Monday, May 22, 2017

DNC lawyers argue in open court that the party has no duty to hold a fair primary

Bayou Renaissance Man does journalism right.  This is a bombshell that the DNC people only feel comfortable making in public because they know for a certainty that the media will not report on it.

From the above linked article:

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.
Back when the Democrats had a normal nominating process, they picked George McGovern as their presidential candidate, who then went on to a spectacular defeat in the general election.

The party decided to change it's nominating process to ensure that such a calamity never happened again, and those changes basically ensured that party insiders ultimately made the choice of candidate, in the proverbial smoky rooms, and could freely ignore the popular, democratic choice.   What irony for a party called Democratic.  Of course that was all no consideration for the frightened leaders of this organization who were looking to keep that all important commodity, political power. The actual members of the party, the rank and file, could never again be trusted to pick the wrong candidate and thereby threaten their power and influence.

Now, we see the natural fruit of this terrible decision, namely a terrible candidate in the form of Hillary! that lost to a total political outsider that even his own party didn't like or truly support.  At least you can say for the Republicans and their nominating process that the only two rebel candidates (Trump and Cruz) came in first and second.

The Sanders people are correct.  The system was rigged against them, but then again, such rigging was no secret.  The conclusion of this litigation will be interesting to watch indeed.

Thanks to the Bayou Renaissance Man for finding this important story, and reporting on something that the MSM dare not touch.


  1. The DNC made no bones about the fact that party insiders, not the voting members of the party, would chose the next candidate. Thus, lying, corrupt Hillary was their pick. She was a good earner. Look how much money she brought into the Clinton Foundation when she was SECSTATE. That counts big time with the dems.

    1. Money talks, especially loudly to the venal and corrupt.

  2. It's not even corrupt. It's only the rubes who vote, who think their votes matter. There are about ten "third parties" in this country and none of then go to the trouble of holding primaries.

    It is totally fair for a club like a political party to select their candidates any way they see fit. Including selling the nominations to the highest bid.

    1. Legal? Yes. I'm not sure what "fair" means. I would have thought that a party with "Democrat" in its name would at least try to hide its contempt for actual democracy and the actual will of the actual voters--but then maybe I don't get out enough and there are still things capable of shocking me.

  3. Democrats could call upon God for His help- oh, but they thrice denied Him. How's that working out for you, Dems?

  4. And this is, again, reason number 45721 that I ask why we use State and Federal funds to pay for the Primary elections?

    Those elections are not General elections, but rather are to choose the candidate of a private organizations, either the GOP or the DNC. Neither should be conducted using public funds or publicly owned voting equipment

    Only the General election should use public funds or public equipment.