Monday, May 22, 2017

Was the entire 2016 Democratic primary a sham, a fake, and a public lie?


I'm amazed by the sheer chutzpah of lawyers for the Democratic National Committee.  They've just argued openly in court, with a straight face, that the entire primary process for that party's Presidential nomination is nothing more than smoke and mirrors - and rightfully so.

There's a lawsuit in progress in Florida, where DNC contributors who supported Bernie Sanders' candidacy in 2016 are suing that organization.  A left-wing (not conservative) observer reports (bold, underlined text is my emphasis):

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.

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 lawyers to obscure the specificity of this guarantee in the Party’s charter.

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.

There's more at the link.  Copies of submissions to the court and other materials are provided as evidence to support the observer's report.  Highly recommended reading.

This is absolutely mind-blowing stuff.  The Democratic Party's National Committee is openly arguing, in court, for all the world to see, that it's entitled to rig the primary election process, disregard the democratically-expressed views of its party's members, and decide for itself who gets to be the party nominee for the Presidency.  It doesn't see itself as accountable to its members, and can even decide to violate with impunity its own clearly-expressed and (formerly) presumably binding policies and principles.  After its machinations were exposed, it's now arguing that no court has any jurisdiction over its internal processes and procedures.  Effectively, the DNC is putting itself above the law and above its own party members.  It can do whatever it likes, and no-one else is allowed to comment, complain or intervene.

I would ask why the mainstream media hasn't bothered to report on this case in much more detail . . . but we all know why, don't we?  Can't have awkward things like facts affecting the narrative du jour, now!

If I were a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'd be absolutely mind-boggled at these revelations.  I'd be asking myself, very sincerely, how I could ever trust the Democratic Party to take me and/or my views seriously in future.




Peter

20 comments:

George said...

How much taxpayer money was spent on the sham primary in Florida? The Democrat Party can nominate whoever they want, but they should not be allowed to use our money to commit these frauds.

Old NFO said...

That is simply amazing... One, that they would ever ADMIT it, and two, that it's their defense. If this doesn't kill the current iteration of the democrat party, I don't know what will. Holy water, maybe???

Unknown said...

And the DNC insanity is ever-wonkier in California!! May all the infighting and cries of "injustice" start to Wake Them Up (or hang them out to dry). https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/can-the-progressivecentrist-split-in-democratic-pa.html

I'll second the vote for Holy Water.

May Peace be with you!

undomesticatedfeline said...

You can select from the candidates that We give you. That sounds familiar.

I know some Sanders supporters and I believe that they are starting to suspect that this is what happened. The question is, is that enough to get them to walk away?

Judy said...

Ever watch a union run a contract vote? Same operation, in fact all the rhetoric is about the same, too.

Mark Matis said...

The real question is:
"What will this country's 'Legal" system do?"

Wanna bet on the answer to that question?

That is why, as far as I am concerned, that pig hunting season opens as soon as President Trump is forced out of office.

bruce said...

I don't understand your thinking. The DNC is only looking when it has primaries. IT is a little upsetting to the voters but I have to agree the party has the right to do whatever it wants.

Anonymous said...

I think what is upsetting is that they bother with giving their supporters the impression that there was/is a choice. It is false advertising, which might be better grounds for a suit. The era of party bosses selecting candidates at meetings in dark, smoke-filled rooms was supposed to be a thing of the past, at least in the minds of a lot of (D) voters.

I'm more disappointed than surprised, personally. Although I suspect somewhere the ghost of Mark Hannah is pointing and laughing.

LittleRed1

Anonymous said...

I think many of us are pointing out that this has been a true reality, a de facto condition, on 'their' side for as long as we collectively remember. How silly 'those' voters are for falling for it. And rightfully so, as far as it goes.

I just want to point out the circus of seventeen candidates put forward by 'our' side. Or better, the only viable alternative side, without throwing your vote away. And also the internal struggles of the 'Young Turks' that lead to Reagan.

The best system on earth is subject to the whims of power-brokers on both sides. We only seem to succeed for a short time, during those instances where we 'break' the existing structure. Then in the chaos, force rational policy through.

Quickly, eagerly, desperately the cast aside reassert themselves and our opportunity is lost. Until the next time. Hopefully, we can keep doing it with free speach and ballots. Because when that fails, then things get very, very bad.

Just throwing in a little, we got problems too.
Paul

Will said...

Since they get federal funds for some of their activities, this may open them up to legal liabilities. IANAL, but I suspect that there may not be much legal leverage, otherwise, to hold them accountable to their own rules/guidelines.

Judy makes an astute observation regarding it resembling union voting activities. I was initially wondering why it was looking so familiar! Remember, the unions have been controlled by the Democrats since early days, so I'm sure there has been a lot of exchange of expertise between the two groups.

Sam L. said...

I say Bernie should sue for triple damages, AND for pain and suffering.

B said...

I ave asked many times....WHY do the Taxpayers EVER pay for primaries? It is not a General election, but one where the privately run Parties (both of 'em, plus whatever counts for a third option) choose their candidates. It should be paid for by the Parties, not by the public. Nor should State or county voter rolls be used. All that apparatus is (or should be) only used for the General election.

Anonymous said...

bruce and B both make very good points highlighting that a political party is definitely not duly elected government, nor is it a private corporation answerable to shareholders. Further, no sitting official should have the power to dictate their opposition's activities.

Maybe showing ignorance here, but what is the checking mechanism on their activity? Does one exist? Is it a flaw worth repair? How?

I shudder to think of the monstrosity that would be created if we let law makers do this, themselves. They've muddled it enough as it is during my lifetime.

While typing, I conclude it all rests on an informed and thoughtful electorate. Because seeking recourse from government allows laws that lead to fascism. Influence your friends, try not to make enemies, respect their opinions, then influence again. Keep cycling until we get it right.

LindaG said...

And democrat voters won't care. That is what boggles my mind.

Anonymous said...

Belonging to the DNC or any other political party is a personal choice and people join because they believe in and support the ideals and policies of the group. Being a member entitles you to participate in the determination of who is elected to run the organization and the content of the constitution and bylaws under which the organization operates. If you do not like the way it is run, work from within to change it or stop supporting it!

Anonymous said...

There is one mitigating factor: Bernie Sanders wasn't a Democrat. He was a Progressive Independent. He's no more a Democrat than Trump is a Republican.

I'm not sure it would have made a difference if he had been a dues-paying member, but it has to be considered.

Antibubba

bruce said...

" and Democratic voters won't care. That is what boggles the mind.'

I think they cared. Hillary is a True Believer D party hack- nothing outside the D party but darkness and wind. She doesn't talk to R party. When she demanded Trump accept the election results right after Wikileaks released emails showing she stole the primary from Bernie, she wasn't talking to Trump. He is the darkness. She was demanding Berniebros accept the stolen primary and vote for her. It was close, but not enough did.

(Different Bruce)

Timbo said...

If it is decided that Bernie was really the authentic candidate, does that mean we'll be having to rerun the 2016 election? I'll just leave that there. :)

Anonymous said...

+1 Antibubba

This was a defensive campaign against Bernie the Usurper and his merry band of snowflakes.

Gerry

Anonymous said...

So now the serpents have begun to fang each other.
Glorious.
The continuing chaos on the left is a joy to behold.

JackCrow