But then Federal Judge William Zloch spent 28 pages to say the equivalent of “So what?” [“Admits” in the title to this post is open to challenge because on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim it’s a standard assumption that does not constitute a finding on the merits. This is nitpick however because the overwhelming opinion of most people is that these allegations are true regardless of whether they amount to a cause of action.]
A shorter version of this sordid tale of Democrat chicanery behind closed doors is here.
Through its Charter and Bylaws, the DNC has committed itself to a policy of neutrality among Democratic presidential candidates. As it pertains to the Presidential nominating process, the DNC charter says: “The Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other DNC officials touted this policy in public statements during presidential primaries. Plaintiffs attribute the following quotes to Wasserman Schultz or other DNC staff:
• “I count Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden as dear friends, but no matter who comprises the field of candidates it’s my job to run a neutral primary process and that’s what I am committed to doing.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process, period.”
• “the Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules.”
• “even though Senator Sanders has endorsed my opponent, I remain, as I have been from the beginning, neutral in the presidential Democratic primary.”
The Plaintiffs alleged that despite the DNC’s Charter and Bylaws and these public statements of neutrality and impartiality, the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were in cahoots with Hillary Clinton to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination.
The DNC’s bias, according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as “Guccifer 2.0” took credit for the hack and posted several documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s servers on a publicly accessible website. [It has been claimed since by The Nation and the Slate website that there was no hack, and instead this information was leaked by persons within the DNC, probably Sanders supporters who were mad as hell at the DNC and Schultz.]
Several million dollars were donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign by persons represented in this class action. They rightly believe they have been defrauded out of their money, not be Bernie but by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Federal judge in Ft. Laudrdale engages in a strained interpretation [just my opinion] of various procedural elements such as standing, diversity of citizenship and the ability of the named plaintiffs to represent the class of Bernie Sanders donors.
For example, the court says there was no allegation that the Sanders donors ever read the DNC charter or bylaws and therefore could not have donated to Bernie Sanders in reliance of neutrality by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
In essence, the judge finds this case to be similar to the tale of the snake and the turtle wherein the snake promises not to bite the turtle if he will carry the snake on his back to cross the river. Once across the river the snake immediately bites the turtle. When the turtle cries foul the snake replies, “Hey, you knew I’m a snake, why did you trust me?”
The judge might have picked up something from the snake and turtle parable. The Bernie Sanders donors knew when they gave their money to Bernie Sanders that there was no way the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were ever going to allow crazy Bernie to be become their nominee. The Bernie donors could not possibly have believed the DNC’s promise of neutrality in the primary elections, they could not possibly have believed the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were going to keep their promises of neutrality because they knew what the turtle knew.
Rush Limbaugh on his radio must have said this about a million times during the 2016 campaign. “Crazy Bernie is not going to be the Democrat nominee because there is no way the Democrats at the DNC and Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz will ever allow that to happen,” or words to that effect, Rush said.
I wonder if the GOP would make the same defense argument if GOP voters were to sue for promising to repeal Obamacare, alleging that McConnell and Ryan, nor any of the rest of the GOP lunkheads had any intention of keeping their promises at the time they were made, and that donors had given substantial sums in reliance on that promise? Would the court dismiss the suit as Judge Zloch has done here? I don’t think a Democrat judge would.
Judge Willian Zloch was appointed by Ronald Reagan and has a reputation for taking a tough stand on public corruption. Bernie Sanders donors and supporters were hopeful for that reason. Imagine that, Democrats thinking they’d be treated more fairly by a Republican-appointed judge than a Democrat one.