While many Democrats across the country are focused with laser-like precision on ways to legally shorten Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House, a few are still upset about the way all of the Democratic candidates except Hillary Clinton were treated by the Democratic National Committee. And now a court’s ruling supports their claims.
The latest development comes in a ruling on a court case that was, importantly, thrown out.
The suit, filed in July 2016 by Jared and Elizabeth Beck (both lawyers from Florida), claimed the hacked emails of the DNC and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz show collusion with the Clinton campain and a desire help Hillary Clinton defeat her top challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Judge William Zloch dismissed the class-action lawsuit. His ruling read as follows:
“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary. To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so … the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”
This paragraph has less to do with the premise of the suit and more to do with how the lawyers wished to proceed.
Oddly, though, Judge Zloch agreed with the premise, and he put it in writing.
“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true — that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” he wrote.
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publicly proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Still, even assuming all of that, the Judge didn’t feel like it was a matter for the Federal Court system.
“The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct — the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.”
Still, the Plaintiffs must feel some sense of moral victory.