Not Quite: Media Reports Court Finding That DNC Rigged Primary For Clinton

Wasserman SchultzI have long been a critic of the concerted efforts of Democratic politicians and the establishment to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton. It worked.  They selected perhaps the only person who could lose to Donald Trump.  For that reason, I immediately took note of articles claiming that a federal court have made a finding of rigging by former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman.  The Observer, for example, had an headline of “Court Admits DNC and Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primary Against Sanders.”  That seemed like a particularly important news development but on closer examination it is based on a misunderstanding of the federal procedural rules governing such decisions.

In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the DNC and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton.  From the outset, it was a highly unlikely legal action to succeed despite admissions from Democratic leaders that Clinton was virtually annointed by the Democratic establishment.  With regard to blocking Sanders, former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.”  Not only that, but DNC lawyers took the position that the Democratic leaders at the DNC were allowed to effectively stack the primary for Clinton.

The inevitable occurred on August 25, 2017 when Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit in a decision that had this line:


“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent.”

Since this was a motion for dismissal on standing and other grounds, a court will assume all facts in favor of the non-moving party. In other words, a court will say that “even if you were to prove all of these allegations, you would still not have a case.”  Thus, the key in the above referenced line is “in evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage.”  The Court was not making a finding of fact that indeed the DNC rigged the primary.

For that reason the following graph seems like a final vindication but was really setting up the parties for a death blow:

“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”

The Court was saying that, even if it accepted all of these allegations are provable and proven, the plaintiffs would still lose.

Of course, the evidence is quite strong (including emails from both Wasserman Schultz and her successor Donna Brazile) that the DNC did rig the primary.  It was obvious that the Democratic members of Congress and others were in the bag for Clinton and actively strangling the political life out of challengers.  Everyone expected a huge windfall once the Clintons re-took power.  However, the story racing on the Internet of a judicial finding is not accurate.



106 thoughts on “Not Quite: Media Reports Court Finding That DNC Rigged Primary For Clinton”

  1. OT – best DNC propagandist ever! All my Hilbot friends consider her (zer?) to be an oracle… Russia Russia Russia!

  2. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” So having your money stolen isn’t an injury? Then let’s empty our jails of a whole lot of people.

    quoted from article at Zero Hedge

  3. The Clintons & DNC will answer to “The Master’s Call”…..This kind of sinful living only leads to a fall.

  4. We now have sworn testimony they cheated.
    They committed fraud, right?

    So what would be the proper recourse?
    Since they used the internet to raise money can they be help liable for wire fraud?

    How do you make charges stick against this crew?
    They stole the election and gave us President Trump…

    If there is no recourse from the Federal Court System, why do we have a Federal Court System?

    1. Apparently, the Federal Courts are necessary for the oligarchy’s sham that there is a justice system in the US!

      Yes, it is wire fraud, among other things. And I agree with MC that the Democratic party has no right to defraud voters period, let alone while using tax payer dollars. I also take Olly’s point that if it’s fine to rig a primary, then why have Democrats been freaking out about “Russia-ha, ha” rigging the federal election. What’s their problem?

    2. You have to actually allege facts establishing a cause of action. As to the “fraud” claim, the court opinion identifies the defect clearly. None of the named plaintiffs alleged that they relied on any of the alleged fraudulent representations when making the decision to donate. As also noted by the court, the plaintiffs failed to even include the basic factual allegations required to establish diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts (or allege facts establishing an alternate basis for jurisdiction). It was dismissed without prejudice, so the Plaintiffs are certainly able to file in state court–or re-file in federal court if they can assert the necessary factual allegations.

        1. As it was granted without prejudice, it is probably not an appealable order. Thean refile, however if they cure the defects.

  5. In Germany the word wasserman is pronounced with a v at the beginning. It means waterman in English. In the old tv series about the Americans locked up in a German POW camp there was a Sgt. Shultz. He was a wasserman. In real life he is Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s father. “I know nuthing!”

    1. Good question Olly. I await an answer from those that support democratically held elections.

      Pehaps, we will actually get the information as to who paid for the Trump smear involving Russia. It looks more and more like the DNC or one of its arms.

