The judge’s overall argument echoes the DNC lawyer’s more convincing arguments. I mostly take issue with the whole “there’s no way to prove that every person who donated assumed that the process would be impartial.” Obviously, there would be zero reason to donate to Sanders if you “assumed” that. What a terrible argument.
Also, this order of dismissal gets into a lot of typical judiciary semantics, but basically the judge says “The injury to the plaintiffs is just too broad”, as though the lawsuit said that the injury had to do with the political process at large and the corruption of democracy. No, it didn’t — it was the very concrete, very clear injury of MONETARY LOSS. And also, citing “lack of diversity”? There are many, many donators to Sanders. The specific plaintiffs cited in the lawsuit are only 0.05% of them, if that, and are meant to serve as an example of the plaintiff body. Obviously, you can’t fit millions of people in one courtroom. There seriously isn’t one person out of those millions that meets the law’s criteria?
I know people are saying “This dismissal is more a win for us than the DNC, guys.” Well, it isn’t. This story hasn’t been covered at all in the mainstream news. Few know what’s really happening, and the DNC will keep it that way. If this lawsuit had gone through, it would’ve been a different story, but the DNC will keep on operating in the shadows and muck. This is why I’m in the Green Party.
