DNC Lawyer: Party Didn’t Have To Be Impartial In Sanders Clinton Primary | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

DNC Lawyer: Party Didn’t Have To Be Impartial In Sanders Clinton Primary

0
Warning: mysql_query(): Access denied for user 'vu2007'@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /var/www/virtual/cakafeteusa.com/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/jvzoo-ad-manager-v1/jvzoo-ad-manager.php on line 333 Warning: mysql_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /var/www/virtual/cakafeteusa.com/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/jvzoo-ad-manager-v1/jvzoo-ad-manager.php on line 333 Warning: mysql_fetch_array() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /var/www/virtual/cakafeteusa.com/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/jvzoo-ad-manager-v1/jvzoo-ad-manager.php on line 335

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

In a current litigation a DNC legal representative confessed they just weren't lawfully needed to be impartial in the 2016 main political election. John Iadarola, Michael Shure and also Mark Thompson, the host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you believe in the remark area listed below.

Find out more right here:

" A class-action suit by Bernie Sanders advocates against the Autonomous National Committee is getting quite quotable. Complainants accuse the offenders of being prejudiced on behalf of previous Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential project. Yet one DNC lawyer's disagreement actually tries to validate the celebration's right to be biased in support of one key prospect over an additional, inning accordance with a short article from The Young Turks. In other words, they might have picked their nominee over stogies in a backroom. That's just what the attorney apparently said in a Florida federal court:

" We could have– and we might have voluntarily made a decision that, Look, we're going to go into back rooms like they made use of to and also smoke stogies and choose the prospect this way. That's not the method it was done. Yet they could have. And that would certainly have likewise been their right."

The exact same lawyer also suggested that there is "no contractual obligation" to stop benefit or disadvantage between prospects, and that the evenhandedness as well as impartiality language in the DNC charter is not "self-defining." The court would be dragged right into a political matter, as well as wouldn't be able to constitutionally provide remedy for the insurance claims." *.

and also below:.

Hosts: John Iadarola, Michael Shure, Mark Thompson.

Cast: John Iadarola, Michael Shure, Mark Thompson.

***.

The Largest Online Information Show in the Globe. Organized by Cenk Uygur as well as Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Sign up for The Young Turks on YouTube:.

Like The Young Turks on Facebook:.

Follow The Young Turks on Twitter:.

Acquire TYT Merch:.

Download and install sound as well as video clip of the complete two-hour show on-demand + the members-only message video game show by becoming a member at. Your subscription supports the day to day operations as well as is important for our ongoing success and growth.

Youthful Turk (n), 1. Youthful progressive or anarchical member of an establishment, movement, or political celebration. 2. A young adult that rebels against authority or societal expectations.( American Heritage Thesaurus).

Share Your Comments

78 comments

  1. Posted by rouge1ful, at Reply

    is it too late to overhaul the DNC and RNC to have new, impartial, unbiased, uncorrupted blood in there?

    • Posted by OutlawRebel117, at Reply

      Well at least we might have a chance come 2018

      #JusticeDemocrats

    • Posted by CAX 117, at Reply

      RNC is lost.

    • Posted by OutlawRebel117, at Reply

      CAX 117 Maybe it should be.

  2. Posted by Andy Fruth, at Reply

    What did people expect?
    We know the DNC are cunts, and $hillary is a cheating loser…

    BERNIE WOULD’VE WON IN A LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!

  3. Posted by Joe Scirrotto, at Reply

    so they admit they were forcing Clinton down our throats, and people still think she earned the candidacy?

    • Posted by Blair Schirmerx, at Reply

      Why are you knuckleheads pretending the following didn’t happen:
      1. Superdelegates chosen by Clinton. 2. The DNCs media arms counted superdelegates from December 2015 onwards for Clinton even though they didn’t vote until July 2016 3.The primaries were front-loaded with conservative states, giving the impression of inevitability 4.The debates were rigged 5. ElectionJusticeUSA put out a 100 page report showing the vote machines were almost certainly rigged for Clinton 6.The decisions about which primaries allowed independents to vote and when you had to change affiliation were decided entirely to benefit Clinton. 7. The various documented fraud throughout the primary season, in Nevada, where Sanders delegates were locked out, in Rhode Island where precincts likeliest to go for Sanders had minimal voting when they weren’t simply cancelled or consolidated to reduce his numbers….

