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