Archives‎ > ‎

Media finally cover DNC fraud case, as Sanders supporters sue, from Peter Myers

Although Hillary and the media blame Russia for hacking her emails, the culprit could have been a Sanders supporter angry at the DNC for cheating him out of the nomination. The media has not wanted to shift attention from Russia, but has been forced to cover this fraud case. - Peter M.(1) Media, forced to cover Democratic Party fraud case, seek to undermine plaintiffs(2) Sued for cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, DNC argue neutrality is merely a 'political promise'(3) Rigged Debates: Wikileaks Emails show Media was in Clinton's Pocket(4) DNC battling class-action suit alleging Sanders was robbed in 2016(5) Sanders DNC Fraud suit(6) DNC and Wasserman-Schultz again filed to dismiss the lawsuit(7) Podesta agreed that DNC should "stick the knife in" Sanders(8) Democrats registered Dead Voters(9) Trump commissions voter identification laws; several million "illegals" voted for Hillary(1) Media, forced to cover Democratic Party fraud case, seek to undermine plaintiffs Claims $300 Million Class-Action Suit Against DNC 'Frivolous'Media, finally forced to cover Democratic Party fraud case, seek to undermine plaintiffsby Margaret Menge | Updated 23 May 2017 at 6:23 AMDave Weigel, a reporter for The Washington Post, called a class-action lawsuit against the DNC and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) "largely frivolous" in a May 20 article, and blocked the plaintiffs' lawyers on Twitter when they challenged him on the description.Elizabeth Beck, one of four trial attorneys representing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2016 election, shot back at Weigel's "largely frivolous" comment on her Twitter account."The Cranky Lawyer": "@daveweigel u sorry excuse 4 a journalist what is this crap out of your brainless head? Frivolous? #DNCFraudLawsuit is NOT frivolous!" and, in subsequent tweets, called Weigel a "weasel"; The Washington Post, "a worthless, crap rag."     .@daveweigel u sorry excuse 4 a journalist what is this crap out of your brainless head? Frivolous? #DNCFraudLawsuit is NOT frivolous!     — The Cranky Lawyer (@eleebeck) May 21, 2017     ????Ding, Dong??Ding, Dong ??     Hark! What's that I hear? 'Tis the death knell for @washingtonpost     For being a worthless, crap rag. @daveweigel     — The Cranky Lawyer (@eleebeck) May 21, 2017Weigel, apparently miffed, blocked both Beck and her lawyer husband Jared Beck, who tweeted to his wife, suggesting they sue the reporter. "So @daveweigel just blocked me. What a damn hack. Want to sue him for defamation @eleebeck? If we only had the time right?"What's most remarkable about The Washington Post comments on the DNC fraud suit — which were stuffed into an article about the coverage of the Seth Rich murder — "The Seth Rich conspiracy shows how fake news still works" — is that it appears to have been the first time the paper (whose new motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness") has written anything at all about the sensational lawsuit, which is backed by thousands of Sanders supporters who are seething with anger at what they see as a corrupt Democratic Party that rigged the 2016 Democratic primary.Sanders' supporters are suing the DNC and its former chairwoman, Wasserman Schultz, in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, asking for a return of all contributions to the Sanders campaign and all contributions to made to the DNC by Sanders supporters, plus punitive damages, legal fees, and expenses. The total amount they're asking for, though yet to be named, will likely exceed $300 million."Ha!" said the lead plaintiff, Carol Wilding, when reached by phone by LifeZette on Monday and told that The Washington Post called the case frivolous. "There's my comment.""It's not frivolous?" LifeZette asked."Yeah, hardly," she responded.Wilding, who lives in Pompano Beach, in Florida's 23rd congressional district, which is represented by Wasserman Schultz, is one of 151 named plaintiffs. She contributed $445.50 to the Sanders presidential campaign via ActBlue, according to the lawsuit, which was filed on June 28, 2016.The lawsuit was triggered by the release of DNC emails and other documents by Guccifer 2.0, who has identified himself as a Romanian hacker. One document in particular, a memo dated May 26, 2015, showed that the DNC was working to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton from the very start of the campaign cycle, though Sanders had already announced in April of 2015 that he would also seek the Democratic nomination. Autoplay: On | OffThe plaintiffs accuse the DNC and Wasserman Schultz of fraud — for pretending to be neutral in the primary — for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and for failing to secure the donors' personal information on the committee's computer networks.At the hearing on April 25 on the motion to dismiss, the judge, Reagan appointee William Zloch, gave no indication that he viewed the case as frivolous. At one point he remarked that the issues raised were "very interesting" and asked