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. Judge Zloch did not issue a ruling from the bench; he will issue a written order in response to the Motion to Dismiss at a later, unspecified date as he considers the merits of the defendants on the Motion.

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 advise 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”. Zloch, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, is told: “There’d be no way constitutionally to offer redress”, despite this being the Court’s “one job”. City, state, county, and Federal courts review legal issues related to political squabbles big and small on a daily basis, and specifically exist as a separate branch of our government to perform this function independent of political disputes arising in the executive or legislative branches of the government.

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”.

Lawyers for the Democratic Party suggest the lawsuit “can’t be resolved” by the Court because it is based on an internal rule that “cannot be enforced”. This statement by lawyers for the Democrats to a Federal judge is a damning indictment the Party may never recover from: the party views itself in no way beholden to voters’ interest whatsoever.

This will play out in further remarks, but in taking this position, the Democrats present themselves as perfectly comfortable with the American public and Court knowing they view the nominating process to be the Party’s choice, and they can and do operate under no legal obligation whatsoever to be representative of the interest of American citizens participating in Party activities and nominating contests.

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. Judge Zloch’s correction of the DNC lawyer’s language demonstrates the Judge’s clear understanding that this element of the Charter’s language is central to determining the merits of the DNC’s argument, and shows the Judge did not allow the DNC’s lawyer’s to obscure the specificity of this guarantee in the Party’s charter.

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.

Zloch also made a pointed question to clarify if the Democratic Party interprets its ability to show favoritism as “business as usual”, which DNC Attorney Bruce Spiva subsequently denied.

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.

Typically, attorneys prepare heavily for oral arguments related to every aspect of a case that may be litigated; particularly in financial disputes, preparation consists of extensive and diligent analysis of all financial relationships in play and the legal obligations related to all parties and transactions in dispute.

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.

Theoretically, all 50 states primary contests would need to being determined to have been conducted properly to ensure the state delegates are allocated appropriately to competing candidates following the primary contests. The financial relationship between the DNC, state parties, and Democratic party voters in all 50 states would need to be examined by the Court should Judge Zloch seek to ensure financial support entitled to state parties from the national organization were provided equitably and without prejudice. Should additional information come to light that show funds disproportionately allocated to states that resulted in Clinton wins, this would have further implications on the Judge’s ruling on a state-by-state basis.

6. The Democrats’ lawyers takes 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.

While the U.S. Supreme Court dubiously asserted in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” the issue at hand is not a matter of voting rights, but a matter of fraud. The lawsuit brought forth against the DNC pertains inherently to the financial transactions that took place, and what laws the DNC may have violated in how they conducted the primary, versus how the primary was expected to be conducted when donations were solicited.

To rule on this Motion, and ultimately the merits of the lawsuit itself, Judge Zloch concluded the hearings identifying the element inherently and ultimately required to guarantee a good faith democratic process: the truth.

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 timeframe was given by the Judge as to when the order would be issued.

Liked it? Take a second to support Counter Propa on Patreon!
Zach Haller

Zach Haller zachhaller.com @zachhaller is a writer, startup founder, immigration specialist, and fitness instructor. Somewhat ubiquitous on twitter, his satirical commentary and colorful ruling class criticism earned his twitter account over 50 million views in 2016. He is based in Seattle, Washington.

Liked it? Take a second to support Counter Propa on Patreon!

There are 56 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  1. I tried to reach out to the Beck Law firm several times to sign up for the class action law suit, but to no avail. Because they did not respond is it too late for me?

    1. It’s my understanding that, in a class action lawsuit, we are all being represented. We do not have to be named in the case. If I am incorrect on this, I hope someone will correct me.

    2. Linda, while some specific people are named as actual members of each of the three classes, you do not need to be named in the lawsuit in order to receive restitution, if in fact restitution is ultimately ordered by the court. If the court rules against the DNC, there will be a process put in place to ensure that everyone gets back whatever is owed to them… So for now, just keep an eye on the case, and hope for the best. I’d recommend liking the “DNC Fraud Lawsuit” page on Facebook if you haven’t already. That will keep you updated on anything you might need to know. Hopefully I explained that in a helpful way. Have a good one.

