Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[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