DescentBB

The mainstream media continue to censor coverage of a looming DNC lawsuit that accuses the Democrat Party of rigging the 2016 primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Since October 2016, when the lawsuit was issued, reporters and pundits have ignored a lawsuit that looks set to prove that the Democratic National Committee systemically rigged the primaries in order to ensure Hillary Clinton won over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The lawsuit was issued after shocking documents surfaced by hacker Guccifer 2.0 that shows the party and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman colluding “by hook or by crook” to make Sanders lose.

The class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in October, accusing both the DNC and Wasserman Schultz of “intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious” conduct in violating Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter.

Lifezette.com reports: They represent three classes of plaintiffs: donors to the DNC, donors to the Bernie Sanders campaign, and all registered Democrats — and they want their money back.

On April 25, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss, with the DNC’s lawyers arguing that the party has every right to pick candidates in back rooms.

“There’s no contractual obligation here … it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva argued in court.

The major news organizations shunned the controversy and allowed it to slip into near-oblivion as they hammered President Trump.

An article published Saturday on the liberal progressive website Salon notes that the mainstream media “almost completely blacked out coverage of this lawsuit.”

A writer for the Observer wrote on Monday: “In large part, the mainstream media [have] not covered the lawsuit in the six months between the court’s initial hearings in October 2016 to its latest hearing on April 25, 2017.”

The revelation that the Democratic Party is fine with rigging elections, and has no qualms about lying to its members and pretending to be neutral, is certainly interesting news. But many in the media apparently didn’t want anyone to pay too much attention to this.

“For Sanders supporters, the lawsuit provides an opportunity for vindication for being cheated and attacked by the Democratic establishment,” Observer reporter Michael Sainato wrote. “Now, the DNC is on record arguing that its voters have no reason to trust it to maintain free and fair elections.”

“Spiva’s defense is blatant proof that despite the fact that the DNC fashions itself as the party of the people, it is openly and clearly an oligarchy — a fact also made clear by its use of superdelgates,” Salon writer Sophia McClennen wrote.

A WikiLeaks document dump also revealed that former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile appeared to favor Clinton when she leaked a Democratic primary debate question to Clinton in an email. Sanders supporters cried fowl. But the media largely spurned them in favor of dogging Trump.

“The elephant in the room for the DNC isn’t Trump or the GOP or Bernie bros or Russian hackers; it is its own elitist, corporatist, cronyist, corrupt system that consistently refuses to listen to the will of the people it hopes to represent,” McClennen wrote. “This all proves that the DNC has a serious problem not only with the democratic process but also with the very idea of representing the will of its constituents.”

Jeff250 wrote:DNC primaries are designed to maximize the illusion of choice while minimizing its availability.

Spidey wrote:The Democratic primaries are already rigged simply by default, why would anybody think to file a lawsuit.

callmeslick wrote:Spidey, the Super Delegate thing was put in place to avoid dominance in low-turnout races by some zealot extremist.

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Spidey, the Super Delegate thing was put in place to avoid dominance in low-turnout races by some zealot extremist.

A more honest way of saying the same thing is that they were put into place so that party elites could put their fingers on the scale.

When 98% of superdelegates polled all throw their weight behind the same candidate before a single state voted, then they gave up even trying anymore to even have the appearance of choice.

Even though she won by the party's rules, Hillary Clinton's nomination was haunted by a notable lack of legitimacy, the same kind that would normally be restricted to elections in less democratic countries.

callmeslick wrote:you apparently never paid attention before this one. I'm trying to throw you a bone here, because you clearly have ZERO idea how this works. The Primaries are a PARTY FUNCTION, like the conventions which nominate themselves. They are NOT an open election, never have been. Trying to equate that to the rules for a GENERAL ELECTION are like comparing apples to oranges.

Jeff250 wrote:If you think that it's best for the Democratic Party if party elites put their fingers on the scale to override the will of ordinary party members, then just defend that point instead of whatever it is your approach has been to this topic thus far.

Vander wrote:I don't really have a problem with the concept of putting a finger on the scale. It does dull the responsiveness to popular will, but popular will can be really ★■◆●ing stupid at times. Popular will ultimately wins over time, but I think it should be slowed just enough to work out the stupid. How much weight you add to the scale is debatable for me.

Tunnelcat wrote:That's how we got Hillary isn't it? How's that better when she clearly was a Democratic poison pill?

callmeslick wrote:my point is that a party nominating process can be whatever they deem it to be. Appearances can be negative to some, but frankly, we came up with better candidates from smoke filled rooms.

Tunnelcat wrote:I believe in 1982, but my memory is hazy because I was young and working hard at making a living and I wasn't paying attention to things like that, unfortunately.