Lawyers For The DNC Argue That ‘Primary Rigging’ Is Protected By The First Amendment


The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday.The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.


28 Comments on Lawyers For The DNC Argue That ‘Primary Rigging’ Is Protected By The First Amendment

  1. The DNC should lose their case simply on the basis of making this stupid and dangerous argument.

    So, at least they are out of the closet about election fraud.

    One man one vote? More like one man, as many votes as we need. It says so right there in the Constitution.

  2. It may be legally protected, but it’s morally bankrupt.
    The DNC just won the battle, but lost the war.

  3. The dems all believe that the leadership and presidency are there rightful place and anytime they are voted out, consider their positions usurped, therefor any means of regaining control is justified.

  4. SCOTUS ruled long ago that political parties are private organizations and can make up whatever rules they wish in the primary elections. The fact that the Dems rigged the primary for Hildabeast needs no further proof than their “super delegates” who would give Cackles more delegates even if Bern won. Nothing illegal about it so no matter how corrupt unseemly or distasteful, the donors do not appear to have a leg to stand on. The most likely outcome would be a DNC winning in court, but a huge loss of donors and $$ as many socialists stop blindly give money to an organization that would cut off your nose in spite of their faces.

  5. You just wait. When the heat is turned up, and indictments are handed down, Comey’s lawyers will argue the same damned thing regarding the FISA warrants.

  6. The court has to reject this argument outright. If they accept it, then how in this country can any other organization be charged with fraud?

    A company that has put out false advertising can claim it has a 1st amendment right to say what ever it wants to its customers. An investment company could promise unbelievable returns to investors then turn around and claim those investors have no right to complain about the firm misrepresented how it actually used all that money for blow and hookers.

    If this case goes no further than this, then the RNC needs to communicate this brief to all democrats and ask “Are you going to trust them again in 2020?”

  7. @ Whatshisface:

    SCOTUS ruled long ago that political parties are private organizations and can make up whatever rules they wish in the primary elections.

    Then they should privately pay for their private primary elections instead of bilking taxpayers for their private fraudulent antics.

  8. So perjury, blatant lies and fabricating allegations is now protected by the first amendment? Somebody better cue General Flynn.
    What a crock of shit. The DNC law group can’t come up with anything better than this. What a waste of court time.

  9. So, the Democrats have defended themselves by claiming to be innocent of the crime they are accused of, because they were busy committing another crime? Regardless of judicial opinions, that claim stands. Now, will the Republicans uphold their oaths of office and impeach and/or expel (dependent upon the body) all Democrats embedded as a result of the crime that makes them innocent of the other crime? Or were the Republicans’ oaths to The Party? And if the Republicans swear their allegiance is to The Party, the same Party as the Democrats, how does that absolve themselves of the need to expel corrupt Party members?

  10. Old Bernie the communist never conceived that other communists would play a communistic trick on old Bernie the communist!

  11. Whatshisface is correct. Party apparatus are private enterprises, but it is hard to imagine the courts will let them get away with this degree of fraud. Hard to tell, though. They probably will. If nothing else, maybe it will wake voters up to who/what they are really dealing with when it comes to elections and who’s really deciding the candidates. Frankly, the D’s have got nothing on the R’s for this stuff. We just saw how the RNC played their hands until they ran out of options. If POTUS Trump had been another typical pol, we would have watched Jeb! lose to Killery.

  12. @ Uncle Al

    I wholeheartedly agree. The rules were made by the professional politicks as another way of buying votes with other peoples’ money and paying themselves in the process.

    But what has confounded me is why on earth would any Party would allow an open primary. It has never made since to me to allow people not in the Party vote in the primary.

    @ Dr Tar

    Have you heard some of the investment commercials? My favorite is where they say they believe that silver will hit $500 an ounce. Since they “believe” it will, but do not actually say it will, the lawyers know they skated around truth in advertising laws. Another perfect example is after pie in the sky predictions they throw out the disclaimer that “past performance is not indicative of future results”. Shakespeare was right when he wrote “First, kill all the lawyers.”

  13. Wow! So easy to see how expanding that ‘make up your own rules’, court ruling to stretch to politicians, government workers and lobbyists using it as an ‘all’s fair in government’ rule.

    Sure clarified how all of congress has gotten so smarmy, along with all government. It is one big Political Monopoly game to the swamp critters. Cheating is not only allowed, it’s expected. RULES and LAWS are for the deplorable voters, only. Congressional members can do anything illegal and ride free on taxpayer funds.

    Which brings to mind, what happened to disclosure of the rat bastards of congress, who used their self-created slush fund to pay off misdeeds?

    Oh, that’s right, they threw some IED squirrel sightings at us, with the help of the MSM cabal.

    Stop this damn merry-go-round that politicians have used to keep us jerked up. Vote incumbent. Political experience has become a cancer to America.

  14. It all started with the infamous quote by WJC,
    “It depends on what the definition of is is”.
    Redefinitions and distortions of issues have flourished since then.
    Only a damn lawyer could screw things up this bad.

  15. This is why you only donate to a candidate directly and not to ‘the party’. I don’t think tax payers should be funding anything for ‘a party’.

  16. MJA — Yes! I never send money to a PAC or Party affiliate that I cannot identify to a specific candidate. Can’t tell you the number of emails I’ve returned to the RNC telling them they’ve got a lot of nerve.

Comments are closed.