sharp questions of the DNC lawyer, including one about the issue of legal standing, saying, "If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?"The DNC's lawyer's response was long and winding, arguing for the DNC's right to conduct its affairs however it wants, without interference from donors.A full transcript of the hearing can be found here.No mainstream media organization covered the April 25 hearing at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the media blackout of the case would be total and complete if not for the Internet and a handful of digital news outlets that initially covered the suit.One other mainstream news organization, however, did cover the suit in recent days, but in similar fashion to The Washington Post; that is, in such a way as to discredit it.In a story in Newsweek on May 17, entitled "Did the DNC help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim at Leadership" the writer helpfully answers the questions posed in the headline for readers (with the assistance of a Democratic strategist who happens to be a Clinton supporter.) The answer, of course, was no. Lawyers in DNC Class-Action Suit 'Perplexed' by Media Blackout Press ignores fraud case brought by 2016 Sanders backers against Democrat PartyThe suit, if it moves forward, the writer says, could give Sanders supporters a chance to shape "how the DNC and the Democratic Party conduct their business."But then there's a "but.""But progressives should instead focus their efforts on working within the DNC right now to stop 'the real opponent' currently in Washington," it says, quoting Democratic strategist Scott Bolten. No Sanders supporters are quoted in the piece, and it concludes with another quote from Bolten, who says you "can't prove" Sanders didn't get enough votes to beat Hillary because of the committee's actions" and that the best thing to do is to "move forward together."Somehow, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.A copy of the suit against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, amended July 13, 2016, can be found here.(2) Sued for cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, DNC argue neutrality is merely a 'political promise' Lawsuit Recap: Democracy AvertedSued for cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, DNC attorneys argue neutrality is a 'political promise'By Michael Sainato05/08/17 11:30amIn June 2016, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz were served a class action lawsuit on behalf of Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters for rigging the Democratic presidential primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. It was initially filed in response to documents released by Guccifer 2.0 that corroborated Sanders supporters' complaints throughout the primary that the DNC was working alongside the Clinton campaign, thereby violating Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter.One of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, Harvard Law graduate Jared Beck, cited six legal claims in the lawsuit including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct from the DNC, seeking of monetary retribution for Sanders supporters who donated to his campaign, violation of the DNC's fiduciary duties in failing to uphold neutrality in the primaries, and negligence for failing to protect donor information.The lawsuit was initially tied up in court after the attorneys representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz affirmed that the suit was not properly served by process server Shawn Lucas, who served a DNC staff member at DNC headquarters in late July. In November 2016, Lucas unexpectedly passed away in an accidental death caused by mixing pain relief medications. The DNC attorneys succeeded in persuading the court that the suit was not properly served. On August 23, 2016, an evidentiary hearing was set for both sides to argue their cases for why the lawsuit should or should not be heard.The court ruled in favor of quashing the server of process on August 30, but it was properly served on September 2. >From that point, attorneys representing both sides argued their sides and the DNC attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Throughout the proceedings, the DNC argued that Sanders supporters were aware that the primaries were rigged and that neutrality is a political promise that cannot be enforced by a court. In October 2016, the court deliberated as Judge Zloch would announce a hearing to deliver his decision of the DNC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.In large part, the mainstream media has 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. In the latest hearing, attorneys representing the DNC repeated the tone-deaf argument that neutrality is a political promise and that the DNC can do whatever it wants without being legally bound to the charter. The resulting message is that the Democratic Party serves the interests of itself and its wealthy donors and that its voters have no choice but to deal with their totalitarian authority and undemocratic processes.For Sanders