    2. Yes, and the irony of the Democrats actively thwarting democracy. What platform do they actually stand upon?

    3. Olly,

      Is this legal:


      Joseph Rago –

      “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

      “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
      Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
      Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
      business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
      apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
      then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
      finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
      a speech in Moscow.

      The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
      by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
      Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
      an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
      to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
      dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
      this meeting occurring.”


  6. The court is not dealing with several important issues here. First, the plaintiffs argued that they gave money to Sanders on the belief that the DNC was an impartial arbitrator of the process. If they had known the DNC planned to select Clinton no matter what, they would not have given the money to Sanders. They had their money stolen under false pretense. That is a crime.

    Secondly, elections are not just the purview of the parties. As Olly pointed out, they are also governed by state law. Here the court is saying that it’s fine for the Democratic party to violate state law. The judge may be o.k. with this, but I consider it another nail in the coffin of the rule of law.

    I would also like people to know that the plaintiff’s lawyers and their families have received numerous death threats from the Democratic party. Their homes have been broken into. They asked for protective custody which the court denied, saying it would cost too much for the police to protect them.

    It’s so great to see the courts ruling time and again in favor of illegal actions by the powerful, up to and including break ins and death threats. This is what passes for “justice” in today’s nation God/dess bless the USA because we sure need someone to do it.

    1. To add to this…the local primary elections use taxpayer funding to operate. The DNC cannot then claim they, as a *private corporation*, can rig the elections if they want to. Not when my tax dollars are going to run your local elections!

      And…. to keep them *closed* so that we have to join a private club to be able to vote is unconstitutional. We are guaranteed under our Constitution, a free and FAIR election where our voices and our votes must count. This, in my opinion, is treason against the American people. It’s non-sense….

      1. No one discussing this in this forum has ever laid out a step by step description of what the ‘rigging’ consisted of and how it was accomplished. The closest I’ve seen has been bleating about the superdelegates. The superdelegates favored HRC, as is their prerogative per rules which have been in place for 35 years. That complaint is invalid for another reason: HRC won a plurality of the sum of popular ballots.

      2. MG must stand for “My God” as in: my god, how stupid do you have to be in your understanding of a closed primary and your ‘constitutional’ rights.

        Jeesus Turley. You surely unleashed the morons with this one.

    2. Jill, you still have to allege necessary facts. As pointed out by the court, the complaint did not contain any allegations of fact showing that even a single named plaintiff relied on allegedly false representation in deciding to contribute. If they had alleged facts showing reliance, that cause of action might have survived (though the failure to allege the basic necessary facts to establish diversity or another basis for federal court jurisdiction would still have been a problem.) In a lawsuit, the court is not called upon to deal with “important issues.” It duty is to deal with the legal issues appropriately presented to it based on the filed pleadings. The court’s decision outlines the analysis for each cause of action alleged. The Complaint was dismissed without prejudiced, so the parties can re-file or file in state court to pursue an action if they can allege sufficient facts to establish a cause of action.

      1. Richard,

        You have this exactly backward. The court found all the plaintiffs allegations were true. He would not rule on the matter because he said it was not within his jurisdiction to rule on it. The case is dismissed without prejudice (meaning the allegations were true but must be heard in a different venue.)

        1. Jill, The court did not find any fact to be “true.” The nature of a Motion to Dismiss is that the court must, for purposes of the motion, assume all properly pled facts in the Complaint are true and then determine whether it is sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and sufficient to establish federal court jurisdiction. Here, among other things, the court identified that the Complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish federal court jurisdiction on the stated basis (diversity). Subsequently, for each cause of action, the court identified a failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. For example, the Complaint alleges fraud but did not allege facts showing that any named defendant relied on any allegedly fraudulent representations. As reliance is an essential element of fraud, the Complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud. A dismissal without prejudice is just that–the action is dismissed but the order of dismissal will not bar the Plaintiff from further action.

  7. It was a big deal when Reagan ran for Prez at age 70. That was considered quite old to be running for Prez and in fact Reagan suffered from senility before his term was over. By age 70 most people begin falling asleep unexpectedly including in social situations. Reagan, Trump, and Hillary were too old to be running for office. Sanders was way too old to be running. Give younger folks a chance. At least they can stay awake in meetings.