  2. excellent article, as was part 1.
    amazing claim by spiva that the words “impartial” and “evenhanded” cannot be defined.
    i think WE are ALL very certain of these definitions, as is Judge Zloch…
    unbelieveable.

  3. Tell DNC,so motion proves that our politicians are way out of hand. We as citizens have the right to expect openness and honesty when we are funding the party of our choice. What they did in response to the Bernie Sanders campaign is dishonest and the people who donated to further his agenda are in the right.

  4. Excellent read if you could just fix multitude of typos! They make an otherwise great piece feel shoddy and this needs good coverage, since the lame stream media are pretending it’s not happening.

  5. I’d really like to share this article. I think it’s really important. But the typos and grammar are really execrable. If you don’t know how to find them and correct them, you should not be writing.

    Please fix them so I can share.

    1. This author is detailing the blatantly guilty DNC. If the DNC somehow wins this case it would basically set precedent that the government can legally enslave you, AND YOU’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT FUCKING TYPOS? EVERYONE NEEDS TO SPREAD THIS LIKE WILDFIRE.

    2. No they are not. The article is well written and a good analysis. I wholeheartedly recommend that people share this story with their local news people. I just did.

  6. Gee, I’d love to hear what the Federal Elections Commission has to say about this. I mean, the party has to submit their rules to them, and the FEC treats them like laws, at least in my experience. Is our election Calvinball? Do we get to change the rules as we please? I don’t think so.

  7. As a former local president, I was involved in an election that was later deemed to be invalid by the Dept of Labor. My question would be, was there an expectation of fairness and impartiality on the part of the plaintiffs? If so, then was it a REASONABLE expectation? Considering also the clear and unambiguous language of the DNC Charter, were there also ORAL representations made to the Democratic electorate that the Primary process would be conducted in a fair and untainted manner? If not, then why would the plaintiffs throw away money on a primary without full expectation of fairness, equity and impartiality? Is this a reasonable premise?

    1. See DWS claiming the election was impartial as stated in their charter. I’m sure it’s on YouTube- there’s the oral proclamation for you

  8. What I want to know is, if the word ‘impartial’ has no defined meaning, then how can the lawyer then proceed to claim that, nonetheless, the 2016 primary was conducted ‘impartially’?

    1. The best point I’ve heard about the “impartial” and “balanced” claim is that those 2 terms are the basis of what a judge pledges to when appointed. I’d say they are pretty well defined in the judge’s view. I think they basically slandered every judge in the US in one fell swoop of the stupid pen.

  9. I read the exchange in Number 5 a little differently than this commentator did. I’m no lawyer, but I thought the judge may have been most interested in the fact that in most (all?) states, the primaries are set up and funded by the state itself (not by the political party, whether national or at the state level). Since the taxpayers in general fund the primaries, I’m wondering if an “equal protection” clause might apply. Private clubs (like political parties) can set their own rules in a way that public entities can’t–but elections are funded publicly. The taxpayers have a right to expect that there will be an “impartial” handling of the political process the taxpayers fund (this to me is also a very strong argument for open primaries!). And of course, courts rule on impartiality and fairness all the time–it is one of their primary functions.

  10. Based on the judge’s final words that democracy is at stake, I feel that he will rule to reject the motion to dismiss, and allow the case to proceed. I’m eager to get his determination.

  11. To any Trump supporters: Urge Trump to publicly support the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and urge the Justice Department to support the plaintiffs.

  12. The results of a primary are not the only factor in determining who will become the candidate. There are superdelegates committed to some candidates before the primary election is even held. If you contribute to any candidate, be aware that party rules may not correspond to your perception of the proper way to select a candidate. To donate to a candidate, then file a fraud lawsuit because you did not understand party rules, is naïve at best.

