Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[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/