Will the Dnc Rig the Primary Again
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the example, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the example at a loss for words.
The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Political party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the showtime amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel likewise argued that considering of Jared Beck'southward outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Brook repeatedly refers to the DNC equally "shi*bags" on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of Showtime Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel likewise took consequence with Jared Beck for what they termed every bit: "…Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an endeavour to bolster attention for this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the label of the Becks equally peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the movement for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated telephone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks inappreciably appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued:
There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign."
The brief continued:
…To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary to long-continuing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the primal and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when information technology comes to selecting the party's nominee for public part."
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that adulterous a candidate in the master process is protected under the first subpoena.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to engage candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Autonomous Party nether the conventionalities that the DNC would deed impartially towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the contempo finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible equally evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly open-door in a United States courtroom of constabulary, then the contents of the leaked emails could exist used to argue that, contrary to the defendant'due south latest brief, the DNC did in favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the entreatment of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
Top Photo | Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at a entrada rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, March 15, 2016. (AP/Ricardo Arduengo)
Elizabeth Vos is the Co-Founder and Editor in Main at Disobedient Media.
© Disobedient Media
Source: https://www.mintpressnews.com/dnc-lawyers-argue-primary-rigging-protected-first-amendment/238133/
0 Response to "Will the Dnc Rig the Primary Again"
Post a Comment