In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, ““I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added adding that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation in which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select their own candidate. “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.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “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.'”
The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but the court’s authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
At this time, it’s unclear if the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, will pursue other legal recourse regarding the 2016 Democratic primaries.
classicredditaccount on August 26th, 2017 at 19:52 UTC »
Whoever wrote this story doesn't understand how the law works. Basically the DNC moved to dismiss the case because they claimed that there was no legal argument to hold them accountable even if the facts were as the plaintiff's claimed them to be. Thus, when making it's decision on the motion to dismiss, the court assumes (for that decision only) that all of the plaintiff's claims are true. This is entirely different from finding that all of the plaintiff's claims are actually true.
For example, let's say I sue you for wearing a bowtie on a Friday even though there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. You would move to dismiss, and the court would uphold the dismissal stating that I had no case even assuming you were wearing a bowtie. It's still totally possible here that you weren't wearing a bowtie on a Friday, but for the purpose of the motion the court assumes that you were, because we don't even have to get to the factual part of the trial.
throwawayshirt on August 26th, 2017 at 19:22 UTC »
This article hits the sweet nexus of journalistic bias, and reporters who aren't smart enough to understand legal pleadings and concepts
Op3No6 on August 26th, 2017 at 16:24 UTC »
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”