Blaming Russia has allowed the national Democratic Party to duck the real reasons why Hillary Clinton lost, the lack of a populist connection that a lawsuit is trying to expose, writes Norman Solomon at Truthdig.
By Norman Solomon
Nine months after losing the presidency, the Democratic Party is in dire need of a course correction. Grass-roots enthusiasm for the party is far from robust. Despite incessant funding appeals and widespread revulsion for the Trump administration, the Democratic National Committee’s fundraising is notably weak.
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaking to one of his large crowds of supporters. (Photo credit: Sanders campaign)
And the latest DNC chair, Tom Perez, sounds no more inspiring than his recent predecessors. When Perez speaks next to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, it’s a stark contrast between establishment clichés and progressive populism.
While a united front against the Trump regime would be ideal, mere unity behind timeworn Democratic leadership would hardly be auspicious. Breaking the Republican stranglehold at election time will require mobilizing the Democratic Party’s base on behalf of authentic populism. But the power structure of the DNC has other priorities.
A comment from Sanders five months ago remains fully relevant: “Certainly, there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”
Meanwhile, along with most Democrats in Congress, the DNC remains eager to heap blame on Russia for the defeat of Hillary Clinton. That’s been a nifty way to deflect attention from what cried out for scrutiny after November’s election — the reality that Clinton’s close ties with Wall Street and big banks made it unconvincing to pitch her as an ally of working people.
All this is context for a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee that has been slowly wending its way through a federal district court in Florida. The suit contends that the DNC engaged in fraud by reneging on a key commitment in its charter.
The DNC charter is fairly explicit. Article V, Section 4 says: “In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns.”
The charter goes on to state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
DNC emails that reached the public a year ago show direct and purposeful violations of those DNC rules. As The New York Times reported with understatement days before the national convention, “The emails appear to bolster Mr. Sanders’s claims that the committee, and in particular [DNC Chair Debbie] Wasserman Schultz, did not treat him fairly.”
A Lawsuit Filed
A week after the release of those incriminating DNC emails in July 2016, a Miami-based law firm (Beck & Lee) filed a suit on behalf of plaintiffs who had donated to the DNC, alleging that the DNC committed “civil fraud.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida.
The DNC emails show that top committee officials violated the DNC charter’s “impartiality and evenhandedness” requirements. When compelled to respond at a hearing in U.S. District Court in southern Florida on April 25, the DNC’s legal team came up with a revealing defense — claiming that the DNC has a right to be unfair during the presidential nominating process.
A lawyer for the DNC, Bruce Spiva, told the judge: “We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into backrooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.”
In other words, Spiva was saying that his clients atop the DNC didn’t mug democracy in this case but could have if they’d wanted to — and they retain the right to do so in the future.
Later that day, Spiva tried to clean up a potential public relations snafu while reaffirming the DNC’s legalistic stance: “In response to my hypothetical that the party could choose its nominees in a smoke-filled room, I want to just reiterate that the party ran the process fair and impartially, and does not do that and doesn’t plan to do that. But these, again, are political choices that either party is free to make and are not enforceable in a court of law.”
Lawyers often make “even if” arguments in court that might not look good elsewhere. But this one is unusually telling — telling us that the most powerful people at the DNC reserve the right to put their thumbs on the scales when the Democratic Party chooses its presidential nominee.
If DNC leaders really want to help build the kind of relationships with the grass roots that are needed for defeating the Trump-Pence forces, the DNC should be trying to climb out of its estrangement hole, not digging itself in deeper.
Alienation from the Democratic Party hierarchy last fall—especially among young people who turned out for Sanders during the primaries but not for Clinton in November — was a major factor in Trump’s victory. (CIinton’s youthful support sank to such a low level in national polling that I wrote for The Hill just five weeks before the November election, “If this country had a maximum voting age of 35, Hillary Clinton would now be in danger of losing the election to Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.”) Like the Clinton campaign itself, the DNC was complacent about the distrust that the party’s hierarchy had earned.
Eight months into 2017, the DNC seems to be on the same basic track as last year. It is symbolic and substantive that one of the national Democratic Party’s most prominent online fundraising spokespeople still is Donna Brazile, who filled in as acting DNC chair after Wasserman Schultz suddenly resigned in disrepute last summer when her on-the-job bias was exposed.
Tipping the Scales
The release of Clinton campaign emails showed that Brazile had used her position as a CNN commentator to obtain and secretly funnel debate questions to Clinton — via campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri — during the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders.
Donna Brazile, who served as interim Democratic Party chairperson.
In a recent article, Salon columnist Sophia McClennen recalled: “In the months when she was interim DNC chair, Brazile went on totally lying about her transgressions until she finally admitted to doing it, but stated that she felt no remorse.”
McClennen added: “The DNC is tone deaf to the fact that Brazile and Wasserman Schultz and the whole pack of insiders that didn’t hold an ethical primary should be exiled from the party, they are tone deaf to the real reasons why Trump won, and they are tone deaf to the fact that Sanders is the most popular politician and the most popular Senator in the nation. … The Trump administration’s cronyism, elitism and disregard for any semblance of democratic values has voters calling for impeachment, but the DNC has its own credibility problems — exemplified by the fact that Donna Brazile is still a party insider.”
The twin imperatives of taking government control away from Republicans and fighting for a genuinely progressive agenda will require an ongoing challenge to the entrenched national Democratic Party leadership. (Those who scoff at using the Democratic Party as an electoral tool to oust the Trump-Pence-Ryan-McConnell GOP have no other credible electoral tool to propose.) We can’t afford to leave the Democratic Party to the corporatists and militarists who currently dominate it from the top.
Odds are that the fraud lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee won’t get much further in legal proceedings. Yet the suit has already clarified and underscored a crucial reality. Progressive rhetoric notwithstanding, the DNC remains in sync with the same kind of anti-democratic arrogance that oversaw the party’s disastrous 2016 election campaign. The progressive uprising for political revolution must continue.
Norman Solomon is coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate and coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. [This article first appeared at Truthdig at https://www.truthdig.com/articles/dnc-fraud-lawsuit-exposes-anti-democratic-views-democratic-party/ ]
The Democratic Party is always going to be an unsatisfactory vehicle for an enormous number of left-leaning citizens. The two-party system is inherently deficient in that having only two possible political viewpoints expressed in an election cycle leaves far too many people with no political home. Parliamentary government, where three or more distinct parties can compete for public support and can be DISTINCT and expressive about their positions on issues, is by far the superior form of democratic government. Unless and until we can escape the exceptionalism that teaches us how blasted wonderful our system of government is, and instead can develop a workable system with multiple candidates from which to choose, we’re going to have a totally unsatisfactory system of government.
