Court Ruling: The Democratic Party Rigged the 2016 Presidential Primary and Can Do it Again in 2020 if They Wish To

Just how big does the smoking gun need to be?

Continuing the train of thought on what is Russia-gate supposed to distract us from?

The answer is: it is projection.

Didn’t You Get the Memo? Clinton Insiders Reveal ‘Blame Russia’ Plan Hatched ‘Within 24 Hours’ of Her Election Loss


by O Society August 15, 2019

Remember when the Democratic party was taken to court over the election rigging issue, which became glaringly apparent to observers of the 2016 Presidential election?

In court, the lead DNC attorney stated the DNC literally can choose its own presidential candidate over cigars without any regard to whom voters select in an election. Moreover, the charter written by the DNC saying it will hold fair unbiased elections is not binding. See, the Democratic Party is a private entity, like a corporation. It isn’t a government department with oversight accountable to be, you know, Democratic.

That’s just a brand name. Like “Trump” is a brand name.

And this “Democratic” brand is relatively recent. Looks like 1976 is when primaries and caucuses (meaning actual voters) first were allowed to determine the Democratic party candidate. They let an honest man through that one time, Jimmy Carter:

The 1976 primaries matched the record previously set in 1972 for the highest number of candidates in any presidential primaries in American history, with 16. During the primaries, Jimmy Carter capitalized on his status as an outsider. The 1976 campaign was the first in which primaries and caucuses carried more weight than the old boss-dominated system. Carter exploited this, competing in every contest and won so many delegates, he held an overwhelming majority at the convention.

No seriously. Says here the Democratic Party didn’t use to let voters have a say in the nomination of the party’s Presidential candidate at all. They didn’t have to then and don’t have to now. They can pick whomever they want if they want to. The Democratic Party bosses can. Yes they can.


The Democrats tinkered with their delegate selection system in response to almost every election since 1968, as they struggled with the push-and-pull of who should pick the Democratic nominee: the party insiders who believe they know who can ultimately win the presidential election or the voters themselves.

Reuters: How Selecting the US Presidential Candidates Became the People’s Choice

There’s some background, so now let’s fast forward to the trial.

Presenting for the defendant, DNC Services Corp d/b/a Democratic National Committee, was attorney Bruce Spiva who argued party rules are “discretionary.” So, even if the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, spends months on national TV selling the message that the party acts in a “fair and impartial” manner with regard to candidates vying for the nomination, no one in their right mind would believe that is the case—you’re morons if you do—because this is politics after all.

Here’s the precise language Spiva used:

“Here, you have something far more inchoate, your Honor, which is this purported — this claim that the party acted without evenhandedness and impartiality. That — even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the Court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs.”


PG 28, transcript motion hearing (to dismiss).

You have to marvel at the nerve of an attorney telling a Federal Judge, there’s no way to define “fair and impartial,” as if this is not the very definition of a judge’s job.

Who can even say what “Fair” and “Impartial” mean anyway?

Spiva told the Court:

“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.”

Court Transcript: We Can Legally Choose Candidate Over Cigars In Back Room

The DNC’s lawyer also said despite the DNC’s charter and bylaws stating it must be neutral during Democratic primary contests, there’s no contractual obligation to follow through.

“There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.

In one of the more strange defense rationales, Spiva evoked baptism to suggest the term “impartial” is too vague and open-to-interpretation to be enforced legally.

“You have a charter that says you have to be — where the party has adopted a principle of even-handedness, and just to get the language exactly right, that they would be even-handed and impartial, I believe, is the exact language. And, you know, that’s not self-defining, your Honor. I mean that’s kind of like, you know, saying, Who’s a Baptist?”

President Trump was also used during the DNC’s argument; Spiva pointed out then-candidate Trump’s promise to build a border wall funded by Mexico during the campaign, wondering if a court would rule in favor of Trump voters who donated money during the primary based on that promise and sued the president for failure to uphold it.

That was the DNC’s defense. It’s our candidate, we can rig the election if we want to rig it. Donald Trump lies so we can lie too. This argument flew in court, the judge agreed with the lead attorney’s argument, and this was the end of it. Because it is the truth. In the past, the Democratic party has done exactly this, and they did it in 2016.

How blatant does it need to be  before everybody can see it?

That’s the real problem. The Democratic party came right and said “fuck you” in no uncertain terms, in a court of law, and you can read all about it in the transcript documentation of the court proceedings below.

How big does the smoking gun need to be? Want to know what Russiagate is supposed to distract everyone from? How ’bout this kind of stuff?

It’s our party, and we can rig it if we want to!

Presenting for the plaintiffs – CAROL WILDING et al. – in this motion to dismiss was Jared Beck of the law firm Beck & Lee.

Responding to the DNC’s claim ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ is too slippery of a concept for anyone to judge, Beck says, “Your Honor, I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

Beck continues by reminding the court impartiality and evenhandedness is represented in the DNC’s charter, it was represented ad nauseum in the media, and, “frankly, [it’s] the bedrock of what it means to live in a democratic society.”

Beck then states the existential crisis quite clearly: “because if you don’t have the organization that is responsible for organizing in this very large sense the nominating process for the president, which entails multiple elections in every state of the union, if you’re not evenhanded and impartial, then you don’t have a democratic process. I think it’s that simple.”

If you aren’t evenhanded and impartial, then you don’t have a democratic process, full stop. 

No one fixed this problem. The lawsuit was dismissed by the judge. He agreed with the Defendant – the Democratic National Comitte – in their characterization of the situation. They don’t seem to like Bernie Sanders, do they? Hence, the DNC can and perhaps will pull the same rigged primary election shenanigans in 2020.

Who’s going to stop them? Russians?


DNC CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT: This page contains court-filed documents available for download.







Democratic Party “Superdelegates” May Once Again Rob Bernie Sanders of the Nomination

Money in Politics Part 1: How Bad is the Problem?

4 thoughts on “Court Ruling: The Democratic Party Rigged the 2016 Presidential Primary and Can Do it Again in 2020 if They Wish To

  1. The US has never had a functioning democracy, at least not on the federal level. There might be a few flukes where a democratic slant tilted the political scheme in a brief moment, until the ruling elite quickly reasserted their control. But those moments pass so quickly that they don’t allow for any genuine democratic reform to happen.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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