folks breached the firewall between Hillary's supporters list and Bernie's. Of course it was an accident.

and I had never signed up for any communication from the campaign.

I am, however, a donor to the Democratic party starting in 2000.

Puzzling.

but what you describe isn't attributable to how the data breach worked. Here is what the company NGP VAN says happened:

For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.

... the Democrats let Bernie Sanders run as a Democrat, and the "caucus" system favored him, so there was a balance to the system he said he did not like - not that it changed the outcome, even as a perception; Bernie enjoyed a popularity he never had during a long career. He did exceptionally well with a primary system and mood that was ready for him. Hillary got more votes, so she got to be the nominee. She found things that worked for her campaign, too.

to run as a Democrat.

And he was graciously allowed to.

was accused of rigging the process for Clinton over Obama and Edwards back in 2008 as well - however, Obama went out and won the nomination. Sanders could not do the same in 2016.

The Superdelegate system in place for 2016 was first used in the presidential campaign of 1992 - so, the Democrats managed to win in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012 and had controversial losses in 2000 and 2016 despite getting more popular votes and a very narrow loss in 2004.

Superdelegates came into being following the tumultuous 1968 campaign, but they were tweaked several times throughout the 70s and 80s until they settled on the 1992 system after the Dukakis embarrassment

power and illicitly overset the popular vote to give HIM the nomination. That still just blows me away, that Sanders would ask them to betray their duty to protect the will and interests of the Democratic voters they're sworn to serve.

That would have been betrayal of not just all 16+ million Democrats who voted, since we all believed our votes would decide, but also of the 31% of all Americans who identify Democrat, AND above all, of the democracy that is the birthright of all Americans and is currently weakened and in serious danger from attacks by enemies foreign and domestic.

But, I'm sure it won't among the zealot community. Just goes on and on and on.

they will say to the panel: you are all part of this too!

You piece of compromised shit.

Let us know what she says.

I haven't heard her recant that position. If she has, that's great and if she hasn't, I would hope she would in light of this decision. Just wondering why she would say that in the first place without any evidence. YMMV

Apparently at that time, she thought that Brazile's book was a reliable source of evidence.

Lots of people here did as well....

Brazile said she found no evidence of the primary being rigged. It's too bad Senator Warren answered in the affirmative so quickly, which helped fuel that false narrative (three days between Senator Warren's interview video (11/2/17) and when Brazile said it wasn't rigged (11/5/17)).

We live, we learn (hopefully).

change her mind when new data become available.

I wish that basic leadership characteristic was possessed by more of the other candidates.

....so she really wasn't in a position to judge since all her knowledge was what going on other than what she read or was told second and third hand.

But it's all moot - it's been determined that there was no rigging so let's move on and win next November. I certainly hope that ALL of our candidates rally around our ultimate nominee and get him/her elected. NO seven week vacations this time around!!!!

do hope all the other candidates support the eventual nominee.

Your claim is not beyond rational debate. And it isn't true.

The DNC did absolutely nothing to help her win, nor could they have if they had wanted to.

The emails you refer to, given to you by Vladimir Putin, show DNC officials talking about the fact that Hillary was going to be the nominee after that was already perfectly clear based on what the voters had done at the polls.

Bernie lost fair and square.

"But her emails!!!"



Perhaps you ignored this part:

We really do not need to keep picking this scab.

It's others on this thread...

If they want to string this out, they will be taking it to the Supreme Court.

They should be the ones that stop picking the scab.

I am saying that we as a party need to treat this with disregard and not let it keep hanging around.

and Delivered! It's a Done Deal.

I’m pretty tired of that particular victim card. So many misrepresentations of the Democratic Party and the DNC all stoked up by one campaign.

Getting this out there nips that shit in the bud.

SMDH.

In that religion it is necessary to believe.

Glad it's finally settled once and for all.

The court said " there are just too many unknowns " The Court DID NOT rule that "Democrats did not tilt 2016 primary in Clinton's favor" as the headline states. They made no ruling on that. The ruling was made mainly on procedural grounds.

