A federal judge this week dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee and its former chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But not before confirming what was already widely suspected: enter see url twentysomething essays by writers kellogg https://teleroo.com/pharm/viagra-canine-heart-disease/67/ thesis for masters in finance viagra persistent pulmonary hypertension essay writing thesis apa citations for journal articles with multiple authors go generic viagra wholesale viagra paid by paypal account viagra en jelly https://scfcs.scf.edu/review/speech-writing-prompts/22/ http://almadenyoga.com/clinic/how-to-know-if-viagra-is-working/65/ help with economics paper http://teacherswithoutborders.org/teach/midwifery-dissertationv/21/ physics assignment https://climbingguidesinstitute.org/2647-dissertation-analysis/ http://mce.csail.mit.edu/institute/creative-writing-careers-salary/21/ viagra from canada paypal custom research paper writing https://dvas.org/europeanviagra-10145/ viagra online sales india discount codes for custom essay net click good research thesis examples go pfizer microsoft viagra https://www.myrml.org/outreach/energy-thesis-ideas/42/ https://nebraskaortho.com/docmed/getting-viagra-in-nz/73/ That the DNC rigged the 2016 primary to favor the eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Amazingly, the DNC’s attorneys never bothered refuting the lawsuit’s claim that the primary process was biased against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.
Instead, they argued that the DNC has a right to conduct primaries however it chooses, and, furthermore, that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore relieving the DNC of any responsibility it might’ve had.
Here’s more from the New York Observer:
“DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.”
“The Court would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.”
Jared Beck, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, argued that DNC effectively defrauded Sanders’s donors and supporters by acting against its charter’s imperative to conduct a neutral primary.
In his ruling, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after siding with the DNC’s attorneys – but not before confirming the plaintiff’s allegation that the DNC demonstrated a “palpable bias” against Sanders during the primary, according to the NYO.
“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true – that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated.”
Zloch explained that the plaintiffs’ attorneys were unable to prove that Sanders supporters suffered a “concrete injury” because of the DNC’s actions. He added that the scope of the case fell beyond his court’s jurisdiction.
“The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”
Florida attorneys Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed the initial civil complaint on July 28, 2016, alleging that a cache of hacked DNC emails published by WikiLeaks had revealed a DNC that was plotting to swing the primary in Clinton’s favor. Democrats responded with a motion to dismiss, which has now been sustained.
The dismissal has probably spared both the DNC and Wasserman Schultz from embarrassing scrutiny. But the former DNC head isn’t out of the woods yet. Now that former DWS staffer Imran Awan has been arrested while attempting to flee the US and charged with four counts of fraud, there’s a possibility that DWS might be called to testify about why she kept Awan and several of his family members on her publicly funded payroll even after learning that they were under federal investigation.
We’re very curious to hear her explanation.