Brian4Liberty
05-02-2017, 10:35 PM
7 Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuit (https://medium.com/@zachhaller/7-jaw-dropping-revelations-from-hearings-on-the-motion-to-dismiss-the-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-bee1723b713f)
Last Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch heard oral arguments regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by attorneys representing the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in the class action lawsuit filed against them. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of Democratic Party donors who made financial contributions to Bernie Sanders and the Party under the presumption the primary would be conducted fairly per the DNC’s Charter. The lawsuit was filed in June 2016 following the release of leaked emails showing behind-the-scenes collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and other entities to ensure Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee prior to Americans casting votes in the party’s primary contests.
Transcripts released from the hearing Friday expose numerous shocking revelations presented by the Democrats’ counsel arguing in support of the Motion to Dismiss regarding the way the Democratic Party views its obligations and responsibilities in conducting the primary nominating process.
...
The following is a list of numerous jaw-dropping statements made by lawyers on behalf of the Democratic National Committee that should be examined as the American public awaits the Judge’s order.
1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.
In the first of many galling and naive assertions, the Democrats’ counsel advises U.S. Federal Judge William J. Zloch, recently promoted to a Senior bench, that the lawsuit should be dismissed outright because litigating the DNC’s business would “drag the Court right into the political squabbles”.
...
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.
Without any pretense the Democratic primary nominating process should be expected to be conducted fairly, lawyers for the Democratic Party tell Judge Zloch the lawsuit should be thrown out because the Party has the freedom to determine its nominees by “internal rule”, not voter interests, and thus the party “could have favored a candidate”.
...
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.
The DNC’s Charter clearly articulates it is the responsibility of the party and specifically, its Chairperson, to guarantee a fair Presidential primary process and that all DNC staff conduct business evenhandedly to ultimately assure this.
...
4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.
Despite the implications of this position, lawyers for the DNC repeatedly denied that the terms “impartial” and “evenhanded” can be defined to the point that a ruling can be issued on what obligations these words carry as they appear in the DNC’s Charter.
...
5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.
A curious exchange between Judge Zloch and lawyers for the DNC exposed that lawyers for the DNC were either unsure as to how the DNC works to fund state party primaries, or did not have a determined messaging strategy as to how to respond to this critical inquiry from the Judge.
...
While the DNC’s attorneys may have been legitimately unprepared as to how to respond to this inquiry, it is also possible they are deliberately avoiding to specify these details to the court at this time, particularly given a scandal that emerged around the same time showing officials trying to hide fact that Hillary Clinton allowed states to keep only a small fraction of proceeds earned from joint fundraising with the DNC.
...
6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
Over several hours of oral arguments, counsel for the DNC gave somewhat contradictory statements that make it difficult to determine the exact argument the Party is taking in response to the lawsuit. While admitting repeatedly and in great detail that the party has no legal obligation to conduct the primary impartially, Spiva later insists that the 2016 primary was in fact conducted impartially.
...
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.
The lawsuit filed against the DNC seeks damages on behalf of three “classes” of Americans who have been arguably disaffected by the DNC’s actions: donors to Bernie Sanders and donors to the Democratic Party whose financial donations may have been used fraudulently, and members of the Democratic Party broadly who were allegedly denied the benefit of impartiality offered in exchange for their participation in the Party’s electoral processes.
...
In determining what if any damages are owed to the American public by the Democratic Party and Wasserman-Schultz, Judge Zloch will first rule if the Motion to Dismiss is granted or dismissed. Should the Motion be dismissed, the lawsuit will proceed to a Discovery phase, allowing counsel to conduct depositions (interviews) of relevant parties to solicit responses related to the suit to be given under oath on behalf of the affected citizens claiming damages.
No time frame was given by the Judge as to when the order would be issued.
...
More: http://medium.com/@zachhaller/7-jaw-dropping-revelations-from-hearings-on-the-motion-to-dismiss-the-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-bee1723b713f
Last Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch heard oral arguments regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by attorneys representing the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in the class action lawsuit filed against them. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of Democratic Party donors who made financial contributions to Bernie Sanders and the Party under the presumption the primary would be conducted fairly per the DNC’s Charter. The lawsuit was filed in June 2016 following the release of leaked emails showing behind-the-scenes collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and other entities to ensure Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee prior to Americans casting votes in the party’s primary contests.
Transcripts released from the hearing Friday expose numerous shocking revelations presented by the Democrats’ counsel arguing in support of the Motion to Dismiss regarding the way the Democratic Party views its obligations and responsibilities in conducting the primary nominating process.
...
The following is a list of numerous jaw-dropping statements made by lawyers on behalf of the Democratic National Committee that should be examined as the American public awaits the Judge’s order.
1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.
In the first of many galling and naive assertions, the Democrats’ counsel advises U.S. Federal Judge William J. Zloch, recently promoted to a Senior bench, that the lawsuit should be dismissed outright because litigating the DNC’s business would “drag the Court right into the political squabbles”.
...
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.
Without any pretense the Democratic primary nominating process should be expected to be conducted fairly, lawyers for the Democratic Party tell Judge Zloch the lawsuit should be thrown out because the Party has the freedom to determine its nominees by “internal rule”, not voter interests, and thus the party “could have favored a candidate”.
...
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.
The DNC’s Charter clearly articulates it is the responsibility of the party and specifically, its Chairperson, to guarantee a fair Presidential primary process and that all DNC staff conduct business evenhandedly to ultimately assure this.
...
4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.
Despite the implications of this position, lawyers for the DNC repeatedly denied that the terms “impartial” and “evenhanded” can be defined to the point that a ruling can be issued on what obligations these words carry as they appear in the DNC’s Charter.
...
5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.
A curious exchange between Judge Zloch and lawyers for the DNC exposed that lawyers for the DNC were either unsure as to how the DNC works to fund state party primaries, or did not have a determined messaging strategy as to how to respond to this critical inquiry from the Judge.
...
While the DNC’s attorneys may have been legitimately unprepared as to how to respond to this inquiry, it is also possible they are deliberately avoiding to specify these details to the court at this time, particularly given a scandal that emerged around the same time showing officials trying to hide fact that Hillary Clinton allowed states to keep only a small fraction of proceeds earned from joint fundraising with the DNC.
...
6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
Over several hours of oral arguments, counsel for the DNC gave somewhat contradictory statements that make it difficult to determine the exact argument the Party is taking in response to the lawsuit. While admitting repeatedly and in great detail that the party has no legal obligation to conduct the primary impartially, Spiva later insists that the 2016 primary was in fact conducted impartially.
...
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.
The lawsuit filed against the DNC seeks damages on behalf of three “classes” of Americans who have been arguably disaffected by the DNC’s actions: donors to Bernie Sanders and donors to the Democratic Party whose financial donations may have been used fraudulently, and members of the Democratic Party broadly who were allegedly denied the benefit of impartiality offered in exchange for their participation in the Party’s electoral processes.
...
In determining what if any damages are owed to the American public by the Democratic Party and Wasserman-Schultz, Judge Zloch will first rule if the Motion to Dismiss is granted or dismissed. Should the Motion be dismissed, the lawsuit will proceed to a Discovery phase, allowing counsel to conduct depositions (interviews) of relevant parties to solicit responses related to the suit to be given under oath on behalf of the affected citizens claiming damages.
No time frame was given by the Judge as to when the order would be issued.
...
More: http://medium.com/@zachhaller/7-jaw-dropping-revelations-from-hearings-on-the-motion-to-dismiss-the-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-bee1723b713f