      All of this and oh, so much more, were perverted and subverted solely to benefit Clinton.

      In any just universe after the DNC emails revealed all this she would have been immediately disqualified on the ground that you cannot benefit from fraud.

    • Posted by John Handcock, at Reply

      You are an idiot. The reason the lawyers are using this defense is because they know they cannot argue that the DNC was neutral. Which means, they are in fact acknowledging the fact that the DNC was totally in the bag for HRC, but they didn’t have a contractual obligation to be neutral, despite it being in writing, and the head of the DNC repeatedly saying so.

    • Posted by TheSwordfish009, at Reply

      +John Handcock you are an idiot. If you gave money to an organization on their pretense that it was going to your choice but DIDN’T…. then they lied to you and took your money thus being fraud.

      You know for a fact you would be pissed especially if you donated millions of dollars.

  4. Posted by Monk Man, at Reply

    Geez I really don’t like Michael Shure. Find him to be insufferable

    • Posted by Atom Baxter, at Reply

      Monk Man

      Why is that so?

    • Posted by Darth Titan, at Reply

      Is it because he is an apologist?

    • Posted by jaydeviil, at Reply

      Monk Man hes a fn white male(like jeffrey shuan king)
      honk if you love bacon grease.

    • Posted by Dallas, at Reply

      Professional apologist.

    • Posted by Fritz Karl, at Reply

      Michael Shure is 100% correct.

  5. Posted by zstalone, at Reply

    DNC should all be in jail.

    • Posted by Dustin Zilbauer, at Reply

      So should rioting liberals.

    • Posted by zstalone, at Reply

      Dustin Zilbauer agreed

    • Posted by the op kingdom, at Reply

      dubtat… Nope. I’m like a paying customer who wanted the product I paid for- a fair and balanced electoral process.

    • Posted by KansasFirefly, at Reply

      +dubat – I’ve been a Democrat my entire adult life. Long enough to vote in 12 presidential elections. I’m a hardcore Berner, but I held my nose and voted HRC in the general in an effort to block Trump.
      This lawsuit against the DNC is the right thing. They were dead wrong – and if they hadn’t done what they did, we would probably have a progressive in our White House right now instead of a nightmare.
      So – what’s your point? What difference does it make about how long someone has been a member of the party?

  6. Posted by Sean Hayes, at Reply

    That 2nd Trump term is coming up real fast…

    • Posted by k12basic, at Reply

      And its going to hit like bricks. The democratic party is here to act as controlled opposition at this point. We need a new party, or better yet….. NO PARTIES!!

    • Posted by dee none of your business, at Reply

      Sean Hayes rump still have passed no major policy issues. republicans are lazy.

  7. Posted by Vory V. Zakone, at Reply

    It shoulda been Bernie, and in 2020 it will be Bernie, Elizabeth, or Tulsi

    • Posted by Spunky1991, at Reply

      Bernie is already as old as dust.

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      If “the people didn’t want Bernie”, why did your idol Hillary take the trouble to rig the voter rolls in AZ/NY? She didn’t win in a free and fair election. If she had won without dirty tricks, most people would have accepted it.

    • Posted by Jon Smith, at Reply

      Vishank Jain-Sharma what proof you have for NY OR Az

  8. Posted by joshua garner, at Reply

    are tax dollars used to hold primaries? if so then they need to be impartial

    • Posted by DootDoot, at Reply

      Yup.. Tax dollars are allocated based on the amount of registered voters in a district to hold an election for a private party where they get to dictate who the candidates are. The Lawyer is arguing that there is no Democracy in the USA.. Only a choice between 2 candidates chosen by private entities. Most know this to be the case.. But to see it used as an argument in the Court in 2017 is rather astonishing.

  9. Posted by Bob Nub, at Reply

    If a person gives money to you on a condition and you break that condition, that’s defrauding, you bastards.

    • Posted by Bloo95, at Reply

      Donating to Bernie Sanders’ campaign is not breaking a legal condition with the DNC to favor a candidate. One, this exchange did not prove that the DNC did in fact favor or hand-pick a candidate, it is simply attesting to the fact that no law is broken.

