Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[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/