The US and its western satraps like to get up on their high horses, preening and posturing with their moral outrage and self righteousness, giving pious lectures and lofty sermons to the rest of humanity about their many failings. But in reality these people are rotten to the core, arrogant and corrupt, utterly devoid of any moral compass or ethical standards. General support for the systems they represent has been dwindling away for some time and has now virtually disappeared. Western states are now politically unstable to an extent previously unknown in developed countries. We live in turbulent times. And systems which have lost legitimacy are prone to sudden collapse, like the Shah of Iran in 1979 and Eastern Europe in 1989, with any sudden shock. And the potential sudden shocks are many and varied. Korea, Iran, Syria, Ukraine or any one of a dozen crisis points can provide the spark. Or the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe. Or the state of virtual civil war in the US. Or another banking collapse in Italy, Germany or elsewhere. The ongoing provocations towards Russia and China deteriorating into an actual clash. A financial system that has been on life support for the past 10 years. Escalating racial trouble and uncontrollable violence in the archipelago of No Go Areas dotting most western countries. The list is endless. There are many others.
As the former Director of Communications at the DNC during the Carter Administration, I have been a participant in this lawsuit since the beginning. What the DNC did to Bernie Sanders was dishonest and stupid and made me so angry I quit the Democratic Party. The people I worked with in the Carter Administration and at the DNC would not have dreamed of stealing an election from the people. Jimmy Carter, like Bernie Sanders, was a true fighter for the interests of every day, working class Americans. It saddens me to see the demise of the party I once spoke for. America does not need a second party for the plutocrats and elite. America needs a resurgence of the party of FDR and true Democrats.
Very helpful! Thank you very much for that statement Charlotte Scot… And, Yes to a New, New Deal!
Thank you Charlotte Scott.
And in response to the nitpicking, if I may, regarding common law elements in tort law that establish whether or not a complainant meets the standard proving FRAUD, I would like to say that the spirit of the law is on trial here. What an average person would understand to be fair and just. It’s up to the lawyers to meet that bar even though most people would intuitively say that what the DNC did was “dishonest and stupid and made (a lot of us) (very) angry.
I think that the Becks have that skill and they have the deep understanding of what justice and fairness and equity mean and that they should be able to show that what flies in the face of those ideals is therefore fraudulent.
I believe that William O. Douglas in his later years, anyways, was able to present an argument that reached the heights of poetry and inspiration, serving the best intent of the Constitution. I don’t think he’d have had any difficulty proving fraud even to the most backward leaning, nitpicking, letter of the law, courts.
From the Legal Dictionary at Law.com
fraud:
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood. Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one’s own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent. Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit. Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted. Borderline overreaching or taking advantage of another’s naiveté involving smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests the victim seek a “civil remedy” (i.e., sue). However, increasingly fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.
See also: constructive fraud exemplary damages extrinsic fraud fraud in the inducement fraudulent conveyance intrinsic fraud.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=785
The People’s Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications
evelync – thank you for that informative post.
Thank you Charlotte Scott.
And in response to the nitpicking, if I may, regarding common law elements in tort law that establish whether or not a complainant meets the standard proving FRAUD, I would like to say that the spirit of the law is on trial here. What an average person would understand to be fair and just. It’s up to the lawyers to meet that bar even though most people would intuitively say that what the DNC did was “dishonest and stupid and made (a lot of us) (very) angry.
I think that the Becks have that skill and they have the deep understanding of what justice and fairness and equity mean and that they should be able to show that what flies in the face of those ideals is therefore fraudulent.
I believe that William O. Douglas in his later years, anyways, was able to present an argument that reached the heights of poetry and inspiration, serving the best intent of the Constitution. I don’t think he’d have had any difficulty proving fraud even to the most backward leaning, nitpicking, letter of the law, courts.
From the Legal Dictionary at Law.com
“fraud:
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood. Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one’s own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent. Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit. Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted. Borderline overreaching or taking advantage of another’s naiveté involving smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests the victim seek a “civil remedy” (i.e., sue). However, increasingly fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.
See also: constructive fraud exemplary damages extrinsic fraud fraud in the inducement fraudulent conveyance intrinsic fraud.”
I REMOVED THE LINK BECAUSE MY COMMENT IS STILL UNDER MODERATION -THE LINK WAS TO DICTIONARY DOT LAW DOT COM
The People’s Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications
Cheers on the attempt at legal action. The judge may very well throw out the case as a Charter rule is just that, a rule. Violating a rule, however unethical, is nevertheless a rule. The case needs to be prosecuted on a actionable legal basis.
I’m a retired lawyer. I’ll throw in some legal detail to aid in understanding. Fraud is a common law tort. The common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.
Fraud is not a favored cause of action so each element must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” That is compared to the normal standard of proof in a civil action, a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., proof that makes the ultimate fact more likely than not.
I’d suspect that in this case the most difficult element to prove for most members of the class will be the 7th, their reliance on the statements in the Charter. In most cases, I’d suspect that the donors were not even aware of the Charter provisions, hence could not prove reliance.
Paul E. Merrell – thank you very much for that information! I would think whatever way it turns out, the DNC is going to have a hard time getting donations in the future. Thanks, Paul.
Paul, what do you think of their meeting (7) by reliance upon a guarantee of impartiality implicit in the conduct of a primary election by a political party? I am a much-experienced amateur in civil rights cases, and have not done contract cases, but have heard of enforceable guarantees implicit in common understandings.
But if ordinarily an implicit guarantee might apply, political parties will claim that the final primary election vote vindicates them despite their manipulations: that the business of politics is winning and insiders dominate regardless, so get involved or lose. But that would be a corrupted view, and does not address the implicit guarantee of impartiality to a donor.
Because the donor could not intend to endorse unseen maneuvers in a party, but only the joint action of donors and members whose intent can only be fairly determined by a fair primary election.
So the implicit guarantee would not mean that every donor could demand a refund if his favorite did not win the primary, but donors could do so upon evidence of deliberate manipulation in favor of another candidate, especially if the other candidate won and would not likely have won without the manipulation.
