Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[Jim Lane]

94. It seems to me you're agreeing with what I wrote.

You had stated the issue (in #48) as being whether "there were significant Democrats that would not have donated {to} the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate". My response in #61 was: "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."

Those are two different issues. The quotation you now give is completely supportive of what I wrote in #61 concerning which of those two issues was relevant to Judge Zloch's decision.

You may have misinterpreted my posts. I said that the legal issue was whether the plaintiffs relied on the DNC's representations. I did not assert as a fact that the plaintiffs did rely on the DNC's representations. In the other thread I wrote this about the reliance issue:

To get around this problem, the plaintiffs might have to find additional representative plaintiffs who can allege reliance. That means finding at least one donor who was sufficiently well informed to know that the DNC promised neutrality but who was at the same time so ignorant as not to know that the DNC Chair had been a national campaign co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and that she was clearly favoring Clinton this time. There may well be no such donor. If, instead, the same plaintiffs bring a new case in DC, they'll still have this reliance problem. Because of it, they might well survive the motion to dismiss, because that court will have jurisdiction, but then lose the motion for summary judgment (these are two different ways of ending a case before trial), or they might lose at trial.

That still seems to me to be correct.