, and purportedly adjourned the Convention, calling for a standing vote without regard to chaotic conditions then prevailing. As there were still items of business pending, the motion to adjourn was out of order. See Convention Rule IX.D. Thus, Delegate Jake Peters declared the chair vacant and offered to take nominations for a new chair which was submitted to a vote and Peters was elected the new chairman as the convention proceeded
in the parking lot outside of the hotel, the time for holding the convention inside the hotel having expired.
At that point, duly-credentialed delegates using proper procedures, including a roll call vote, elected a complete slate of at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention outside.
The Rules
Party Rule 18(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
At the State Convention convened for the purpose of electing Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at-Large to the Republican National Convention, qualified nominations of the States Executive Committee shall be placed before the convention by the State Chairman.... Election of the Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at-Large shall be by roll call vote. [Emphasis added.]
Convention Rule IV.D requires that a roll call vote shall be conducted by at least 3 tellers “who shall count the vote” and would proceed, as follows:
(a) “the Convention Secretary shall call the Permanent Roll by delegations, announcing the number of votes to which each delegation is entitled in accordance with that Roll”;
(b) “Voting in open delegations shall be mathematically apportioned by dividing the number of votes allowed to that delegation by the number of delegates voting on that ballot, provided that no one delegate shall cast more than two whole votes”; and
(c) “the Chairman of each delegation ... shall announce the new ballot vote of the delegation, the cumulative decimal vote total of all county delegations shall be the final vote and the total of any delegation vote shall not exceed the total allowed by the Permanent Roll of this Convention.”
Thus, the requirement of a “roll call vote” is not a mere formality. Rather it is
required to be carefully conducted to ensure that: (i) only the votes of credentialed delegates
entitled to vote are counted as provided in Party Rule 16(g); and (ii) the vote is taken into accordance with the proportional weighting of delegates by county as required by Party Rule 16(e).
And, further to fulfill the purpose of preserving a written record of the vote should there be a later challenge, Convention Rule VI.B.1 prescribes that the vote be “conducted by ballot for the slate of candidates recommended by the State Executive Committee.” (Emphasis added.)
The Challenge
Neither a voice vote nor a standing vote meets the specific requirement of a roll call vote by ballot, and neither serves the important purposes underlying the rules requiring a roll call vote. Yet that is how the Convention Chairman determined that the State Executive Committee’s slate of at-large delegates and alternates were elected while the convention was meeting inside.
Our clients objected to that process at the Convention, and now, with this letter, renew that objection to that extra-legal process. In short, our clients claim that, because the process by which at-large delegates and alternates were selected did not comply with Party Rule 18(d)
and Convention Rule VI.B.1, the inside convention in Norman failed to elect legitimately any at-large delegate or alternate.
Rule 15 of the RNC’s “The Rules of the Republican Party”3 supports this claim.
Subsection (a)(1) of that rule states that “Delegates at large and their alternate delegates shall be elected ... n accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state.” Any election conducted by a process which is contrary to a state party rule, such as here, would, for that reason alone, be void.
Relief Requested
On behalf of our clients, we respectfully request that you exercise your duty and power as Chairman of the state party to ensure that only lawfully-elected delegates and alternates attend the Republican National Convention.
Should you agree that all delegates and alternates selected outside are legitimate, our clients would ask that you certify them to the Republican National Committee and to the Republican National Convention.
3 http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf (as adopted by
the 2008 Republican National Convention on September 1, 2008, and amended by the
Republican National Committee on August 6, 2010).
5
On the other hand, should you believe that no delegates and alternates have been lawfully elected, our clients ask that you take steps to maintain the status quo until properly selected delegates and alternates are chosen. Specifically, our clients request that as to the delegates and alternates unlawfully selected:
• no delegation caucus or other meeting take place,
• no National Convention committee assignments or elections occur,
• the Republican National Committee is advised that the delegates and alternates
selected inside were improperly and unlawfully selected, and
• you make every effort to cease and desist from normal pre-convention actions,
pending the state party’s issuance of a new call for a state convention, and the
selection of delegates and alternates at that convention according to party rules.
