No, You Lazy Conservative Journalists, A Court Did NOT Rule That The DNC AND Wasserman Schultz Rigged The Nomination Against Bernie

Find another occupation where your stupidity and incompetence doesn’t make the public stupid and ignorant.

“Court Admits DNC and Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primary Against Sanders,” screamed the headline of the Washington Observor, and other sources, including conservative blogs, followed the theme. This was the essence of Fake News, and like most fake news, the result of bias and incompetence, plus unprofessional editors.

In June of 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. The plaintiff class was made up of Sanders donors and other, and immediately smelled like a publicity stunt. The theory was that the DNC violated its own charter, but the likelihood of prevailing was virtually nil from the start. I didn’t read a single authority who thought it had a prayer.

Sure enough, the lawsuit was dismissed last week in federal court on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing and the suit was a guaranteed loser. Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit, saying,

“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent.”

That means that for the purpose of the decision whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the judge assumed that everything the plaintiffs claim was true. It doesn’t mean that they had proved their case, or that the judge has ruled that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz did what is alleged. Law professor Jonathan Turley explains,

“Since this was a motion for dismissal on standing and other grounds, a court will assume all facts in favor of the non-moving party. In other words, a court will say that “even if you were to prove all of these allegations, you would still not have a case.” Thus, the key in the above referenced line is “in evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage.” The Court was not making a finding of fact that indeed the DNC rigged the primary….The Court was saying that, even if it accepted all of these allegations are provable and proven, the plaintiffs would still lose.”

It would be competent and educational for the various news sources to explain this as well and as clearly as Turley did, rather than completely misrepresent what happened and what the judge ruled. Nah! Who would want to read that?


Pointer: Res Ipsa Loquitur


14 thoughts on “No, You Lazy Conservative Journalists, A Court Did NOT Rule That The DNC AND Wasserman Schultz Rigged The Nomination Against Bernie

  1. Boy, that’s embarrassing. Don’t newspapers hire people who’ve gone to law school to write their law related articles? They’d probably blame it on craigslist taking away their classified ads income stream.

  2. One more reason why Civics curricula across the nation need to be thoroughly revamped, expanded (bumping more useless subjects out of the way) and taught with vigor.

  3. This is a very common problem, like when people say, after a tragedy, they’re blaming the victim! Turns out it was an affirmative defense in an answer that you have to raise or it’s waived.

    I could excuse a lay person, but some reviewing court documents and reporting on them should have at least a passing familiarity with procedure.

  4. While this dismissal is standard stuff, and has been overblown, I think the answers that the DNC lawyers presented in this case are far more damming. This medium article goes over this better than I could.

    View at

      • And it’s old news. We KNEW that DWS stacked the deck for Hillary, Democrats don’t even deny it, I mean, it was the reason the DWS lost her job as chair of the DNC…. Explicitly, if I recall correctly. At this point, I don’t know why anyone would pay attention to things like this except to take part in some kind of vindication porn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.