In a desperate attempt to get the class action lawsuit alleging election fraud by the Democratic National Committee thrown out of court, DNC attorneys have admitted that the Democratic party is corrupt and attempted to prove that Bernie Sanders donors knew this all along and therefore cannot sue them.
This unexpected move by the DNC attorneys follows their attempts earlier this month to get the class action lawsuit thrown out on a technicality.
These actions suggest that the DNC understands the case against them has merit, and as such they are attempting to get the lawsuit thrown out before plaintiff’s attorneys have a chance to delve into damaging and potentially incriminating details in court.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
“The DNC was biased in favor of one candidate – Hillary Clinton – from the beginning and throughout the process,” the plaintiffs wrote in their original lawsuit. The complaint, which was filed in federal court in Florida, alleges fraud, as well as negligence as it relates to external hacks on the DNC server. The Bernie Sanders donors contend that the trove of DNC emails posted by Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 further proves that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
The unusual motion by the DNC attorneys has raised belief among the plaintiffs that their case has merit, and that the DNC are running scared.
“Speaking just for myself, I will say that after reading the DNC’s motion, I am more convinced than ever about the merits of our claims, as well as the significance of this case to restoring integrity to our country’s democratic process,” Jared Beck, an attorney who represents the plaintiffs, told LawNewz.
Attempting to prove that the Bernie Sanders donors knew the DNC was biased all along, and therefore cannot complain about corruption after donating money, DNC attorneys produced evidence of Sanders donors posting links critical of Wasserman Schultz on social media and participating in online petitions.
Here is a quote from the DNC’s motion:
“For example, Rick Washik, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 2016 and June 2016, months after posting a link to a petition that claimed that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was biased. Catherine Cyko, FAC ¶ 19, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 28, 2016 and June 30, 2016, after she posted an article accusing the DNC of bias. Marlowe St. Cloud Primacy , made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign on March 8, 2016, several days after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias.Rosalie Consiglio,, made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign a week after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias…
This sample demonstrates that, aside from not being actionable, Plaintiffs’ theory that donors relied upon Defendants’ statements about neutrality to make donations they would not have otherwise made is not plausible.” [citations omitted]
Baxter Dmitry
Email: baxter@thepeoplesvoice.tv
This is nothing new both political party’s gave always been corrupt this why honest people do not get involved in politics
Nutso
Hey, Red Glasses, I doubt very seriously you are either honest or sincere – more like dishonest and lazy. Vote or don’t complain when you lose the right to.
WE are supposed to stop donating to our candidate because the system is rigged? So giving up on him is how we stop the rigging? This sounds like the argument of a seventh grader.
Lawyers . Now they try to get a case thrown out of court for the reason it’s there…and admits it ..US.,.get your country back
and you thought we are only conspricy theriosts
Americans, So Easily Controlled!
http://sgtreport.com/2016/09/americans-so-easily-controlled/
Be sure to read all the comments. Click on ALL the links.
The donors may have known about the corruption, but the problem is with the DNC continuing to DENY IT. I think that’s how the lawsuit will be won. If you know or suspect, but the other party continues to assure you there’s no cause for concern … that’s proof you willfully lied.
The most simple counter argument is that even when the people confronted DNC with obvious bias, the DNC continued to DENY the bias. DNC intended to deceive by lying. That’s the counter argument.
I’m not going to argue whether the DNC as a whole was taking any effective steps, official or not, to favor Clinton in the nominating process. What I will argue is that the DNC has made no such admission of bias as claimed in the title of this article. The DNC simply says that people who seemed to believe that the DNC and Schultz were corrupt cannot sue them for misleading them. Even if the DNC and Schultz attempted to mislead the plaintiffs, it obviously didn’t work, and no effectual fraud took place concerning the plaintiffs.
I will not comment as to whether I agree or disagree, but that is what is happening here, and not what the writer of this piece wants you to think.
A simpler example:
If I give money to a charity and then it turns out they’re not a charity, I can say I was misled. Well, UNLESS I tweet “I don’t think this is a charity but I’m going to give them my money anyway” right before I did it.
The charity can still be investigated for fraud by the appropriate authority, but I cannot logically say I believed they were a charity when it’s obvious I didn’t.
Again, that’s just the case being laid out by the DNC. I neither agree or disagree for the purposes of this conversation.
Hill?
Hey, HIll, is that you?
Let’s hope the judge has enough sense to realize that is a stupid argument: a) a few comments does not prove all voters had some unacknowledged proof. Suspicions are just that and a few people commenting is just that. I can say I think the DNC is fixing the general election but since I have no proof and it is only a vague feeling, does that mean if the DNC does rig it, the DNC can’t be held responsible??? Just nutso reasoning, to me.