Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[TexasTowelie]

[font color=330099]This piece at the Independent Voter Network U.S. Website. I am presenting it for information purposes and news value. It is not intended as a thread to continue fighting the primary or damage the reputation of any Democrats.[/font]

The class action lawsuit Wilding, et. al. v. DNC Services, d/b/a Democratic National Committee and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz will be heard Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The lawsuit was originally filed on June 28, 2016.

The lawsuit, filed by a group of Bernie Sanders supporters, alleges that leaders in the Democratic Party propped up Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary over Sanders, violating the DNC’s own rules on neutrality. The lawsuit was filed nearly a month before WikiLeaks dumped over 20,000 DNC emails, some of which indeed showed explicit bias in favor of Clinton and efforts to marginalize Sanders’ campaign.

These emails included plans to target Sanders’ religious beliefs, pitching a story that his campaign was in disarray, media collusion, and prepping statements about the end of his campaign in April. Then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz even reportedly sent an email calling Sanders’ campaign director an “ass” for declaring that his candidate would continue to fight on to the convention.

Wasserman Schultz resigned her position in wake of the email scandal.

Read more: https://ivn.us/2017/04/24/sanders-supporters-get-day-court-dnc/

[Arkansas Granny]

2. I don't know if you are serious or joking, but this is pathetic.

[Throck]

4. Don't feed the troll.

[tblue37]

134. Texas Towelie is not a troll. TT posts news stories from all different parts of

the country. I believe TT's intention as expressed in the OP.

[tblue37]

135. Oh, and BTW, he has been here since 2011 and has nearly 40,000 posts.

Relative newbies shouldn't call long time DU members trolls. In fact, calling other members trolls is explicitly against DU rules.

[Gothmog]

138. Texas Towelie does a great job on Texas issues

[PoliticAverse]

3. Sorry but liability disclaimers don't work on "attractive nuisances". n/t

Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2017, 07:02 AM - Edit history (1)

[elias7]

5. It was an undemocratic process

Is such institutionalization a necessity to some degree or is it antithetical to democracy?

[Adrahil]

8. Not sure what you mean....

Do you mean are parties necessary? In out political system, yes.

Do you mean do parties need a process to protect themselves from a takeover by outside forces? IMO, yes. I thought it was good form for the party to allow Bernie to run as a Democrat. Remember that how parties select their candidates is not part of the primary process, and that parties did not have ven used to have primaries.

[Vesper]

41. Are you objecting to the Caucuses? They are pretty undemocratic.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. Sore losers nt

[betsuni]

7. DWS called someone an ass? How thin-skinned ARE these people?

Ridiculous.

[ehrnst]

22. In an EMAIL!! CURSING about someone!!!

Who publicly said something false about her, but THAT's NO EXCUSE for using the word ASS!!!

Release the lawyers!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. You know the article says the lawsuit was filed before that revelation. Yes?

Someone is going off half cocked but it isn't the plaintiffs.

[ehrnst]

98. Yes, however, the emails are what this Hillary hating website states is "evidence"

From the OP:

"The lawsuit was filed nearly a month before WikiLeaks dumped over 20,000 DNC emails, some of which indeed showed explicit bias in favor of Clinton and efforts to marginalize Sanders’ campaign.

These emails included plans to target Sanders’ religious beliefs, pitching a story that his campaign was in disarray, media collusion, and prepping statements about the end of his campaign in April. Then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz even reportedly sent an email calling Sanders’ campaign director an “ass” for declaring that his candidate would continue to fight on to the convention."


Is that clearer?

[Progressive dog]

9. That is pathetic

Using data stolen by some of Putin's puppets to sue a political party over supposed partisanship is right up there in vileness with the suits over President Obama's birthplace.
I wonder if the plaintiffs get their funds from the same place as the California secession guys.

[boston bean]

16. What was the evidence for it? Because it as far as I cal tell

Everything in this article points to wikileaks/russia info.

[ehrnst]

23. Not quite sure what was 'confirmed' by Wikileaks

Leaked emails by Wikileaks were touted as "proof" of a child pornography ring run by the Democrats out of Comet Pizza.

Whatever those emails "confirmed" there was no evidence that there was anything being run out of Comet Pizza but deliveries.

[boston bean]

24. it's very curious...

[ehrnst]

28. I'll be interested to see what evidence they present that those emails were acted upon by DNC.

Otherwise, it's a another "Comet Pizza child prostitution ring that proven" by those Podesta emails.

[DanTex]

52. Wrong. The lawsuit was filed after the initial hack and release of documents.

The compliant filed specifically cites the hacks as its supposed evidence of partiality on the part of the DNC. In fact, all of the evidence the complaint cites comes from files illegally hacked by Russian operatives.

The lawsuit is bogus, of course, but on top of being bogus, it is based 100% on illegally stolen documents.

[PotatoChip]

103. The lawsuit was filed on June 28th, but the DNC email release came out on July 22nd.

Nearly a full month later.

[DanTex]

108. Umm, read the actual complaint filed, it explicitly cites the hacked documents.

The whole basis of the lawsuit is illegally hacked documents.

[PotatoChip]

125. They were leaked, not hacked.

It's an important distinction.

[DanTex]

126. Actually, yes they were hacked. By groups affiliated with Russian intelligence.

Then the hacked documents were leaked, but the way the leakers got hold of them is via hacking.

[PotatoChip]

128. Why are you guys so obsessed with Russia?

I go away for awhile and come back to everyone talking about Russia.

It's weird.

[DanTex]

131. "You guys". LOL. Well, Russia did hack the DNC and Podesta accounts in order to help

elect Trump. Which makes this pretty much the most significant covert action by anyone since WWII.

So there's that....

[uponit7771]

142. Your not trolling at all with that question

[obamanut2012]

63. this

[stevenleser]

10. This is very insulting to African American voters in the south

Hillary built up her huge delegate lead in the southern states, mostly on the strength of her much stronger appeal to African American voters.

The DNC certainly had nothing to do with that, nor did they have anything to do with any other voter who voted for Hillary.

This is part of the fantasy that many JPR types have that Sanders would have won without favoritism from the DNC.

Once Hillary built up her delegate lead there was no catching her. It's the same thing Hillary found out in 2008.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. What a surprisingly divisive take on that story

I think all races can work together for better progressive and Democratic goals.

[ehrnst]

25. As long as economic issues specific to POC aren't dismissed as 'identity politics"

in the suddenly all important goal of making white straight working class men more comfortable with the party.

Otherwise there's not going to be much "working together" as much as trickle down social justice.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. LOL - How is it divisive?

[ProfessorPlum]

36. LOL

[stevenleser]

80. The divide is between what that person wants to believe and the facts presented.

Cognitive dissonance feels divisive to that person.

[George II]

46. LOL!

[Amimnoch]

76. LOL

[JustAnotherGen]

26. The Nomination

Obama won the Presidency twice.

[George II]

47. She was the nominee?

[coco22]

105. What about us AA in the north..

Who voted for Bernie?

[stevenleser]

114. If you have a point that relates to mine, state it. Since you didn't, I assume you don't have one.

Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Otherwise we can name every demographic including Nepalese who converted to Zoroastrianism and their votes.

The point I made in my response to the OP stands.

[yurbud]

139. here in California, we remember the AP story saying Hillary already won the night before the primary

Based on zero new information apart from her already established superdelegate support.