    1. The aging brain is very much an individual phenomenon, a combination of genetics and how a person has treated his/her body throughout life. I know 35 year olds who can’t stay awake in meetings, and my former boss, at 71 was sharp as a tack. And my 86 y/o mother can yak on the phone for well over an hour, while I’m the one nodding off. Can I give her your phone number?

      1. LOL TIN. Agreed. My 86 year old father-in-law just shot his age on a really tough Nicklaus golf course yesterday – from the mens tees. He runs the daily “best ball” at his home course. My 62 year old neighbor can’t walk around the block.

    2. and in fact Reagan suffered from senility before his term was over.

      No, not in fact. He wasn’t formally diagnosed until 1994. His daughter has said she noticed nothing amiss until mid-1993. Edmund Morris, who was shadowing him all those years, has said the decline in his mental actually quite rapid in late 1994 and early 1995.

        1. He wasn’t ‘pretending to be President’ He was the President, as is Trump. Both men had extensive experience in executive positions prior to taking office. Lyndon Johnson’s experience in such positions ‘ere being inaugurated was minimal. John Kennedy’s and Barack Obama’s was nil.

          1. Yeah, I guess running the Senate and years in the House gave LBJ no experience in governing.

            1. It gave him no experience in an executive position. A U.S. Senator has a staff who serve him. His office has no abiding mission other that performing services which assist him or advance his interests.

              Johnson was for two years a 2d echelon official of the Works Progress Administration. That was his time as an executive. Truman was a county executive. Roosevelt a state governor and deputy Secretary of the Navy. Carter was governor of Georgia (ran a family business and was a Naval officer as well).

        2. You are a Democrat, and detest Republicans, sooo you say really stupid stuff, as if your partisan opinions were facts. Thankfully, you are sooo obvious that you lack all credibility. If Mitt Romney were President, you would be saying the same kind of stupid stuff.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    3. Age has very little to do with ability to govern if a president is in good my mental and physical health. I hope when you reach that age, no one discounts your abilities to do a job and do it well, just because the number of years you’ve been in this earth. That’s age discrimination and its against the law.
      There are many seniors forced into retirement when they werent emotionally or fiscally ready for it. Docial security is not enough to live on, and seniors are out pounding the pavement, looking for ways to earn extra money. But even though their qualifications are impeccable and resume’ speaks for itself, they are surreptitiously turned away; although employers can’t say it, it is usually age related. They’ll say you’re overqualified, and can’t pay you what you’re worth. They’re looking for a younger person with less experience and lower wage demands, whom they can meld into their cooperative dynamic and retrain them to work witin company parameters, and not outside the box. They dont pause to think the elderly have no child dependents, usually own their homes and may not be asking for an extorbitant salary. What many Seniors want is to still be useful and productive, not put out to pasture.

      A person should be elected on their merits,And experience in government, not youth. I hope when you get older, you’ll learn to appreciate the knowledge and wisdom you have gained over the years, even if employers don’t. I hope you never know what it feels like when someone rejects you because you’re too old, not because you can’t do the job.

      1. The utility of a categorical standard is that it cannot be gamed and leaves no discretion. There is some modest social benefit to mandatory retirement and rotation-in-office for elected positions. Without them, you get grisly spectacles like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

  8. Evidently cheating over one candidate to support another if you are the DNC is not illegal or immoral. It is just a standard business practice. However, Bernie knew that and still went out and spoke on Hillary’s behalf. What did they have on him? That is what I want to know. Those pictures most be dynamite.

    1. The court was not deciding whether the defendants acted illegally or immorally. It was merely deciding whether the Complaint, as drafted, alleged sufficient facts to establish a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the federal court against the named defendants.

      1. They still aren’t? When did that happen. Didn’t that branch help them in he Virginia clash where both their right and left wing if the LEFT took the stage? I heard of no moderate centrists and damn few from the right of Center . Just scripted street theater by a single producer pushed to it’s scripted conclusion with the propaganda arm following up.

    1. What’s disconcerting is that rank-and-file partisan Democrats are quite satisfied the the Democratic Party’s criminality.