supporters, the lawsuit provides an opportunity for vindication for being cheated and attacked by the Democratic establishment. Now, the DNC is on record arguing that its voters have no reason to trust it to maintain free and fair elections. No matter what the judge ultimately issues in his pending written order on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the lawsuit has forced the Democratic Party and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to face responsibility for their actions and be somewhat transparent in how the Democratic Party operates. If the motion to dismiss is denied, the discovery process and testimonies of Wasserman Schultz and other party leaders will expose the Democratic Party's corruption and the extent to which it provided Hillary Clinton with the party's nomination. The result will be the Democratic Party will earn a reputation for being corrupt and undemocratic. If the motion is upheld, Democratic Party leaders will still need to provide an answer to their attorneys' arguments in this case. If the judge rules in favor of the DNC, he will inherently rule that the DNC's arguments qualify it as an inherently undemocratic institution—a definition Democrats will have to go far beyond symbolic gestures to change.(3) Rigged Debates: Wikileaks Emails show Media was in Clinton's Pocket Debates: Wikileaks Emails Confirm Media in Clinton's PocketClinton's people asked for all sorts of special treatment from the DNC and the press—and they got itBy Michael Sainato10/14/16 3:30pmHillary Clinton embraces campaign chair John Podesta on October 12, 2011 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevila/Getty Images)On October 12, WikiLeaks released part four and five of Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta's emails, with part six to be released on October 13, and part seven to follow on October 14."As soon as the nomination is wrapped up, I will be your biggest surrogate," current Interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Donna Brazile, wrote to Podesta in a January 2016 email. As a Vice Chair of the DNC, Brazile was bound to neutrality per the charter, but as shown in several emails released so far, that was not the case."I pushed back hard on this, and Axe. So weird to attack the kids the night before the first primary," Brazile wrote in an email she forwarded to Podesta about what CNN was doing while she served as a CNN contributor.On October 10, an email was released that showed Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign to an outreach campaign being conducted by the Sanders campaign. Brazile defended herself on Twitter claiming she also sent the Sanders campaign "advice," but did not release or cite any examples.On October 11, The Young Turks' Jordan Chariton first reported another email that showed Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign to a question on the death penalty that would be asked at a CNN Town Hall the next day. Brazile was a CNN contributor at the time, and that wasn't her only helpful tip. "For the debate team," she wrote in a March email about the Voting Rights Act, forwarded to Podesta. National Politics Observer Delivered to Your InboxReceive important daily stories covering politics and influential opinion leaders.In 2013, during an interview with ABC News, Brazile said, "if Clinton gets in the race, there will be a coronation of her," foreshadowing that she and the rest of the DNC and Democratic Party would line up behind Hillary Clinton as the nominee before a single person voted in the Democratic primaries.In a March 2016 email, Mark Alan Siegel, a former New York State Assemblyman and Democratic official, advised the Clinton campaign staff to offer Bernie Sanders and his supporters a reduction in future super delegates to pacify them. "So if we 'give' Bernie this in the Convention's rules committee, his people will think they've 'won' something from the Party Establishment," he wrote. "And it functionally doesn't make any difference anyway. They win. We don't lose. Everyone is happy."Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress which publishes Think Progress, wrote in a January 2016 email, "But I should say that I would do whatever Hillary needs always. I owe her a lot. And I'm a loyal soldier."An April 2015 email describes the Clinton campaign and DNC coordinating to rig the debate schedule for Clinton's benefit. The debate schedule was a commonly cited criticism against then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who resigned after the WikiLeaks release of DNC emails in July showed her overt favoritism for Clinton all through the primaries."Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina)" read the email from Charlie Baker, a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign from the Dewey Square Group. "The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier."An email from November 2014 shows Clinton campaign staff backing a law that would push the Illinois primary from March to April or May, with their reasoning being that the state could potentially serve as a lifeline to moderate Republicans as it did for Mitt Romney in 2012. "The Clintons won't forget what their friends have done for them. It would be helpful to feel out what path, if any, we have to get them to yes. This will probably take some pushing," wrote Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook to Podesta. The primary wound up not being moved, with Trump winning Illinois, but the push was strategic as Clinton didn't poll well against moderate Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich.In damage control over a false statement Clinton made about Nancy Reagan's role in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Clinton campaign noted in an email chain that they would have to coerce Clinton into admitting she was wrong. "Here is a revised draft of a statement. It does include the words 'I made a mistake' in the first line. We need a strategy for getting her to approve this."And then there's the overly docile press, who were so eager to help Clinton get elected. In one email chain discussing the upcoming release of exchanges between Clinton and writer Sidney Blumenthal, insiders noted that the Associated Press appeared to be willing to allow the Clinton campaign to plant favorable stories. "[T]hey are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it," wrote Nick Merrill, the Clinton campaign's traveling press secretary."She is going to read me the story later today off the record to further assure me," Clinton campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an email to Podesta and other staff about New York Times' Maggie Haberman coordinating directly with the campaign to provide Clinton with favorable coverage.In March 2015, an email from Clinton campaign manager assistant Marissa Astor provides some options for when a story in the AP will be published, with a statement from Clinton and Q&A regarding her private email server, in addition to an option to "pre-negotiate" a TV interview.An April 2015 email from Clinton staff issued a press policy that says, "Less than 100 people – NO cell phones, NO press." According to the email, events with over 100 people, cell phones are allowed, "and ONE print pooler will be escorted in for her remarks only and then escorted out. NO tv cameras. Over 500 people in a public space – YES cell phones, OPEN press (all press access including tv cameras). At fundraisers in private homes NO tv cameras no matter the size. ONE print pooler only." According to the email, Hillary Clinton approved the policy. "Huma spoke to HRC and she agreed with this plan," wrote Kristina Schake, the Clinton campaign deputy communications director.In a January 2015 email, in response to an inquiry as to whether the Clinton staff have any diversity they can point to, political consultant Jim Margolis jokes, "Robby claims he's 1/16th Apache, so we should be all set."Part four, five, six, and seven brings the total WikiLeaks release of Podesta emails to around 10,000 out of about 50,000.(4) DNC battling class-action suit alleging Sanders was robbed in 2016 Jennifer G. HickeyPublished May 22, 2017July 28, 2016: Pro-Bernie Sanders protesters demonstrate outside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.The 2016 presidential campaign is still being litigated – literally.As Trump administration controversies command media attention, a little-noticed set of lawsuits against the Democratic Party continues to play out in the courts – including one claiming coordination with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders amounted to election fraud.The case being heard in a Florida courtroom dates back to last summer, when the Democrats were thrown into turmoil following the leak of documents that appeared to show some DNC officials sought to undermine Sanders in the party primary. Jared Beck, a Harvard law expert, shortly afterward filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents of 45 states against the DNC and former chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz.The DNC has been trying for months to have the case dismissed, and scored a temporary victory last year when it was decided the plaintiffs had improperly filed paperwork.Beck has been fighting the DNC every step of the way, and is demanding the party repay individuals and Sanders supporters for contributions made during the election, alleging misappropriation of funds."If we can't trust the two political parties to run an election in a fair manner, who can we trust?" Beck told Fox News.SANDERS-INSPIRED DEM SEEKS UPSET OVER PELOSIDuring the most recent hearing on April 25 before a judge in the southern district of Florida, the DNC made a strictly legal argument – one that surely would have rankled Sanders supporters.