    • Posted by Levity, at Reply

      Technically, that money was given to Bernie’s team, and he didn’t defraud anyone.

      The Democrats should still be punished, one way or another.

  10. Posted by Chip Barker, at Reply

    There’s Michael Shure on his knees for the Democratic establishment sucking for all he’s worth

    • Posted by Lou Mota, at Reply

      I hate that panel. They sound like the MSM

    • Posted by J V ELL, at Reply

      Jimmy Dore is 10x better on his worst day

    • Posted by Fritz Karl, at Reply

      Michael Shure is 100% right.

    • Posted by Oni itedj, at Reply

      what’s it with all the gay references?

    • Posted by J V ELL, at Reply

      in this thread, there’s only one… and i’m not sure if the gay part of it is really what’s being emphasized. I think it’s just a reference to submission and service.

  11. Posted by KansasFirefly, at Reply

    Opportunistic lawyer? No! Michael Shure is FOS!
    This is about the Charter and the By-laws.

    • Posted by AntiFOX, at Reply

      Well, Michael Shure laughs about all the people who are calling him a $hill.

      Funny, isn’t it?

    • Posted by KansasFirefly, at Reply

      Doubt that it’s age-related. I’m over 60 and quite progressive, so… And look at Bernie, by the way. It’s just who Michael Shure is inside. These are things that we are all along, not things that happen because we age.

    • Posted by Diesel Baldwin, at Reply

      KansasFirefly Michael Shure is basically a Republican.

  12. Posted by zervan zervan, at Reply

    A private company can commit fraud so why cant the DNC be charged with fraud?
    They asked for donations claiming to be impartial.That’s false advertisement & fraud,case closed.
    Return the hundreds of million$ you collected from the people.The Bernie donors have standing in court & they can ask for damages in a class action lawsuit.

    • Posted by edward woods, at Reply

      zervan zervan this is actually a great idea.. I wouldn’t take the $$ just force the corrupt corporate democrats out .. Or they face jail time

    • Posted by Millie Knockit, at Reply

      Right…Fraud totally, and John…they DID admit it!

    • Posted by Oni itedj, at Reply

      in a world of pure imagination.

  13. Posted by Hobbes Tiger, at Reply

    The DNC is a body within a political party that is not a part of the United States government. The internal process of choosing a candidate to represent them is totally up to them and should, in theory, be in their best interest to select a candidate that is most likely to win. Of course, in practice many other factors and interests come into play as was clearly demonstrated in choosing Clinton over Sanders. Now the party has to face the consequences of making a poor decision; their voters and base need to revolt in every possible way, the donations need to dry up and grass-roots supports needs to dwindle. The DNC needs to feel the pain for going against the will of their constituents.

    • Posted by J L, at Reply

      DNC & Corporate “democrats” would rather elect republicans than real progressives .

    • Posted by Ockerlord, at Reply

      Non profit orgasnisations (like the dnc) obviously are not allowed to purposfully mislead the public to obtain donations. Thats fraud.

    • Posted by Hobbes Tiger, at Reply

      +Ockerlord Don’t be naive. Any advertising is a form of misleading. That being said, the DNC actually remained did not mislead and remained true to its most valued donors; big corporations and lobbying groups. It’s one of the reasons the DNC establishment rallied so forcefully against Bernie.

    • Posted by Millie Knockit, at Reply

      You are ABSOLUTELY correct, JL

  14. Posted by ting280, at Reply

    “we have rules but we don’t have to follow them”

    • Posted by Anders Jørgensen, at Reply

      Yeah. I want to know if the Democrats could legally commit voter fraud against a primary candidate they didn’t like. I mean it would just be against their private charter

    • Posted by Levity, at Reply

      At the very least, the judge should order the Democrats to erase the impartial primary bit in their charter.

      If they don’t want any input from their base, or the DNC prefers to single handedly nominate whoever they want, they should at least be truthful about it.

  15. Posted by reelreeler, at Reply

    anyone want to venture a guess on what the chances are of Hillary being the DNC anointed one again in 2020?

    • Posted by Vanessthebest, at Reply

      She’s said she won’t be running.

    • Posted by Alex von Kessler, at Reply

      reelreeler the c–t said that last time too

    • Posted by Annoyedusually, at Reply

      I think they’re going to try to shoehorn Elizabeth Warren in.

