Things are not looking any better for the Democratic National Committee this week, as the organization is still embroiled in a nasty court battle over their perverse treatment of voters in the 2016 democratic primary.
During the tumultuous and ultimately bizarre election of 2016, the democratic party found itself on the receiving end of one of politics’ most rude awakenings. Not only did their “inevitable” candidate Hillary Clinton fall victim to Wikileaks whistleblowers exposing her for the corrupt career politician that she was, the disclosures by the website implicated her campaign and the DNC in a scheme to nullify the support of her primary rival Bernie Sanders.
The evidence of scandal was so damning that DNC Chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz was forced to resign after an embarrassing week of constant heckling by her own constituents, including being booed right off of the stage in Florida.
Now, Bernie Sanders’ supporters are fighting back against the DNC in a class action lawsuit. The suit claims that the proven-to-be-rigged primary system defrauded the Bernie Bros out of their donations to the democratic socialist’s campaign, and they are seeking to regain their lost money.
In their “defense”, the DNC has basically told the Bernie Army that they have the right to do whatever they wish, in terms of picking a nominee, and are not beholden to the concept of a fair election.
“Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is ‘a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.’ Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.
“The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: ‘The Court would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.’