  13. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t primaries using government funds to be run? I mean the voting booths and the actual vote, the parties don’t pay for all of that do they? Assuming this, does that make this a federal case, because it is carried over state lines? And what is the federal punishment for fraud (if any)? I’m not from US so could be 100% wrong, but as I am led to believe a case is federal when it occurs across states!

    Also, why isn’t this being broadcast everywhere? Can you imagine if the Republicans had such a case hanging over them?

  14. I hate this whole party, they are a damn disgrace. Debbie Wasserman Schulz you are f**kin’ a$$hole. Screw the whole lot of ya!!!! —- never again will I ever give my money or my vote to DNC. You DID this to yourselves. So y’all can go to hell.

  15. This is an incredibly stupid law suit. Law suits get messy and this suit is essentially a family affair and will get
    more messy.
    The DNC should have made a settlement to keep it from going forward. The settlement? Whatever it would take!

    The DNC has done nothing (that I know of) to evaluate the messy loss of the 2016 election–an election they were favored.
    in every poll taken –to win.
    Does that not merit looking at? But sitting on the sidelines ? And now this Law Suit !!

    The DNC is not only looking like it is incompetent —but Fraudulent too?

    1. she cheated all the way through. 2.5 million votes in california weren’t even counted. She never won it. She was selected for it. She needs to go to jail

  16. I’m amazed that any democratic electoral process that has “pledged” electors (widely known as super delegates) for a primary candidate before their constituents even vote in their primary is considered, in any way, a fair electoral process. Even more amazed it hasn’t been brought into this particular conversation. That practice needs to go the way of the dinosaurs, just saying.

  17. It’s essentially equivalent to false advertisement. You don’t donate to a candidate that you assume has no chance. They are a f’ing mafia, bullying the public out of their money.

  18. Becoming more connected to our political process, I came to the realization that the political parties were a “club” – similar to the American Legion or the Loyal order of the Moose….. with one tremendous difference: the political parties can and often have determined who would lead the United States of America. The story that anything is “fair game” in politics has been used falsely for years to cover up their corrupt ways. It is time to realize that the citizens in this country deserve a fair and impartial vote.

  19. The DNC are fascists. Hitler did the same thing when he took over control of Germany. He killed the democratic process and chose who would run. I hope the judge slashes them to confetti. Fascists weasels.

      1. No, he’s correct. Witness Soros’ version of Hitler’s Sturmabteilung rioting in the cities, and suppressing free speech on California campuses. The democrats are inarguably the fascists.

  20. Zack- are you a lawyer? Where did you go to law school? Your “analysis” is garbage and shows you don’t have a clue about our legal system or how to make a proper legal argument. The DNC lawyers are 100% correct. Damages to the public? What the fuck are these idiots even talking about? You’re nothing but a self-promoting liar… immigration specialist? Oh really? Maybe get a law degree before you call yourself that.

    1. Stella Do not forget I know you and you are no LAWYER yourself just a self proclaimed know it all I would not be attacking another person because you think they should be what you decide they are. It was much more thoughtful than your 100% claims Show us where that stat came from… your back pocket or nearby?

  21. Good analysis, well written. PLEASE LINK AND SHARE with your local news people in particular. Local papers, blogs and radio stations.

  22. That article by Zach was a breath of fresh air. This is an amazing case with what appears to have a stand up judge overseeing it. Keep up the good work and knipping at their heels!

  23. you demo-crates are finished….watch…..you are crooked, you steel, you lie….you are the worst and i am wondering why people voted for a corrupt party such as yourselves…..i guess these people are just morons….you cannot be trusted…your so call leaders are corrupt….maybe Kim will bomb your headquarters for good….

  24. Bernie Sanders should be required to apologize to the democrats of Vermont over lying about running as a Democrat and then runs as an independent the day after the primary. Bernie Sanders is the biggest fraud in the history of US Senate races where he runs as a Democrat 1 day and the next says no thanks to being nominated as the Democratic nominee so that the Vermont Democratic Party can’t nominate the 2nd runner up as its nominee. Now on the 2016 primary season it is Bernie Sanders who silenced everyone else running like hogging media time and near bribery of the media. So Bernie is no victim. The DNC knew he was always a fraud and knew he screws the Democratic Party for 27 years he ran everytime.

