DNC battling class-action suit alleging Sanders was robbed in 2016

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/22/dnc-battling-class-action-suit-alleging-sanders-was-robbed-in-2016.html

[Dashinka 24,514]

Interesting, I think I mentioned those folks doing just that in another thread, but to be honest, I never searched to see if it was happening.  I loved the response by the DNC lawyer.

 

"Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss that the party holds the right to select its candidate any way it chooses and is not bound by pledges of fairness.

“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right,” Spiva argued.

Although the Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic Party charter stipulates that it will function with total neutrality during Democratic primaries, the DNC lawyer argued the promise was non-binding.

“And there's no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There's no contractual obligation here,” he said."

 

I am am surprised he didn't try pinning this on the Russians!

 

[IAMX 3,055]

Should be "suits" plural, in the article DNC is battling a lawsuit as well for not compensating employees adequately.

 

The DNC this week filed a motion to dismiss in the second class-action lawsuit, which alleged workers at the Democratic National Convention and through the election were not paid a minimum wage, while others were refused overtime compensation guaranteed by federal and state law

The 2016 Democratic platform characterized the current federal minimum of $7.25 per hour as “a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty.”

.. unless they work for the DNC, then who cares about their family. 

[jg121783 3,915]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Interesting, I think I mentioned those folks doing just that in another thread, but to be honest, I never searched to see if it was happening.  I loved the response by the DNC lawyer.

 

"Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss that the party holds the right to select its candidate any way it chooses and is not bound by pledges of fairness.

“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right,” Spiva argued.

Although the Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic Party charter stipulates that it will function with total neutrality during Democratic primaries, the DNC lawyer argued the promise was non-binding.

“And there's no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There's no contractual obligation here,” he said."

 

I am am surprised he didn't try pinning this on the Russians!

 

Technically going by DNC (and RNC for that matter) rules he is correct. They they can select whoever they want. However since they advertise to the public (and have agreements with individual states) that they are holding an election they have to follow laws governing elections. So if it can be proven Bernie Sanders was cheated the DNC can be held legally liable.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

It is so touching to see y'all so concerned about the integrity of the electoral process. Does that extend to foreign government involvement? 

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

It is so touching to see y'all so concerned about the integrity of the electoral process. Does that extend to foreign government involvement? 

Of course it does. If there were any evidence of foreign government involvement it should be investigated but there is no evidence. Usually to start an investigation you should have at least one piece of evidence of wrongdoing. There is none as far as the Russian conspiracy theory goes. This investigation has been given more time and money than it deserves and still nothing has been produced. You are comparing apples and oranges here. There is evidence Bernie Sanders was cheated. There is no evidence of Russian involvement in our election. I would be interested in looking into how George Soros influenced the election in the Democrats favor though.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Of course it does. If there were any evidence of foreign government involvement it should be investigated but there is no evidence. Usually to start an investigation you should have at least one piece of evidence of wrongdoing. There is none as far as the Russian conspiracy theory goes. This investigation has been given more time and money than it deserves and still nothing has been produced. You are comparing apples and oranges here. There is evidence Bernie Sanders was cheated. There is no evidence of Russian involvement in our election. I would be interested in looking into how George Soros influenced the election in the Democrats favor though.

And your evidence the Bernie Sanders was cheated cones from where?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

And your evidence the Bernie Sanders was cheated cones from where?

The emails given to wikileaks by an inside source at the dnc

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The emails given to wikileaks by an inside source at the dnc

We did know wiki leaks was the avenue...you don't have evidence of inside source leaking and us intelligence reports clearly prove Russian action in hacking and distribution. 

[Dashinka 24,514]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

We did know wiki leaks was the avenue...you don't have evidence of inside source leaking and us intelligence reports clearly prove Russian action in hacking and distribution. 

So you are pinning your opinion based on reports from agencies that do their job by lying?  The only thing I have seen is that some of the IT phishing stuff that the DNC fell for had Russian signatures, but you are naïve to think that any intelligence agency is not sophisticated enough to do this and make it look like someone else.  I still go back to the logic of the whole thing.  If I were Russia (or any foreign intelligence agency for that matter), why would I leak any detrimental information regarding Hillary or her party?  The general thought right up until it was announced that Trump won was that Hillary was going to win in a landslide.  There was no way any foreign actor could have guaranteed a Trump victory, so why not keep these secrets to use against a Hillary presidency.  On the other hand, a disgruntled DNC staffer upset that Bernie was shafted (at least on the surface, he did get his payoff), would have more of a motive to release this information regarding the DNC and Hillary more for the embarrassment factor.  Both are plausible, but I guess only one fits the narrative of the DNC and their allies in the press.

[Dashinka 24,514]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Technically going by DNC (and RNC for that matter) rules he is correct. They they can select whoever they want. However since they advertise to the public (and have agreements with individual states) that they are holding an election they have to follow laws governing elections. So if it can be proven Bernie Sanders was cheated the DNC can be held legally liable.

I completely agree with you, and this may be a valid reason for dismissing the suit about the primary (not the one regarding staffers not being paid minimum wage, Oh the Hypocrisy!  ).  The major parties can use any method they want to choose their candidate and historically they have.  The rules of the party are not binding and can very easily be changed as we heard regarding all the discussion of the RNC changing their rules at the convention to bump Trump off the ticket.  Personally, I think the Bernie Supporters lawsuit has little merit, but I am not a legal scholar, and who knows they may have a sympathetic judge. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are pinning your opinion based on reports from agencies that do their job by lying?  The only thing I have seen is that some of the IT phishing stuff that the DNC fell for had Russian signatures, but you are naïve to think that any intelligence agency is not sophisticated enough to do this and make it look like someone else.  I still go back to the logic of the whole thing.  If I were Russia (or any foreign intelligence agency for that matter), why would I leak any detrimental information regarding Hillary or her party?  The general thought right up until it was announced that Trump won was that Hillary was going to win in a landslide.  There was no way any foreign actor could have guaranteed a Trump victory, so why not keep these secrets to use against a Hillary presidency.  On the other hand, a disgruntled DNC staffer upset that Bernie was shafted (at least on the surface, he did get his payoff), would have more of a motive to release this information regarding the DNC and Hillary more for the embarrassment factor.  Both are plausible, but I guess only one fits the narrative of the DNC and their allies in the press.

I think it is in very poor taste to drag the Rich family through all of this speculation. We should be respectful of their feelings.

 

[Dashinka 24,514]

Just now, ccneat said:

I think it is in very poor taste to drag the Rich family through all of this speculation. We should be respectful of their feelings.

 

Yes, when the family of a serial killer victim says just leave it alone, I am sure the police stop.  The only reason this is going where it is going is due to the MDL/DNC and their insistence of their narrative being the only plausible explanation of Hillary losing.  Maybe if the MDL/DNC gave up their equally tin foil hat suppositions, the Rich family would get some closure.