Paul, Spiza made much of this provision 7) you’re speaking of, as the transcript provided by Norman will show. In effect, I as donor, say, to the DNC, if I did not know of the ethical underpinning of the nomination process STATED as impartial, have no standing to make a claim I’ve been defrauded even though that is exactly what happened–I was defrauded, as admitted by the documents leaked, from the DNC itself, that this was its strategy–to favor Clinton.
Now, let the law try to convince me this perversion has anything to do with a basic ASSUMPTION governing a democratic process–that a nominating process in a democracy will be fair. This kind of hypocritical double-talk may sound very good to the legal mind but it does not to my mind as Joe Average expecting we might have a system that does not bend itself inside out to manipulate outcomes while calling all that “fair” and “democratic.”
It appears to me from what’s been said by our legal experts in this forum that THIS CASE ALONE demonstrates the utterly rotten state of the union we now abide in.
That in turn suggests we need to change the System. Let us turn our attention to HOW to do this.
Clarification: I was NOT a donor to the DNC, only to Sanders.
The best thing that could happen to the Democratic party would be for this lawsuit to succeed.
“We can’t afford to leave the Democratic Party to the corporatists and militarists who currently dominate it from the top.”
I won’t hold my breath, and I suspect we will need a new grassroots party with a visionary leader instead. The MSM will probably give this suit little to no coverage, and like Sam F said, most judges are utterly corrupt. We will need somebody who can break the 15 percent threshold to make the National debates, and then go all out with a grassroots campaign.
The real question to the Defense should be:
WHY HAVE A PRIMARY then at all? They would have to weasel
out of this, because they could not admit to it just being s pretense
for the consumer, i.e. the public.
Unlike most of you, I think that both parties will survive. Participation
in the voting process will shrink a lot, but that won’t change the parties’
attitude. As long as 20-30% of registered voters fill in their ballots they
will claim legitimacy of any election.
Yes, as long as big money controls campaign funds and mass media, oligarchy controls the ruins of America.
Even if everyhting Mr Solomon says is true, I don’t see what it changes in regard to Russiagate. Even if the DNC did all the things alleged, that doesn’t prove that Russians didn’t do all the things they are alleged to have done. To borrow Mr Solomon’s own words, that article seems to be a nifty way to deflect attention from Russiagate.
It is clear the DNC and those at the top have little interest in the citizens of this country. Moving to a progressive agenda will not happen in the democratic party with its insider leadership. As a life-long democrat I am dismayed and will no longer support through activism or dollars the DNC. I am convinced that DNC and HRC are blind to what Americans want and need and are more interested in lining their own pockets. And that, sad to say, is why Donald Trump is president.
Far be it from me to outshine any Democratic Party consultants, but if the Democrates don’t soon get off of this Russia-Gate business, then they should forget gaining or holding on to any worthwhile political seats in the coming 2018 elections. Voters are looking for candidates with answers, to the issues these voters really care about. Yes healthcare is a big one, but even bigger is quality good paying career jobs, but where are the Dem’s? In fact, between safe drinking water, to overbearing infringements on personal civil liberties, the list without any Russia bashing is long enough to keep thousands if not millions of politicos busy trying to fix this mess. The Democrates would do well to take the personal out of their politics, and there by replace that character assassination political tactic with a strategy to honestly be truthful with the American voter, and to accomplish real reform to be performed on a longtime corrupted bureaucracy, which all Americans have grown to detest.
Actually the Democrates would be wise to study what the real core of any political party should be hypothetically, and represent the party’s constituents the best way they can. In the end, it’s all about the money, and the special interest. So which is it, the voting public, or the donor who lives high on the hill?
Okay, now having said all that I’m going outside to scream into the wind!
The DNC has come out with the new New Deal, with the same old old leaders and same old old rhetoric with same old old promises!
I hope you are right, Joe, that the democrats are hurting themselves by sticking with all the Russiagate junk, but to me it doesn’t seem like it. Whereas I cannot stomach it, the people I’m around seem as hungry for it as ever. They like to talk about it, make insinuations, listen to it! It’s hard to understand how they don’t tire of it? I can only account for it by thinking their relish is equal to their hatred of Trump. It’s a circle: their hatred feeds their love of the propaganda, and the propaganda feeds their hatred. If this is like the tiger that turns to butter, well wouldn’t that be nice!
Personal loyalties and emotions generally control politics, much as we wish that people were rational. Perhaps they have a dim notion that they chose their party carelessly, but once angered by the election they are unlikely to re-examine that in the light of evidence. They merely assume that “their” party represents them, even while their carelessness ensures that it represents oligarchy.
Any action, story, or influence that shakes such careless assumptions is good for democracy.
Just finished reading the link Norman gave to the hearing–Kafkaesque, to put it mildly. I was thinking of The Trial continually.
As indicated in the long piece I quoted earlier, the case is simple. There is evidence from the defense itself via the leak(s) that it committed the breaches indicated. The case rests on money given and ripped off as contributions to the process of getting a nominee.
The Defense argues that the DNC acted without partiality and was fair but does not address any specific in the leaked documents, nor is asked on that topic.
The plaintiff argues that in a democracy the expectation is an election process will be fair. That is, that despite not knowing a charter’s ethical code the understanding of fairness is basic to proper process in a democracy.
Defense responds in effect that because the plaintiffs were not aware of the DNC ethics code they have no right to that expectation.
The discussion also points to a constitutional limitation on free speech as not permitting anything goes as with the right to defraud.
Defense insinuates freedom of speech includes the right to not be impartial and fair, despite claiming in your charter to be impartial and fair.
Defense continually insinuates to the Judge on how to look at the case, as though teaching the Judge on how to view it, and brings up legalisms.
Hour after hour on a very simple matter polluted with legalese versus common sense and a clear case of corruption.
I have been struck repeatedly at this time how the one good thing happening is the lid ripped off the black and steaming garbage can for us to take a good look at what’s going on.
I hope this case continues and CN will follow it.
D5-5 – “Hour after hour on a very simple matter polluted with legalese versus common sense…” It’s quite something, isn’t it?
“Defense responds in effect that because the plaintiffs were not aware of the DNC ethics code they have no right to that expectation.” Fairness and evenhandedness not only were expressly written in the Charter, but I contend they were also implied. This was the DNC, not some fraudulent Nigerian outfit or an establishment you’d never heard of before. The DNC requested people send in donations; they implored them to do this. Implied in those requests for donations was fairness and evenhandedness, impartiality.
How many people would have given money had they known they were going to rig the primary? Not very many. Now, if they had told people beforehand that they were going to rig the primary, but they still sent in money, then he would have a point. That didn’t happen.
