Court Concedes DNC, Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primaries For Hillary

[GURPS]

Court Concedes DNC, Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primaries For Hillary


The Washington Post trumpeted the news: "Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC," read the Aug. 25 headline.

“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 of the class-action lawsuit. “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.”

[clip]

The Observer quoted Jared Beck, "one of the leading attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit," who explained how a "motion to dismiss" works.

“The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled. Indeed, if you look at the ... Complaint, you will see that all of these allegations accepted by the Court specifically rely on cite materials that are readily available in the public record, and they support the inference that the DNC and the DWS rigged the primaries.”​

And there's the crux: the court "acknowledged that the allegation were well pled."

 

[Midnightrider]

Court Concedes DNC, Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primaries For Hillary


The Washington Post trumpeted the news: "Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC," read the Aug. 25 headline.

“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 of the class-action lawsuit. “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.”

[clip]

The Observer quoted Jared Beck, "one of the leading attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit," who explained how a "motion to dismiss" works.

“The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled. Indeed, if you look at the ... Complaint, you will see that all of these allegations accepted by the Court specifically rely on cite materials that are readily available in the public record, and they support the inference that the DNC and the DWS rigged the primaries.”​

And there's the crux: the court "acknowledged that the allegation were well pled."

derps getting spun up by headlines again.....


if you bothered to actually read the base story you would see that the court only assumed the facts in the case were true in order to determine if the plaintiffs had standing. That doesn't mean that the court accepted the plaintiffs case as true, only that assumed everything they claimed was true, yet still:

Having done so ... the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”

 

[GURPS]

Reading Comprehension isn't your strong suit is it .........


“The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled. Indeed, if you look at the ... Complaint, you will see that all of these allegations accepted by the Court specifically rely on cite materials that are readily available in the public record, and they support the inference that the DNC and the DWS rigged the primaries.”

 

[Midnightrider]

Reading Comprehension isn't your strong suit is it .........


“The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled. Indeed, if you look at the ... Complaint, you will see that all of these allegations accepted by the Court specifically rely on cite materials that are readily available in the public record, and they support the inference that the DNC and the DWS rigged the primaries.”

no reading comprehension is not YOUR strong suit.

those are the words of the lawyer for the plaintiff who is spinning you up. The court said "lets say everything you say is true, you still don't have a case, dismissed". that is not an acceptance of the facts as presented. God Damn you are stupid

 

[GURPS]

God Damn you are stupid

so you have nothing but insults

 

[Hank]

Headline Whore!

 

[SamSpade]

I'm wondering how they presented the case.

It's always been my contention that a party can pick any person they want to, which is actually how they always USED to do it.
Primaries are a fairly *recent* thing. If I created my own party - I would think I should have the right to nominate anyone I wanted to, without having to open it to every voter in the country - or even to every voter registered with my party.

On the other hand, if you make a pretense of allowing a primary while all along rigging it for the one you want - that seriously strikes me as fraudulent. People are spending MONEY to nominate someone the party has no intention of allowing in.

 

[GURPS]

On the other hand, if you make a pretense of allowing a primary while all along rigging it for the one you want - that seriously strikes me as fraudulent. People are spending MONEY to nominate someone the party has no intention of allowing in.

IMHO the Bloom Is Off The Peach

what is critical, will anyone remember / care ?

if the party really is the arbiter of whom makes to General Elections, let us just skip 18 months of non stop BS

 

[SamSpade]

those are the words of the lawyer for the plaintiff who is spinning you up. The court said "lets say everything you say is true, you still don't have a case, dismissed". that is not an acceptance of the facts as presented.

Well, the headline was not written by the OP.

And I get this. I am not a lawyer, but I've even seen this on Judge Judy. "So what if they DID do this, this is small claims court, and it didn't affect you, case dismissed".

That makes sense. I just wonder if they COULD have built a case on fraud - but I am guessing the plaintiff would HAVE to be Sanders and/or his supporters.

 

[SamSpade]

IMHO the Bloom Is Off The Peach

what is critical, will anyone remember / care ?

if the party really is the arbiter of whom makes to General Elections, let us just skip 18 months of non stop BS

I can't recall a time when the nominee WASN'T whom the party wanted - until Trump.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, the headline was not written by the OP.

And I get this. I am not a lawyer, but I've even seen this on Judge Judy. "So what if they DID do this, this is small claims court, and it didn't affect you, case dismissed".

That makes sense. I just wonder if they COULD have built a case on fraud - but I am guessing the plaintiff would HAVE to be Sanders and/or his supporters.

that's why I said derps was getting spun by the headline. He is a sucker and as per usual, he got taken by a ridiculous headline


who knows, there might not be any case there at all, or it might be that the wrong people brought it or to the wrong court. what is important is, the court DID NOT CONCEDE anything, they dismissed the case.

 

[GURPS]

that's why I said derps was getting spun by the headline. He is a sucker and as per usual, he got taken by a ridiculous headline

As Per Usual - You Don't Know WTF YOU are Talking about ......

I was hooked by nothing Midnight, but I sure reeled you in

 

[SamSpade]

who knows, there might not be any case there at all, or it might be that the wrong people brought it or to the wrong court.

Which is my thought.

