DNC Fraud case is over. Judge agrees DNC cheated, dismisses anyways.

[Fugus]

Edit: Mistake on my part for part of it, the case assumes that the plaintiff is correct at this stage. Still Judge dismisses and the DNC's Lawyers whole argument was that the Party rules are not legally binding and that they have no actual rules.

Still wondering that if the judge has no standing to hear it and the case is about them manipulating it to prevent the voters from having a real say in the matter, then who is responsible for holding them accountable? Because the system doesn't really allow the people to just start up viable 3rd or 4th parties.

Correction where it is due. Here is my original post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.383d6bcb873d
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-ad...ainst-sanders/

They have more around, overall. The judge agrees they broke their own rules. The lawyers defending the DNC argued that their rules are not legally binding and they were within their rights to rig the primary and choose how they see fit against the will of their voters.

Basically the judge agreed they broke their rules while the DNC lawyers argued they had no rules and fuck the voters, they get what we want and we will manipulate the primaries till we get it.

But the judge says it isn't within his hands to hold them accountable.

Guess it is official, there are no more rules in the Democratic primary so far because they can break them all and claim they weren't binding anyways.


Well at least the judge admitted they cheated and I will never give them a damn dime of my money because of their cheating regardless of if the court system has the balls to hold them accountable or not.

This would be like if I held a contest with a 500 million dollar prize on live TV with the rules posted and then started breaking the rules to make sure my person won. Guess a judge could no longer get onto them either because "My rules weren't legally binding and I reserved the right to break them whenever it suited me"....

[Rukh]

That's not at all what the judge said.

"In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true"

They assume the allegations are true for the purpose of determining standing and harm caused. They didn't actually determine that anything was true. The finding was the even if it were true the plaintiffs have no ground to sue. That's it.

[Lenonis]

Well...like it or not it's true. The rules set up by BOTH the RNC and DNC are not legally binding. They are private parties that pick candidates, but ultimately the voters are the ones who determines who goes on to the general election. In theory you don't have to be a member of a party to run.

Although we all know how well that works.

Frankly I think it's always better to directly donate to the candidates you like anyway. Unless you are truly a party-over-country type, in which case you don't care who the person is, only the (R) or (D) after their name.

And your end scenario isn't valid as there are laws about sweepstakes. Those are legally binding.

EDIT -- let me be clear about something -- what the DNC did was not good. But what Bernie did was also terrible. They both were trying to game the system to protect their interests. And I voted for Bernie in the primary. I think this election was a shitshow all around for everyone really. A whole lot of terrible bad faith behavior by everyone involved.

[Mittens]

Unironically fake news.

[Edge-]

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary,” Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. “To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”

“Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations,” Zloch wrote. “And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint. Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.”

This in no way matches what you wrote in your OP. All the judge did was say that this issue has no place in federal court, because it doesn't.

This thread appears to be #FAKENEWS.

[paralleluniverse]

Your post is bullshit. There is zero proof in the hacked emails that the DNC did anything to rig the primaries, because it never happened.

A random staffer bad mouthing Sanders in an email isn't a real action to rig anything. Nothing happened.

[Fugus]

Well...like it not it's true. The rules set up by BOTH the RNC and DNC are not legally binding. They are private parties that pick candidates, but ultimately the voters are the ones who determines who goes on to the general election. In theory you don't have to be a member of a party to run.

Although we all know how well that works.

Frankly I think it's always better to directly donate to the candidates you like anyway. Unless you are truly a party-over-country type, in which case you don't care who the person is, only the (R) or (D) after their name.

And your end scenario isn't valid as there are laws about sweepstakes. Those are legally binding.

EDIT -- let me be clear about something -- what the DNC did was not good. But what Bernie did was also terrible. They both were trying to game the system to protect their interests. And I voted for Bernie in the primary. I think this election was a shitshow all around for everyone really. A whole lot of terrible bad faith behavior by everyone involved.

