Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[ehrnst]

70. Sounds very much like the question is pretty much relevant:

"The legal issue is not whether "there were significant Democrats that would not have donated {to} the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate". Instead, the legal issue is whether there were any donors who would not have donated if they had known that the DNC was violating its own neutrality rule."

As I posted previously:

"Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNCs charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations,” Zloch wrote. “And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint. Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/

Tell me how they could have refused to donate "knowing that DNC was violating it's own neutrality rule" if they had never read the DNC charter, or even statements about a neutrality rule? Time machine?