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?”
Which brings us into the corporate world. If a corporation has bylaws and willfully violates them, can the shareholders sue?
I’m not a lawyer, but I strongly believe that the answer is yes.
Yep, I believe the existence of an impartiality clause will be a pivotal point in if/how the case goes forward.
Maybe Seth Rich’s laptop could provide data on this topic...