Thousands of Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Suing the DNC in a Massive Class Action Lawsuit

[Will Wiley]

Thousands of Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Suing the DNC in a Massive Class Action Lawsuit

The basis for the lawsuit stems from DNC internal communications published by hacker Guccifer 2.0, who took ownership of the compromising of DNC servers and allegedly leaked their contents. Among other items, the leaks revealed emails showing the DNC had been actively working behind the scenes to boost Hillary Clinton’s profile in the media as early as May 26, 2015, nearly a month after Sanders had entered the race for the Democratic nomination.

New leaks published this week showed the DNC spent time and resources assessing Clinton’s vulnerabilities as a candidate in the early summer of 2015, and the DNC even drafted talking points for campaign operatives to suggest as narratives to members of the media, attempting to inject their own phrasing into third-party stories.

Beck said he believes the lawsuit will be successful, as Article 5, Section 4 of the charter and bylaws of the Democratic Party explicitly requires the chair of the DNC to remain impartial during the primary process:

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Good them. Nothing makes for a classy loser more than holding your breath until you turn blue and having a good cry. It's how you get people to respect your views and listen to you.

When the election's over, they should join this to Trump's lawsuit in the landmark Trump v Everybody's-Stupid-And-Corrupt-Except-Me case.

 

[dismal]

The Democratic party is essentially a private club. I strain to see how anyone is entitled to anything within it under the law. The US courts should just say: it's your club, you figure this out amongst yourselves.

 

[Terrell]

Seriously? Bernie lost, get over it. Liberals, you have a chance to move SCOTUS a little to the left by having a Democrat replacing Scalia, or you can pass this chance in the name of ideological purity. Remember, if you choose to take a pass on this opportunity, you may not get another one for a long time.

Any liberal president you'd get, still has to be able to get his policies through Congress, and needs SCOTUS to uphold them when conservatives inevitably challenge whether or not they're constitutional. You get to vote on Congress frequently but you don't get that with SCOTUS, and it's inimical to getting the policies you want if you're willing to sacrifice opportunities to get SCOTUS. If you want to get around gerrymandering then remember to vote in your elections for governor & state legislature.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, what is the remedy if the DNC broke certain rules? That doesn't disqualify Clinton.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, what is the remedy if the DNC broke certain rules? That doesn't disqualify Clinton.

I don't see how they can SUE over this. As stated above, it is more like a private club. Can't they nominate whoever they want? Are their rules laws or just party rules, the breaking of which are a party matter? Yes, it does show favouratism within the party and that the DNC lied to democrats, but I don't see how that's actionable. It basically undercuts the credibility of the DNC and makes for a good argument that the nomination procedure is rigged, but that's all it does.

Remember, if you choose to take a pass on this opportunity, you may not get another one for a long time.

I am still not convinced that it is much of an opportunity. She is likely to win with or without Bernie supporters selling out, or settling for the lesser of two evils, and it isn't even really clear that she is the lesser of two evils or the more liberal candidate. She's the big money candidate for wall street. Trump is just a guy boosting his own ego and a big question mark on policy. And I'm even still suspicious that they may have been in cahoots together since the start of the primaries. He took out her real competition from the right of her as she took out her competition from the left of her.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't see how they can SUE over this. As stated above, it is more like a private club. Can't they nominate whoever they want? Are their rules laws or just party rules, the breaking of which are a party matter? Yes, it does show favouratism within the party and that the DNC lied to democrats, but I don't see how that's actionable. It basically undercuts the credibility of the DNC and makes for a good argument that the nomination procedure is rigged, but that's all it does.

Except that people can say they donated and/or volunteered time to the DNC under the pretense of their explicitly stated rules. If those rules were broken, then it's fraud.

That said, it could be tough to prove that the bylaws were actually violated. What exactly does "impartial" mean? The DNC entire role is to promote and increase the appeal of democratic candidates relative to non-democrats. Promoting Clinton doesn't equate to being impartial unless they also tried to make Bernie look bad by comparison.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see how they can SUE over this. As stated above, it is more like a private club. Can't they nominate whoever they want? Are their rules laws or just party rules, the breaking of which are a party matter? Yes, it does show favouratism within the party and that the DNC lied to democrats, but I don't see how that's actionable. It basically undercuts the credibility of the DNC and makes for a good argument that the nomination procedure is rigged, but that's all it does.

That's a good point. It's like what the Dump Trump people are saying - the party rules aren't legal requirements and they can be ignored if people want to ignore them and the only disciplinary action available in response to this is by the parties themselves.

I also don't think that this was any kind of malfeasance on the DNC's part, but rather just that last summer, nobody really considered the possibility that Clinton would have any significant opposition in the primary to be a credible scenario. They assumed that she'd walk into the nomination and were making their plans accordingly. Sanders just caught them by surprise with the strength of his campaign.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am still not convinced that it is much of an opportunity. She is likely to win with or without Bernie supporters selling out, or settling for the lesser of two evils, and it isn't even really clear that she is the lesser of two evils or the more liberal candidate. She's the big money candidate for wall street. Trump is just a guy boosting his own ego and a big question mark on policy. And I'm even still suspicious that they may have been in cahoots together since the start of the primaries. He took out her real competition from the right of her as she took out her competition from the left of her.

Hard to believe she'd be that strategically inept. Trump is far more threat to her ambition than Cruz ever was.

 

[Treedbear]

...