  9. This makes no sense. DWS is a manifestation of pathologies in out political life (more Democratic than Republican pathologies), but she does not have at her disposal the staff to stuff the ballot boxes for Hellary in dozens of states. The worst she could do was spend party funds in ancillary activities useful for Clinton, something which should be unlawful and should not be done (a political party having a corporate identity and properly not an extension of a given candidate). That something done was bad does not mean it was decisive. Bernie lost because he didn’t have the votes.

    1. Keep in mind one FACT. At the primary level each party has total control over how it selects candidates. and the federal government has little input unless a suit is filed. Super delegates etc. choice of convention, caucus or ballot selection are strictly all up to each party. Every Democrat Socialiste knew that going in. For the left it’s a very old formula and if you want to watch it in the movies see REDs with Warren Beatty or the bw We The Living or just read the book.

      Everyone of them knows and has known fror years and decades how their system works on that side of the fence. It’s only news when the something happens in the other party or out of, in their world, the clear blue, such as…

      The Republicans had a rule and it was invoked denying certaini votes to a candidate undere certain conditions. With that rule enforced by the rules committee President Trump would not have gotten the nomination of the Republican Party. They had another rule saying they could overturn any rule by the party bosses and did so. Why? Perhaps they didn’t want to waste time and money on loser candidates since they had none. Instead they spent their money down ballot…which worked… and let Trump fund his own campaign. He owes the party nothing except taking it over So what was left? the Democrat Socialist, the Repuiblicans fielding but not fielding a canddate, and choice three. The Outsider Party

      Out of the clear blue time came the largest voting block a full 40% of the final tally composed of those disgusted with their own party and those who were primarily anti socialist and anti Clinton. That was good enough for a 55% to 45% electoral college win and that’s all it took. Helped in no small measure by the Democrat Socialist themselves who lost control of their entire organization. but retained control of two factions – college snowflake (students and teachers) and the majority of media for the masses.

      1.2 billion later Clinton lost by ten full percentage points and at the federal level federal rules DID apply. No pluarlity wins it must be 50% plus. If it had gone 50-50 it would go to the two Houses of Congress each in turn but each with only one effective vote per state and from there to the Supreme Court. .

      Instead it was a clear win as the national popularity poll (direct vote) has no part in the election.

      Out of the blue not really just not recognized, considered and still to this day disregarded especially by the polls which are just whim of the moment samplings of more useful to a democracy from it’s mobocracy than the Representative Constitutional Republic system we have and have had for 241 years.

      Two factions really kicked off that participation. One came from the military as citizens who saw an ever increasing change of them having to fulfill their oath of office. and preferred ballots to bullets. Another was what the founders called self governing citizens the real independents who have no representation under the party system especially one that had grown far to close to a single party system. Second group disgruntled veterans after Janet Neaolitano (we called her Jack Boot Janet II von Flamethrower Reno) remarks on how the military in toto represented a great danger to their administration.

      Well that was true but she’s not smart enough to realize a lot of things and one ended in some really stupid people from the left calling for martial law. Wow! Play right into our hands. but Obama didn’t want to go that route for obvious reasons. Chief of which he would then have no control at all.

      With that sort of nonsense aside our call for a non represented citizens vote became the biggest block and the two parties split the remaining 60% for 55-45 choosing the outsider as far far more preferable than any politician. What we are seeing is nothing more than the left and their RINO right wing of the left ensuring they stay in power by using their right wing of the left cave on command puppy dogs carry their water.

      So where does that lieave us besides continuing what we referred to as a legal counter revolution against the predominately socialist left in support of our Constitutional Reublic?

      Working on Battle number two but this time the Democrats are number no Hillary and the RINOs are number two not the Democrats

      Boiled down to the essence it’s still the Constitutional Repubic system versus the Socialist Autocrat system.

      And the Congress. I finally got a handle on a good description they are like buddist monks with can of gas and mactch. Except no amount of fire will get them to move. Therefore and this includes all the left and all of their RINO dogs are the asbestos party. No matter how much fuel is added they refuse to budge.

      So? Let them be ashes. Metaphorically speaking.

      But reallygiven a choice which side do you think the military is going to support A, B, or C the constitutionalist center

      By the way there are no moderate Republicans. There are either RINOs or Constitutionalists . Their choice their decision, in the end their penalty. Now you know why we’ve heard nothing from Chuckee Schumer for a month. What for. McConnell is carrying his water for him.

