DNC lawyer admits they weren’t required to be impartial between Clinton, Sanders

DNC lawyer admits they weren’t required to be impartial between Clinton, Sanders

A class-action lawsuit by Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee is getting pretty quotable. Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of being biased on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But one DNC lawyer’s argument actually tries to justify the party’s right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom. That’s what the attorney reportedly said in a Florida federal court:

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.

The same lawyer also argued that there is “no contractual obligation” to prevent advantage or disadvantage between candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language in the DNC charter is not “self-defining.” The court would be dragged into a political matter, and wouldn’t be able to constitutionally offer redress for the claims.

Continue reading →


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.