Remember, if you choose to take a pass on this opportunity, you may not get another one for a long time.

I am still not convinced that it is much of an opportunity. She is likely to win with or without Bernie supporters selling out, or settling for the lesser of two evils, ...

If Clinton chose Warren as her VP she would capture the majority of Sanders' supporters. But Wall Street is threatening to cut off funding.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

But that shouldn't be a problem since Clinton has about $43M while Trump only has about $1.3M, and he won't lower himself to ask for help. Not to mention that Wall street's negative endorsement only increases respect for Warren's integrity. So which is more important? Given the capriciousness of the American electorate these days, how will Hillary feel if she loses by a few percent due to Sanders no shows?

 

[Uwe]

Should the DNC be exempt from the rules of election law?
A great deal of public money goes into funding the voting process.

 

[RVonse]

The Democratic party is essentially a private club. I strain to see how anyone is entitled to anything within it under the law. The US courts should just say: it's your club, you figure this out amongst yourselves.

Its a private club but it is a private club that has oligopoly power along with the republican club. Since the American people are effectively forced to participate in one of only 2 private clubs there has to be other protections provided by due process.

 

[Trausti]

Should the DNC be exempt from the rules of election law?
A great deal of public money goes into funding the voting process.

Who says it's exempt? Is there a specific election law you're referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

The Democratic party is essentially a private club. I strain to see how anyone is entitled to anything within it under the law. The US courts should just say: it's your club, you figure this out amongst yourselves.

Its a private club but it is a private club that has oligopoly power along with the republican club. Since the American people are effectively forced to participate in one of only 2 private clubs there has to be other protections provided by due process.

This has nothing to do with due process. If you don't like the the two top private clubs, join another or start your own.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should the DNC be exempt from the rules of election law?

I'm not aware of anyone breaking any election laws.

 

[Uwe]

Rhetorically, then, the answer is clearly: No.

First example I've googled up:
http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizona-ag-says-top-elections-official-broke-law/188395426

Several other locations are also being criticized if not prosecuted for questionable practices on or leading up to their primaries this season.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Of course the DNC isn't violating any laws.

Which is why the plaintiffs are filing a civil lawsuit for remediation instead of filing criminal charges and making arrests.

Presumably, the plaintiffs feel that the defendant acted in bad faith by not adhering to their own charter, and that said actions were the direct cause of damages to the party. It's not like anything will be overturned or anyone will go to jail over this. The plaintiffs are probably seeking to punish the DNC through fines and monetary rewards so that they don't engage in the damaging behavior again.

(I'm actually surprised that our libertarian friends take objection to this).

aa

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Should the DNC be exempt from the rules of election law?
A great deal of public money goes into funding the voting process.

Is this true? Primaries are funded through tax money? If that is so, then this isn't as much a slam dunk as I thought.

 

[Terrell]

I am still not convinced that it is much of an opportunity. She is likely to win with or without Bernie supporters selling out, or settling for the lesser of two evils, and it isn't even really clear that she is the lesser of two evils or the more liberal candidate. She's the big money candidate for wall street. Trump is just a guy boosting his own ego and a big question mark on policy. And I'm even still suspicious that they may have been in cahoots together since the start of the primaries. He took out her real competition from the right of her as she took out her competition from the left of her.

Do you think that Secy. Clinton would make the same appointment to replace Scalia as a Republican? As long as whomever her appointee is, is to the left of Anthony Kennedy overall, it's a leftward shift on the court, no matter how small. I'm not expecting her to make the appointment of someone that the Green Party would approve of. I don't know whether or not Trump is trolling; I wouldn't put it past him but I'll take the known quantity given my available options.

I'm not so sure she'll win the election. I'd still say that it's too early to know since we don't know whether or not the Never Trump faction of the Republicans will be successful in their attempt to overturn the vote. Last news on the matter I saw was a woman on Rachel Maddow's show (IIRC) that was saying she was pushing for a conscience clause so that the delegates were to be clearly told that they were unbound on the first vote. I don't know if anything will come of it, but I'm not going to make any predictions. If they do oust Trump I would not be surprised if there was some backlash but it may not be enough to overcome how Republicans, at least the most vocal of them, feel about Secy. Clinton. I also don't know who they're going to replace Trump with if they do dump him.

Even if Trump were to stay around, I still would not rule out the possibility that Secy. Clinton could lose. I think her chances of beating Trump are pretty good, but I want to see some post Labor Day trends before I feel more confident about it, and election results before I'm sure.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Should the DNC be exempt from the rules of election law?
A great deal of public money goes into funding the voting process.

Is this true? Primaries are funded through tax money? If that is so, then this isn't as much a slam dunk as I thought.

That's good point. If the parties take taxpayer dollars in exchange for performing a function, such as choosing a political nominee, then they aren't acting as private organizations and have a duty to the public to abide by the rules which they agreed to when receiving the tax dollars.

 

[dismal]

Is this true? Primaries are funded through tax money? If that is so, then this isn't as much a slam dunk as I thought.

That's good point. If the parties take taxpayer dollars in exchange for performing a function, such as choosing a political nominee, then they aren't acting as private organizations and have a duty to the public to abide by the rules which they agreed to when receiving the tax dollars.

The public funding for primaries was conditioned of following certain rules in the Democrat party charter? Cite?

In any case, the public should not be funding the primaries. The problem there being that the public is largely represented by the Democrats and Republicans.