  16. Posted by Clay Raymond, at Reply

    You’re actually defending the DNC position. So you’re literally agreeing that our political system is not democratic. Unbelievable.

    • Posted by caitiff52, at Reply

      Janey Blunt: ActBlue does take 3.95% out of every donation as a “processing fee,” which I presume really means to cover their own operating costs, but I cannot find anything that says they pass this along to the DNC. As far as I can tell, ActBlue is a PAC independent of the Democratic Party itself.

      Whatever fund-sharing agreements between the DNC and the candidates are between those parties, though. Donors have no say in it. They might have a case against the candidate they donated to if they don’t like how he/she disposes of the money, but not against the party they did not donate to.

    • Posted by the op kingdom, at Reply

      Clay Raymond… The money Bernie collected went to the DNC after the Primary. He doesn’t get to keep that- it is absorbed into the party which is what we all find so freaking disgusting.

    • Posted by Robert M, at Reply

      John Handcock candidates do make promises. It’s just that they aren’t contractually obligated to fulfill them. This case though does raise the question as to whether we should treat political parties (with regards to campaign donations) like non-profit organizations that rely on charitable donations for financing

  17. Posted by Tychoxi, at Reply

    These are the “values” the Dems “lead” with.

  18. Posted by TechTubeCentral, at Reply

    100% disagree. You should be able to sue someone if a donation is made under false pretenses. Let’s say I donate to an organization that says it’s going to conserve the rain forest. Well if instead, the money is not used for that whatsoever, and is instead used to buy the owner’s steak dinners, that would be fraud.

    • Posted by Alex Google Plus, at Reply

      Well you’re essentially arguing that centuries of precedent need to be overturned. Consideration is one of the most basic, fundamental, principle of common law. Anyone that has even the slightest knowledge of contract law will tell you that is not going to change.

      “How are donations not protected like any other way money get’s redistributed?” Because it’s seen as a gift and therefor legally you have no expectation to receive recompense. There’s a lot of legal complications that go into this which would be hard to explain here in a youtube comment section but if you’re really interested just google ‘consideration’ you’ll find plenty of reading.

    • Posted by TechTubeCentral, at Reply

      Donations SHOULD not be viewed as gifts and I do not care about precedent. Slavery was around four centuries…. Donations shouldn’t be viewed as gifts because they’re not. Organizations (not political ones though) that are 501c3’s allow you to write off your donations. You can’t tax write off a gift..

    • Posted by Alex Google Plus, at Reply

      I’m not going to argue with someone about consideration in contract law that just found out a minute ago what it was. You can ‘not care’ about precedent all you want and make a false equivalence with slavery (by the way you jumped the gun real quick, really you instantly go to slavery?) but it’s still not going to change.

    • Posted by TechTubeCentral, at Reply

      Why are you implying that i’ve never ever studied anything related to law? I have. and guess what. Laws change. You want to talk about not knowing things about law? Pfft.

    • Posted by Alex Google Plus, at Reply

      You’re lying. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to contract law, if you did study it you weren’t paying any attention. I’m going to stop wasting my time arguing that the water is wet now if you don’t mind, even if you do mind I couldn’t care less.

  19. Posted by Anders Jørgensen, at Reply

    WTF John? WTF Michael? How is this not fraud? It’s in their charter! Could they just have falsified the votes giving Hillary a lot more than she got, and there would have been no legal redress? Just because they are a private organization? Could they have taken 100% of the donations and bought an island for DWS? This is crazy

    • Posted by John Handcock, at Reply

      Actually, a lot of the donations for the state elections were funneled to HRC.

  20. Posted by Dylan Nolan, at Reply

    Can you see why people hate clinton? She represents this fraud.

    • Posted by Dylan Nolan, at Reply

      Please excuse my verbiage, I omitted the word *some* in an attempt to avoid sounding dull and prosaic.

    • Posted by Dylan Nolan, at Reply

      Namely the Saudi Regime, well they would have loved her if she gave them any return on investment.

    • Posted by Gloria Du, at Reply

      +Dylan Nolan doesn’t matter what your verbiage. there are much more vicious attacks against her from haters. You can’t change the fact that people who love her are not from dictator regime.