Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit
Disobedient Media has consistently reported on the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the disturbing, sometimes bizarre events surrounding the case. Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that ruling is in the process of an appeal in the 11th Circuit appellate court.
Last week, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the suit submitted a supplemental authority letter in the case, arguing that the DNC’s suit against Russia was relevant to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. The cited relevance was due to arguments made by DNC defense counsel that stated donors did not contribute funds based on the promise of impartiality by the DNC towards Democratic Party primary candidates.
However, as the Beck’s submission points out, the DNC appears to have contradicted their defense by arguing in their separate suit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks that the DNC experienced a severe drop in donations in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary. Bloomberg reports that Democrats raised half as much as Republicans in 2017: In other words, primary source evidence of the DNC’s partiality towards Hillary Clinton has resulted in a steep decline in public donations.
As reported in April by CBS News, the DNC filed its own lawsuit against the “Russian government, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, arguing that the parties conspired to influence the 2016 presidential campaign in a way that damaged the Democratic Party.” That legacy press has consistently failed to point out the irony of the DNC’s claim is a stain on the deeply marred facade of American ‘journalism.’
The latest submission by Elizabeth Beck in the DNC Fraud lawsuit appeal, pictured below, states: “The complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC,” also known as DNC Services Corporation, and a Defendant/Appellee in the instant appeal before this Court) in the Russia Lawsuit contains allegations made by the DNC which are relevant to the case at bar.”
The letter submitted by Elizabeth Beck goes on to state:
“Appellees/Defendants DNC Services Corporation and Congresswoman Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz (“Appellees”) have denied that the class members donated “in reliance on anything that Defendants said or did,” (Doc. 44, page 8), claimed in open court that it was implausible and “just doesn’t really make logical sense” that Appellees induced class members to donate to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, (April 25, 2017 hearing transcript, 68:14-21), speculated that “[t]here are many Bernie Sanders donors who gave because they thought the system was rigged…or…unfair,” (id. 96:9-12), suggested that it is “more logical” that voters would be more inclined to donate if they knew the system was “rigged.” (id. 97:23-98:3, 107:9-13) and stated in their Response Brief that Appellants cannot show a connection between Appellees’ conduct and Appellants’ financial injury (Response Br. at 20).”
“Appellants submit that the DNC’s complaint in the Russia Lawsuit contradicts these allegations and arguments that Appellees have submitted in this instant appeal, as the DNC now claim in the Russia Lawsuit that donations have dramatically dropped.“
To reiterate this point: Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud lawsuit argue that, in a separate suit filed by the DNC against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, the claims of DNC regarding financial damage contradict the DNC’s defense counsel in the Fraud lawsuit.
Such a contradiction comes as little surprise to those who have observed the progression of the DNC’s willingness to admit their corruption in open court. The Democratic Party’s shamelessness was particularly visible earlier this year when lawyers representing the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz argued that the First Amendment protected the party’s primary rigging.
Again: DNC representatives have argued that the DNC had no established fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent, and that the donations were not given under the premise of impartiality – which is then contradicted by the DNC’s own admission that donations to the DNC have plummeted. That political corruption and hypocrisy in the US has escalated past the point of entertainment into the realm of the truly absurd is evidenced by current DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s straight-faced claim that:
“Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign… This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for president of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.”
That the Chairman of the DNC would make such claims while the DNC’s legal counsel has defended the party’s assault on democracy during the Fraud lawsuit litigation, boggles the mind. Disobedient Media previously reported that during the DNC Fraud Lawsuit proceedings, DNC defense council Bruce Spiva infamously argued that the party had the right to pick a candidate. Spiva said in court:
“But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and 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…”
Disobedient Media will continue to report on the DNC Fraud lawsuit as it progresses.