Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

After Chaotic Weekend for Democrats and Wasserman Schultz, A Class Action Lawsuit Lies Ahead

with 4 comments

Pam Martens and Russ Martens have an interesting column in Wall Street on Parade. I will point out that, though Russia may indeed be behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the release of the emails, the content of the emails—what was said, what was planned, and what was done—was not done by Russia. Those flowed directly from decisions made by Debbie Wasserman Schulz and in cooperation with the Clinton campaign. What is exposed is tawdry and wrong and it was done deliberately within the Democratic Party establishment, which seems to have a rotten core—and indeed, that is exactly why so any of us welcomed Bernie Sanders’s campaign, seeing him as a new (and progressive) broom that could help cleanse the Democratic Party establishment of the rot that has festered within.

It is inappropriate, perhaps, for Russia to expose this rot, and but it is even more inappropriate that the Democratic Party establishment to take such non-democratic actions. I sincerely hope that Wasserman Schultz is sounding defeated in the primary this fall and lose to Tim Canova by some enormous margin (70-30 would be good). Quite apart from her inappropriate behavior as chair of the Democratic National Committee, she has been a strong advocate backing payday lenders and staunch opponent of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The column begins:

First it was Hillary Clinton handling Top Secret national security matters in emails with the caution of a drunken sailor. Now it’s emails leaked by Wikileaks showing that key officials at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) attempted to derail the Democratic campaign of Bernie Sanders in direct violation of the DNC’s own Charter.  Loose email lips are sinking a lot of ships in the Democratic corridors of power. And a lot more emails and depositions may be coming as a class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court gets underway.

Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter mandates the following:

“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.”

Instead, according to more than 20,000 DNC emails exposed by Wikileaks on Friday,top DNC staffers were plotting to use Senator Bernie Sanders’ religious beliefs against him and to characterize his campaign as a mess.

Three months before the Wikileaks dump of emails on Friday, which show a clear strategy by the DNC to undermine Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton, Wall Street On Parade had previously asked the question “Are Hillary Clinton and the DNC Skirting Election Law?” in regard to the clearly biased structure of the Hillary Clinton and DNC joint fundraising committee, which operated for the benefit of each other as if Senator Bernie Sanders didn’t exist. Wall Street On Parade also reported in April that the DNC’s direct marketing firm displayed overt bias in favor of Clinton over Sanders on its Facebook page.

As a result of the leaked emails, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has announced she will step down from that position at the end of the Democratic National Convention which starts today in Philadelphia. Wasserman Schultz got a taste of what lies ahead for her at the convention as she was loudly booed at a convention breakfast this morning,according to an ABC News report.

The Wikileaks dump of the 20,000 emails will not be the end of disclosures about how the DNC under the tutelage of Wasserman Schultz orchestrated a campaign to coronate Hillary Clinton and undermine Sanders. A Federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The suit, Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and Deborah ‘Debbie’ Wasserman Schultz (Case Number 16-cv-61511-WJZ) was originally filed by . . .

Continue reading. There’s also video at the link.

Written by LeisureGuy

25 July 2016 at 9:19 am

Posted in Democrats, Election, Law

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The law suit should be against Ms. Schultz, the DNC, and against Hillary for fraud!


    25 July 2016 at 10:22 am

  2. Michael,

    I’m amazed though not surprised by your indictment of Hillary. I too was an early supporter of Bernie but became a bit annoyed when he continued to campaign against Hillary far past the time when it was clear that she had won the nomination. At no time, however, did I think that the DNC was not biased toward Hillary. That was clear from the outset and defined the challenge that he faced: his revolution had to carry not only his voters; it had to be so profound that it overwhelmed the Democrat establishment. He came close but he did not succeed. Hillary won overwhelmingly but Bernie made a big difference in her positions and campaign.

    I concur in you desire to see Wasserman defeated in the primary. But I completely disagree with your antipathy toward Hillary and the association of guilt by her or her campaign’s part for untoward activities. I know of no evidence that suggested she conspired in or agreed to any of the tactics revealed by the emails though I’m confident that she welcomed DNC bias that was obvious to most everyone. Your stance mirrors the strategy of the Republicans to create “another scandal” that Hillary must answer for when after innumerable investigations she has not been found guilty of anything. Hillary won. She has a reasonably progressive agenda and the alternative is unbelievably frightening. I suspect that you were a Nader supporter, perhaps I’m worng, but we know how that turned out.


