How the DNC Stated They Are Not Required to Tally Votes to Choose Candidates

Table of Contents: Select a Link to be Taken to That Section

Executive Summary

The DNC was sued for cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination.
Their defense was that they do not owe voters to select the vote winner.

Introduction

Democratic candidates can’t stop using the term “democracy”; however, the DNC has claimed it is under no obligation when it comes to using the actual votes to choose candidates. Therefore they cannot be sued for declaring the winner those that did not get the most votes. There are two amazing things about this court case. The first is what the DNC’s attorneys said in court to defend their case. The second amazing thing is how the DNC-controlled media covered up the facts of the case and made it seem in their e as if the case was dismissed because it had a valid claim.

Go to top

The Fact of the Case

The reliable information on this case exclusively came from non-establishment sources. I will start with those — so you know the reality of what occurred. Then I will move into the propagandistic articles from the DNC-aligned establishment media that provided false coverage of the case.

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.

The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. – Observer

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter and did not know the primaries were rigged. Overall, this is a very bizarre counterargument. Is there some poll that DNC attorneys can point to that answer the question of what percentage of all Democratic voters know that the DNC rigs its elections? I assume the answer is no. Secondly, if the DNC is rigging its elections, then why is the DNC holding elections? If they are going to choose the winners — then why not skip elections? Elections give the impression that the voters get to choose the winner.

This was the argument presented by the group suing the DNC for rigging the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.” He added, “Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter. And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.” – Observer

This quote contains an inaccuracy. The US is a republic. However, in republics, the people vote for representatives. There seems to be some confusion that only democracies have voting, and there are no democracies today. All of the democracies in the Greek states were based upon the citizens having an average of five enslaved people each — along them the time to be informed — hence Plato’s support for slavery as essential to the contributions of the citizen.

The next point is that the DNC’s charter states that elections will be fair and impartial.

If it can be shown that they are not fair and impartial, which was demonstrated due to email leaks during the Clinton vs. Sanders election, then the DNC is engaging in fraud.

In the following quote, the DNC attorneys argued that the party is a private organization, so they can do whatever they like. And that they cannot be held to their charter. This is amazing, but this is what they argued in court.

This is your periodic reminder that the “Democratic Party” is not an organization that Democratic voters belong to or have any right to control. The Democratic Party is instead a private organization, much like a club, that non-members support by giving it their money, their time and their votes. (The same is true of the “Republican Party.) All other “rights” and promises offered by the Party to its supporters, including those obligations described in the DNC charter, are not obligations at all, but voluntary gifts that can be withdrawn at any time. – Observer

However, here is a question for the DNC — at what point did they inform the Democratic voters that they were withdrawing their voluntary gift of running fair elections? Or was that notification never given? Did the DNC update its charter to say they were no longer running fair elections?

No Court Can Interpret the Terms “Impartial” and “Evenhanded”

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

The DNC attorneys even go so far as to argue that the words “impartial” and “evenhanded”—used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law. Beck retorted, “I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.” – Observer

If the court cannot interpret the words impartial and evenhanded, then the words have no meaning — which is essentially what the DNC attorneys argued. They continued to say that all their charter laws are discretionary rules.

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries. – Naked Capitalist

How the Establishment Media Lied About the Case

The jaw-dropping lies presented unabashedly by the DNC in court were suppressed and manipulated in the establishment media to make it appear that the arguments against the DNC were without merit. The Washington Post, USA Today, CBS12 (a local news channel), and Politico all misrepresented this story in their coverage. Let us begin with USA Today.

USA Today

The Supreme Court is declining to revive a lawsuit by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who sued the Democratic National Committee in 2016 over claims officials improperly tipped the scales for Hillary Clinton during the nominating process.

The justices said Monday they would not take up the lawsuit. As is usual the court did not comment in turning away the case.

The lawsuit was filed after leaked DNC emails suggested Democratic party officials had favored Clinton over the Vermont senator during the primaries.

The emails were posted on the document disclosure website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks did not say who provided the material, but 12 Russian military intelligence officers were ultimately indicted in connection with the DNC hack and hacking of the Clinton presidential campaign. – USA Today

Notice that USA Today shifts attention away from the content of the emails — which are damning and make a claim about Russia’s hacking. First, those 12 Russian military officers were never prosecuted — and none of the claims about Russia hacking anything have ever turned out to be true. But secondly, the authenticity of the material is not in question.

According to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the release was part of a sweeping conspiracy by Russia to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.

DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation following the leaks.

The lawsuit by Sanders supporters was dismissed at an early stage and an appeals court had upheld the dismissal. – USA Today

Russiagate has been thoroughly discredited. However, notice that USA Today never covers anything about the lawsuit and only states the case was dismissed. This was the entirety of the article by USA Today. This is 177 words, which leaves the reader with both false information and complete censorship of what the DNC stated in the case.

Washington Post’s Coverage

A year-long legal battle over the Democratic National Committee’s handling of the 2016 presidential primary came to an end Friday, with a federal judge in Florida dismissing a class-action suit brought by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). – Washington Post

Notice the author for the Post wants to get this point out of the way immediately — this helps present the undercurrent that the case must have had no validity. However, observe how moronic the logic is of the judges who dismissed the case.