Right on, BE, and thanks for the links!
D5-5. — “Defense responds in effect that because the plaintiffs were not aware of the DNC ethics code they have no right to that expectation.”
Whether or not donors were aware of what the charter specifically said, they certainly presumed fair support of all the candidates. Otherwise, why have primaries? Why donate? No need if the candidate had already been selected — which we all began to see pretty quickly, but still, I guess, held out hope against hope.
I could be one of the plaintiffs, since I contributed to Sanders (a believer at that time in him, not so now), and had I known that, according to how I read the lawyer’s attitude in the case linked by Norman, he would say in effect, “Well, you see we may have an ethics code but we are not obliged to honor it one way or the other and it’s a matter of free speech for us to do as we wish, as with (as Norman pointed out) we have the right to do our back room deals . . .”
This is why Kafkian. You take common sense and surrealize it into legalisms as to how many angels can stand on the head of a pin and therefore, since that number is in dispute, the case should be dismissed.
The ethical considerations, downright normal human decency as to right and wrong, is smugly argued out of existence in a “hearing” supposedly to generate “truth.”
I got a notice in the mail that I was being automatically included in this suit. I got out my checkbook to add up my Bernie contributions to see how much I contributed. And now I see that it involves those who contributed to the DNC, which I didn’t. On the other hand if the cards were stacked against Bernie to begin with, even direct contributions and contributors are affected by the scam because there was no way he was going to win the primary. I see your point about the suit not going anywhere, but I surely hope it does, D5-5.
Virginia, re: “And now I see that it involves those who contributed to the DNC, which I didn’t.”
I didn’t contribute to the DNC either, just Bernie, and yet when I joined the suit I was not told that I’m excluded. Maybe that’s because donations were made through “Act Blue” which gets a small percentage of each donation?
Is Act Blue an arm of the DNC, perhaps?
This is what I see in every federal case at all levels in five states. Yes, fraud seems to be demonstrable, and a decision that anything goes could not be more anti-democratic. The case may be a good test of judicial corruption, and might be ranked with Citizens United. I wish the prosecutors fortitude and forethought.
If well publicized, there will be some pressure on the corrupt judge to make up a good excuse for the corrupt mass media to promote. But that is their life skill; it is just a matter of claiming that false principles govern the matter, and that merely requires some fishing among other corrupt cases, which they do all day every day, spinning a fabric of false precedents. I have seen such webs of precedents from top judges leading to absolutely no principle or argument at all: just prior cases decided similarly, often by the same judge, not one of them offering any rationale whatsoever, or nothing but false quotations. And they have endless ways of faking up a procedural error to blame on the unfavored party. Those who think that this is unusual are mistaken: it is the sole activity of the US and state judiciaries; it is their job.
Either way, the public will get another glimpse of the abject corruption of government in the US.
Well, I see my above comment (with attached link) has been put in “moderation”. So if you want to listen to Elizabeth Beck’s comments from June of 2017, just go to You Tube and type in “Lawyer Suing DNC Fears for Life after Witness Seth Rich Murdered”. The interview is 30 minutes long, and Beck is wearing a pink t-shirt.
I don’t know who chooses these headlines, but she isn’t exactly fearing for her life. She did ask the court for some protection, but the court denied her motion because they do not have the resources. She seemed fine with that.
“The DNC charter is fairly explicit. Article V, Section 4 says: “In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns.”
The charter goes on to state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
The judge asked:
“Let me ask counsel: If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?”
What induced the donors to send in their money was 1) they believed in Bernie Sanders AND 2) the rules stated it was going to be a fair fight. But the emails clearly show it was never a fair fight. The Chairperson (Wasserman Schulz) herself made sure it wasn’t a fair fight. This wasn’t a legitimate primary.
This was and is fraud.
As DFC said above, “This lawsuit needs to be stopped before it gets into DISCOVERY which will open up the DNC internal workings to public scrutiny.” No kidding. Everyone knows Bernie Sanders’ support was enormous, and yet the media barely gave Sanders the time of day. I just wonder whether the discovery process will uncover some direct collusion between the media and the DNC. Maybe we’ll find out what Imran Awan was really up to.
These were not implied rules; they were express rules. When you entice people to give money based on a particular set of rules, you don’t get to change the rules.
Fraud!
Backwards, you are completely correct. When this first broke, I looked at the case and the law firm bringing the case. Their lead attorney Elizabeth Beck, seemed sharp at the beginning but has now turned into a basket case. Check out the video above (I know, I hate the source.) and tell me what you think. Right now I don’t think she is capable of writing out a coherent grocery list, never mind conducting discovery on the DNC. My guess is that once the judge tosses this out, this is done, there won’t be an appeal, Elizabeth Beck will be happy to get the whole thing behind her as fast as possible. IMHO, see what you think.
DFC – Here is Elizabeth Beck from June of 2017. Her head appears screwed on just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzIBHlU-f00
I’ve only listened to the first few minutes, but unless she has changed since June of this year, I think she has a very good case. Go, Elizabeth Beck!
I don’t see how the judge can just “toss this out”.
In the above video, Elizabeth Beck (at 27:50 of the video) puts up an address where people can go to see all of the court file documents:
http://www.jampac.us/dnclawsuit
She also discusses how the mainstream media is not covering this case. Right, we wouldn’t want the public to know this is going on because they actually might get behind Elizabeth Beck, they might actually call their representatives and put heat on them. Instead, this is all kept below the radar.
And if you’d like to follow the case on both Twitter and Facebook (at 28:18 of the video), you can go to:
DNCFRAUDLAWSUIT
She says, “…I think having dependable and fair primary elections is something that is of interest to everyone.” Smart lady.
Solomon’s beloved “most popular politician and the most popular Senator in the nation” remains singularly transfixed on “the Russia thing.”
“Enough about the emails” Sanders still fervently insists that “our intelligence agencies all agree” that Russia “interfered significantly in the American election.”
Bernie has repeatedly told the plaintiffs, residents of 45 states and the District of Columbia, “Shutup! You Don’t Have The Microphone.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K437Zd-gM0
Sanders retains his seat so he can ‘splain the next time Israel’s actions next time.
I know, Abe. That’s really been a turn off for many if not most of his supporters. I’m not sure he’s #1among the DEMs now. But still the suit could be helpful, especially if Schultz and Brazil get ousted from the party, though I’m not sure how that happens.
Well, that might not be entirely Bernies’ fault.
