Did The DNC Help Hillary Clinton Beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim

a reply to: burntheships

They normally would not have a legal duty, but for the fact that they claimed they are. They made a false claim in order to get people to donate, I will not say it IS wrong, but I think the case has merit.

This is nice, but what I would really like to see is a bunch of states get together and file a class action suit against the DNC to retrieve all the taxpayer money spent on a phony primary, and for the same States to refuse to fund any further primaries of the DNC. THAT would be justice

originally posted by: burntheships
Should they have to refund the money to those who donated money in good faith?

Obviously I don't know enough about the mechanics of the US political process, so let me raise this naive query;
Was the money donated to the DNC, as such, or to the candidate?
If they did not receive the money themselves, why should they refund it? On the assumption that Bernie Sanders was himself being defrauded in this process, it could be argued that he received the money in good faith, and an obligation to refund the money donated would only apply if he was colluding in the fraud.
To me, there seems to be a gap in the logic of this lawsuit as it is being described.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: elementalgrove

Yes, Shawn Lucas, unexpected death.

Is this the same lawsuit, I think it is?
The judge has a staunch anti corruption reputation.

A bit about Shawn Lucas death:www.newsweek.com...

I am not sure if it is the same lawsuit, but if it is, even better.

Shawn Lucas deserves to have justice and taking down these scumbags would be the way for him to get it.

a reply to: burntheships

That's really awesome.
I think they may have a great case.

Thanks for sharing!

originally posted by: Christosterone
I liked the part where she stole the primary then lost the general election...

The very best part!!

And the democrats continue to sabotage themselves over and over again...

In so many ways, there is anothe suit just hitting about the
Illegal wages they paid. With all of the money they had,
But it went to Hillary's coffers.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: burntheships
Should they have to refund the money to those who donated money in good faith?

Obviously I don't know enough about the mechanics of the US political process, so let me raise this naive query;
Was the money donated to the DNC, as such, or to the candidate?
If they did not receive the money themselves, why should they refund it? On the assumption that Bernie Sanders was himself being defrauded in this process, it could be argued that he received the money in good faith, and an obligation to refund the money donated would only apply if he was colluding in the fraud.
To me, there seems to be a gap in the logic of this lawsuit as it is being described.

I don't know if it even matters who it was donated to as all the candidates were part of the DNC. The DNC lied to the doners, and that lie is what caused them to donate.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The money involved was donated to the DNC. The plaintiffs charge that they were defrauded because the DNC charter says that the DNC will be ompartial.
They actively supported Hillary over Bernie... and admitted it.
Fraud in my eyes.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
This is nice, but what I would really like to see is a bunch of states get together and file a class action suit against the DNC to retrieve all the taxpayer money spent on a phony primary, and for the same States to refuse to fund any further primaries of the DNC. THAT would be justice

Why is taxpayer money even being spent on a private organization's primary?

a reply to: butcherguy
The poster just above you has given a different answer (or did, originally).
I think getting that question sorted out is crucial to any quest to get the money refunded.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes. A moral duty to uphold a promise; that translates to
a fiduciary duty they have once they take donations.

This is exactly what they do not want people to connect.

Contract law. Promise to perform...

In contracts, a promise is essential to a binding legal agreement and is given in exchange for consideration, which is the inducement to enter into a promise. A promise is illusory when the promisor does not bind herself to do anything and, therefore, furnishes no consideration for a valid contract.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yet if they were negligent in a fiduciary duty,
they can be fined, or other financial orders, yes?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Exactly...I made thread on that over a year ago that got little interest. That is the million dollar question.

a reply to: burntheships

Bernie was screwed and the DNC is guilty. Both parties always have a behind the scenes pre-selected candidate. Jeb Bush was the RNC selection this past election, just follow the money. I don't trust either party playing fair. Party politics and the unfair advantage of how money plays a roll on who gets more air time doesn't create a level playing field.

Party politics really needs to go.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: butcherguy
The poster just above you has given a different answer (or did, originally).
I think getting that question sorted out is crucial to any quest to get the money refunded.

I changed it because it shouldn't even matter. I had read about Bernie supporters saying they would sue, this may be another group. But the meat of my post and his were both the same.

But if I donated because I wanted Hillary to win, and thought I had to donate to help her, when all along she was the chosen one and my donation did nothing I should have standing to sue.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yet if they were negligent in a fiduciary duty,
they can be fined, or other financial orders, yes?

This doesn't appear to even be negligence, it appears to be planned fraud. They admit they said they would be impartial, and they admit they were intentionally partial to Hillary.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: burntheships

I think this is why Trump saw a strange kinship with Bernie. Both the GOP and DNC tried this but Trump didn't mind getting dirty to fight back.

Sanders was just too nice to attack Hillary like Trump attacked the other candidates. He invited a positive movement instead when he needed an angry one like Trump created.

You missed the point.

The point is that Bernie was doomed before it even began, and it didn't matter what he did or how many people voted for him. Therefore election fraud.

You're assuming that the primary was fair and that Hillary won it because she was more vicious. No.
She won because she cheated, allegedly.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I think it does make a difference, logically, and it might legally.
If A gives money to B and they are both being defrauded by C, is that a reason why C should refund money which C did not receive? Can B be expected to refund any money, if he was not party to the fraud?
I suspect these questions would be argued in court, so we may as well face up to them.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Well you have your wish, if other states will join with
The current ones? There is a lawsuit ""Fair Pay"
In Pennsylvania. Ed Rendel is involved.

The story is here:


philadelphia.cbslocal.com...

a reply to: DISRAELI

Except B is actually part of C. Saying you donated to trump and want money back would make no sense as he is not part of the DNC, Bernie is.

So no matter who the money was donated to, I think there is a case. One case may be stronger or weaker depending on who was donated to though, but I see legal standing for anyone who donated, as they are all effected.