(NationalSentinel) Politics: Let it be known forever that the Democratic Party is the most corrupt, anti-democratic political organization that has ever existed, with the except of its predecessor, the Communist Party, which it now emulates.
As reported by WorldNetDaily, the Democratic National Committee has admitted that it ran an unfair, very biased nomination process that saw Hillary Clinton coronated as its presidential candidate, while acing out the better performing and, some say more popular, Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Outraged by how the DNC unfairly boosted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and cleared the way for her primary victory, supporters of Sanders and Democratic donors sued the DNC in June 2016 alleging it defrauded its constituents.
During the primaries, the DNC blatantly tilted its primary system in favor of Clinton. Then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was repeatedly criticized for trying to make the Democratic Party presidential debates as few and low-key as possible, to Clinton’s advantage.
Regardless of Sanders’ victories during the primaries and caucuses, superdelegates immediately lined up behind Hillary, guaranteeing Sanders’ defeat.
Internal DNC emails only confirmed allegations of the DNC’s rigged primary system, underscoring deep-rooted corruption.
Many of those emails were eventually published by WikiLeaks. They clearly showed how the DNC was undermining the nomination process to the detriment of Sanders.
DNC lawyers told a federal judge April 28 the case should be dismissed because the party is private and can nominate its candidates anyway it chooses.
“[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, ‘Hey, I’m gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X,’ and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that’s different. 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,’” DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued. “That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.”
Except that the party can’t nominate its presidential candidates that way. Article 4, Section 5 of the DNC charter states: “The chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness between the presidential candidates and campaigns. The chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party presidential nominating process.”
Wasserman-Schultz definitely was not impartial.
Spiva argued that the rule was ambiguous, that despite what it says, that’s not what it really means – a claim that frankly astounded lawyers for the plaintiffs.
“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,” Attorney Jared Beck said. “I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”
The Democratic Party has a “fiduciary duty” to its contributors, which it disregarded with the false appearance of a fair primary process, he argued.
“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee – nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.
“Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann-Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter,” he added. “And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.”
Once again, Democrats prove they lack the hypocrisy gene.