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."This lawsuit has nothing to do with politics or political disagreements within the DNC. This case should concern everyone because it goes to the heart of the country's democratic institutions," Beck told Fox News.A victory by Beck could have a profound impact on how the Democratic Party conducts business in 2020 and beyond. However, those familiar with election law say he faces an uphill climb."I don't think it is going to amount to much," said Michael Toner, a lawyer with the Wiley-Rein and a former legal counsel for the Republican National Committee."Courts don't typically get in the middle of intraparty disputes and while I am sure the DNC does not appreciate having to fight this lawsuit, judges are very reluctant to exercise their jurisdiction over politics," Toner said.The DNC attorneys also contend the suit is meritless, arguing most Sanders donors do not even support the lawsuit."The vast majority of whom almost certainly do not share Plaintiffs' political views—have no realistic means of disassociating from this action, brought in their name against the political party they likely support," the DNC lawyers wrote in their motion.Toner said the danger to the DNC would come if the lawsuit entered the discovery phase, which is why an affiliated case alleging the DNC failed to pay overtime wages poses a potentially greater threat.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."The suit also names the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and others involved in the party's 2016 national convention in the lawsuit. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party did not return calls for comment."While the DNC was not the employer in this case, the DNC follows all employment and wage laws to make sure that everyone who works a full time job receives a fair wage," DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said in a statement to Fox News.Although the individuals participated in party-building activities, such as voter registration, soliciting volunteers and knocking on doors, the national party argues they were not officially DNC staff.Justin Swidler, the lawyer behind the suit, told Fox News, "We believe in fair pay for fair work. The lawsuit seeks only that. We believe these ideals are consistent with the platform of the DNC."According to individuals familiar with the case, the DNC filed another motion to dismiss this week, but neither side anticipates a prompt resolution of the case given the court's full docket.(5) Sanders DNC Fraud suit the DNC Help Hillary Clinton Beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim at LeadershipBy Chris Riotta On 5/17/17 at 11:40 PMWhat is the role of the Democratic National Committee in presidential elections? Is it to sway the vote toward a safe, solid and respected insider who will supposedly drive the party straight into the White House, or is it to provide voters the ultimate decision as to which campaign will take the ballot, without any bias or partiality?That is the question at the heart of a class-action lawsuit charging the Democratic National Committee with fraud, deceptive conduct and negligent misrepresentation over the course of the 2016 primaries, in which Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was defeated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic ticket. Jared Beck, a Harvard law expert and one of the attorneys backing the suit, has demanded the DNC repay its donors and Sanders supporters for contributions made throughout the election, citing a misappropriation of public funds.Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC's charter states the organization will operate with total neutrality throughout the course of the Democratic primaries. Court documents reveal the organization's lawyers made a lengthy case suggesting impartiality is nothing more than a political promise, however—even though the defense claimed it did not support any specific campaign over another.If the lawsuit gets past a pending motion to dismiss the case, currently under consideration with no specific time frame by a federal judge in southern Florida (with a hard-liner reputation on squashing corruption), Sanders supporters have a chance of fundamentally shaping how the DNC and the Democratic Party conduct their business.But progressives should instead focus their efforts on working within the DNC right now to stop "the real opponent" currently in Washington, rather than hoping a class-action lawsuit shifts the way the institution operates in the upcoming midterm elections and general election in 2020, according to Scott Bolden, a Democratic strategist and former chair of the D.C. Democratic Party.That opponent—for liberals, many independents and conservative Democrats alike—being the Donald Trump administration."The DNC is not as dangerous as Donald Trump is," Bolden tells Newsweek. "Sanders supporters are forceful, they're vocal, but they haven't learned how to win yet. The importance of the DNC fraud lawsuit is that it shows they're trying to change the rules and regulations and the leadership of the DNC so they can win in upcoming elections."Attorneys for the DNC and its former chairperson, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, attempted to dismiss the lawsuit on multiple occasions, originally claiming it wasn't properly served by Beck and his team, before stating there are no enforceable obligations for the organization to practice neutrality during the primaries.That argument could be deadly