That wasn't the DNC, but it sure as hell was someone putting their thumb on the scale.

[stevenleser]

140. I remember Dewey defeats Truman too. No thumb on scale, just a mistake

I also remember Gephart being selected as Kerry's VP.

You might want to look up Hanlon's Razor

[seaglass]

12. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was yesterday, so what's the verdict? I read through some of

the documents from the Plaintiffs and they were laughable.

[TexasTowelie]

13. I checked to see if there was an article on IVN or in the Sun-Sentinel

about the court hearing on Tuesday, but I did not find anything. It's possible that a decision was not made.

[George II]

14. Generally decisions aren't made at the hearings themselves, most likely in a few weeks.

[seaglass]

35. I wasn't sure how long it would take. There are no news articles about this happening yesterday as

far as I could tell.

[Orsino]

18. I don't expect a political party to hew to neutrality.

That Sanders was able to join up at all as a relative outsider pleased me.

[ehrnst]

29. The fact that there were no requirements that a candidate have a record of being elected as a Dem

on a Dem platform is very open and accepting.

[Orsino]

33. Yeah. And I don't think I would have much trouble with putting in requirements like that.

It's restrictive, of course, and potentially makes us less agile, but okay.

I would be much more interested in requirements that all candidates release things like tax returns and transcripts before announcing a run, but no one party is going to want to go first there

[Roy Rolling]

19. Sad

Comments "get over it" are sad. Blindly defending the DNC employees assumes they can never make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But if the DNC's mistakes were contrary to their stated mission they need to be held accountable.

Don't relitigate the primaries. The DNC is neither candidate. If nothing more, I gave them money and expect them to uphold the principles of fairness that Republicans lack. They are accountable to their supporters, not exclusively to their bureaucracy and annointed candidates.

[ehrnst]

31. Accusing them of things they didn't do is equally mistaken and destructive.

Bitchy office emails are one thing. Actually doing something to tank a candidate is another.

I'll wait for evidence of action before blindly attacking.

[Brogrizzly]

21. I don't disagree with the intention or the topic necessarily Texas,

But I really think this kind of post, here at DU, just is a more graceful kind of trolling. I get it, I do, the angst against DWS, what happened during the primaries, still though, this is nothing but enraging flame bait to some people, I wouldn't post it. Just out of respect for them, and for respecting their views on Sanders. I just want to see the community move forward in a sense, I'm pretty sure stoking Sanders loyalists ire at the DNC isn't essential to resisting Trump. That's all, my two cents, no way a dig.

[ehrnst]

30. It will be interesting to see what the Outreach Director for the DNC has to say about this. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

37. I shudder to think.

[Cha]

88. Oh please proceed. lol

[NurseJackie]

89. I'm tempted ... But I'm also wise.

[Cha]

90. i didn't

mean you..

[NurseJackie]

91. Of course ... But it's fun to imagine.

[Jim Lane]

92. That would be Mike Lux. Ask him. (n/t)

[betsuni]

32. If only the RNC emails were leaked to the media.

But of course it's the DNC so no problem. It's somehow natural.

[hughee99]

34. My hope is that the DNC doesn't argue that they have every right to favor one candidate

over another and that they're not required to run a fair and honest primary. Even if they are right, and win the case, that argument will do more harm than losing this case would.

[JTFrog]

39. Oh for fuck's sake. nt

[hughee99]

48. You make a compelling argument. n/t

[ehrnst]

42. When you say "favor" that means actions, not simply opinions. Important distinction.

Just as a politician's personal opinions on the morality of abortion has no bearing on whether they voted Pro-choice.

To require that the DNC have no opinions is not possible. To succesfully accuse them of "favoritism" them requires evidence.

I have seen none that indicates favoritism. But we'll see what they present.

[hughee99]

45. Yes, I'm saying "favor" as in actions, not simply opinions. You can't regulate people's opinions.

If the DNC argues that they have no obligation to run a fair and honest primary, then they are saying they have the right to "put their thumb on the scale" if they want to. Regardless of whether that actually happened in this case or not, they've admitted that they believe it is acceptable, and reserve the right to do it in the future.

[ehrnst]

49. So then you have evidence of the "thumb on the scale?" Or that the DNC "argued that they were not

under the obligation to run a fair and honest primary," or "admitted that it's acceptable" to not run a fair and honest primary?

I haven't seen evidence of either. Please share, or own the fact that this not based in any evidence, but you simply "believe" it.

[hughee99]

50. So you didn't read my post?

If they argue that they have the right to put their thumb on the scale (or, to word that differently, that they are under no obligation to run a fair primary), then while they might win THIS case, they've also told supporters that they have the right to put their "thumb on the scale" in future primaries too.

They can claim they didn't put "their thumb on the scale" and that would be the defense I prefer. Claiming they have the right to put their thumb on the scale if they want to will do more harm than losing this case will.

[ehrnst]

53. So you didn't read my post?

Define "thumb on scale," in specific actions.

I have seen no evidence of those actions, only office bitching. Please share what evidence you have seen of action towards sinking one candidate on their part. Perhaps like staff hacking into a candidates' database, or similar.

Is that clearer?

And you are saying that they have not stated "that they are under no obligation to run a fair primary," you are projecting that they will say this. Thank you for clarifying.

And nobody is above bitchy emails: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-bernie-sanders-hacked-emails-20161024-story.html

[hughee99]

56. Hopefully this will clear this all up...

I'm not saying that the DNC had their "thumb on the scale". I've never said that, but since you keep asking me for proof, you either don't understand my argument, or you don't like it, and want to change the subject.

In the suit, they are claiming that DNC took action that favored Clinton, that because of that action the primary was not run fairly, and that the DNC defrauded them but running an unfair primary.

I don't know if ANY of these claims are true or not. For the purposes of my argument, it doesn't even matter.

The DNC can defend against these claims in two different ways:
1. None of the stuff the Sanders people are claiming is true. None of it actually happened. The DNC didn't do anything to favor any candidate and the primary was run fairly. This is the defense I'd like to see them go with, but there's another possibility.

2. It doesn't matter if the Sanders claims are true, because we're under no obligation to run a fair primary. If we wanted to run our primary in a way that favored a specific candidate, or even take specific action is intended to benefit a specific candidate, we are within our rights to do that. This argument is the one I hope they won't use, because I think using this argument is even worse than losing the case.

And to be clear, I'm saying I hope they don't use the argument "that they are under no obligation to run a fair primary" HERE. They've already put that argument forward back in October in another case.

http://observer.com/2016/10/dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-neutrality-is-merely-a-promise/

[ehrnst]

57. Actually, there is third possibility.

3. It is true we talked about Bernie in emails in a way that indicates negative opinions of him. Someone even mentioned weakness he had that could be used against him. It not true that we acted on them in any way. We left it at talk.

So, no, it's not between "Everything the litigants say about the DNC is false" or "Everything the litigants say about the DNC is true."


I hope that clears things up for you.

[hughee99]

59. That's also a fine defense.

The one I mentioned is one that they have already put forward elsewhere. I hope they don't use it here. I think it would be very bad if they did. I fear they will use it anyway. As another poster below said, their lawyers would be smart to use that defense and while that may be true from a legal standpoint, it's a PR disaster that's not worth it to win this case.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

60. Not sure why they wouldn't use it if it's true.

Why would it be very bad if they did?

Your posts indicate that the PR, whether false or true, is already damning according to you, having assumed that the accusations are all true.