Perhaps you will list where the court made rulings which agree with the headline...

It doesn't.

However, I will posit as support that the only people people bringing forth a lawsuit concerning the DNC and the 2016 elections are conspiracy theory whacknuts. If there was a basis for such a claim, wouldn't a more reputable lawyer(s) have decided it was worth litigating?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12635864

And again:

I have been laughing at the pleadings in this case for a long time. See https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210544462 The briefs in this case filed by the plaintiffs were so bad that they were funny.

For example, the idiot attorney who filed this silly case claimed that donors were consumers under the DC consumer protection law.

I will miss laughing at the pleadings and briefs in this case

But the OP headline is untrue. The court made no such ruling.

Jim Saunders
Executive Editor
Email: j.saunders@newsserviceflorida.com
(850) 728-1705
Jim has been executive editor of the News Service since 2013 and has covered state government and politics in Florida since 1998. Jim came to the News Service in 2011 after stints as Tallahassee bureau chief for The Florida Times-Union, The Daytona Beach News-Journal and Health News Florida. He moved to Florida in 1990 and worked eight years for the Times-Union in Jacksonville and St. Johns County. A native of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he graduated from Northwestern University and worked at The Blade newspaper in Toledo, Ohio, before moving to the Times-Union. Jim enjoys covering legal and regulatory issues and has extensive experience in covering health care.

https://newsserviceflorida.com/contact_us.cfm

Let us know what he says.

Your claim is false. There were a number of rulings on the substance of the ignorant claims made in this lawsuit. Please understand that the court was far nicer to the idiots who filed this law suit than I would have been.

Here is a link to the opinion http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201714194.pdf

Here are a couple of sections of the opinion ruling on the merit of the claims

Or ignored what it said. "too many unknowns" Which is what I posted. There is nothing in what you posted that backs up the headline.

Are you a member of the bar? I cut and paste sections that are very clear. Your claims are false if you actually read and understood the opinion

Where does the court say the DNC did not favor Clinton? That is what the headline says. I hope your practice is not appellate law.

The key is that I actually read and understood the opinion. I have also read the pleadings and the briefs in this case. Why are you defending this bogus lawsuit? This lawsuit was so bad that it is funny.

This lawsuit was dismissed because even with the court treating all of the lawsuit pleadings as being true, there was no basis for relief in the rather stupid claims made in this lawsuit

Your claims are wrong. I have no trouble with the reporting of this ruling.

meet their burden of proof and they were the plaintiffs. So it is not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the DNC did any rigging. Whether you take that to mean they did not is a matter of choice, such as where OJ was acquitted but still it is possible not to believe he did not murder anyone.

Not sure if I am remembering that correctly.

There used to be good number of threads on this lawsuit on that site.

Thought I remembered it correctly.

This headline and spin are the equivalent of Trump claiming Mueller exonerated him.

There is no case but that doesn't mean there weren't shenanigans. It's just that the shenanigans may have been oddly legal and we need to deal with that problem.

This lawsuit was so bad that it was fun to laugh at. I understand that some idiots on JPR joined as plaintiffs which amuses me greatly.

I am sad that I no long get to laugh at the pleadings and briefs in this case. The attorneys who filed this case are really bad

I am so glad that this bogus lawsuit was rejected https://cbs12.com/news/local/lawsuit-rejected-over-dnc-tilt-toward-clinton

Jared Beck - got banned on twitter because every other word in his posts were "Loser!" "Go Fuck Yourself!"

Link to tweet

I had written about Beck and her husband last summer, after their laughably thin lawsuit against the DNC for "defrauding Bernie Sanders voters" got thrown out of court, so when I first saw her on Melber's show, I rolled my eyes. Fortunately, she came off as pretty affable, leading me to think that maybe she had her act together. These good thoughts didn't last long, as last Friday, in an appearance on CNN, Beck blew up whatever credibility she had left with the mainstream media.

