The defense is essentially saying the DNC does not control the state parties and, in fact, some states do not have formal party organizations.
The plaintiff has a really flakey theory based upon consumer legislation in DC. Carrying the plaintiff’s notion forward, the Bernie bots essentially expected pay-to-play for their donations.
This case will go no where, IMHO.
Hope the lawyers collected a very large retainer at the front-end. The performance and delivery looks remarkably mediocre.
...so fraud is ok if you’re in the DNC, right? Got it, loud and clear...
Seven Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuit:
1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.
4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.
5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.
6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact, conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.
Very interesting piece — thank you for posting it.
It answers the issue of standing that I have been very curious about: the Plaintiffs claim standing as contributors to the Sanders campaign and/or the Democrat Party. I think the DNC/Party contributors’ claim is much the stronger (Contributing directly to Sanders does not impose requirements on a third party, in this case the Dem Party to which he does not even belong). It is clear from the Judge’s questions that he sees the box the Dems are in. Their charter and by-laws specifically require that they run a fair and balanced primary process. If they did not, they either acted fraudulently, inadvertently, or for other reasons. Certainly seems like the Plaintiff should have access to discovery and depositions to determine which. If Plaintiff is allowed discovery into the way DW-S/Hillary manipulated distribution of party funds in Hillary’s favor, much less into the goon squads, and dirty tricks they played against Sanders, the stonewalling and appeals will be massive.
When the Dems’ lawyer claimed that the Party has the right to pick favorites and select whomever they please as their nominee, I wish the Court had asked: “Then why did the Democrat Party put the exact opposite in their governing documents?”
I am thinking that Hillary never did think all this would take place when she got her wish for Trump to be her opponent.