What is it you "fear" will happen if they acknowledge that they talked smack about Bernie, but didn't do anything?

Have you heard of "concern trolling?"

[hughee99]

62. From this post, it appears you don't understand the implications of the argument.

The argument that they're not obligated to run a fair primary isn't about having employees with political opinions, it's a statement on the wide ranging power they have to shape the election as they see fit.

If they're under no obligation to run a fair primary, they're saying that pretty much within their rights to do any of these things:
Have DNC employees that take specific action to benefit one candidate over another (insider info, for example)
Have DNC policy designed to benefit a specific candidate, or to make decisions specifically based on what's best for one candidate or another.
To change voting rules to benefit a specific candidate
To change delegate rules to benefit a specific candidate
To do all of this "behind the curtain" while still claiming that none of this is happening.

If the DNC claims it can do whatever it wants in their primary because their under no obligation to be fair or honest, than anyone can speculate about what is happening behind the scenes and trying to bring the party together after a bitter primary is going to be extremely difficult. Regardless of whether that's already happened or not, they're asserting any of this COULD happen in the future, and that they believe it would be acceptable.

[ehrnst]

65. I think I'm quite clear on the implications of the argument

"The argument that they're not obligated to run a fair primary isn't about having employees with political opinions, it's a statement on the wide ranging power they have to shape the election as they see fit. "

I think you may be unclear - or possibly avoiding - the actual argument that I was talking about. Here it is again for clarity:

"It is true we talked about Bernie in emails and with each other in a way that indicates negative opinions of him. Someone even mentioned weakness he had that could be used against him. It not true that we acted on them in any way. We left it at talk. "

Are we clear on that now?

In what way does that statment above imply that they "are under no obligation to run a fair primary." In what way does that statement it indicate that they did not run a fair primary, or were not fair and honest in the running of the primary?

[hughee99]

66. The DNC has argued already that they have no legal obligation to run a fair primary.

This is the argument I'm talking about. This is the argument I have been talking about all along. This is the argument I hope they don't decide to go with again.

http://observer.com/2016/10/dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-neutrality-is-merely-a-promise/

“Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to litigate on the basis of purported political promises, including ‘statements of principle and intent in the political realm’” wrote the DNC lawyers. “These decisions have not always been explicit in their reasoning, but they reflect the long-standing judicial understanding that, because they inherently raise serious questions of justiciability and threaten core First Amendment rights of political speech and association, “[p]olitical squabbles are not as easily resolved in federal courts as are some other disputes.” Wymbs v. Republican State Exec. Comm. of Fla., 719 F.2d 1072, 1077 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 281-85 (1962)); see also Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 529 (“[V]oters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises,” but “[f]ederal courts … are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric”); Dornan v. U.S. Sec’y of Def., 676 F. Supp. 6, 7 (D.D.C. 1987) (holding action based in part on political promise nonjusticiable); see also O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1972); Irish v. Democratic Farmer-Labor Party of Minn., 399 F.2d 119, 120-21 (8th Cir. 1968)”

The DNC lawyers’ argument here is that the charter’s demand that the chair and DNC staff remain neutral throughout the Democratic primary is a political promise, similar to policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren’t fulfilled when in office. The lawyers cite an argument made in another court case stating that voters are free to vote out politicians. In their initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit, DNC lawyers argued Bernie Sanders supporters were aware the DNC and Wasserman Schultz were biased against their candidate. Now their argument is a neutral DNC and DNC chair are just political promises, leaving voters susceptible to the deception that the DNC would treat Clinton and Sanders equally. The lawyers argue liability only applies to consumer-merchant relationships

“The DNC may, within its First Amendment rights, chose to amend its rules to eliminate the provision upon which Plaintiffs’ theory relies,” added the DNC lawyers, arguing that because the DNC can amend its rules so its chair and staff don’t have to remain neutral or impartial in the Democratic presidential primaries, the court cannot render a ruling on the rule.

[ehrnst]

70. Oh, so that's your take on "fair."

And "thumb on scale."

Well that's one interpretation - and certainly one that Jared Kushner's publication would push.

I find it sad when self-proclaimed progressives resort to right wing sources to bolster their viewpoints.

[hughee99]

75. So your contention is that the DNC did not argue that it's under no legal obligation

to be unbiased during the primaries. That they did not make this argument in the court filing below.

I apologize for using a Kushner link, it was the first one that came up, so how about an actual link to the actual legal filing made by the DNC's lawyers. I trust you will find that to be unbiased, right?

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/49-D.E.-49-Ds-Reply-ISO-2nd-MTD-10-14-16.pdf

[ehrnst]

84. It's important not to assume that the enemy of your enemy is your friend

And all google results that appear to confirm your bias aren't neccessarily your friend either.

As I do not have the legal expertise to determine or summarize the positions, I will seek out a source that can, and I know to neutral, and ask them.

Just as I don't claim to know the implications of legislation based simply on a reading of it - as I am not the target audience. I wait for a trusted source to summarize. I like to think that I know enough to know what I don't know.

Curious - are you a lawyer?

[hughee99]

86. I'm not a lawyer, though do spend a fair amount of time

Reading legal documents. While I have no special expertise in this area it doesn't appear to me like the portrayal of this argument in Kushner's Observer story is an unfair interpretation of the filing. I'll admit I didn't know he owned the Observer and after finding that out from you, I did go back and read the DNC lawyers' filing to see if they had unfairly twisted it's meaning.

[Jim Lane]

93. The DNC can't use that defense on this motion. They are going ONLY with what hughee99 said.

This week's argument was on the defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Such a motion says that there's no reason for the court to hear any evidence to determine what's true, because even if everything in the Complaint is true, the plaintiff still loses.

IOW, the defendants, for purposes of this motion only, are required to assume the truth of all the factual allegations.

If DNC/DWS win this motion, the case will be over. The DNC will be under no obligation to adhere to its own rule that requires neutrality. There will be no inquiry into whether the DNC actually did violate its own rule in this instance.

If the plaintiffs win (i.e., the judge denies the motion), then the case will proceed to the determination of the truth or falsity of each disputed allegation.

And, yes, I am a lawyer.

[hughee99]

96. Thank you for your expertise on this.

IMHO, at this point, the DNC has to deal with the issue that some of their traditional voters have the perception that the primary process was not run in a fair and honest manner. The Sanders supports can't get what they really want no matter what happens in court. They can't undo the primary, and they can't redo the election, so the real issue is, can we restore those people's faith in the system, and get them back "on board" for the next election.

If this goes to trial, I have no idea what will happen, but it seems like the fallout can be limited even in the worst case scenario. Even if the "Sanders side" can show instances of actual bias that had a tangible impact on the election, the DNC should be able to demonstrate that it wouldn't have had an effect on the overall outcome of the election. Then, maybe, they can set up some safeguards to convince people that decisions will be made in a fair, open and honest manner in the future so that these things don't happen again.

Ideally, they could go to trial and show that everything was run fairly, though that's virtually impossible to prove. At the least, maybe they could show that none of the bias claims have any merit, and maybe after a little time to heal, the voters will accept that the primary was run fairly and hold no ill-will toward the DNC.

Perhaps they could just settle this case quietly, although I don't see that as a likely outcome.