  25. With all that’s at stake coming up in November 2018, this can do nothing to help us take back the House and Senate. Let’s get focused on what WE should be doing, capturing the House and then the Senate. Our opponent’s job is to divide us. Lets not help them. It’s time to get to work.

  26. So I am not completely versed in this and I would like to know. Is there any certain way we would be able to find out the defendant lawyers name? This person is a TRAITOR! Just through basic deduction, you can see they are defending a way to subvert PUBLIC contributions. This person, or board of lawyers, should be ASHAMED of what they are doing. Now we should just shame them. Memes, the internet speak and more. So is there any way?

  27. Do we have enough tar, feathers and rails to run all 239 current federally elected members of the democratic party out of town and out of our lives? If not, do we have enough rope?

  28. After the motion to dismiss is rejected I believe the curtain will open up even further. The really important questions beyond the proceeding is how this information can be brought mainstream enough to the average Democrat and mass media so Americans can know that we have no accountability in our democratic processes beyond sheer trust in their parties.

    1. Sounds like we need to fund our own PAC and buy commercial slots during the evening news. If they wont air a commercial we can file a Class Action lawsuit against all of them.

      Not sure about advertising laws, but as long as the content isn’t objectionable or slandering the station it’s airing on, then the grounds would be discrimination and first right amendments.

      Just a thought. There’s more than peaceful protests to push back with.

      $27 each might make a great start.

  29. Eeww!!! Why does this guy have no clothes on. Great coverage of the oral argument (I have a legal background) but I’m so disgusted by the writer I’ll never come back.

  30. Thank you BRAINDEAD BERNIE-BOTS for helping destroy my country YOU SPOILED LITTLE CRY-BABIES. Dupes of treasonous Republicans (like your Reagan judge) and the Russians. Are you too stoopid to see this?
    Your lawsuit makes no sense. If you wanted Bernie (not a Democrat) no one forced you to “donate” the supposed money you supposedly gave the DNC- or if you donated your supposed money to Bernie- either way- you chose to donate – the DNC owes you nothing- even if your fantasy of dem-hate has a even grain of truth (which it doesn’t- MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR HILLARY) you were not duped by the DNC and/or Debbie, you were duped by BERNIE- and the Republicans, and the Russians and your own delusions- thinking your vote is more more important than someone else’s.

    1. Jerry, I think you do not understand the complaint of the lawsuit. No one that I am aware of is claiming that the DNC nor Bernie forced them to fork over money. The argument is that the DNC, in their charter and in public statements, claimed their process for selecting a candidate would be fair (such as, specifically, “impartial” and “even-handed”.) Since it was not, the argument is that anyone was defrauded who gave the DNC money that would not have given them money under the expectation that the DNC’s process would be as declared. And now, in the oral arguments, we see that the DNC both argues that they never really promised what any reasonable person would interpret what they meant by their words, and that they thus were premeditatively defrauding, and assert the right to do so.

      Also, perhaps you also misunderstand the contention that the DNC’s machinations in favor of Hillary tilted the Dem vote in her direction. If that is true, than if they had not, Bernie would have received a greater percentage of Dem votes, possibly more then Hillary. In that case, a claim that Hillary received more Dem votes than Bernie, so STFU, would be tantamount to saying that since that an outcome successfully manipulated justifies its manipulation.

      You seem to share my extreme displeasure with Hair Furor being in the White House. To that I add the Regressive Party majorities in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and various State offices. I assert that the only way to have avoided that outcome would have been for Bernie to have been the Dem candidate. That would have brought the Millenials to the polls in droves, and lots of saner Republicans would have voted for Bernie instead of Hair Furor.

      1. I just had to take time to thank you for the term “Hair Furor” for Comrade Drumpf! It’s a new one for me, and one I will certainly use myself! Thank you. *two big thumbs up*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>