      President Trump pour on some gas and toss another match. Maybe asbestus can burn but don’t lett the ass es get the best of us.

      Time to hit the trenches in the primary system and at the grass roots level.

  10. So it’s not illegal to interfere in an election domestically,/b>, but it is illegal to have foreign interference in our elections. What is the logic here, that if it’s done domestically that the winner will honor the oath of office? This would certainly explain why so many on the left have no objections to how their candidate wins. Mention purging voter roles, voter ID’s, and any other suggestion to enhance the integrity of the election process and the left comes unglued.

  11. Is it true her brother is in charge of investigating her connection to her aide Imran Awan?

    1. He works in the US Attorney’s office in DC. There’s no indication thus far that he’s assigned to her case. Smells bad, though.

    1. The survey research done indicates that Sanders would have had a better than even chance contra Trump, Rubio, or Cruz (though not Kasich). In hypothetical match-ups, he was leading Trump by double digits.

    2. More likely that, if Sanders had been nominated, a “mainstream” candidate would have entered the fray. It would have been a combination of what Sen Murkowski did in Alaska and what happened to Upton Sinclair in the 1934 California gubernatorial election.

      1. More likely that, if Sanders had been nominated, a “mainstream” candidate would have entered the fray. I

        Not really possible. You’d have to organize a petition candidacy in dozens of states and do so when the filing date had passed in quite a number of them. John Anderson had 3 or 4 months more than such a hypothetical candidate would have had as well as a campaign organization four stories high.

    3. Not a chance that Sanders would have beaten Trump. Americans are not going to elect an avowed socialist to the Presidency. Sanders did have some good ideas, but in the final analysis, he was too extreme.

      1. He was leading Trump by double digits in the hypothetical match-ups published by Real Clear Politics.

        1. I’ve never put much faith in polls since I lived in CA, way back when, and the polls reported by the leading newspapers showed Kathleen Brown (Jerry Brown’s sister) handily beating Republican Pete Wilson in the Governor’s race. A relative worked for Pete Wilson, and told me that Wilson was redirecting campaign contributions to candidates for other statewide offices, because his own internal pollsters told him he had nothing to worry about. I was sceptical, but sure enough, he beat her in a landslide.

          1. I’ve never put much faith in polls s

            You made a categorical statements, so you’re placing absolute faith in whatever it is you pull out of your rear end.

            1. You cited one poll (Real Clear Politics) in support of your statement (above); I cited my experience with other polls.

              1. Real Clear Politics publishes a mess of polls, and “Not a chance that Sanders would have beaten Trump. Americans are not going to elect an avowed socialist to the Presidency. ” does not cite any social data at all.

  12. Pardon me, but Someone else speculated elsewhere on this blog yesterday that it appears that Turley is too busy looking for negative stories about Clinton to do a story on the pardon of Joe Arpaio. Looks like they were right.

    This is a truly creative way to dish dirt on Hillary: criticize the media for improperly reporting what a court had to say about Clinton’s lackey and minion Wasserman Schulz.

    Wasserman Schulz is about as slimy a politician as you will ever see, but this is last year’s news. I’m wondering if a Trump will ever write her a thank you note for squashing Bernie.

    1. I would rather be rehashing Mayweather-McGregor than Hillary-Sanders, but it’s JT’s blog, so he gets to pick the topics.

      1. Nothing to see here Jill, move along =) -No matter what the Dims do there are no consequences. – I have no expectation that DWS will prosecuted regarding the Awan family scheme and threat to national security. The DNC is corrupt and unsalvageble.

        Good news is the party is shrinking and donations are down. They can take their super delegates and go f#ck themselves cause because demexiters ain’t never coming back and the number of independents is increasing.

      2. The lawsuit didn’t allege facts establishing reliance. As that is a necessary element of fraud, the Complaint failed to state a cause of action for fraud.

    1. With your user name, one might think you would have a better understanding of legal procedure. The professor was trying to explain that procedure, which you apparently still don’t understand. The court does not “need” to make a finding of fact on a motion to dismiss. The entire premise of a motion to dismiss is that even if all the alleged facts are presumed to be true for the purpose of the motion, the plaintiff cannot prevail under the law, usually because of some procedural issue, such as jurisdiction, standing, etc.

Comments are closed.