Did The DNC Help Hillary Clinton Beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
We'll just have to see what happens when the case comes to court. I offer the prediction that the arguments offered by the defence will include the lines that I have suggested, and that the result of the case will be unpredictable.
The law does not always agree with what the layman thinks is reasonable.

a reply to: DISRAELI

For instance let's take two scenarios ...

A. The DNC says we have already decided Hillary won, it's decided and over.
Would you donate to Hillary's DNC campaign?
Would you donate to Bernie's DNC campaign?

B. The DNC says we will not interfere and will be impartial and the candidate the people choose will win.
Would you donate to Hillary's DNC campaign?
Would you donate to Bernie's DNC campaign?

In scenario A there is no point for any party to donate. It is meaningless. So we have a situation where they claimed it was scenario B, but was in fact scenario A.

Like you said, this is not a predictable outcome. I am not saying who will win, I am only saying I see merit in the case, no matter who was donated to.

originally posted by: [post=22254770]DISRAELI[/post
Was the money donated to the DNC, as such, or to the candidate?
If they did not receive the money themselves, why should they refund it?

The DNC sought donations advertising through thier charter
impartiality, yet now argue they have no obligation
to be impartial. Logic applies.

The other problem comes as they attempt
a claim that they are a "private entity" yet entitled
to sovereign immunity.

Yet since they perpetrated the fraud that they
Were impartial, while actually choosing Hillary
they made themselves liable.

To me, there seems to be a gap in the logic of this lawsuit as it is being described.

The gap is they could have picked a candidate
in a back room if their charter advertised/allowed that.

They have a right to order thier affairs, but they must not commit
a civil fraud in doing so. Correct?

originally posted by: xuenchen
" The DNC argues that they have no obligation to uphold
thier own charter, claiming that is just a "promise"

Caveat...I haven't read anything on this lawsuit, yet.

BUT, I would think the DNC has a fiduciary duty to the party's members who donate...many of which were/are Bernie supporters.

With that in mind, the claim that they have no obligation to Bernie supporters who donated could not be more incorrect in the eyes of the law.

A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care. The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom he owes the duty, is typically referred to as the principal or the beneficiary. ... As a result, potential beneficiaries can have greater confidence in seeking out a fiduciary.

The DNC does not have any loyalty to it's members. Do one wrong thing and they boot you out. Fair weather friends.

They screwed Bernie over, but I cannot see this lawsuit as the answer to the problem. They should remove the people who are guiding the DNC. The DNC also did not help their congressmen much, they dumped everything into Hillary. For them backing someone who was so bad, I do not feel sorry for them if they lose this lawsuit and have to pay.

I don't pretend to know how the law applies in this case, but I do now that in employment law companies frequently get into trouble for not "following their own rules." Basically what this means is that an employer can do a whole lot of things in many different ways, but once the employer writes down what "rules" it intends to use, the employer must follow them. It's not an informal promise; it's an obligation. So even though an employer may be doing something not required by law, if it say it will do something, it must follow through. So it seem to me that this idea that their charter is "just a promise" is on shaky legal grounds.

a reply to: burntheships

The DNC argues that they have no obligation to uphold thier own charter, claiming that is just a "promise"

THIS is one of the saddest 'arguments' I have ever read.

Who would ever support such an organization? If this person was a 'friend' or acquaintance I would avoid them like the plague.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

Party politics and the unfair advantage of how money plays a roll on who gets more air time doesn't create a level playing field

It most certainly does to the average voter, and especially
so for young voters who may not have a history with either
Party. I will say though that this last cycle, the DNC was out
of historical parameters with thier deceit.

Adding on the point of Trump's campaign,
there was no nice way to deal with Hillary.

His campaign was, in my opinion positive
to a large degree in that he actually
had a slogan "Make America Great Again"

Hillary's was introverted. "I'm with Her"

a reply to: muzzleflash

Thanks Muzzle, good to see ya.

I see from your posts your doing well

originally posted by: rickymouse
They screwed Bernie over, but I cannot see this lawsuit as the answer to the problem. They should remove the people who are guiding the DNC. The DNC also did not help their congressmen much, they dumped everything into Hillary.

