![](http://i.imgur.com/1oGVNOv.png")
Posted on 06/25/2017 5:04:28 PM PDT by markomalley
In another early morning tweet, President Donald Trump once again harkened back to the election — this time to accuse the Democratic National Committee of colluding with the Clinton campaign. While critics have blasted Trump for his “fake news” tweets, this time he might actually have a point. In fact, in recent court filings, attorneys for the Democratic National Committee basically conceded this point.
A lawsuit, filed by Bernie backers in Florida, seeks to answer that very question. Is the DNC legally allowed to collude with Clinton? Did they violate DNC rules by allegedly favoring her?
“The DNC was biased in favor of one candidate – Hillary Clinton – from the beginning and throughout the process,” the plaintiffs wrote in their original lawsuit filed last July. The complaint alleges fraud, as well as negligence as it relates to a Russian Hack on the DNC server. The Bernie backers contend that the trove of DNC emails posted by Wikileaks further proves that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
In order to get the case dismissed, attorneys for the DNC have utilized some very clever lawyering — and in the process basically confirmed every Bernie backers’ worst fear — that the DNC was biased against their man. The attorneys, in a motion to dismiss, argued that Sanders’ supporters donated knowing that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton, and therefore the lawsuit should be thrown out.
“Indeed, publicly available information demonstrates that several proposed class representatives made donations in spite of—indeed, in many cases likely because they accepted as true—the claims of bias,” the DNC’s response reads.
The filing goes on to give some examples:
For example, Rick Washik, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 2016 and June 2016, months after posting a link to a petition that claimed that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was biased. Catherine Cyko, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 28, 2016 and June 30, 2016, after she posted an article accusing the DNC of bias Marlowe St. Cloud Primacy made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign on March 8, 2016, several days after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias. H. Rosalie Consiglio, made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign a week after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias. And Sean Lynch, a proposed class representative for the DNC Donor Class, announced in a June 17, 2016 post he “donated three bucks to the Dem party so [he] can participate in the class action law suit against them.” Ex. K. This sample demonstrates that, aside from not being actionable, Plaintiffs’ theory that donors relied upon Defendants’ statements about neutrality to make donations they would not have otherwise made is not plausible
So basically, the theory is that because there Bernie backers knew that the DNC was biased (or thought it was), they weren’t duped, and therefore the lawsuit has no merit. At last check, a judge has not made a ruling on the motion to dismiss, and the litigation is ongoing. Trump has been accused of forgetting to consult his lawyers before he tweets, but this time it appears the DNC lawyers did the same with their P.R. team before picking that legal strategy. The legal maneuver might work for a judge, but in the court of public opinion, it reeks of collusion.
And with Putin.
The DNC colluded with the media too. And it was definitely for purposes of changing the outcome of the election.
Why didn’t they simply lie about it? Yes, the leaked e-mails were very clear and there is no denying them. But facts don’t matter. So why didn’t they simply lie about it?
“Is the DNC legally allowed to collude with Clinton? Did they violate DNC rules by allegedly favoring her?”
Donna Brazile working for CNN gives debate questions to Hillary before debate with Sanders. Donna Brazile was also interim DNC chairman.
Obstruction of justice!
Remind me to never click on a link to that website again.
Right. DNC, pedesta, hildabeast - none of them have denied even one email from the wikileaks dumps
More clever lawyering?
YES! Thank you.
I couldn’t have said it better so I just said it louder.
Hillary and the DNC plowed Bernie out of the way. This cost her a lot of support, hardly any of the Bernie voters swung over to her.
I think Bernie knew he was just playing the straight man anyway.
The obvious thing here is that Bernie was not a democRAT. He has been an independent, and I don’t think he registered as a democRAT since Vermont doesn’t require that.
So the collusion was to deny the party’s nomination to a non-democRAT and steer it to hILLary. He says he’s an independent, and has never really identified as a democRAT.
There’s no doubt that he was screwed by the “blabbermouth” and her henchmen and we’ll never know if he would have won the nomination outright without all the chicanery.
I don’t shed any tears for Bernie, he’s nothing but a filthy communist anyway.
They basically admitted it? The Podesta emails proved it!
We all know that Hitlery and Debbie What’s-Her-A$$-Schultz were fully colluding. It was known early in the campaign that Hitlery had already locked up all the votes to get her the nomination, she telegraphed it in 2015: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295202/No-wonder-Hillary-thinks-inevitable-votes-500-Democratic-establishment-superdelegates-locked-up.html.
Having DWS onboard and paying off all the key people including the delegates was the only to know this would happen. This is how the mafia rolls. You don’t do it by twisting arms, you put them on the payroll. Billary has been running government scams for 40 years, they have more than enough money to do this.
It’s getting hotter in the kitchen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