The worst outcome, as I see it, is that they assert that they don't have to run a fair primary, that they have the legal right to do whatever they chose (which theoretically includes heavily and tangibly favoring a single candidate), and that the courts dismiss the case based on that argument. If this happens, during the next primaries, you'll see all sorts of claims of bias in contentious races, and the republicans will be doing everything they can to fan the flames. They'll remind all the supporters of the losing candidate that the DNC argued this and suggest that the DNC screwed their candidate. It may not get them a single vote, but as we saw in November, it has the potential to suppress voter turnout, and if that happens in key locations, it can lead to disaster.

[Jim Lane]

101. The issue of remedy is a big problem for the plaintiffs.

As you point out, no matter what the evidence shows about DNC violations and the electoral impact thereof, the court can't order a new election.

My general understanding from casual reading about the case is that the plaintiffs are seeking money damages on the fraud theory -- they were deceived into making donations. Their problem is the defendants' argument that their pro-Clinton bias was obvious. That's ethically repugnant but legally sound. A general principle in fraud cases is that the plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false representation AND that the plaintiff acted in reliance on that representation. In the case against DNC/DWS, the bias was obvious early on.

To my mind, the action that had the most impact on the outcome was the drastic curtailment of the debate schedule. That rules change was made by defendant Wasserman Schultz, a former Clinton campaign officer, and clearly benefited Clinton. How can anyone who contributed money thereafter plausibly claim to have relied on the party's published rule of neutrality, in the face of such clear evidence that the rule was not being followed? Can they convince anyone that they believed the stated explanations, even though just about everyone not in the Clinton camp considered those explanations pretextual?

If the case survives this motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs are very likely to lose anyway. It will just take longer.

[PotatoChip]

120. Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't see the bias immediately.

It was a gradual process that really didn't involve any one particular moment, but a lot of little "wtf are they doing" moments. In fact, I was completely clueless all through the summer of 2015. And even though I was beginning to notice some things that seemed a bit off in the fall, I just assumed that it was the media being the media.

By the time I was 100% certain that something was really, really wrong (around Feb or March) I had already donated 6 times.

Again, maybe I was just being naive, but I wasn't the only one. There were a LOT of us politically active longtime Ds (32 yrs for me) who didn't see this coming until we all had donated multiple times.

[Jim Lane]

122. OK, then, maybe I'm too cynical.

I put a lot of emphasis on the debate schedule. It's axiomatic that debates are an opportunity for the trailing candidate and that a front-runner, even one who's a skilled debater, does best to avoid them as much as possible. For example, in the 2006 Senate primary, Clinton didn't debate her progressive challenger once, despite his challenges. Then in 2008, when she was trailing Obama, she complained that he wouldn't debate her enough, even though they'd already been in more than a dozen debates together.

Given that background, plus Clinton's huge lead in 2015 (polls, money, endorsements, name recognition), I thought the reduction in debates, from the 26 of 2008 to just 6, enforced through the unprecedented exclusivity rule, was just blatant pro-Clinton favoritism. In fact, as a practical matter, all the subsequent alleged violations combined probably affected the outcome less than that one decision.

[ehrnst]

100. Well, we'll see what the judge says. (nt)

[Jim Lane]

104. It's easy to predict what the judge WON'T say.

The judge won't say, "I'm granting this 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because I find as a matter of fact that plaintiffs' allegations of bias are false." That's simply not permitted under the rule. The judge learned that in his first year of law school.

In certain cases, the judge can announce that he's converting the defendants' motion to dismiss into a Rule 32 motion for summary judgment. This case, from what I've read of it, would not be an appropriate one for that unusual step. The judge will either dismiss the case, on the grounds that the defendants' violation of their own rule (i.e., not a violation of any law) isn't legally actionable, or he'll let the case go forward.

The going forward isn't necessarily all the way to a jury. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rule 32 motion down the road, after there's been some discovery. If defendants win that motion, the case is over, with no jury trial.

[ehrnst]

107. So would O'Malley have a case as well? (nt)

[Jim Lane]

110. O'Malley donors might make a claim but would have bigger proof problems.

Note first that this is not a case by Sanders, so asking about O'Malley isn't a parallel. The parallel would be O'Malley donors.

O'Malley was disadvantaged by the curtailment of the debate schedule, but most of the alleged DNC/DWS violations of neutrality occurred after O'Malley's withdrawal.

[ehrnst]

115. But if "favoritism" for another candidate is an actionable offense

Why wouldn't "proof" of that apply to O'Malley?

[Jim Lane]

121. My answer, based on casual reading about the case

Favoritism, by itself, or even with proof that it swung the nomination, doesn't support any remedy that this judge can provide. He can't order a new election or send Wasserman Schultz to prison.

The plaintiffs' theory, as I understand it, is favoritism plus fraudulent concealment of favoritism plus their acting in reliance on the fraud. Their actions were their donations. The O'Malley donors were many fewer and much earlier, before most of the alleged incidents of favoritism. Therefore, much of the evidence that these plaintiffs can proffer would not apply to O'Malley donors.

[Gothmog]

137. Do the pleadings still contain that crazy claim that the DC consumer protection statute applies

I read the first petition in this case and was amused to see such a silly claim in that lawsuit. The plaintiff lawyers on this case did not seem to have a clue as to what they were doing.

[Jim Lane]

141. I don't know if that claim is in there. I also don't know whether it's crazy.

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

The first thing one thinks of in "consumer protection" is misrepresentations made by a defendant who's selling stuff -- "Please give us your money and we'll give you this atomic pencil sharpener." If the statute is worded broadly enough, however, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it could cover misrepresentations made by a defendant who's soliciting contributions -- "Please give us your money and we won't give you anything but we'll use the money for our political goals."

It seems to be undisputed that the DNC, based in DC, solicited money, that it made representations in the course of doing so, and that at least some of the plaintiffs, although primarily Bernie backers, also contributed to the DNC. Without having even read the statute, let alone any regs interpreting it or decisions applying it, I'm not prepared to agree that the claim is crazy.

[Gothmog]

144. This particular claim was both ignorant and had no basis in the law

The concept that donors are consumers is dumb and the court should throw out this sad claim. I laughed very hard when I read this claim in the pleading and became convinced that the lawyers pushing this lawsuit are idiots

[Jim Lane]

145. Have you read the DC law and any interpretive regs and any court decisions applying it?

Frankly, your post gives the impression that your legal reasoning is: (1) the statute is colloquially known as a "consumer" protection law, and (2) you personally don't consider a donor to be a consumer. That's insufficient. You would have to start with the definition of terms in the statute.

A classic example is RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Its obvious purpose was to give prosecutors new weapons against organized crime. Nevertheless, it has been applied far outside that realm. Lawyers were not idiots, at least not all of them. They read the statute and crafted innovative arguments. Some failed, of course. Courts have, however, held that a tie to organized crime in the traditional sense is not necessary and that RICO could be applicable to such entities as a Louisiana state government officer, the Key West Police Department, the Pro-Life Action Network (for blocking abortion clinic doors), the Los Angeles Police Department, two state court judges in Pennsylvania, a financier who ran a Ponzi scheme, and a lawyer who helped his bankruptcy clients hide assets. (These are some of the examples listed here.)

An Italian-American lawyer I know once told me that the legal issue was whether RICO could be applied to people whose names didn't end in a vowel. It can be.

Anyway, the point is that none of these lawyers were deterred by the title of the law. They persevered, as we would say now, and succeeded.

