Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[Jim Lane]

96. Yet again you're confusing two different issues.

Issue (1): Did these plaintiffs rely on the DNC's representations in making their donations?
Issue (2): Assuming for the sake of the argument that these plaintiffs did rely, is the DNC nevertheless entitled to have the case dismissed anyway, because it can make false statements to the public with impunity?

The DNC argued both these points. The judge specifically disagreed with the DNC on issue (2):

For their part, the DNC
and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise
of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political
promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal
courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s
governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that
the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms
like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has
committed itself to a higher principle.

(Decision, pages 15-16)

I was responding to the contention by DemsRule86 in #24 that this defense by the DNC ended the case. It did not. It would have ended the case if the judge had accepted it, but he did not.

What actually ended the case was that, on issue (1), the plaintiffs had the burden of alleging and then proving reliance, and the allegations in their complaint did not sufficiently allege it.