    25 July 2016 at 5:13 pm

  3. I think the reason Bernie continued campaigning was obvious and I even blogged about it: he was showing how much support there was among Democratic voters for progressive ideas in the hope of encouraging Clinton to move in a progressive direction: “Look at all these Democrats who strongly support progressive ideas!”

    That seems totally reasonable to me, even though it didn’t work: Clinton’s first major decision, her VP running mate, is a man who strongly supports the Trans Pacific Partnership, believes banks should be deregulated (what could go wrong with that?) , and although claiming to oppose the death penalty saw to the execution of a number of prisoners. In fact, given his support for deregulating banks, it struck me that picking him was a return favor for the large cash payments Clinton personally got from Goldman Sachs and other banks.

    Clinton could easily have told the DNC that the proposed debate schedule was inappropriate and worked to have a fuller discussion of directions for Democrats. I notice that quite a few people are quite sure that Donald Trump is not releasing his tax returns because he thinks what would be revealed is much more damaging than his refusal to release the information. I think the same thing applies to Clinton and the release of the transcripts of her speeches: not releasing them is damaging, but apparently she thinks the content would be even more damaging.

    I was not in the least a Nader supporter. I thought he would lose the election for Democrats, and he did. I don’t know where on earth you got that idea. Perhaps you are doing to me what you say I am doing to Clinton: voicing suspicions.

    I am a progressive Democrat, but I don’t much favor unquestioning loyalty. I think Obama has done many good things and some bad things. I try to keep a clear view. For example, refusing to allow those innocents whom the US kidnapped and tortured to have their day in court, and to refuse to apologize for kidnapping an innocent tourist and torturing him: that, in my view is bad. Obama’s vindictive persecution of whistleblowers: very bad, especially since he said he would protect whistleblowers. And Obama’s great secrecy about his administration, despite promising transparency: bad. How many press conferences has he given where he answers questions from reporters?

    Obamacare is good—very good, in fact. Dropping the public option was bad, but may have been necessary (though it was dropped very quickly, and at a time when Democrats had a majority in both houses).

    I am strongly opposed to the GOP’s programs and tactics: their refusal to pass legislation, their rejection of any GOP ideas once Obama accepts the idea, the refusal to confirm Executive appointments: that is an evil of a sort not often seen, but it does not hold a candle to the things that Trump says he will do.

    So I am definitely voting for Clinton. But I am not closing my eyes. And she voted for the Iraq War, she strongly favored our intervention in Libya, she wanted us to send troops to Syria, she has pledged to support Netanyahu no matter what war crimes he commits and condones, she loves the Trans Pacific Partnership (and opposed it only after Bernie had shown how much opposition there was among Democrats, though of course she picked as VP a man who strongly favors the TPP, which I think shows where her convictions lie).

    I am hoping she will win, but then I think we are in for four more years of obeisance to corporate wishes. We also saw that with Obama: Eric Holder (of Covington & Burling, to which he has returned, having avoided offending any of the Wall Street clients) as Attorney General, Mary Jo White! (for the love of God) as chairman of the SEC. OTOH, we do have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which Debbie Wasser manSchulz opposes in her frantic efforts to be the point person for the payday loan industry, which contributes heavily to her), and although he did not name Elizabeth Warren to head it (after she created it), I can understand that: the GOP would never allow it, and fortunately she is better placed as a Senator in any case. (And I did not want her for VP, because I think Clinton would simply have locked her in a closet, since Clinton strongly supports and favors Wall Street.

    I hope this clarifies it somewhat.

    And what made you think that Bernie Sanders would run as a third-party candidate, as Ralph Nader did? Bernie is endorsing Clinton and I am voting for Clinton, but I do try not to ignore things with which I disagree.


    25 July 2016 at 6:32 pm

  4. Also, take a look at the comments about Tim Kaine in this report.


    25 July 2016 at 9:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s