Via Wikileaks twitter:
Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had
“leverage” to enforce it Robby Mook (“re47”) email reveals.
Mook: This isn’t in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have
some leverage, would be good to flag this for him.
I could send a signal via Welch–or did you …
Google it yourself, to pick up the rest of the story.
One point, Tulsi Gabbard resigned her position from DNC because of the bias she saw toward Hillary. Also, remember how MSM was complicit, too, and wouldn’t cover much of anything “Bernie.” Hopefully this trial will uncover a lot that was so unethical and defrauded the American voters and democracy.
On another issue, I’m sure you’re all missing Mike K’s ready communications as much as I am. Hope he’s on vacation or just busy. Let’s just pray to hear from him soon and that all is well.
Hi Virginia, “Hopefully this trial will uncover a lot that was so unethical and defrauded the American voters and democracy.” That would be my hope too, but I don’t think the legal team bringing this lawsuit will last but a few more months. See my posts above.
Virginia…re MIke K…yes, I noticed as Mike is usually a prolific commentator, one of those rare persons that actually gets wiser with age. Hopefully he’s just taking a break. I think we all need to at some time or other, since most of the subject matter here is heavy lifting.
Eh. A lot of people who supported and voted for Bernie were not Democrats. I wasn’t. As soon as Clinton/DNC stole the nomination I switched back to Green. I’m tired of wise-ass pundits like the author of this piece telling me I have no alternative but the Democratic Party. Fuck them eternally.
I’m where you are at. I fully expect the Ds and the Rs to self-destruct in the next few election cycles. The political power still resides with the people,it’s just that they very rarely get this, and are easily mislead, and also settle into unthinking habits. I’ve been giving Greens 10$ a month, in three-month packages (I’m due for giving another donation now) as a payment of citizens’ political union dues. Our strength is in Union, Lincoln understood this in relation to the British Empire and other Euro-Empires; workers in the labor movement understand this. It’s absolutely necessary to lockout completely, all large donors and those party officials who take large donations/bribes from the Citizens Political Union(CPU) whether it becomes the Green Party, or some new formation not yet named.
The time is now, to rally around some party flag to form a Citizens’ Political Union, a grouping of workers, small and mid-sized business people, family farmers and farm laborers, professionals, citizens tired of the same old BS and toxic policies destroying our Country and the World. Set floors and ceilings for Union dues: 5$ a month to 100$ a month tops. Maybe the more well-off would consider paying some 5$ a month dues for poor, unemployed citizens. Let zip codes determine the “Union Locals” of our Citizens Political Union. Have a national newsletter/magazine to tie it all together. We should start thinking along these lines now, so it will be massively established in 4 to 6 years time…the “New Establishment”. The key will be folks who are genuinely fed up with the same old, amoral, toxic, destructive BS policies pursued by the Old Establishment.
All right I freely confess to my confusion about Guccifer 2.0. He’s the bad guy, right, the one fabricated by inner forces for the DNC to reveal minor stuff with a Russian stamp all over it to prove the Russians were at fault. Or he’s not the bad guy and is following in the footsteps of Guccifer (now in jail in Virginia) who was instrumental in HRC’s mishandling of her emails.
Feel free to set me straight on all this.
Hi D5-5 The original Guccifer is in prison in Romania. He just did an interview with FNC. Google it: ‘Guccifer’ calls Fox from Romania, says he shouldn’t be sent back to US. It came out 7 hours ago.
They may be conflating Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks, because remember these people still accept the narrative that Guccifer 2.0 provided the “hacked” info to Wikileaks.
That is the conundrum. The article, New Cracks in Russia-gate Foundation that cam out on Consortium News a few days ago, stated that from the forensic meta data, the “hack” of the DNC was an inside job (“leak”), and could not have been done by a Romania hacker. Yet, the official US-intel claim was that “Guccifer 2.0” , a Russian agent was responsible. So, if you have proven that the hack was impossible from Romania, the next question to ask is: who the hell is “Guccifer 2.0” ? – that this has all been attributed to? Check out the FNC interview: ‘Guccifer’ calls Fox from Romania, says he shouldn’t be sent back to US. <b.It is relevant.
Very interesting indeed.
DNC has corrected the info–Guccifer is in Romania, not Virginia. Easy to search–today’s news.
Guccifer states that Guccifer 2.0 is a US intelligence creation.
Guccifer:
“Okay, so now I think that is maybe Guccifer two-zero, the State Department, or this guy from the State Department, who is handling my case,” he said. “I think it was more like they were planning this, I mean they, this guy from the State Department.”
“So I think Guccifer two-zero is an inside job,” Lazar added. “I think Guccifer 2.0 is something made from some guys at the State Department . . .”
Here is Guccifer 2.0 website.
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/
My question is still out there: Guccifer 2.0 = what?
*In the court case he’s supplying valuable evidence on DNC fraud.
*From Guccifer and recent posts at Consortium News he’s an intell creation.
I don’t understand why CN comment is ignoring this contradiction.
Remember the court case is coming from DNC insiders who still believe Guccifer 2.0, linked to the Russian state, is who supplied emails to Wikileaks. So I think in the court case they are referring to Guccifer 2.0 when they really are talking about Wikileaks.
So in the sentence “….documents that have been released into the public domain subsequent to the drafting of this complaint, based on the Guccifer 2.0 leaks,” the legal team if being entirely accurate should say, “….based on emails published by Wikileaks, for which Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility, and which is in our view is an established fact.” At least that is how I am reading it.
Their interest is not in debunking the Russia did-it canard. Only in addressing the corruption that was exposed as a result of of the “Russian hacks.” It is interesting to note that Sanders was one of just a few who voted against the recent sanctions. Perhaps he is beginning to have exposure to the truth.
Homer, I’m not sure of this. The case we’re looking at is from April of this year. Guccifer 2.0 is clearly indicated as source. It strains my cred to think these lawyers could make such a basic mistake as you’re suggesting.
D5-5, You’re right…after looking again, they most likely didn’t make such a mistake. That was sloppy of me.
However, I think Guccifer 2.0 is still most likely an intel creation. In “New Cracks in Russia-gate Foundation,” it states “On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the ‘hack’ reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.”
So while the information posted by Guccifer 2.0 is damning for the DNC, it is all information they knew was coming out anyway, because of Julian Assange’s announcment and because Crowdstrike could see what information was taken. Guccifer 2.0 still serves their interest because it allowed them to get ahead of Wikileaks on the narrative relating to this very damning information. The important part is the docs were “adulterated” to appear to be from a Russian hack.