The panel begins with Baldwin questioning Zelldin and Schaub, who discuss the revelations concerning Trump's attempted firing of Robert Mueller last June. They both give informed, reasonable answers concerning Trump's conduct and what this means for the investigation, while Beck, in the bottom corner, darts her eyes around the screen as though she's literally trapped in a box and can't find the exit. Then, two minutes and fifty-one seconds in, Beck utters the fatal words that will consign her to the fringes of independent media for the rest of her career: "Why are you subjecting me to this?

And it gets worse. On Saturday, Beck accused CNN of slacking on investigating debunked conspiracy theories, such as Uranium One, the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11, and the "Soros funded riots" relating to Black Lives Matter. She capped it off with this piece de resistance, forever proving Jean-Pierre Faye's horseshoe theory that the furthest tips of the far left and right meet in a center of crazy:

I was glad when twitter suspended this idiot

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2019, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Avoiding even the APPEARANCE of impropriety is just as important as avoiding impropriety itself.


rocktivity

It's very irresponsible to lead people in this way. I don't want to get in trouble so I won't say anymore than that.

Hillary can be grilled in 11 hour stretches, be investigated repeatedly. A RAYGUN flying monkey asked how he could get his reputation back after being exonerated. Hillary can be cleared repeatedly yet her reputation keeps on being soiled.

and people are still dying on the hill he left already.

I doubt BS could give a flying fuck about any of this, and his supporters are not helping him by beating a dead horse.

"No, wait, 'some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," Sanders replied.

that's too bad.

Mahalo, ehrnst!

This case was one of my soap operas. I really enjoyed laughing at the pleadings and briefs in this case. The attorney who filed this case is an idiot who is also pushing the Seth Rich stupidity.

My favorite part of this case was the rejection of the ignorant claim that the District of Columbia consumer protection act applied and that the sanders donors who sued qualified as consumers.

I am also amused that a number of the JPR idiots joined this lawsuit as plaintiffs.

I am sad that I will no long get to laugh at this lawsuit

laugh a lifetime though.. they lost their stupid gaslighting "lawsuit"!

Thank Goodness.. it's Done Deal Now!

an apology from the Putincept and all the other dudebros on Twitter who smeared her into somebody worse than Hitler...

America is turning out to be shockingly infiltrated and affected by corruption, much of it embedded by Russia as a weapon of war. But this is a good time to point out that, while the Republican Party has become rotten top to bottom, the Democratic Party is still remarkably clean in spite of everything.

That's because of us, people like us. Poor character in politicians and the corruption that comes with them and is accepted, even passionately endorsed by too many, repel and are rejected by most Democrats, especially the liberals who dominate our party.

Sincere liberals aren't just the defenders of democracy and the anti-fascists, as a group we're proving in this era -- as we always have -- to be very resistant to serious corruption.

On the other hand, a substantial share of our citizens think the whole system is rigged. EG:

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287328840|

Guess it's all in how one defines "rigged".

nominees are selected.

That's good, because again, there is no evidence that it was/is "rigged," legally, illegally or otherwise.

Just making sure.

I read most of the Opinion. There were 3 classes of plaintiffs: DNC donors, Bernie donors, and "voters affiliated with the Democratic Party in various states". All but the DNC donor class was throw out due to lack of standing (Article III). The Bernie donors' case failed because they didn't list the dates of their donations (!) (seems like the lawyers didn't do very good work to me).

The Judges write: "we hold that the fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CPPA, and unjust enrichment claims of the
DNC donor class fail on the merits....The named plaintiffs representing the DNC donor class have not satisfied
Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements. Specifically, they have failed to allege with particularity the manner in which they relied on the defendants’ statements." (Earlier, they quoted several statements made by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stating the DNC is neutral w/r/t the candidates.)

(I'm skipping a section on how plaintiffs' fraud claim failed because they aren't consumers & the DNC is a nonprofit - IANAL.)

There was an "unjust enrichment" claim: failed because, at a minimum, plaintiffs don't say why they donated to the DNC (if they had said they donated to support an impartial primary, that could be different).

There is more but my eyes have glazed over. Basically, it's lack of standing and incompetent lawyers did not get into specifics enough from what I gather.

Hope this helps anyone honestly curious.