It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Today, federal Judge William Zloch dismissed the suit, stating in a judicial order that — even assuming the allegations are true — it's impossible to test any "fraud" claims against the DNC in federal court. Zloch wrote that the Becks and their plaintiffs claimed the DNC leak proved Wasserman Schultz's conduct hurt DNC donors, especially those who donated to Sanders, and possibly exposed DNC donors to identity theft by getting hacked.
Importantly, Judge Zloch actually didn't rule that it's impossible to sue the DNC for fraud — just that the Becks likely didn't do enough to prove their case. Importantly, Zloch wrote that the 100-plus plaintiffs claiming to be a single "class" of aggrieved voters, did not meet the basic legal guidelines for a class-action suit. Reporter and law student Walker Bragman argued this same point in June.
The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced her resignation on the eve of the party’s convention, dealing a blow to hopes of demonstrating unity in the face of the threat from Donald Trump.
Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.
Through its Charter and Bylaws, the DNC has obliged itself to a policy of neutrality among Democratic presidential candidates. To that end, as it pertains to the “Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.” DE 8, ¶ 159 (emphasis supplied in Complaint). Wasserman Schultz and other DNC officials touted this policy in public statements during presidential primaries.
Plaintiffs attribute the following quotes to Wasserman Schultz or other DNC staff:
• “I count Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden as dear friends, but no matter who comprises the field of candidates it’s my job to run a neutral primary process and that’s what I am committed to doing.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process, period.”
• “the Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules.”
• “even though Senator Sanders has endorsed my opponent, I remain, as I have been from the beginning, neutral in the presidential Democratic primary.”
This Order does not concern who should have been the
Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
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.
especially those who donated to Sanders, and possibly exposed DNC donors to identity theft by getting hacked.
originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: Gryphon66
Can they file again after this ruling? I know nothing about this kind of stuff.
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.
Their cause of action is premised on a security breach of the DNC’s computer servers, which Plaintiffs allege was perpetrated by two Russian hacking groups having “a long history of successfully targeting sensitive government and industry computer networks in both the United States and other countries, often using ‘sophisticated phishing attacks.’” DE 8, ¶ 164. A computer hacker known as “Guccifer 2.0" claimed credit for the security breach and posted several documents from the DNC’s servers online.
Although the Eleventh Circuit has held that a party who has actually suffered identity theft as a result of a data breach has standing, it has expressly left open the question whether the mere threat of future identity theft creates Article III standing.
Wasserman Schultz’s ‘Islamophobia’ Claim Prompts Angered Marine To Go Public On Awans
A Marine who provided key evidence in the FBI case against Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s former IT employee said he is appalled by her claim that Islamophobia led U.S. Capitol Police to frame the former staffer.
“It pisses me off,” said Taggart, a black Marine who says he votes Democrat. He believes Wasserman Schultz is crying wolf and devaluing the meaning of genuine discrimination, while also exposing herself and the nation to risks.
Wasserman Schultz claimed Imran Awan is being “persecuted” by the Capitol Police and FBI after she was told that he is suspected of “data transfer violations,” even as she lamented the seriousness of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Wasserman Schultz was chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee when its IT network was hacked in 2016.
Taggart said he made the decision to no longer be anonymous because he is concerned that his fellow Democrats are making a grave mistake by ignoring a scandal with serious criminal and national security implications. “I’m absolutely disgusted with everything going on in the country right now, mostly because of right-wing conservatives, but with respect to this situation, political affiliation is irrelevant,” Taggart said.
“Him, his wife, his brother, all working down there — there’s no way they could do this without help. If we can drag Trump and his wingnuts through the mud for the Russia influence that they are having, then it’s only fair that we also expose this s–t,” Taggart said.
Here is another article about DWS and the Awans..
Wasserman Schultz meets the press over Imran Awan case
In this article she talks how he was persecuted.
She also touches on confederate statues and a few other current hot topics.
Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.
Adolf Hitler, Sunday Express, 28 September 1930; cited. in The Rise of Fascism by F.L. Carsten, p. 137
I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.
A private statement made on March 24, 1942. Cited in Hitler's Secret Conversations. Translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. 1953. p. 294