to their chances of garnering support from Democrats, liberals and independents who grew inspired by Sanders' message of change in the Democratic Party last year."What if Apple went into a court of law and said, 'We actually don't believe we have any enforceable obligations to our shareholders,'" Beck said in an interview last week. "What do you think would happen to the Apple stock price?"Meanwhile, strategists like Bolden say the party's best shot at winning back control of the House and Senate in 2018 would be to adapt its approach in engaging with Sanders supporters and working families who feel unrepresented by either party at the moment."I think the Democrats are still trying to win support from Sanders supporters, and whether they have been successful to date is still an open question," Bolden says. "You still have this lawsuit. You still have progressive factions who believe they and Sanders were wronged by the DNC. But at the end of the day, you can't prove he didn't get enough votes to beat Hillary because of the committee's actions.... What you can do is move forward together, which is something [DNC Chair] Tom Perez and Sanders will have to continue to fight for."(6) DNC and Wasserman-Schultz again filed to dismiss the lawsuit Sanders supporters are suing the DNC: Here's what you need to knowAndrew WyrichMay 21 at 3:00pmThe DNC is accused of violating its own rules by favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.As the world turned its collective head toward President Donald Trump's bevy of scandals, controversy has quietly brewed on the other side of the aisle—but you'd need to look beyond mainstream media outlets to know it.The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the subject of a class-action lawsuit alleging that the political organization improperly favored Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential election campaign from the beginning, essentially blocking any chance Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) may have had at being the party's standard-bearer against Trump.The suit has been moving in and out of courtrooms since June 2016, when a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It lists dozens of donors to Sanders' campaign—whose contributions ranging close to $3,000 to as low as $25—as plaintiffs. They claim to represent people from 45 states and Washington, D.C.The suit has so far progressed in relative obscurity. Here's what you need to know to get caught up.What does the lawsuit against the DNC allege?Essentially, the suit argues that the DNC violated its own charter—specifically, Article 5 Section 4—which states the chairperson of the party "shall exercise impartiality and even-handedness" between candidates running for president and their respective campaigns."The DNC was biased in favor of one candidate—Hillary Clinton—from the beginning and throughout the process," the suit alleges.The suit also accuses the DNC of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking repayment of their donations.It also criticizes the DNC's handling of donor information in light of the DNC being hacked by Russian cyber criminals in the midst of the campaign. What stage is the lawsuit at now?A month after the suit was filed, the DNC and former Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was also named a defendant, filed a motion to have the suit dismissed because they claimed they were not served the lawsuit correctly. A judge ruled it could continue after the lawsuit was re-served. September 2016, the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz again filed to dismiss the lawsuit, citing "vague claims of unspecified injury" by the defendants and claiming the suit is being used as a "political weapon.""Plaintiffs seek extraordinary and unprecedented relief: a court order binding a political party to an internal rule of operation adopted within the party's discretion and related to its selection of its presidential nominee, and a multi-million dollar judgment, based on Plaintiffs' contention that a political party did not abide by its own rule," the DNC wrote in its motion.The DNC said it believed that the defendants lacked standing to bring about the lawsuit.Judge William J. Zloch ordered that oral arguments on the DNC's motion to dismiss be held on April 25 in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.During the hearing, the DNC's lawyer, Bruce V. Spiva, argued that the DNC's bylaw about neutrality is a "discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with."Spiva also argued against the validity of the defendants' using a class-action lawsuit in this matter, as it would be nearly impossible to determine, depose, and possibly have all Democratic donors testify at the trial. From the court transcript of Spiva's argument:     "The Court would have to find that these individuals were induced to give money to Representative Sanders, sorry, Senator Sanders, on the basis that there would be this neutrality that there purportedly was not, and that they wouldn't have–they relied on that, and that they wouldn't have given that money otherwise. And