I do think a party is completely within their rights to just say, this is our nominee, if you don't like it, there's the door.
But once they allow campaigns and candidates, they are having MONEY pouring into elections, and you can't have that if the whole thing is a fraud.
I do wonder why Bernie hasn't run with this.

The one thing that might disturb me is the idea that Bernie might not be concerned about the nomination as much as getting his message out.
He wasn't often all that abrupt or sharp with Hillary and might just as well be happy with her being nominated.

Every time I watch "House of Cards" I think to myself - how close to the TRUTH might this all be?

 

[GURPS]

Which is my thought.

I do think a party is completely within their rights to just say, this is our nominee, if you don't like it, there's the door.

then what is the point of the Primaries :shrug:

Choosing Delegates for the Convention ?

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don't hold primaries or caucuses.

Even with Trump's huge projected delegate haul in four state primaries Tuesday, the odds are increasing the billionaire businessman may not ultimately get the 1,237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination before the convention.

The Primaries Aren’t Democratic? They’re Not Supposed to Be Democratic.
The parties are doing what parties are built to do: pick the candidates who best represent them.

It’s true that the system is full of quirks. Why do some states award their delegates proportionally, others by congressional district, and others by winner-take-all? Why do some conduct open primaries, while others restrict participation to caucusgoers? Why does a Republican delegate elected by Trump supporters get to vote for Ted Cruz at the convention? You can quarrel with any of these rules. But let’s not pretend that everyone deserves a say in choosing the nominees. Parties are entitled to privilege their members and choose candidates who best represent their ideas. Trump and Sanders don’t necessarily fit the bill.

Last weekend, Trump’s top aides went on the Sunday shows to complain about the Republican process. “What this election has shown is that when voters participate, Donald Trump wins,” said Trump’s convention manager, Paul Manafort. That’s misleading. What the election has shown is that in a multicandidate field, Trump usually gets a plurality. So far, the only place in which he has won a majority is his home state, New York.

As the race has narrowed, Trump’s advantage has shrunk. That’s why he got spanked in Wisconsin. And that raises a hard question: Does Trump truly represent Republican voters? Or is his lead in the delegate race a residual artifact of a multicandidate field? Even now, John Kasich’s persistence as a third candidate is propping up Trump. Look at two national polls taken this month. A Fox News poll shows that if Kasich were to drop out, 55 percent of his voters would go to Cruz. Only 24 percent would go to Trump. A CBS News poll indicates that if Kasich were to quit, Trump’s lead over Cruz would shrink from 13 points to 10 points, leaving Trump still short of a majority.

 

[SamSpade]

then what is the point of the Primaries :shrug:

Choosing Delegates for the Convention ?

Depends.

But they were created over time to give the party members a greater say in the process. They really only began to be a big thing in our own lifetime - after 1968.

And in fact, around the world, primaries are still not the way parties choose their candidates.

The FACT is, the party apparatus itself DOESN'T like to be thwarted. Each party has added its own super delegates or something equivalent to be able to step in and say, sorry, we're changing the outcome. You're not nominating a wino or a dead cat, we're taking over. (That was an oblique reference to "Bloom County").

They're content to just let the process run so long as it doesn't go the way they want. Sure, Bill Bradley, run against Gore. Sure Dole, run against Bush. Sure Buchanan, run against - damn, he won New Hampshire - oh ok, go ahead and run against Dole. We don't care. OUR guy will win.

Until Trump, their guy ALWAYS won. The primary was a beauty contest to throw the voters a bone. See, he's YOUR choice.

 

[Hijinx]

Is there a law against fixing an election, when it is done by the party?

 

[transporter]

As Per Usual - You Don't Know WTF YOU are Talking about ......

I was hooked by nothing Midnight, but I sure reeled you in

So someone shows you to be stupid and you are proud because you "reeled" them in?

BTW...the actual judge's decision is here (linked in the original WaPo article but conveniently not linked from your "source")

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf

And here is the conclusion...I'll post this for others, since you likely won't be able to read/understand it:

V. Conclusion
“Federal Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over cases where
the parties lack standing.” Florida Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S.
Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2012).
Because Plaintiffs do not allege a causal link between their
donations and the DNC’s statements, they lack standing to assertthe fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the First
Amended Complaint (DE 8). Their breach of fiduciary duty claim in
Count V relies on a harm far too diffuse to constitute an injuryin-
fact in federal court. And their negligence claim in Count VI
is buffered by too many layers of speculation and conjecture to
create the immediacy of harm necessary to unlock this Court’s
jurisdiction. That being so, Plaintiffs have not “present[ed] a
live case or controversy,” and the Court “must dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

At no point does the judge claim the plaintiff's argument was well plead. In fact on page 12, the exact opposite observation is made:

Putting aside these pleading deficiencies, it is also apparent
that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert each of the causes of
action raised in this putative class action.

You must be just thrilled now, huh? Guess you reeled me in too!

Anyone else?

 

[Midnightrider]

As Per Usual - You Don't Know WTF YOU are Talking about ......

I was hooked by nothing Midnight, but I sure reeled you in

As I said before, god damn you are stupid.

 

[Hank]

As I said before, god damn you are stupid.

He sure got you! Hook, line & sinker!

 

[littlelady]

He sure got you! Hook, line & sinker!

Yes, he did.