[Gothmog]

146. Yes-It is a typical Deceptive Trade Practices

Are you a member of the bar? If so you may want to actually read the statute in question. Here is the definition of consumer https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3901.html

(2) “consumer” means:

(A) When used as a noun, a person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (as lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co-obligor or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice;

(B) When used as an adjective, describes anything, without exception, that:

(i) A person does or would purchase, lease (as lessee), or receive and normally use for personal, household, or family purposes; or

(ii) A person described in § 28-3905(k)(1)(B) or (C) purchases or receives in order to test or evaluate qualities pertaining to use for personal, household, or family purposes.

Only an idiot like the person who brought this lawsuit would try to call a political donor a consumer. I was not impressed with pleadings for this lawsuit back when I read them on another website a long time ago.

[Jim Lane]

147. Thanks for the link, but I'm not trying to give it the full-court press of legal research.

Yes, I am a lawyer, and I have an appeal to argue Monday, so that's where my research time is going.

What I notice just from your excerpt: If that's the only relevant provision, then the defendants have the better argument on that particular claim. Possible exception: Some organizations soliciting donations offer a little spiff (a tote bag or bumper sticker or whatever) to a donor at a certain level. Because the scope of the statute isn't limited to a purchase but includes a person who "receives" an article, a donor who got a bumper sticker could qualify, but I don't know whether any of these plaintiffs received such an article.

[Gothmog]

148. I read the pleadings last year when the case was first filed

I remember checking the DC consumer protection law. These pleadings are really poorly done. This consumer protection issue is an example. The petition just declared that donors were consumers without any analysis.

On the JPR site there is an interview of the lead plaintiff attorney about the hearing. Again I am not impressed with this idiot.

[Jim Lane]

149. The lawyer you call "this idiot" has already accomplished something.

Even if the defendants' motion to dismiss succeeds, he's flushed them out. In the motion, the DNC argues that the party rule requiring DNC neutrality is a mere "political promise" that it can violate at will with complete impunity.

I'm certainly not happy with that position. Given that it is the DNC position, however, I think it's useful that the public know it. We would not have known it but for this lawsuit.

In New York law, at least, there are cases in which a private organization's own rules, once published, are held to be binding on it. A person aggrieved by a violation of the rules can state a cause of action, even if the conduct complained of would have been legal in the absence of the rule. It's unfortunate that the DNC evidently disagrees and thinks it can treat its own rules as mere PR puffery when it finds that convenient.

[Gothmog]

150. You are wrong again

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Your understanding of the arguments made is not accurate. If you really are a member of the bar, you should understand alternative arguments and what is normally argued in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. This is rather basic. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, one assume that the fact presented are accurate and then presents the argument why these facts do not give rise to liability or state a cause of action. This is really somewhat basic and the fact that you do not understand this concept is almost as sad as the claims you made about the DC consumer protection law (I had looked at this law back when I first read the petition) and it is not hard to find. Back a long time ago, I edited several law review articles on a similar law. None of the consumer protection laws that I have seen would allow this ignorant cause of action in that none of these laws would allow a donor to be defined as a consumer..

I have actually read the petition and the lawyer who filed it is an idiot. The fact that you lack an understanding as how motions to dismiss are argued does not help you case. Again, we are at the motion to dismiss stage which means that the plaintiff has not proven anything but for the purposes of the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. This is rather basic federal civil procedure.

[Jim Lane]

156. Thank you for your condescension, which is completely wrong.

I explained the law in #93. If you read it you'll see that I understand a motion to dismiss quite well.

You write:

For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, one assume {sic} that the fact {sic} presented are accurate and then presents the argument why these facts do not give rise to liability or state a cause of action.

Uh, yeah, that's what I wrote in #93. Thank you for admitting it, because it proves the accuracy of what I wrote in #149. Here, the facts alleged in the complaint are that the DNC promulgated a rule requiring neutrality and that it repeatedly violated that rule. I of course did not claim that the DNC's motion admitted those facts, which is the argument you seem to be refuting. Instead, I pointed out that the DNC's argument was that, even assuming those statements to be accurate, they do not state a claim for relief. It's on that basis that I characterized the DNC position as being that "the party rule requiring DNC neutrality is a mere 'political promise' that it can violate at will with complete impunity." That's the logical consequence of the DNC's argument that the complaint doesn't state a claim for relief.

So what exactly is it in my #149, which you now label "wrong", that you dispute?

You write:

This is really somewhat basic and the fact that you do not understand this concept is almost as sad as the claims you made about the DC consumer protection law....

We've seen that the first part of this sentence is bullshit because I do understand this basic concept and I applied it correctly to the DNC/DWS motion. As for the second part, what "claims" did I make about the DC law? I made clear that I hadn't read it, or the regs, or the interpretive decisions. I said only that merely characterizing a statute as one for consumer protection didn't prove that it excluded political donors. One would have to look at the actual definition. When you provided the definition, I thanked you for the information and agreed that it favored the position that the statute was inapplicable here.

I haven't read the pleadings but from what little I've read about the case, my impression is that the plaintiffs made the statutory argument but also argued common-law fraud. One element of common-law fraud is that the plaintiff relied on a representation by the defendant. That's presumably why the DNC went beyond arguing the terms of the statute and asserted that its violation of its own rules was not actionable because the published rules are a mere "political promise" that no one can rely on. To know that that's the DNC's position is valuable.

[Gothmog]

157. Again, your attempts at analysis are amusing but wrong

Unlike you I have actually read the petition and so I can express an opinion on the quality of legal analysis in that petition. When I read that petition, I took ten seconds to pull up the DC consumer protection law to see if that law applied. The definition of consumer could not cover a political donor. You wanted to defend this claim and your attempt at legal analysis was amusing. Re read your own post. Again I would never make the silly claims you asserted about the DC consumer protection law without reading the law.

Contrary to your rather amusing claims, nothing has been proven at this stage. Again we are at the motion to dismiss stage and to date the plaintiff's allegations are unproven and are poorly drafted. Go read the pleadings before you make claims that are clearly not accurate. There were several threads on this.

[Jim Lane]

158. I hope even nonlawyers can realize how absurd your posts are.

All it takes is a little reading comprehension.

You write:

The definition of consumer could not cover a political donor. You wanted to defend this claim and your attempt at legal analysis was amusing. Re read your own post. Again I would never make the silly claims you asserted about the DC consumer protection law without reading the law.

How about you reread my post? How about you identify the claims that I supposedly "defend{ed}" or "asserted"? I pointed this out to you in #156:

{W}hat "claims" did I make about the DC law? I made clear that I hadn't read it, or the regs, or the interpretive decisions. I said only that merely characterizing a statute as one for consumer protection didn't prove that it excluded political donors.

Thus, I never said the statute applied. Notice, incidentally, that when I disagree with you I often quote the statement of yours that I'm disputing. You find it easier to avoid quoting me so that you can attack purported errors I never actually made.

You write:

Contrary to your rather amusing claims, nothing has been proven at this stage. Again we are at the motion to dismiss stage and to date the plaintiff's allegations are unproven and are poorly drafted.

Another fine straw man. I have repeatedly said that nothing about the facts has been proven at this stage. In my #93 in this subthread, to which I specifically directed your attention, I wrote:

If DNC/DWS win this motion, the case will be over. . . . There will be no inquiry into whether the DNC actually did violate its own rule in this instance.

