Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit

Submitted by Elizabeth Vos Savant via Disobedient Media

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.

Comments

nmewn bigkahuna Mon, 06/25/2018 - 19:07 Permalink

"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."

lol...only a rational mind, of which, there are none left in the demoncrat party ;-)

In reply to by bigkahuna

Carla Houston nmewn Mon, 06/25/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

 

I'm ­­­­­­­­­ making ­­­­­­­­­over­­­­­­­­­ $13k­­­­­­­­­ in one month­­­­­­­­­ working­­­­­­­­­ part ­­­­­­­­­time. I kept ­­­­­­­­­hearing ­­­­­­­­­other ­­­­­­­­­people ­­­­­­­­­tell ­­­­­­­­­me how much ­­­­­­­­­money ­­­­­­­­­they ­­­­­­­­­can ­­­­­­­­­make ­­­­­­­­­online so I ­­­­­­­­­decided to look­­­­­­­­­ into it. ­­­­­­­­­Well, it was­­­­­­­­­ all true­­­­­­­­­ and has totally ­­­­­­­­­changed my ­­­­­­­­­life.­­­­­­­­­last month­­­­­­­­­ my ­­­­­­­­­pay c­­­­­­­­­heck was ­­­­­­­­­$12712 ­­­­­­­­­just ­­­­­­­­­working on the laptop for­­­­­­­­­ a few hours.Every person can now makes good income online easily by just follow instructions on this link.......

====http://www.todaysfox.com

In reply to by nmewn

artichoke nmewn Mon, 06/25/2018 - 21:17 Permalink

I don't see all this clearly, but I think you've not identified the contradiction.

The contradiction is between the laughable testimony that the DNC thinks it is more logical” that voters would be more inclined to donate if they knew the system was “rigged.”  and the observed fact that when the rigging became publicly obvious, donations dropped.  As Gomer would say: surprise surprise surprise!

It's not a contradiction that the Dems pulled a bait and switch on the Bernie supporters.  We've known this for 2 years now, and all they argue is that it wasn't illegal to do so -- which is probably correct.  But the more this fact is forced into the public, the worse for them, of course.  But it's not a contradiction, nor a crime, just a very ugly fact.

In reply to by nmewn

monkeyshine chubbar Mon, 06/25/2018 - 20:12 Permalink

Donations may have plummeted for other reasons such as 1) Bernie supporters stopped giving not because the DNC rigged the primary but because they could not support Hillary, or 2) Donors had already maxed out to the limits of their own wallet, or the limits of the law. We know that Hillary used a loophole to cajole donors to give to the state parties who in turn then sent the money to her as a means to circumvent the individual limits.  They can't simply say that donations dropped due to the revelations when there are plenty of other possible reasons.  Which only makes their lawsuit against Russia/Trump/Wikileaks that much weaker than it already was.  But the case against them by Bernie supporters should proceed. They should not be immune from charges of fraud in the inducement. 

In reply to by chubbar

Chupacabra-322 Nuclear Winter Mon, 06/25/2018 - 18:38 Permalink

@ Nuclear,

Yet Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large & ring leader Debbie Wasserman-Shultz continues to walk free & Propagandize Criminal Illegal Immigration Policy in Homestead, FL.

Goes to show you the level of Tyrannical Lawlessness.

This entire Criminal Treasonous Seditious Espionage Operation could have been dealt with swiftly with some US Marshall’s Arresting Debbie LIVE on TeeVee.

In reply to by Nuclear Winter

gregga777 Nuclear Winter Mon, 06/25/2018 - 18:51 Permalink

The MSFNM (Mainstream Fake News Media & Entertainment Oligopoly) (including Hollywood) and The Communist Progressive Demon-Marxist Party consist of the very same Leftists who denied the atrocities committed by the Jewish Bolshevik Marxists in the Soviet Union. Then the Soviet Union fell and the Russians admitted that, "Yeah, all those atrocities denied by your Leftists for decades really all happened. It's just that the numbers of dead was far higher than people like Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley ever knew."

So, does one trust people who were proven LIARS over the course of many decades? I know what I think. It's certainly no surprise that the presstitute LIARS in the Mainstream Fake News media continue to deny reality. They aren't in the 'business' of reporting on reality. They are solely propaganda outlets.

In reply to by Nuclear Winter

nmewn 1 Alabama Mon, 06/25/2018 - 19:50 Permalink

The Fed...IS...a Marxist construct. It is you who are the one who's late to the...wokening...lol...it's NOT capitalism.

What was going on in the late 1800's & early 1900's (historically) and how do think war & welfare can be afforded without paying for it?

"Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Number Five ;-)

In reply to by 1 Alabama

the cork Mon, 06/25/2018 - 18:33 Permalink

They're goin' DOWN

Liberals bias permeates their character like stink permeates shit

Liberals are a self righteous lot, prone to posturing, preaching, and paranoia.

Liberals are also a covetous lot.

What they can't steal, they destroy.

Salsa Verde Mon, 06/25/2018 - 18:37 Permalink

Liberal water-heads were so sure of their own success they had nothing to fall back on except for this hair-brained bullshit that is coming unraveled more and more everyday, much dismay to the their screeching/shrieking base.  Can't wait for the suicides to start up.

hooligan2009 Mon, 06/25/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

there are so many double negatives used in legal arguments.

take this from the author, trying to summarize a lost cause:

" 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. "

in english:

"DNC can take anyones money and anyone giving money knew that the DNC could do anything with that money. Once donors found out that the DNC was a fraud, people stopped giving money."

Now, how hard was what?

silverserfer Mon, 06/25/2018 - 19:03 Permalink

Being exposed as a fraud will do that.

 

They already murdered their informant.

 

Just digging themselves deeper in a whole. 

 

Except for the rabid snowflakes and beaner babies the base is not looking good.