Thanks, Homer. Your last theory is interesting. The Guccifer 2.0 website indicates many many leaks seemingly damaging to Clinton. This is the puzzle. I haven’t taken time to wade through all of it, including attacks suggesting he is indeed a State Dept intell operative.
Homer, Are you sure Sanders voted against the new sanctions? I read it was 4 total against that bill, but don’t recall Sanders being one of the four? That should have stood out to me.
From CN’s “Neocons Leverage Trump-hate for More Wars”: Regarding the santions “…The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.”
Just replied and made the mistake of including the URL to Guccifer 2.0 website, now in moderation. It’s easy to find under Guccifer 2.0, a wordpress blog.
My question is still out there on Guccifer 2.0 and the color of the horse he’s riding.
I find the following interesting from the transcript of court proceedings linked by Norman Solomon. It indicates this court case, filed initially in June of 2016, relied on Guccifer 2.0 documents as key sourcing.
~~
Speaking: attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Jared Beck
Now, in terms of the complaint and in terms of the allegations of the complaint, and specifically what the DNC did wrong, I just think the context of when this complaint was drafted is important. We drafted this complaint and filed it in June of 2016, which was before the DNC primary [sic]—or the DNC convention occurred in July. And, at the time, the evidence that we had access to consisted of this set of documents that your Honor referenced in your prefatory remarks that were released by a figure named Guccifer 2.0.
And the core document that was released by that individual on that website purports to be an internal DNC memorandum, which outlines a strategy for advancing Hillary Clinton to the nomination of the Democratic Party before the primaries had really gotten off the ground. And this was at a time—you know, Bernie Sanders I believe had announced for about a month before this particular memo came out. But we think that’s clear evidence of what the DNC’s intent was through the primary process. It was to leverage their connections with the media in order to advance Hillary Clinton’s candidacy at the expense of everybody else.
Subsequent to this memorandum being released into the public by Guccifer 2.0, many more documents had come into the public domain. We have a wealth of information that was released by Wikileaks that comes from e-mails from officials of the DNC, as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign, which really, I think, flesh out and fill in the detail of this really seminal internal document that Guccifer released and which is pled in our complaint.
These additional leaks have shown that DNC officials participated in creating and disseminating media narratives to undermine Bernie Sanders and advance Hillary Clinton.
It shows former DNC Chair Donna Brazile giving debate questions in advance to Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
It shows the DNC at one point changing its donor policies specifically to favor Hillary Clinton.
It shows the scheduling of debates to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
It shows, in general, the DNC pouring its considerable resources into propelling Hillary Clinton to the nomination.
It shows the creation of an aura of inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that the DNC pushed into the media and, essentially, in our view, crushed the Bernie Sanders campaign.
It shows the DNC coordinating and taking direction form Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives, making hiring decisions based on what Hillary Clinton’s campaign was telling them, picking sides in the disputes between the candidates.
I mean, there’s one famous example of an alleged chair-throwing incident in Nevada, where instead of acting in an even and impartial manner, Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately sided with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And all of this, you know, comes out of documents that have been released into the public domain subsequent to the drafting of this complaint, based on the Guccifer 2.0 leaks.
The political parties are dead meet. Its the establishment stupid (directed at no one) the establishment institutions – all of them – are under assault, they have no credibility. Do you really think Sanders – the calculator who campaigned in a full throated way for Clinton can magically un-capitulate?? No he can’t the institution known as the Democratic Party can not be saved.
None of the establishment institutions, the “deep state” (the machinery of Empire) the press the political parties and all the dressing are O-U-T. It does not matter who the Democratic Party nominated or got elected the institution is completely corrupt and any nominee would be deeply compromised so what would be the point?
No one wants a democrat or a republican they want another hammer to beat the establishment with. – And god knows they need a better one.
The status quo is crippled, their narrative is not getting traction – no one believes them any more. There is no movement of any kind yet but there is a saturation point in the zeitgeist that has been reached – this is what has wounded the establishment this disbelief and it continues to cause them problems – this is the good news about what is going on.
Seventy-two years of non-stop slaughter starting with atomic bombs and continuing to this day. It has to stop. Its just that simple. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with left/right those are dead words now. People are in agreement – they are the fed-up party. Stop the slaughter party.
You said it well, and this USA Murder Inc has got to stop.
“We can’t afford to leave the Democratic Party to the corporatists and militarists who currently dominate it from the top.”
Mr. Soloman as usual is very good, but this conclusion is problematic. Thank you MaDarby for saving me the time of explaining why.
Your optimism on the insurgency of disbelief against the oligarchy, and the undercurrent of opposition to the mideast wars is helpful. Let us hope that it shows strength against the oligarchy propaganda campaigns, distractions, surveillance, and suppression..
Right on, MaDarby.
Stop the Slaughter Party.
And this was sort of what Trump was saying he would do. Many people hoped he meant it. But apparently it was not to be. Stop the Slaughter became Stop Stop the Slaughter.
Andrew Jackson has done a prophetic thing by choosing the “Donkey” as a symbol for his campaign after his opponents referred to him as “Jack a-s-s”………….The democrats are acting very much like their symbol…………..The Republicans are no better……………The best thing about Bernie Sanders are his “initials”…………..if he was a real revolutionary as he pretended to be, he would have raised hell after he was given the shaft by the DNC. Instead, he lined up like a sheep dog behind one of the most corrupt persons on the planet…….
Donna Brazil said in 2008 that she will formally leave the Democratic Party if they did not respect the will of the people and made Hillary the nominee instead of Obama!! Donna, however, was very glad to stay when the DNC gave B.S. the shaft and made Hillary the nominee in 2016…………
You said it!
[”… he would have raised hell after he was given the shaft by the DNC. Instead, he lined up like a sheep dog behind one of the most corrupt persons on the planet…….”].
He folded just like some cynics, me too, said he would.
Dr. Soudy,
RE:”if he was a real revolutionary as he pretended to be, he would have raised hell after he was given the shaft by the DNC. Instead, he lined up like a sheep dog behind one of the most corrupt persons on the planet…….”
I think that tale is yet to be told.
I was really disappointed that Bernie Sanders did not speak out at the convention, demanding a state by state ballot count and push ahead as though the primary was NOT predetermined. I was also very disappointed and angry about how Secretary Clinton was allowed to get away with shutting Nina Turner out of the proceedings. That was not okay.