Obviously, I never said that, even without an inquiry, the plaintiffs' factual allegations had been proven. That's why, in #156, I asked:

So what exactly is it in my #149, which you now label "wrong", that you dispute?

Again you can't be bothered to answer.

I've twice qualified my comments in this post by saying that it's the factual allegations in the complaint that haven't been proven. What has been established, by the DNC's motion papers, is its attitude toward its own rules. This was the key point in my #149:

In the motion, the DNC argues that the party rule requiring DNC neutrality is a mere "political promise" that it can violate at will with complete impunity.

There are restrictions on a 12(b)(6) motion, in which plaintiffs don't have to prove their factual allegations and defendants don't have to (indeed, aren't allowed to) disprove them. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the truth of the factual allegations, and I drew none. Nevertheless, we can draw conclusions about the parties' legal positions.

My conclusion is that the DNC does not consider itself bound by its own published rules. My personal opinion is that the Democratic Party should change that position and should either enforce its rules or, if it has decided to go the route of blatant favoritism, change the published rule. Enforcing the rule would be best but changing it, to reflect actual practice, would at least be honest.

[Gothmog]

159. Real lawyers do not think that this lawsuit is that meaningful

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2017, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

This lawsuit may be a big deal on JPR but many if not most posters on JPR are idiots. Here is the petition that was posted on JPR http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT-6-28-16.pdf Again you are defending the petition without actually reading it. I have read the original petition and it is dreck. When I read the petition, I actually looked up the DC consumer protection law and saw that it did not apply. Re-read your posts on this issue and you will see why I was so amused by your claims.

I don't know if that claim is in there. I also don't know whether it's crazy.

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The first thing one thinks of in "consumer protection" is misrepresentations made by a defendant who's selling stuff -- "Please give us your money and we'll give you this atomic pencil sharpener." If the statute is worded broadly enough, however, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it could cover misrepresentations made by a defendant who's soliciting contributions -- "Please give us your money and we won't give you anything but we'll use the money for our political goals."

It seems to be undisputed that the DNC, based in DC, solicited money, that it made representations in the course of doing so, and that at least some of the plaintiffs, although primarily Bernie backers, also contributed to the DNC. Without having even read the statute, let alone any regs interpreting it or decisions applying it, I'm not prepared to agree that the claim is crazy.

If you have read the statute, you would have seen that the allegation is stupid. Again, please read the actual petition and then tell us that there is merit. There is a clear definition of the term "consumer" in that statute that makes clear that this law does not apply to political donors. I would not have attempted to defend this claim without reading the actual statute. The petition cites this statute but does not provide the actual definition of consumer

I am not impressed with the videos being posted on JPR of the idiot lawyer who brought this suit. I understand that JPR posters love this idiot lawyer but I live in the real world and this particular lawyer is not impressive at all.

Again, I do not post on JPR for a reason but I am amused by the content on that site. I am not impressed with this lawsuit or the lawyer who brought it. Please read the petition before defending it.

[Jim Lane]

160. The public exposure of the DNC's attitude toward its own rules is meaningful.

I'm sure I'm not the only real lawyer who values knowing that the DNC doesn't consider itself bound by its own published rules. To me, that's meaningful. Meaningfulness, however, is subjective, and I'm sure you're not the only lawyer who doesn't care about it, so we can let the topic rest there.

For the rest, you continue to ignore my actual posts, even the parts where I agreed with you, so that you can repeat your attacks on the views you want to dispute, whether or not I espoused them. From now on, you'll have to continue your brilliant refutation of your imaginary interlocutor without my participation. Go get 'im.

[Gothmog]

161. The so-called leaks of DNC emails was done by Russians

I know that JPR types love Russian fake news and the fact that Russians helped trump. The Russians and JPR did a great deal to help Trump get elected. The Russians leaked the DNC e-mails and this rather ignorant lawsuit is based on materials stolen by Russian hackers. I guess that some lawyers have no issue with the breaking of the law if it helps their cause. I am not one of these lawyers.

This lawsuit added nothing to the mix other than making some of the idiots who post on JPR happy. Again have you read the pleadings. I went today to the JPR site to get the link for these rather sad and ignorant pleadings. This lawsuit is dreck. Please read it for yourself. Just because some of the idiots on JPR think that this lawsuit has merit does not mean that real lawyers agree with that conclusion.

Again, please read the pleadings for yourself and do not rely on posts on JPR for your views.

[JTFrog]

51. Yep. Talk about strawman. nt

[ehrnst]

54. Evasion, too. (nt)

[PotatoChip]

97. The DNC's lawyers ADMITTED to the favoritism.

In fact, the DNC's most recent maneuver, this Motion To Dismiss, was filed on the grounds that Bernie supporters (supposedly) already knew that the DNC was biased when they/we donated to Bernie's campaign. I kid you not, that was one of the defenses DNC lawyers put forward! (As an aside, most of us had already donated several times before it became fully apparent that there were indeed sabotage efforts being conducted). Wikileaks emails later confirmed it. And btw, it was not just "bitchy office emails" in those documents...

Disclaimer: I'd say MUCH more (while showing examples) but that would probably cause me to stray too far away from this thread's lawsuit discussion, and into "re-fighting the primary" category. So I'll just leave you with this article:

DNC Stoops To New Low In Fraud Lawsuit Filed By Bernie Backers
by Elura Nanos | 5:28 pm, October 18th, 2016

To recap: a group of plaintiff donors to the Sanders campaign sued the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs have pointed to damning evidence in the shape of emails posted by Wikileaks proving that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.

On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.

/snip/

Clearly, filing a lawsuit every time a politician fails to deliver on campaign promises isn’t the best course of action. However, this case is a bit different and characterizing an assumption that the DNC operates on an unbiased playing field as merely a “political promise” is nothing short of outrageous. A fundamental tenet of the law governing contracts as well as fraud is that when a fundamental assumption on which a bargain is based turns out to be untrue, that falsehood strikes at the heart of the underlying deal. Remedies differ depending on whether the perpetration of the falsehood was accidental or purposeful — but it’s always a bad thing for the deal. While I admire creative lawyering on the part of the DNC, such tactics shall not, cannot, and should not apply to organizations as influential the DNC while participating in in the election of a president.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are donors who made contributions ranging from $5 to $2700 to the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think it was unlikely that any of them expected Senator Sanders to fulfill every campaign promise in its entirety. The average American knows that politics are a complicated game, and that promises often go unfulfilled. And there’s a certain amount of political shadiness that even the least sophisticated among us expects. But basing a legal defense on the premise that the presidential nomination process was known to be rigged even before it began far exceeds what is reasonable. The DNC has valid, logical, and respectable defenses it can assert with regard to this lawsuit; its choice to advance this one was wrong-footed and irresponsible.

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/

[ehrnst]

102. I'm interested to see if there is evidence that "favoritism" amounted to "rigging"

And if Martin O'Malley joins in.

[DanTex]

109. No, they did not admit to favoritism, that is a total lie.

What they said, in the motion to dismiss, is that even if the plaintiffs could prove favoritism, it still wouldn't matter legally, so the case should be thrown out before it reaches a trial. They never admit to favoritism. Quite the opposite, they maintain throughout that there was no favoritism.

I know that the far left, with their typical lack of capacity for abstract thought, has turned that into an admission of guilt in articles like the one you cite, but really it's not very complicated.

[PotatoChip]

113. Yes they did. You obviously did not read the article I provided. It's right there.

Here, I'll help you out...

