Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[ehrnst]

98. So, if someone wanted to allege that they took a job

in a PAC, and were told specifically by a Politician forming that PAC, that a "Jeff Doe" would not be working on the PAC, then they find out that indeed "Jeff Doe" was going to be supervising, could they sue for income lost from jobs they could have had, but turned down?

According to your argument, no, because that would go to that politician being able to dismiss the fiduciary injury, because he is able to make false statements to those staffers about the involvement of "Jeff Doe," without impunity.

Do I have that right?

But if those staffers wanted to have "Politician lies to loyal staffers about the involvement of Jeff Doe, in order to get them to take the position, then expects them to stay," all over the headlines, that would certainly be a desired outcome for someone angry at that politician.

I was positing the motivations behind the lawsuit. "What does that say about the plantiff's motivation for a lawsuit stating that they made decisions based on a statement in the charter?"

Certainly the conspiracy-theory prone lawyers that were clearly the only ones who would dare take this poorly written case to court have motives beyond money. They have a Seth Rich murder mystery to keep in the public eye. And the people who agreed be the plaintiffs? I'm sure there are absolutely other motives than to make right any "fiduciary injury" done to them.