I was happy that Cornel West announced he would support Jill Stein. And refused to support Mrs. Clinton. (I myself, in Texas, voted for the libertarian – not that I agree that libertarians have good arguments but because Gary Johnson promised to stop the regime change wars and a Texas vote was meaningless, anyways.)
However I now think that had Bernie jumped ship to another party and not buckled to the Clinton “theft” of the ground under his feet, he would now likely be persona non gratis in the Senate. I think he put his ego on a back seat and instead chose the best way – perhaps the only way – to keep his voice in the Senate continuing to push to restore the country to New Deal policies.
It may have been his view of political reality. And to give him the benefit of the doubt, his leadership position in the Senate has grown more powerful and he gets a lot more attention in the public dialogue. His goal to push the Democratic Party back to its roots is alive and wel in the public debate. If Bernie succeeds in his push back against the corrupt corporate Democrats, I’ll stay in the Party. If he doesn’t I may drop out all together. We’re at a crossroads – a pretty dangerous one right now and it could all go down the drain starting with climate disruption, maybe another financial system meltdown, and all the rest of the crises that the Clintonites aided and abetted for decades for their own financial and political gain…..
Interesting times….
“t, he would now likely be persona non gratis in the Senate.”
Except, of course, he might well have been president.
“Odds are that the fraud lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee won’t get much further in legal proceedings.”
I;m not a legal expert and I don’t understand why this might be true when the actions of the DNC leadership clearly violated it charter. Does the charter not matter?
Courts usually ignore private charters regardless. Judges are usually political conspirators, and will not want the Reps or the Dems held to any democratic process, but especially if the judge is a Dem. If the judge is female or Jewish, he/she will side with the Dem party against Sanders. The facts and the law will not be factors in any case, unless they coincide with judicial prejudice.
I have not yet read the entire transcript but the judge so far sounds as though he’s fully cognizant of the weaseling going on via Spiva. At issue, it appears to me, is a very simple case based on financing the DNC. The financing was not meant to bias the DNC to Hillary. So to fraud. The possibility of this case getting attention appears strong. So I wonder about your generalization, given the context at this time of possible massive attention to the issues, let alone the weakness of the defense, if we may see a different outcome. The question seems to be will it get attention, as this (for me anyway) is the first time I’ve heard of it, and I have been looking for some indication of consequences to the well-known fraudulence of the DNC in robbing Sanders of his chance.
Even if multi fraud is prove between DNC insiders, what is the remedy?
The way I’m seeing it a lot of folks were annoyed with the DNC, Sanders folks, and here we have an attorney for the DNC arguing hey, it’s first amendment stuff, which this court cannot decide (this is insinuated by this lawyer, who seems to be arguing to the Judge on this level). But it’s all very basic: the DNC defrauded the process and its charter vowing fair play and threw the nomination to Clinton. The question is will this court uphold that a charter statement on what the DNC is supposed to do can be politicized to a sneaking inside job to fix the candidate. So the significance is big and if it’s tossed aside and rubbished this is further indication of the sham “democracy” has become. I feel this is a BIG case.
The significance is great if the judge decides to uphold the charter as a contract. I much doubt that due to experience with universal judicial corruption. That would be done only if the judge is a Sanders supporter, which is extremely unlikely: they are insiders all the way. But they do take bribes, so the question is whether the attorney knows the back channel and has a few 100K or millions to create “sympathy.” If not sent to a judge’s relatives via a great business deal, the money would need to be a “donation” to the Repubs.
If the judge claims that charters are not a contract with donors, there is some significance in that this corruption might be obvious to the public. But the public wants to believe in the judicial Santa Claus and is willing to accept their lies as technicalities beyond public comprehension.
If you can convince the Repub judge that upholding the charter would break the Dems into dozens of parties and elevate the Repubs, you would have a chance. But then it might be true.
Well, Sam, thank you very much. Your cynicism here is very interesting. All of it, I think, in your view is as what crumbles at the touch and rotten to the core (sorry on the mixed metaphor).
Sam F – “The significance is great if the judge decides to uphold the charter as a contract.” Of course it’s a contract, an express contract. You give us your money and here is the service we will provide you. Consideration was given, but the contract was not upheld by the DNC. They broke the contract when they changed the rules.
Yes, D5-5, I am completely cynical about the judiciary, because my experience with 30-35 federal judges is without any exception, they are all as corrupt as possible. The outcome is entirely dependent upon the parties and specific prejudices.
b-e, I agree that the charter should be a contract. The problem is that the judiciary use law and reason only as an excuse when the result coincides with their preferences, otherwise their life skill of lies and deceptions is used. In this case,
I predict that the judge will claim that it would be impossible (in some cases) to decide whether the charter was upheld to the satisfaction of each donor, and thereby to prevent arbitrary demands for refunds after an election loss, so that some further contract was necessary for each donor to specify how funds should or should not be used. Then by denying such a detailed contract, the oligarchs controlling the duopoly can continue to do whatever they please. Of course that argument would not hold in extreme cases of bias, but they will ignore that.
Whether or not the lawsuit gets anywhere, the DNC is now publicly on record admitting that their primaries are a sham. That’s gotta count for something.
I’ve been generally following the case, and while I’m certainly no expert, it seems some legal issues are getting muddled.
Whether the DNC Charter is deemed legally to constitute a contract between the DNC and those who provided donations is one question; whether the DNC deliberately represented itself as neutral (including by inducing would-be donors to believe it is bound by, or otherwise follows, the rules of its own Charter) is a separate question. The first goes to breach of contract, and is its own legal claim separate from fraud. The second question does go to fraud, and is a different claim than breach of contract. The two questions/claims might arise from the same set of facts or evidence but otherwise aren’t interdependent.
It seems the fraud claim might be stronger, and doesn’t rely on recognizing the Charter as a contract. The test for fraud concerns what the DNC represented to its would-be donors, and almost certainly involves elements of intent/causation (e.g., the DNC knowingly or deliberately created a misperception of neutrality that induced donations, and those donors wouldn’t have donated but for the misperception).
Fraud is notoriously hard to prove (as many “intent” claims are) but fom 10,000 ft the fraud claim doesn’t look so bad; so not sure what the basis is for saying the suit isn’t likely to go much further, at least based on the legal merits. Would be interested to know where that’s coming from. To purely speculate, I wonder if the harder part, legally speaking, is class certification. A class action suit only proceeds if the identified plaintiffs meet the criteria to be recognized as a “class” (having to do with uniform circumstances, etc.). Class action suits (like unions) are a tool for weaker interests to gain strength by banding together, thus one of the many below-radar projects of the judiciary has been to whittle away the ability to certify (choke ’em at the gate).