First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.

See the word 'contention'? Now, who in that sentence do you think is making 'the contention'? Oh yeah, there it is... The DNC made the contention "that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased".

[DanTex]

118. LOL. The article you provided is alt-left garbage. Read the actual legal brief.

You are quoting an article that completely misrepresents the actual legal brief. Yes, I see the word "contention". But that word is written by the author of the article, who is lying. Which is a strange thing to do, because the legal brief is open to the public, so anyone who bothers to read it can very quickly verify that this article is garbage.

I guess the author is counting on people not read the legal briefs, and just believe all the lies. And in your case, it seems to have worked.

The actual argument that the defense made is that the idiots filing this lawsuit claim that they were duped by the DNC into donating money to Bernie based on their supposedly false promises of neutrality. But these same idiots were already convinced that the DNC was biased before and during the time that they made their donations, as evidenced for example by their social media postings. So they cannot credibly claim that the DNCs promises of non-biasedness is what got them to donate, because they never believed them in the first place.

That argument has nothing to do with whether there was bias. The defense maintains throughout the legal brief, which is linked below, that there was no bias. But, whether or not the alleged bias is true, the fact that the plaintiffs already "knew" about it at the time they made their donations contradicts the entire basis for the lawsuit.

Here's what the DNC's legal brief actually says on this particular point:

Nor could Plaintiffs plausibly amend their Complaint to address this fatal deficiency, given that their preferred candidate routinely and actively promoted—and successfully fundraised on—allegations virtually identical to those Plaintiffs now make. See Ex. A (discussing email from Sanders Campaign to supporters on December 18, 2015, soliciting contributions based on claims the DNC was “plac(ing) its thumb on the scales in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” which reportedly raised Sanders more than $1 million in one day).1 Defendants disputed those allegations then and dispute them now, but no matter their grounding in reality, the fact that such claims were a prominent part of the public conversation during the primary demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ theory—that Defendants were secretly biased against Plaintiffs’ preferred candidate, and thereby induced the class representatives into donating to the Sanders Campaign and the DNC based on Defendants’ public statements of neutrality—cannot credibly be maintained. Indeed, publicly available information demonstrates that several proposed class representatives made donations in spite of—indeed, in many cases likely because they accepted as true—the claims of bias (not, as
Plaintiffs allege, the other way around).

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/44-D.E.-44-Ds-MTD-FAC-9-21-16.pdf

[ehrnst]

116. That's why I'm waiting for a neutral source to summarize the claims and defenses

Like NPR.

[DanTex]

119. The other option is to read the legal briefs themselves. Here is the one filed by the defense.

Below is their motion to dismiss, where they are essentially giving a lot of reasons why, even if the bias were to be proven, the case still doesn't have legal standing.

Now, the alt-left press has taken the argument "even if there were proven bias, the plaintiffs still don't have a case" and somehow turned that into an admission of bias. Which is stupid. The brief throughout maintains that there is no bias. Which is not surprising, because it would be immensely stupid on the part of the DNC's lawyers to actually concede that their clients were indeed guilty of the thing they are being accused even before it goes to court.

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/44-D.E.-44-Ds-MTD-FAC-9-21-16.pdf

[ehrnst]

123. As I stated before - that's not an option because I am not trained as a lawyer or judge

And am therefore not the target audience for this language and style.

I'm curious as to why you think people hire lawyers to write these documents and to review them, if they are so clear.

I'm also one of those people that doesn't assume that reading a pocket sized copy of the Constitution makes me qualified to understand 200+ years of legal precedent and decisions that have affected the interpretation of it at the judicial level.

Is that clearer?

I recall having a similar discussion with a climate change denier who was outraged that a climate change scientist at a university (who was being legally challenged) would not release all of their emails and research for the public to read.

I asked him if he had studied climate science, and he said, "No, but I can read."

I asked him to explain the relevance of this article to me, because I was unclear on how the findings related to climate.

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3276.html

I did not hear back, as you might imagine.

Knowing enough to know what one doesn't know is a valuable skill.

[DanTex]

124. Sure, fair enough.

When you say "As I stated before", you didn't state that before in response to me, so I guess I missed it. But, sure, if you don't feel qualified to read and interpret the documents, then by all means wait until you find a credible and qualified source to report on them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with them quite a bit, and go over legal documents (though in an entirely different area), so I speak a little bit of "legalese", but you are right, there's a reason that people hire lawyers for this kind of thing.

[ehrnst]

127. My apologies if it was not you that I explained this to before.

I have some specific areas of expertise and knowledge - health care policy is one.

Even so, I would not presume to state that it would "easy" to simply expand Medicare to everyone, by simply enrolling everyone, and have tried to point out the many ways that it would not be.

However, I've learned that if you even state that it's not that simple, people here will assume you are a "shill for big pharma" (I am not in that field at all), that you have been "brainwashed by the corporate machine" or are otherwise just trying to TROLL people who see just how simple it all is, if we just want it badly enough.

I'm not going to be one of those people, and will defer to the judgements of neutral, non-politicized legal experts who have been trained to communicate to the public.

I was a technical writer who authored user manuals, so I'm very aware of the skills involved in making something complex understandable without oversimplifying it.

[DanTex]

129. No worries.

And I agree that it would not be "easy" to expand Medicare (as do a lot of progressive experts on the topic who know a lot more about it than me). And also about the dangers of oversimplifying complex things.

[DanTex]

55. If they have good lawyers, they will argue both.

First, they will argue that there was not bias. Second, they will argue that even if there was, it's not against the law.

I don't think the case has much merit, I think it's being filed mostly for political reasons.

[hughee99]

58. Do you think it's a good idea to argue that you have the right to do things in a primary

that might significantly affect the outcome because there's no law against it? Even if the DNC was 100% unbiased in this latest primary, they'd still have to deal with the fallout of telling people they believe there's nothing to prevent them from favoring a specific candidate if they want to.

While this might be a great defense from a legal standpoint, it's a potential PR nightmare down the road when you're trying to bring a party together after a bitter primary.

[DanTex]

61. The lawyers need to to act in the best interests of their clients.

And usually, in a lawsuit, that means making every argument you can. I don't know the legal ethics of holding back from giving the strongest defense possible in order to avoid PR damages.

You're right, ideally the best way to win the case is by winning the argument that there was no bias, or at least no evidence of bias.

But it's more complicated than that. Right now, they are filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that even if the allegations of bias are true, the lawsuit still should still be thrown out. And, as lawyers are wont to do, they give a lot of arguments for this.

Yeah, there is PR risk in doing this. On the other hand, getting the case thrown out would be a big PR win, showing that this was just a politically motivated nuisance lawsuit.

[hughee99]

64. What's in the best interest of the clients isn't always just about winning the case.

That's why a lot of settlements are made.

If you get the case thrown out by asserting that the DNC has the right to do whatever they want in their primaries, no matter how biased it may be, do you really think this would be a big PR win?

[DanTex]

68. That's true, and like I said I don't know the ethics here.

I'd rather see the case get thrown out for one of the other reasons they cite.

But even if it gets thrown out because the judge agrees that internal party workings are not enforceable by law, my guess is that's still better for PR than having it go to trial.

[hughee99]

71. I'm not sure that going to trial is worse.

In a trial, you can make your arguments and people may see that while there's a grain of truth to the claims of bias, that the scope of it was small enough that they had no effect on the outcome. This could result in people having more confidence in the system.

