Oral arguments heard in DNC Fraud Lawsuit

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=&field_oar_c...

Dec. 11th, the day after the DNC announced that they were going to begin playing fair (wink wink), the 11th Circuit Court heard oral arguments to revive a lawsuit in which Jared Beck claimed Election Fraud had been committed by the DNC against Bernie Sanders supporters.


During oral arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan seemed skeptical that certain counts in the lawsuit could proceed with respect to the Sanders donors’ alleged damages. The judge said it would be a stretch to show causation between those damages and the actions of the DNC, given that the DNC is an entity separate from the organization that accepted the donations – the Sanders campaign.

This is the same judge who ruled that it's okay to discriminate against blacks by demanding they cut off their dreadlocks, on the one hand, but said yes, it's okay to feed the homeless in a public park on the other.

So it seems that the fate of Democracy comes down to whether the same lawyer who bungled the case to begin with by filing in the wrong courts was able to convince a judge who obviously doesn't do his own deep thinking and needs things explained to him.

Doesn't sound like Beck was that convincing:

“You don’t have any precedent [in relevant jurisdictions] that goes anywhere close to what you’re asking us to do,” Jordan told Beck.

Guess we will see if our Democracy still has the faintest of heartbeats or if it's time for violence in the streets.

Edit: Just getting started into the recorded proceedings and right off the bat Beck appears to have bungled more of the case.

At the 2 minute mark:

"what injury did your clients suffer from an alleged breach of fiduciary duty? Because the complaint doesn't say....No, it's not damages, injury period. It's not that you say we were monetarily damaged and you didn't put a monetary figure on it. It doesn't explain the nature of the injury at all."

I've long suspected that Beck, who wrote a scathingly anti-Bernie Sanders book that he's profited off of, may be nothing more than a paid placebo who is purposefully bungling the lawsuit so that the DNC can say, "Hey, if we had really rigged the election we'd have lost the lawsuit. So we didn't do anything wrong." Beck's bungling is literally legalizing election fraud.

Second Edit: Okay, I'm probably being too harsh on Beck. The Judge ripped apart the DNC pretty good so maybe we'll get lucky and there will one day in our lifetimes after the environment is well past the tipping point for it to matter anymore there will be an actual trial.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

The DNC made a point of arguing that it did not improperly favor Clinton, and that many of the hacked emails were taken out of context.

The DNC certainly did improperly favor Herheinous during the primary. That it was solely being run by her kind of proves that point. IMO.

But it wasn't just the actions of the DNC that caused Bernie to lose. NYC has admitted that they dropped people off the voting rolls and changed their party affiliation. How many other states did that? And how about the fact that exit polls did not match up with the vote tallies? The media sure noticed that and instead of investigating the problem they just decided not to do exit polling anymore. How about the fact that Bernie got lots more votes than Her did, but the delegates gave her their votes? Then there's all the problems with the caucuses and ...

Hey Hillary supporters. You love to say that she got 4 million more votes than Bernie did. How do you know that was true when California didn't bother counting all the votes? And remember that California called the primary for Hillary the day before anyone even voted? If your candidate had to cheat to win what does that say about her? Or was that Russia's fault too?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Centaurea's picture

Since this is on appeal to the 11th Circuit, the decision will be made by a panel of three appellate judges.

On the Becks' Facebook page, they posted that it could be several months before a ruling is made. They've both said in the past that getting the dismissal overturned is a long shot.

As to the book Jared Beck wrote, "What Happened to Bernie Sanders" (note the take-off on the title of Hillary's book, which was published several months before Beck's), Elizabeth Lee Beck yesterday tweeted Jared's annual royalty statement.

It looks like his 5% share of receipts is around $5,088, from which is subtracted the $3,500 advance paid and $1,600 held in reserve by the publisher to cover any returned books, giving him a net in the red. It doesn't appear that he's getting rich off the book.

https://twitter.com/eleebeck/status/1072920303020490752/photo/2

(Sorry, I'm not a Twitter user, so I don't know how to post the Tweet itself in my comment.)

As to your suggestion that Beck may be "purposely bungling" the lawsuit so that the DNC can say "if we had really rigged the election we'd have lost the lawsuit. So we didn't do anything wrong," I think you're overthinking this and also giving the DNC way too much credit.

The DNC might say something like that if they win the appeal, even though (as their - and Hillary's - attorney Marc Elias well knows) it's not a legally correct statement. Getting a case dismissed on procedural grounds is not the same thing as winning the case on the merits.

In any event, I'm not sure the DNC folks are clever enough to have come up with this scenario as a strategy. To be honest, I don't even think they have paid much attention to this lawsuit at all.

up
0 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea having listened to his vitriolic statements against Bernie Sanders on Twitter. The guy hates progressives. He listens to right wing crackpot theories. He's rude and abusive to others. It makes it kinda hard not to believe he isn't trying to lose the case the way Dems try to lose elections.

up
0 users have voted.

@Battle of Blair Mountain

to your feelings because I have the same situation with conservative bloggers who do excellent and very responsible research on Russiagate. Sometimes they are also Trump supporters. But what I think such conservatives have in common with me is that they see the corruption in the Democrats, which for reasons I still struggle with, so many liberals do not.

up
0 users have voted.