Ashley Blankenship | Our Voice Contributor
If you have been following the DNC fraud lawsuit, then you know how important this case is for our democracy. Depending on the ruling, this case has the possibility to divide the Democratic party further or uphold the right to, "impartiality and even-handedness," ( Article 5, Section 4, of the Charters and Bylaws of the Democratic Party) for candidates by the DNC. If you don't know what this lawsuit is about, let me catch you up to speed.
On June 28th of 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by attorney Jared Beck for Carol Wilding et al. against Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for not maintaining the impartiality and even-handedness that they are required to do for all candidates in the 2016 election. You can see the filed complaint here.
The lawsuit argues that an authentic leaked DNC memo suggests several different strategies in which the committee would prop up Secretary Clinton as the Democratic candidate. At the time the memo was leaked,May 26, 2015, Bernie Sanders had only recently entered in the race one month prior and there was speculation about others, like Joe Biden, still considering running.
I remember barely seeing Bernie on mainstream media. I had to watch his live streams on social media, as I'm sure most of his supporters did. But whenever they would mention him on mainstream media, it was always inaccurate. It was really frustrating! I specifically remember one instance when I had Chris Hayes on and whomever his guest was had mentioned Bernie. Chris put his finger up to his lip, kind of discretely, as if to say to his guest, "shhh, we're not supposed to talk about him." That was the last time I ever watched Chris Hayes. His actions only fueled my support for Bernie because obviously he was not getting the fair coverage he deserved.
The next major development in this case was the remarks from the Defendant's lawyer regarding the way the election was handled. This excerpt from the Transcripts of the defense’s motion to dismiss on April 25, 2017 is quite telling :
" But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."
It's a pretty disheartening line of words, yes. The DNC is basically saying that impartiality does not matter and that they can do whatever they want despite the actions of their voter base. Their Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party Committee, they so dearly hold, apparently do not mean a damned thing!
This is why this case is so important. Because if the judge rules that the DNC somehow did provide impartiality in the election, then we, the American people, have a huge problem on our hands! This is probably the reason why there has been a media blackout on the case – because it is based in the very founding of our republic. The DNC is saying they can't be held accountable for the rules of their party. Likewise, if the judge rules in favor of the people, this would be an enormous win for democracy.
The most recent filings in this lawsuit are both humorous and troubling. On June 1, 2017, a notice was filed with the court. It appears that someone made a phone call from one of Debbie's offices and asked questions about the DNC fraud case. What's unusual about this is, "[The] secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a voice changer, because the voice sounded robotic and gender-less." You can't make this stuff up, people! The Beck attorneys filed the complaint because it's very odd, if not suspicious, and should be added to case. You can see it in it's entirety here. Since that was filed, Debbie's lawyers have filed a reply stating, "No one on Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz’s staff, including the Congresswoman herself, has any knowledge of any such call being made, nor was any such call authorized." They also added that no one in that office was working on the case and that the building has been undergoing repairs for months. The Defendant's believe it to be a spoofing incident, where a caller can falsify their location and number. They reported the incident to the Capitol Police.
If the building from which the number supposedly came is indeed sans employees, then this case just gets even more weird! It sounds like a prank call to me, but I will await the findings from the Capitol Police or a third party if it comes through. Until then, we must be vigilant in paying attention to this case. The more awareness we can bring to it the better! Our voting rights are at stake!