Then they have no rules at all and should not claim so when they can break them with impunity. And if they are just prive parties, then they need to lose all the government benefits they receive and the rules need to be changed so they are no longer the defacto gatekeepers of our government.

And "Ulimately the voters are the onee who determines who goes on to the general election"? The whole case was over the party CHEATING to try and rob the voters of that decision manipulating it.

And so there are laws about sweepstakes and following their rules, but no laws about political parties and following their rules? The parties following their own rules is more important than a sweepstake or game show breaking theirs.



For me, the ruling that their rules are not binding as the ruling that they have no rules and can cheat whenever they dislike it and can get away with it when what is at stake is worth FAR more to this nation than a Powerball, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, or Publishers Clearing House prize.


And they are more than just a private party with all the benefits they receive for being a political party.

[Lenonis]

Your post is bullshit. There is zero proof in the hacked emails that the DNC did anything to rig the primaries, because it never happened.

A random staffer bad mouthing Sanders in an email isn't a real action to rig anything.

"Rig" is probably too strong of a word, but there are some pretty strong signals that there were intentional decisions made by the DNC to minimize Sanders' ability to get exposure.

Low number of debates, timed to conflict with higher interest items on TV.

Which, in case anyone has forgotten, Sander was not a member of the Democratic party. Until he decided to run for president. When he lost he left the party. Sanders is no angel in this either. He used the DNC, the DNC knew what was going on and did everything they could to support the ACTUAL Democratic party member for the nomination.

And, somehow, people are mad. Seems like things played out like you'd expect given the politics involved.

[paralleluniverse]

"Rig" is probably too strong of a word, but there are some pretty strong signals that there were intentional decisions made by the DNC to minimize Sanders' ability to get exposure.

Low number of debates, timed to conflict with higher interest items on TV.

Which, in case anyone has forgotten, Sander was not a member of the Democratic party. Until he decided to run for president. When he lost he left the party. Sanders is no angel in this either. He used the DNC, the DNC knew what was going on and did everything they could to support the ACTUAL Democratic party member for the nomination.

And, somehow, people are mad. Seems like things played out like you'd expect given the politics involved.

There is nothing in the hacked emails proving the debates were timetabled to rig the primary against Sanders or even to disadvantage him.

[Fugus]

EDIT -- let me be clear about something -- what the DNC did was not good. But what Bernie did was also terrible. They both were trying to game the system to protect their interests. And I voted for Bernie in the primary. I think this election was a shitshow all around for everyone really. A whole lot of terrible bad faith behavior by everyone involved.

What did Bernie do that was terrible?

If you are talking about him joining the Democrats to run, he had caucused with them for years and the way our system is setup you are required to do so before you can run if you want to stand a chance. The option is to either run as a Democrat or a Republican or you are not running as anything but an opinion poll or a spoiler vote.

Trust me, I want that fixed as well so that 3rd parties are viable and primaries are no longer needed. I would like to move to public financing and ranked voting for choosing.

[Lenonis]

For me, the ruling that their rules are not binding as the ruling that they have no rules and can cheat whenever they dislike it and can get away with it when what is at stake is worth FAR more to this nation than a Powerball, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, or Publishers Clearing House prize.

You'd probably have had a better reaction to your OP if you made it about how political parties don't have to follow their own rules, rather than a rant about how awful the DNC is. Because the reality is this is an issue for the RNC as well -- and we don't know what they did or didn't do to try to avoid Trump because there were no leaked documents from the RNC hack.

[Mittens]

This Order does not concern who should have been the
Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it
does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally
acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed,
it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in
favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. At this
stage, the Court is required to construe the First Amended
Complaint (DE 8) in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and
accept its well-pled allegations as true.

[Lenonis]

What did Bernie do that was terrible?

If you are talking about him joining the Democrats to run, he had caucused with them for years and the way our system is setup you are required to do so before you can run if you want to stand a chance. The option is to either run as a Democrat or a Republican or you are not running as anything but an opinion poll or a spoiler vote.