As to the suspicion that raw partisan politics will shut it down — can’t fault the skepticism. But from reading some of the transcripts, the judge so far doesn’t seem to be drinking the DNC kool aide, and has dropped comments here and there that even seem ominous. Maybe we’ll be surprised.
Anonymous – thank you for your very informative post!
The Judge will consider that DNC not only violated it’s own charter, but they defrauded/cheated/stole money from all the Bernie voters who donated to Act Blue thinking the DNC was acting in good faith. The DNC fraudulently misappropriated those funds for Hillary. In a nutshell, the party leadership not only lied to each other, but more importantly, they lied to their “customers,” the donors. That’s the big deception/fraud perpetrated upon we the people. The Judge should uphold this class action lawsuit. It has merit.
@ Sam F. You write “Courts usually ignore private charters regardless”
Then why is the Federal Government going after Russia for hacking the private DNC servers?
The DNC is not the government. It’s a private organization. Incidentally, I am convinced the DNC emails
were leaked, not hacked. The media conveniently mixes Hillary’s state department server hack with the DNC email leak.
It is about more than a violation of their charter. It is about defrauding people out of their money. People donated to Bernie Sanders expecting that the process was fair. Who would willingly part with their money if they knew the system was already rigged against their candidate?
To me as a nonlawyer it is obvious on its face that the DNC committed a wrong and was unethical and dishonest in throwing multiple primary elections to Clinton.
Throwing a national election constitutes election fraud, no? Heck, throwing a boxing match is illegal. So, throwing a “private” election held by a “private” organization but one that is the functional equivalent of a part of government and provides the individuals and the process that puts those individuals into (public) government, where they are paid out of the public purse—this is NOT election fraud? Obviously, it is. It is as much election fraud as is actually flipping votes at the polling place. The “flipping” merely takes place further up the line.
So, why not prosecute the party leaders for the crime of election fraud? In addition to the other legal arguments?
Hi Leslie F – a reasonable comment, from a “civil libertarian” point of view, the Sanders voters feel they were defrauded and ought to have some public redress… but the days of Vice President Richard Nixon needing to get on national television to explain to the voters why $14,000 was stashed in an undisclosed slush fund (Checkers Speech) are long gone. If you are really curious, research it yourself, it is too sickening for me to even consider rehashing here. Morpheus: “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
“They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.” …yes, and I have little doubt that this will be the case in 2018!
Here is an article that looks at what a former U.S. president had to say about the current state of politics in the United States:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/06/the-united-states-oligarchy.html
It’s these same “dark forces” that are sponsoring the anti-Russia sentiment in the United States because they have a great deal to gain by warmongering.
Frankly the Russian conspiracy theory robbed the party of its remaining shreds of legitimacy. While the lawsuit seems to have merit, I suspect nothing will come of it in the end. Unless and until the democratic party can be replaced by a real alternative to the reactionary GOP, the yankee state is nothing but a sham oligarchy masquerading as a republic. The war policies even supported passively by Sanders himself lead only to the ultimate extinction of the yankee imperium and, with it, homo sapiens.
Hi Exiled: “I suspect nothing will come of it in the end.” This lawsuit needs to be stopped before it gets into DISCOVERY which will open up the DNC internal workings to public scrutiny. The legal team that is bringing this lawsuit against the DNC is near psychological collapse (no exaggeration). If you want to see how bad it is, what a mental breakdown looks like, check this video out on Youtube: BOMBSHELL: Attorney Afraid For Her Life Blows Clinton Body Count Wide Open . Google it yourself. I am not a fan of INFOWARS at all, but they were apparently the only ones willing to give the legal team a platform. Then Google “Elizabeth Beck” and see how she was prior to getting involved in all this. I don’t have anything more to add on this topic just that there is A LOT MORE UNDER THE SURFACE than anyone realizes.
What garbage; who on Earth do you think you are talking to?
The legal team bringing this case is toast, they have completely lost it, have become psychologically unhinged is all I am saying. First for bringing the case and then for that public performance on INFOWARS. Those are the people representing the Sanders voters. Make of it what you will.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the Beck law firm, using technology to disguise her voice. One of the lawyers or paralegal to the law firm was found dead. http://thepoliticalinsider.com/top-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-dead-died/
DFC – I just watched a video (from June, 2017) of Elizabeth Beck and she appears fine to me, not rattled or scared. Bringing a lawsuit is a lot of work and you never know if you’re going to win. It is stressful. She is articulate and knows her stuff. I am quite confident she will argue a good case.
Let’s hope so.
‘2 POTENTIAL WITNESSES’ IN DNC-RIGGING LAWSUIT ‘BOTH DIED’
Lawyers fear for safety after Seth Rich murder, break-ins, ‘freaky’ phone calls
wnd.com/2017/06/2-potential-witnesses-in-dnc-rigging-lawsuit-both-died/#WgFcxMVkDOsAtEMp.99
Plaintiffs File Motion for Protection in DNC Fraud Lawsuit
medium.com/@zachhaller/plaintiffs-file-motion-for-protection-in-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-9f1845ab0593
DFC – yes, if you watch the video I posted below, Elizabeth Beck talks about the fact that she has lost two witnesses (Seth Rich and the process server, Shawn Lucas). She is quick to say she doesn’t know what happened to them, IOW she is not putting the blame anywhere. She also received a call from someone using a voice-changing machine, and when she traced the call back, the call came from Debbie Wasserman Schulz’ office.
She doesn’t appear to be shaking in her boots. This lawsuit is a civil suit, it’s based on fraud, and they are looking for the return of the donor money. That’s it.
Beautiful. Concise. You hit all the salient points, exiled, while keeping your verbiage to a minimum. Even a blockhead should understand, though he might not accept.
My first thought exactly. It isn’t just the ‘top’ of the party, the whole collection of elected Democrats, without exception have shoveled this garbage about Russia with no shame whatsoever. They don’t even seem to care that they are making a conflict with Russia significantly more likely … a country that can utterly destroy the US, and which in my opinion did nothing during the election, nothing at all. There was a recent article on this website reposted from The Nation, that offers convincing evidence that someone at the DNC actually set up a hoax (Guccifer 2.0) to blame Russia, once they knew that Wikileaks was going to publish the infamous emails (supplied, according to Julian Assange, by an insider at the DNC, disgusted with the hatchet job on Bernie).