Reply With Quote
The lawsuit loses sting when Bernie himself didn't have a problem with the process and actually moved to nominate Hillary himself at the convention.
debbie wasserman s
donna Fatzilla
A lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee, and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, by Bernie Sanders donors has revealed the DNC believes its own rules of impartiality don’t apply, and they can pick whatever candidate they wish.
“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DNC’s lawyer Bruce Spiva told a Florida court.
THE SUIT
The class-action suit was filed in June 2016, and accuses the DNC and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of seven different violations, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and negligence.
The suit has three different classes of plaintiffs - those who donated to the DNC, those who donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign and all members of the Democratic Party.
Donors made contributions to the DNC and the Bernie Sanders campaign with the understanding that the presidential primaries would be conducted in a fair manner, and are seeking damages for being misled.
The defendants’ lawyers also argued the suit is based on an “internal rule” which cannot be enforced, and that the term “impartial” can’t be defined.
“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” the plaintiff’s lawyer Jared Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner."
"But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white.”
The defendants also argued the judge cannot determine how the Democratic Party carries out its nomination process, as that would “drag the Court right into the political squabbles.”
The lawsuit loses sting when Bernie himself didn't have a problem with the process and actually moved to nominate Hillary himself at the convention.
i mean they do but it just makes them look ty in the eyes of their voters hence the apathy that led to Trump
By that logic lets free all rapists incases where the rape victim wants to drop the charges
Try another analogy. This one has failed.By that logic lets free all rapists incases where the rape victim wants to drop the charges
The DNC as we once knew it is done.
Hillary losing a gimme assured that.
How long before the Three Stooges Pelosi,Waters, and Schumer get on TV and do damage control? MSM will probably ignore this story.
Of course they will
Corrupt Donna Fatzille was working in CNN while rigging the primaries
And aren't you glad she did.
Got your man elected.
So will CNN. Just like they are ignoring the largest genocide in 40 years because it's the "Religion of Peace" killing their (Liberal media's) enemies.
Failure to perform your duties and report the news is every bit as bad as the fake news New Fox puts out daily or the "blockbusters" Rachel Mann-ow breaks with Trump's tax return. But hey, Russia, right?
So, collusion to cover collusion?
The Morality Police the Left parades around as doesn't know that 2 wrongs don't make a right? I know that Bernie is a spineless sucking conman, and a whole lot of the Left knows this, but are you saying that just because he's a cuck who wont fight for himself so he can't be trusted to fight for his supporters, 0 that the case is frivolous? It sounds like you're excusing corruption and conspiracy at the highest levels because the dude who was ed was cool with it.
If so, then
Originally Posted by hater
By that logic lets free all rapists incases where the rape victim wants to drop the charges
LOLZ, he was spot on. He's an easy target and low on the totem pole here, so it makes it that much worse . Hater right. Reck wrong.
We were right about this fellas
Not a peep from mainstream fake media on this
De able
This country still hasnt changed. They are still in the bag for Democorporatocracy
What we have heard from DNC lawyers statements:
- how we elect candidates is none of your business judge
- we dont know how DNC works at state level so we cant comment on this
- we dont have to conduct fair elections so we are not bound by fairness
- I dont know what impartial means its a word that cant be defined so throw it out
De able animals
Im not voting democrat for the next 8 years them
Im not voting republican either btw
Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.
The do ent, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the do ent.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: “…Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs’ process server in an attempt to bolster attention for this lawsuit.”
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: “There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign.”
The brief continued: “…To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party’s nominee for public office.”
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren’t enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty “to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent.”
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any “fiduciary duty” to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks’ publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant’s latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders’ campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...irst-amendment
Do you think RNC wanted/rigged for Trump?Im not voting republican either btw
How do you define rig?
were votes altered?
The DNC wanted a particular candidate to win and were willing to tilt it to that said candidate.
the RNC wanted to buck Trump out of his nomination and were willing to contest it at the convention.
How are these parties different?
Do you want to redact that, or do I need to make you look foolish?
Well has Bernie now revert himself?
He was the one who said he was fine with it and the one who actually stood up in the DNC convention to crown Hillary. After the fact.
Bernie conceding the race is not the same as him saying the process was fair, tranny.
Read post 18. Then answer those questions.
Read Post #2 and then tell me what is wrong with your little homework assignment.
Autist screeching.
Answer the questions or resume your pornhub tranny binge watching.
Tranny being tranny-brained.
Are rigging and having a problem with the system the same thing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