Trust me, I want that fixed as well so that 3rd parties are viable and primaries are no longer needed. I would like to move to public financing and ranked voting for choosing.

Bernie wasn't a democrat. He said so repeatedly. But he ran as a democrat because he knew he didn't have a shot as an independent. He compromised his principles to try to win. That's a mark against Bernie no matter how you want to spin it.

But I absolutely agree we need more than 2 parties. And, as a reminder, I voted for him in the primary as I liked the conversation he brought to the table and the challenge he made to the system. I just didn't like that he compromised his values to run (and, as a side note, he let his ego get the better of him in the end, but that's another topic).

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing in the hacked emails proving the debates were timetabled to rig the primary against Sanders or even to disadvantage him.

There is a reason I said signals and not proof. I, personally, believe they attempted to minimize his ability to message to protect Clinton. I, also, personally believe that was something that should have been expected as they were protecting their party from an outsider.

[Mayhem]

Trust me, I want that fixed as well so that 3rd parties are viable and primaries are no longer needed. I would like to move to public financing and ranked voting for choosing.

Waaaaay too much socialism for the US to handle. Also with regards to money equals voice this is undemocratic.

[Breccia]

But the judge says it isn't within his hands to hold them accountable.

Nope.

It's like up and pardoning someone convicted of violating civil rights due to racism. Does it make you look bad? Absolutely. Does it make you a criminal? No.

[Fugus]

Bernie wasn't a democrat. He said so repeatedly. But he ran as a democrat because he knew he didn't have a shot as an independent. He compromised his principles to try to win. That's a mark against Bernie no matter how you want to spin it.

But I absolutely agree we need more than 2 parties. And, as a reminder, I voted for him in the primary as I liked the conversation he brought to the table and the challenge he made to the system. I just didn't like that he compromised his values to run (and, as a side note, he let his ego get the better of him in the end, but that's another topic)..

I don't see that as a mark against him. He was more aligned with the Democrats than the Republican and the options are either run as one of the big 2 or you aren't running. I don't see that as a mark against him at all, he didn't go against what his policies are at all with that action.

Didn't like how he backed Clinton after all was shown but that was still in line with him as he promised he would back the winner at the end even if it wasn't him.

But he did not compromise himself to run, he let it be known who he was and what he was doing from the start.

Guess this one will just have to be a difference of opinion between both of us on this one. But got to AFK for a bit, will check back later. Figured I would post this before I left though.

Edit: Did a correction at the top.

[Stormspellz]

Nope.

It's like up and pardoning someone convicted of violating civil rights due to racism. Does it make you look bad? Absolutely. Does it make you a criminal? No.

what a horrible and simply stupid analogy, no one is legitimately calling Trump a criminal over his pardon, calling him a criminal on other things but not using the powers of the office.

[Fugus]

@Rukh @Mittens @Edge-
Made a correction at the top

@paralleluniverse
Keep telling yourself that.

[Breccia]

what a horrible and simply stupid analogy, no one is legitimately calling Trump a criminal over his pardon, calling him a criminal on other things but not using the powers of the office.

And, the judge is saying, nobody is calling the DNC a criminal either. He agreed with all the evidence and still says no laws were broken.

It was a stupid case to try in criminal court. Analogy is spot on.

[Glorious Leader]

Bernie wasn't a democrat. He said so repeatedly. But he ran as a democrat because he knew he didn't have a shot as an independent. He compromised his principles to try to win. That's a mark against Bernie no matter how you want to spin it.

But I absolutely agree we need more than 2 parties. And, as a reminder, I voted for him in the primary as I liked the conversation he brought to the table and the challenge he made to the system. I just didn't like that he compromised his values to run (and, as a side note, he let his ego get the better of him in the end, but that's another topic).

- - - Updated - - -

There is a reason I said signals and not proof. I, personally, believe they attempted to minimize his ability to message to protect Clinton. I, also, personally believe that was something that should have been expected as they were protecting their party from an outsider.

Would you prefer he ran as a spoiler candidate? Ralph nader 2.0