same with DNC members. The Court would have to define who is a member of the Democratic Party nationwide. There is no national registration for either of the major parties. And so, this Court would have to determine what it means to be a Democrat and then determine whether the class that the Court defined was injured in some way by the allegations."The defendant's attorney, Jared H. Beck, argued that the two sides were "talking primarily about the loss of money.""What we are alleging and specifically alleging in this complaint is that people paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial," Beck said. "And that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can't deny that." Report AdvertisementAt the end of the hearing, Zloch said the case was "very interesting," adding that an order with his decision as to whether or not the case could proceed would "take some time." What happens next?The court must now decide whether the lawsuit can move forward or if it will be dismissed, as the DNC has requested. In the meantime, you can check out the original complaint here. And you can read a transcript of the April 25 hearing here.(7) Podesta agreed that DNC should "stick the knife in" Sanders, NOV 3, 2016 8:20 PM EDTHillary Clinton campaign chair asked lobbyist where to "stick the knife in" Bernie Sanders, leaked email showsWhen an adviser said "Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp," John Podesta replied "I agree," a WikiLeaks email shows  BEN NORTONThe chair of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, John Podesta, said he "agreed" that Sen. Bernie Sanders needed "to be ground to a pulp," according to a newly released email. Podesta asked an influential Democratic Party operative and lobbyist with ties to an array of powerful corporations where the campaign should "stick the knife in" Sanders, Clinton's rival in the Democratic primaries.In February, longtime Clinton adviser and Democratic insider Joel Johnson had sent an email to Clinton campaign head John Podesta, emphasizing, "Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can't start believing our own primary bullshit. This is no time to run the general. Crush him as hard as you can."Just after Salon reported Johnson's message on Thursday morning, however, the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks released another trove of emails to and from Podesta. In this new batch of messages appeared Podesta's response to Johnson's advice."I agree with that in principle," Podesta wrote in reply to Johnson's "no mercy" email."Where would you stick the knife in?" Podesta asked.A close ally of the Clintons and Podesta, Johnson articulated four talking points that could be used to undermine Sanders' insurgent campaign.Johnson proposed portraying Sanders as an "Obama betrayer," noting that the White House would help affirm the talking point. He also said Sanders should be depicted as a "hapless legislator," which other members of Congress would help affirm; a "false promiser," which "policy elites" would affirm; and as someone who is unable to win, which "black people will affirm."Some of these talking points, particularly the "Obama betrayer" argument, were used by the Clinton campaign in the heated primary against Sanders.In an April Democratic debate, Clinton mentioned President Barack Obama so many times, in an attempt to deflect Sanders' criticism, that the Vermont senator was compelled to quip, "I know you keep referring to Barack Obama all night here." Clinton claimed that criticism of her opposition to single-payer health care and her support from Wall Street and other corporate interests was "not just an attack on me; it's an attack on President Obama."Johnson served as a senior adviser for policy and communications under former president Bill Clinton and was a key player in the communications team for John Kerry's presidential campaign.Today, Johnson is the managing director of Glover Park Group, a public relations and lobbying firm that was founded by former White House and Democratic Party officials and has represented companies such as Visa, Microsoft, Yahoo, Pfizer, Fannie Mae and Lyft.The Clinton campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity or the emails, but the emails have contained information that could only have been known internally and therefore cannot be forgeries. The Clinton camp and Obama administration have blamed Russia for the hacks, although some experts have said that there are reasons to be skeptical of this.