Remedial Action
In view of the foregoing facts, we ask that you respond to this letter immediately, and advise us whether you are willing to recognize the delegates and alternates elected outside, or whether you intend to issue a new call for a new convention to select delegates and alternatives to the Republican National Convention — this time, in accordance with all applicable rules. If not, you will force our clients to take other action to ensure that the Party Rules are followed.
Should you choose not to take corrective action, our clients are prepared to make every effort to make sure that the at-large delegates and alternates chosen in violation of the Party and Convention Rules are challenged by at-large delegates and alternates that were elected in compliance with those rules immediately after the unlawful effort to terminate the May 12, 2012 convention. For example, plans have begun for the delegation that was properly elected to travel to Tampa to present their case to the national Credentials Committee.
Additionally, we have been asked to investigate the possibility of taking this matter to court in association with local counsel in Oklahoma. While courts “are traditionally reluctant to interfere with the internal operations of political parties,” and while we also highly regard the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association that protects the autonomy of political parties, even political parties are legally bound to abide by their own rules and procedures.
See Reform Party at 760. Political party autonomy is protected, but only when it concerns matters of internal management and political affairs. See Redfearn v. Republican State Committee, 362 F. Supp. 65 (D.Del. 1973).
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
I'm listening to the conference call and it appears that they're doing the business that was unfinished inside the convention, such as voting on the platform, credentials, rules committee, electing the committee man/woman, etc.
They're trying to pull a fast one right now.
They're trying to pull a fast one right now.
Barrex
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,576
Not just that 1 PERSON FROM PARIS CALLED THAT NUMBER
I have idea/joke involving people in Iran and voting and call...
So can anyone explain to me what is the plan?
Dont they give establishment delegates some legitimacy and validity by not objecting and letting them have a official meeting while excluding Ron Paul delegates????
EXPLANATION: Establishment meeting (conference call) is going on without Ron Paul delegates.
Ron Paul delegates are in separate room doing nothing at the moment(live stream).
I dont get it why are they letting this to happen....
Last edited:
well_met_sir
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 53
So they just completely gave up? This outcome was obvious. Why didn't they hire lawyers? Why didn't they bring the police? Why did they even show up? There was no point if they didn't intend to fight. These people are just trying to "make a statement" or something when they should be trying to win.
Last edited:
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
They weren't there to make a scene. There is a pending 'formal' challenge.
from dailypaul thread :
So there are 2 delegations from OK. 1 will be seated, 1 will not, or possibly none will be seated. If the delegation from the parking lot did not show up and finish their business, it would give GOP grounds to throw out the challenge for not following proper procedure.
On a side note, the GOP officials appeared to be cordial once they realized they were being ustreamed.
from dailypaul thread :
So there are 2 delegations from OK. 1 will be seated, 1 will not, or possibly none will be seated. If the delegation from the parking lot did not show up and finish their business, it would give GOP grounds to throw out the challenge for not following proper procedure.
On a side note, the GOP officials appeared to be cordial once they realized they were being ustreamed.
Last edited:
They already had an attorney contact them and make offers before filing suit. They still had to follow through and show up.
MozoVote
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,948
Hopefully the OK delegates are in this for the long haul and will get some support and advice from the Nevada people. Realistically, what will happen is the RNC will slap the OKGOP's wrist, pick a few from each delegation and call it a day. The real opportunity here, is to use all this evidence to tar and feather the leadership's reputation among the grassroots ... and overthrow the bastards in the next party election. That'll take a year or two.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I'm guessing the delegates didn't bring the campaign in on it. If they had been present it would have been a little harder to just put them in a different room.
ClydeCoulter
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,108
If the GOP establishment were finishing business, how could they "prevent" the valid delegates from the Paul side from participating? So, did the Paul delegates call in from the other room, or were they notified to do so?
and...
if the RP deleagates would have participated, would that have seemed to validate the GOP est proceedings when the proceedings actually happened before in the parkinglot?
and...
if the RP deleagates would have participated, would that have seemed to validate the GOP est proceedings when the proceedings actually happened before in the parkinglot?
Last edited:
Similar threads