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary,” Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. “To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.” – Washington Post

This must be because the court is either corrupt or mentally deficient. The case presented by the plaintiffs was excellent. The DNC has been engaging in fraud, and the DNC attorneys essentially admitted this with their response. Furthermore, the statement, “To the extent, Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, ” makes no sense. There is no redress through the ballot box because the DNC is rigging the ballot box. They controlled the ballot box and admitted in court that they were not required to run impartial or evenhanded elections. Did the judge that made that decision listen to the information presented in the trial?

However, the way this is presented by the Washington Post, all of the information required to see how ridiculous the court’s decision was — are conveniently left out of the article.

The lawsuit, which its supporters promoted with the hashtag #DNCFraudLawsuit, grew out of the 2016 hack of the DNC that eventually led to the release of thousands of documents on the website DCLeaks. On July 28, 2016, Florida attorneys Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed a civil complaint, alleging that the hacked emails had revealed a DNC that was plotting to get Hillary Clinton through the primaries, defrauding its donors, and exposing them to harm through shoddy information security. – Washington Post

The post would have no idea if the DNC were hacked, and no evidence has been presented that supports the DNC was hacked.

The establishment media continue to repeat false claims about the DNC being hacked and Russiagate long after both have been disproven.

Furthermore, whether one thinks the emails were hacked — the emails did show that the DNC cheated Bernie out of the nomination. The Washington Post wants to make a false allegation about hacking, not discuss the content of emails whose authenticity is not in question.

Nothing ever posted on Wikileaks has ever been shown to be inauthentic. This is because Wikileaks very carefully vets information before publication — something that can’t be said for the Washington Post. However, everything on Wikileaks is offensive and problematic for the elites. This is why the establishment media has never fought for Julian Assange’s release. The establishment media supports the elites — and Julian Assange provides information the elites do not want the public to see. This is why the establishment media is happy that Assange is soon to be killed in prison by the US government. Assange is going to be tried under the espionage act — an act that only applies to US citizens. Assange is an Australian citizen, and no one in the establishment media cares. However, while ignoring Assange’s plight — how he is being persecuted for exposing US war crimes, the New York Times has a continual feed on false war crimes committed by the Russians. Trumped-up war crimes by US enemies are endorsed by the Pentagon — however, exposing US war crimes, much less so.

The DNC filed a petition to dismiss the complaint on July 22, the week the party’s convention got underway — and the week that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigned as DNC chair. But the case dragged on into 2017, with the Becks heavily promoting the case on Twitter and through their super PAC, JamPAC. In April, the Becks and the DNC’s attorneys met in court, with the Becks arguing that the hacked emails had shown the DNC violated its charter, with staffers talking openly about how to elect Clinton. – Washington Post

This author has a peculiar obsession with calling the emails hacked. Again whether they were hacked or not has nothing to do with their authenticity, and these are two different topics entirely. The DNC did not dispute the authenticity of the emails — did this author ever think to question why that is?

“We have a wealth of information that was released by WikiLeaks that comes from emails from officials of the DNC, as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign, which really, I think, flesh out and fill in the detail of this really seminal internal document that Guccifer released,” Jared Beck said. “These additional leaks have shown that DNC officials participated in creating and disseminating media narratives to undermine Bernie Sanders and advance Hillary Clinton.”

Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn’t really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses. – Washington Post

The argument carried the day to judges who are either corrupt or inept. Recall the earlier statement that the redress to a case about how the DNC rigged elections was through the ballot box and not the court system. Furthermore, how can it be impossible to determine who would have the standing to claim they had been defrauded? Every Democrat voter was defrauded, and they were sold a fair and evenhanded election and received the opposite. Finally, Spiva did not make a “hypothetical argument.” That was Spiva’s argument. He did not hypothetically argue that the votes did not bind the party — Spiva said in no uncertain terms that the votes do not bind the DNC.

The DNC Defines Evenhandedness and Impartiality?

“The party has the freedom of association to decide how it’s gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party,” said Spiva. “Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I’ll put it that way.” – Washington Post

Spiva argues here that the DNC can interpret the words evenhandedness and impartiality to mean the exact opposite. They can choose any candidate they want and, after any election, can destroy all of the votes if they so desire.

In the corners of the media where the lawsuit was covered most, that answer became infamous — proof that the defeated Democrats did not respect the will of the voters. “The DNC reportedly argued that the organization’s neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a ‘political promise,’ and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process,” a reporter for Newsweek wrote. – Washington Post

Yes, you see, it was considered proof of this because it is proof of this. Democrats do not respect the will of the voters. Spiva is evident on that matter. That was the logic for why the Sanders supporters could not sue — the DNC can’t be held accountable for counting votes.

The entire article by the Post is nothing but a series of misdirections to try to make the reader think that the whole case is of no consequence.

Conclusion

The establishment media wholly covered up the story and made it seem that there was nothing to see and nothing to learn from the court case — when the court case was an enormous insight into how the DNC functions. When emails were leaked from the DNC, the establishment media directed attention away from what the emails said into an unsupported and later proven false claim that Russia hacked the emails. It is impossible to write these articles without knowing exactly what you are doing, which means the journalists at the establishment media entities are actively engaging in deceitful writing.