(8) Democrats registered Dead Voters headed to prison for registering dead voters for DemocratsPosted 12:36 pm, June 26, 2017, by Web StaffHARRISONBURG, Va. — A man paid to register Virginia voters prior to the 2016 Presidential Election will spend at least 100 days in prison for submitting the names of deceased individuals to the Registrar's Office.James Madison University student Andrew J. Spieles, 21, of Harrisonburg, pled guilty Monday in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. As part of the plea agreement, Spieles agreed to a prison sentence of 100 to 120 days.Spieles worked for Harrisonburg Votes when he committed the crime, according to acting United States Attorney Rick A. Mountcastle.Harrisonburg Votes is a political organization affiliated with the Democratic Party."In July 2016 Spieles' job was to register as many voters as possible and reported to Democratic Campaign headquarters in Harrisonburg," a U.S. Attorney's Office spokesperson said. "In August 2016, Spieles was directed to combine his registration numbers with those of another individual because their respective territories overlapped. After filling out a registration form for a voter, Spieles entered the information into a computer system used by the Virginia Democratic Party to track information such as name, age, address and political affiliation. Every Thursday an employee/volunteer hand-delivered the paper copies of the registration forms to the Registrar's Office in Harrisonburg."Later that month, someone at the Registrar's Office called police after another employee saw a name they recognized on a registration form.The name was the deceased father of a Rockingham County Judge."The Registrar's Office discovered multiple instances of similarly falsified forms when it reviewed additional registrations. Some were in the names of deceased individuals while others bore incorrect middle names, birth dates, and social security numbers," the spokesperson continued. "The Registrar's Office learned that the individuals named in these forms had not in fact submitted the new voter registrations. The assistant registrar's personal knowledge of the names of some of the individuals named in the falsified documents facilitated the detection of the crime."Spieles later admitted that he prepared the false voter registration forms by obtaining the name, age, and address of individuals from "walk sheets" provided to him by the Virginia Democratic Party, fabricating a birth date based on the ages listed in the walk sheet, and fabricating the social security numbers. Spieles admitted that he created all 18 fraudulent forms himself and that no one else participated in the crime."The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Harrisonburg Police Department investigated the crime.(9) Trump commissions voter identification laws; several million "illegals" voted for Hillary Is Said to Pick Voter ID Advocate for Election Fraud PanelBy JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISMAY 11, 2017WASHINGTON — President Trumpplans to name Kris W. Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who has pressed for aggressive measures to crack down on undocumented immigrants, to a long-promised commission to investigate voting fraud in the United States, a White House official said on Thursday.The commission is the official follow-through on Mr. Trump's unsubstantiated claim that several million "illegals" voted for his Democratic rival and robbed him of a victory in the national popular vote.Mr. Kobach, who has championed the strictest voter identification laws in the country, will be the vice chairman of the commission, which is to be led by Vice President Mike Pence and is expected to include about a dozen others, including state officials from both political parties, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an announcement expected later on Thursday.Officials said Mr. Trump would sign an executive order on Thursday creating the commission, which they said would have a broad mandate to review policies and practices that affect Americans' confidence in the integrity of federal elections. Improper or fraudulent registrations, voting fraud and voter suppression are among the issues the commission will study, they said.One adviser said the group would spend about a year drafting a report that would take a comprehensive look at election issues that have preoccupied state officials for many years.But even before the commission was made official, Mr. Kobach's influential position on it was generating controversy, particularly among immigration advocacy groups that said they feared he would use the perch to try to prevent minority voters from casting ballots.Mr. Kobach has been the driving force behind a Kansas law requiring new voters to produce a passport, a birth certificate or naturalization papers as proof of citizenship or be denied the ability to cast ballots. He worked last year to disqualify the state and local votes of thousands of people who did not meet the criteria. He has advocated the proof-of-citizenship requirement at the federal level as well, citing rampant voter fraud without producing proof of a widespread problem."Kris Kobach being named to run a commission on 'voter integrity' is like naming Bernie Madoff to run a commission on financial crimes," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice Education Fund. "He has dedicated his professional career to trying to deny people of color the vote and to trying to drive millions of immigrants out of the country."Mr. Kobach did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and White House representatives would not divulge details in advance of the planned announcement.-- Peter Myerswebsite: