Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the document.

Click link for full article...


So the first go around a Federal judge in Florida ruled the Federal courts dont have jurisdiction and dismissed the case, directing the complainants to use state courts. Not only did they file in state courts, they appealed the Federal courts ruling and won, getting the case reinstated at the Federal level.

The first go around saw the DNC lawyers argue that they could pick a candidate in a cigar filled backroom regardless of how Democrats voted in the primaries. They also argued the DNC never rigged any primaries. Apparently their new strategy is to not only admit they rigged the primaries against Sanders to help Clinton, but primary rigging is protected by the 1st amendment.

When will the insanity on the left end?

A court in the UK ruled emails obtained by wikileaks could be used as evidence. If a US court takes the same road then the wikileaks emails dealing with this mess can be introduced in the US lawsuit. Essentially the DNC is saying they will take donations from Democrats however the DNC leadership can pick whomever they want, in violation of their own charter and state and federal laws.

a reply to: Xcathdra

When will the insanity on the left end?

Never.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is certifiably insane.

Hey, Democrats, good luck with the elections.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Ummm...when will it end...?

When the last person identifying as a leftist finally hangs their head in shame and admits defeat...from their corner...of that round rubber room...they inhabit...




YouSir

a reply to: Xcathdra

The DNC establishment is absolutely disconnected from the reality of their own base!

They can use as all the psychological warfare they like in amping up the naive to hate Trump and his base all they like.

The reality is that there is a quiet unyielding anger that is boiling about the absurd levels of corruption being exposed on the DNC side of the isle.

I wonder how many Democrats/Independents are now Trump supporters simply because they are able to critically think and do their own research.

Keep digging you graves you corrupt POS's!

wow ramen noodles is cooked for sure. These have got to be the worst lawyers and the dumbest Crooks. But then again this is Florida and anything is possible.

Removing Democratic politicians from the question and focusing just on people who support Democrats. How the hell is this tolerable for you? They take your money and then ignore your will and spend the money how ever they want. They then knowingly admit their illegal acts are actually legal under the 1st amendment? They also still have not removed super delegates from their primary system.

How is this acceptable to you guys?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Par for the course with the most undemocratic party in the United States.

On May 31, 2008, Barack Obama sent lawyers into the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee hearing to argue that the party SHOULD NOT COUNT ANY VOTES IN THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA PRIMARY.

He wanted ALL those voters disenfranchised.

That's the *stuff* that Barack Obama is made of.

And most of those Democratic voters have since stuck around for more abuse from a party that hates and uses them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To be honest, both the DNC and RNC are not a part of the government. They are private entities... clubs, if you will.

As such, the only rules in ~primaries~ are the rules that the two clubs themselves have made up. There are no real federal rules on how a party (DNC or RNC) actually determines the winner.

They can break their own rules if they feel like it... it is, after all, THEIR rules.

People need to understand the distinction.

It is getting better... Ron Paul supporters figured that out in 08-12. Sanders supporters figured it out in 16.

No if only we can ban political parties and vote for the ideology of the candidate...

a reply to: Xcathdra



Fast and faster the circling goes the closer to the drain they get.

originally posted by: notquiteright
Hey, Democrats, good luck with the elections.

Maybe the RUSSIANS are going to help them? Democrats have suddenly stopped asking Trump to do something to stop them from interfering in November.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the document.

Click link for full article...


So the first go around a Federal judge in Florida ruled the Federal courts dont have jurisdiction and dismissed the case, directing the complainants to use state courts. Not only did they file in state courts, they appealed the Federal courts ruling and won, getting the case reinstated at the Federal level.

The first go around saw the DNC lawyers argue that they could pick a candidate in a cigar filled backroom regardless of how Democrats voted in the primaries. They also argued the DNC never rigged any primaries. Apparently their new strategy is to not only admit they rigged the primaries against Sanders to help Clinton, but primary rigging is protected by the 1st amendment.

When will the insanity on the left end?

A court in the UK ruled emails obtained by wikileaks could be used as evidence. If a US court takes the same road then the wikileaks emails dealing with this mess can be introduced in the US lawsuit. Essentially the DNC is saying they will take donations from Democrats however the DNC leadership can pick whomever they want, in violation of their own charter and state and federal laws.

if the dems dont take their party back this will get looped into endless attack ads for the midterms
how can they stand by and not hold these people accountable?

Well, at least they aren't blaming the Russians for interfering in their primaries.

Yup, our laws were written by devious people and are interpretted by the same type of people. Sanders got the shaft. In our country it is all right to steal as long as you do it the right way. In our country it is allowable to swindle someone as long as it is done the right way. We live in a time of deceit where deceit is now running this country. Right and wrong are defined by laws and interpretted as to applicable by lawyers and the ones who create laws. The police just do what these people up high want, some look out for us though, as long as it does not jeopardize someone who has more influence than us.

That's life here in America, things will not be changing for a long time, most people do not know they are participating in this game of deception. Things that were not acceptable before are now everyday life. Let the buyer beware, even when it comes to propaganda and misinterpretations by high ranking people or the poor. It is not just the rich and powerful that are doing this deception, look at the work you do....is that job actually necessary? Wants have become our needs these days.

Wait, so the Democratic National Convention is not, in fact, a democracy by their own admission? Weird.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.” Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First Amendment at this point in the document.

Click link for full article...


So the first go around a Federal judge in Florida ruled the Federal courts dont have jurisdiction and dismissed the case, directing the complainants to use state courts. Not only did they file in state courts, they appealed the Federal courts ruling and won, getting the case reinstated at the Federal level.

The first go around saw the DNC lawyers argue that they could pick a candidate in a cigar filled backroom regardless of how Democrats voted in the primaries. They also argued the DNC never rigged any primaries. Apparently their new strategy is to not only admit they rigged the primaries against Sanders to help Clinton, but primary rigging is protected by the 1st amendment.

When will the insanity on the left end?

A court in the UK ruled emails obtained by wikileaks could be used as evidence. If a US court takes the same road then the wikileaks emails dealing with this mess can be introduced in the US lawsuit. Essentially the DNC is saying they will take donations from Democrats however the DNC leadership can pick whomever they want, in violation of their own charter and state and federal laws.

Even if this is true, it's using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, as well as how primaries have been represented to the public.

This election cycle really solidified my view that at the top there is a corrupt establishment. I used to think it was just the Republicans but I've been disabused of that notion.

For the liberals on ATS, that isn't just theoretical. I work with former Obama and Clinton campaign staff. I've seen a lot of political hackery, cronyism, and political patronage first hand.

originally posted by: ausername
Well, at least they aren't blaming the Russians for interfering in their primaries.

Russians are sceduled to help them this time. Thats why.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lawyers For The DNC Argue That 'Primary Rigging' Is Protected By The First Amendment

Shouldn't come as a big surprise.

The Democrats think that the law doesn't apply to them.

After all Hillary thought it was legal to have a server in her basement.

We need people from the outside to help do it. Those working in the political realm or even many government positions know they will be targeted if they do try to really fight this.
a reply to: shooterbrody

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no right that allows for infringement of another individuals rights.

None.

The DNC is lying.

Which ironically, IS considered free speech.