The dismissal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit case solidifies what we already had a feeling was true: the Democratic party feels no obligation to the people it claims to represent. This is important because it doesn’t only apply to the 2016 election, but all elections going forward. If someone defrauds you and has 0 repercussions, there’s a 100% chance they’ll defraud you again.
If a judge rules on a motion to dismiss, he is bound by law to assume all the allegations in the complaint are true. In this case the judge spelled out the allegations of the complaint: “that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publicly proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial.”
These allegations are tied to specific, indisputable facts that are in the public domain (either via Wikileaks or the documents released by self-proclaimed hacker Guccifer 2.0), and the judge dismissed the case on the basis of jurisdiction, and not because the allegations of fraud are baseless. Lee Camp discusses this.