One thing I see in play here is that the DNC has many at the top
That have become thier own cause. In other words, it's a party
of old operatives who expect loyalty for name recognition.

Your very right in that this won't fix that, especially in
2018 since the names are all the same.

a reply to: burntheships

As someone who donated monthly to the Bernie Sanders campaign, I signed on to be a party to this lawsuit months ago and I'm glad to finally see some action.

There was a very intense anti-establishment mood that ran across party lines during the 2016 election that put some non-conventional candidates in the front runner positions of both parties.

The DNC had a mechanism in place for just such a contingency and they used it to quell the uprising on their side of the isle.

That mechanism was their pool of Super-Delegates of which the DNC establishment had total control.

Not having a similar safeguard in place, the GOP was unable to stop Trump's anti-establishment message from resonating with their voters and overwhelming his opponents.

So the DNC ends up running the most flawed candidate in their party's history and losing the election. Go figure!

Just to be clear, I'm not looking to get the money that I donated to Bernie Sanders returned or reimbursed.

As far as I'm concerned there is only one acceptable resolution to this dispute and that would be to end the practice of utilizing Super-Delegates in any fashion.

I will not send another dollar to another candidate from any political party that utilizes Super-Delegates, or any other mechanism that creates an outcome non-representative of the votes casts.

It would also appear that our electoral college is being utilized in the same manner and as such, is in need of attention and/or possible elimination.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: burntheships

It would also appear that our electoral college is being utilized in the same manner and as such, is in need of attention and/or possible elimination.

I was with you until here. It's not even the same thing. It worked like it was supposed to work. This is the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. Here's an electoral map showing how the USA voted by county.



An here's a thread on how the electoral college works.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But if I donated because I wanted Hillary to win, and thought I had to donate to help her, when all along she was the chosen one and my donation did nothing I should have standing to sue.

I agree. Good point.

originally posted by: Flatfish
It would also appear that our electoral college is being utilized in the same manner and as such, is in need of attention and/or possible elimination.

The EC worked as it was intended to work.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: burntheships

It would also appear that our electoral college is being utilized in the same manner and as such, is in need of attention and/or possible elimination.

I was with you until here. It's not even the same thing. It worked like it was supposed to work. This is the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. Here's an electoral map showing how the USA voted by county.

An here's a thread on how the electoral college works.

An election is not about area, it's about people and seeing how somewhere around 80 to 85% of the people live near the coasts, and the fact that Hillary actually got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, I say the system is outdated and flawed.

3,000,000 people is a lot of people and in a country where people vote and counties don't, our current electoral college system is hardly representative.

Hell, even dumbass Donald knows that. That's why he railed against it right up until it handed him the victory, then he praised it.

Hypocrisy anyone?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Flatfish
It would also appear that our electoral college is being utilized in the same manner and as such, is in need of attention and/or possible elimination.

The EC worked as it was intended to work.

A statement like that means nothing when it comes from someone who won despite the will of the people.

I'm waiting to hear you say that when you lose an election despite your 3,000,000 vote winning margin.

originally posted by: schuyler
ISo even though an employer may be doing something not required by law, if it say it will do something, it must follow through. So it seem to me that this idea that their charter is "just a promise" is on shaky legal grounds.

Your point has a lot of merit, imo.

In reading the DNC argument, a bit of the language
used is "political parties" and "political principles"
attempting to fuzz the lines, whitewashing the
civil fraud with the excusethat politics is twaddle.

Yet since they have a dated written charter, thier
promise to be impartial can't be dismissed without
consideration given to misreprepresentaion, and
unjust enrichment.

Imo, of course 👍

The DNC argues that they have no obligation to uphold thier own charter, claiming that is just a "promise"

maybe they should use that as their fund raising slogan for the next election?

They admit that they won`t keep their promises so why would any vote for a democrat?

a reply to: Flatfish

Agree with much of what you said, valid points.

On the EC, that is Apples to Oranges with the delegate issue.
Also, three million possibly illegal votes.