Obviously, the ideal thing would be for the DNC to actually prove there was no bias at all, which would help to restore some people's faith in the system, but I'm not sure (even if it were the case) that it would be possible to prove.

[DanTex]

77. Maybe, but it would also draw the whole thing out.

Sure, if the lawsuit gets thrown out now for lack of standing or whatever, then some headlines will read "Judge decides DNC is allowed to cheat". And, in fact, far-left media has already attacked the DNC for some of the arguments made in their motion.

But if it goes to trial, then all those hacked emails will be read over again, and it will be in the news for however long the trial is. I think that's worse.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how this works, but are emails illegally hacked by a foreign government's intelligence service admissible in court? I guess they are, because in this case the plaintiffs explicitly say that their case is based on hacked emails, and the defense doesn't seem to object to that.

[hughee99]

78. I think now is the time to do it. You're as far away from the next primary as you're going to get.

if it has to go to trial, let it be now.

[DanTex]

79. For sure, if there's a trial, make it as soon as possible.

[Jim Lane]

94. The legal ethics answer: This is up to the DNC and Wasserman Schultz.

There are "lawyer calls" and "client calls".

If the defendants want to argue that working against Bernie was OK because he's Jewish, the lawyer is required to refuse to make that argument, because it's frivolous. The determination whether an argument is permissible is up to the lawyer.

In the actual case, some lawyers would consider it frivolous to argue that the DNC has perfect freedom to violate its own published rules. The lawyers here evidently concluded that it wasn't frivolous.

If the lawyer decides that the argument is permissible, then the strategic considerations that you and hughee99 explained are for the client to resolve. The lawyer's ethical obligation is to pursue the client's objective. In this instance, the lawyer should explain to DNC/DWS that this argument is available, it might win, if it wins it cuts off any further factual inquiry in this case, but it can be made only in a publicly available document that will alienate some principled good-government types. Then it's up to the defendants to make the decision.

[Gothmog]

85. I read an early form of the petition and it was dreck

The original plaintiff petition was drafted by idiots who claimed that it was a violation of the DC consumer protection law and that donors were consumers under that statute. That claim made me laugh and come to the conclusion that the idiot lawyers behind this lawsuit were idiots. I remember that the lead plaintiff had some sort of pac for bernie

[emulatorloo]

69. They won't because they didn't. No evidence of that in the email dump

Just a lot of negative spin by bloggers looking to make money off BoB's

[hughee99]

87. They already did make that argument in a case back in October.

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/49-D.E.-49-Ds-Reply-ISO-2nd-MTD-10-14-16.pdf

While it might help them win this case, it will do more harm than help in the long run if they make it again.

IMHO, the single most important thing the DNC can do with respect to all of this is to restore the confidence of those people who have lost it that the primary system is fair. Personally, I don't think that anything that happened had any significant impact on the outcome of the primary, and even if all the things the Sanders people have claimed were true, Hillary still would have won pretty easily.

I think it's extremely likely the DNC will win this case with almost any argument they'd use, but...

If this case is won (or if it is thrown out) on the bases that the DNC didn't do anything (or at least anything significant) to impact the outcome of the election, that's a great win.

If the case is won (or if it is thrown out) on the basis that the DNC has no obligation to run a fair primary, that's a big loss.

If people who support losing primary candidates don't believe the process was fair, it's much harder to get them to come on board for the general election.

[ehrnst]

43. I think that his statments - or silence - on this will be very telling.

Particularly seeing that he's the Outreach Director of the DNC.

Should be interesting.

[tallahasseedem]

74. +1

[leftofcool]

40. Shouldn't they be out doing revolution stuff?

[ehrnst]

44. This is easier.

Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

And probably more satisfying to them.

[geek tragedy]

67. this lawsuit is like masturbation, without the positive aspects nt

[emulatorloo]

72. They've got no evidence. Because it didn't happen.

No evidence, Just "feelings" and the spin of those emails by dishonest bloggers who wanted to make money off BoBs

[geek tragedy]

73. because perpetual grievance against DWS is the most pressing issue in their lives nt

[stevenleser]

81. Hence JPR where those who want to live their lives focused on non-existent grievances can congregate

and talk about them and reinforce each other's manufactured outrage.

[uponit7771]

143. +1

[NurseJackie]

82. I proudly support Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

... and I hope that she prevails.

Then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz even reportedly sent an email calling Sanders’ campaign director an “ass” for declaring that his candidate would continue to fight on to the convention.

Oh my! Shocking! What a fucking scandal! Someone got their feelings hurt!

[Blue_Tires]

83. I imagine it will be thrown out...

What the fuck are they trying to accomplish? DWS is out of a job, and they aren't going to re-do the primaries...

These trust fund college kiddies need to have an education on how politics work...

EDIT: I know what this whole charade is about, and it's reprehensible...

[ehrnst]

99. That website has a whole lot of Hillary hate. (nt)

[WinkyDink]

106. Oh, brother.

[Demsrule86]

111. This is why I say we move on work on electing people ...no hope to get the votes of people

who in the age of Trump would do this and waste time and money with elections underway.

[HoneyBadger]

112. This was filed 6/28/2016

At that rate, it should still be in court for the 2018s

[Gothmog]

117. I have not seen any reports on the hearing

Has there been any reports as to what happened at the hearing? Normally, you can get some feel as to what is going on at a hearing.

[TexasTowelie]

132. I checked the Sun Sentinel which is the newspaper for Broward County

and there was no mention of how the hearing went.

I've never used IVN as a source before so I cannot substatiate whether it is accurate or any bias it may have. I saw it in the feed for the Texas Democrats group on Facebook.

[Gothmog]

136. This is strange in that there is normally coverage in high profile cases

I was following the status hearing in the Texas redistricting case on twitter from some reporters covering that case. I was getting periodic updates as to what was happening in that case

[ehrnst]

130. Carol Wilding is a Stein supporter, so there's that. And this source isn't exactly journalism. (nt)

[TexasTowelie]

133. See post #132.

[nini]

151. Did this happen before or after his campaign stole Hillary voter data?

[pnwmom]

152. Good question. I think the data hacking was first. n/t

[pnwmom]

153. The judge hasn't ruled yet. Here's the most recent account I could find.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4176986/the-latest-on-motion-to-dismiss-the-class-action-lawsuit-against-the-dnc-and-former-dnc-chair/

So, for over three and a half hours, Judge Zloch heard oral arguments from both sides as to whether or not the case should even be allowed to move forward. Jared Beck, representing the plaintiffs called the courtroom discussions “serious” and “intense” and relayed to the public that the judge came prepared.

Beck said that the senior judge did not actually issue a ruling from the bench on whether or not the class action lawsuit against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will move forward, but he indicated that the senior judge would issue a written ruling within a reasonable period of time. That time frame is not currently known. Beck relayed on Twitter that he expects the transcripts from the almost four-hour-long hearing to be available for the public to read on Friday.

[underthematrix]

154. This will not end well for Bernie Sanders

[lapucelle]

155. I guess you could call oral arguments

on a motion to dismiss "a day in court". Sorta.

I would call it "a day in court to determine if the plaintiffs' claims have requisite merit and if the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue", but that's just me.

Meanwhile, in other legal news concerning emails....

https://vtdigger.org/

https://vtdigger.org/2017/04/27/emails-reveal-fbi-justice-probe-burlington-college/