Caity is too kind.
Jack Albrecht
51

None of that is true. The DNC bylaws don’t create a contract between voter and party that can be litigated in court. For example, what would happen if you could take the DNC to court over any part of their bylaws? Well, if the DNC supports any policy that undermines families, then they’re in violation of this clause:

“We believe it is the responsibility of government to help us achieve this fair society.

[…]

a society where we recognize that the strengthening of the family and the protection of children are essential to the health of the nation;”

That’d be silly. The clause you’re all talking about is this:

DNC Bylaws Article 5, Section 4

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process,the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as 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.

The bold, italics and underlining are mine and they are the key point to this rule. Again, the point is not that the national chair and DNC members can’t have a strong preference for who wins the nomination it also doesn’t mean that the national chair and other DNS members can’t express their preference privately. It doesn’t mean that a candidate can’t anger them or that they can’t express that anger privately. They just can’t actually DO anything that would really give one of the candidates an unfair advantage, and they didn’t. They scheduled the same amount of debates and did just as many forums if not more than in years previously, they never ran negative ad campaigns against Bernie or the others, they never actually took ACTION. All they did was bitch and moan about Bernie.

And no, Donna Brazille sending a town hall question once isn’t an unfair advantage that would benefit Hillary on behalf of the DNC. It only happened once, and out of the 20,000 emails there was never anything beyond that to indicate an unfair treatment of Bernie. If anything, the DNC should have sued him for breaking into their computers and stealing info. And instead of apologizing for this, Sanders went on the defensive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-sanders-campaign-improperly-accessed-clinton-voter-data/2015/12/17/a2e2e14e-a522-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html

He also never apologized for his people saying lies like THIS: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/19/claims-bernie-sanders-supporters-fraud-and-miscond/

No, there was no Fraud down in Nevada, despite what Sanders folks insisted. Though his type keep REPEATING this lie. And they never really apologized for SENDING! DEATH THREATS! https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bernie-sanders-supporters-nevada.html

So shame on the DNC? No, shame on BERNIE for demanding special treatment after years and years of treating the DNC like s — t. You can’t keep insulting your neighbor, then barge your way into their dinner party and pee all over their table and say YOU ought to be the one running the party.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.