Democratic National Committee: It Is Our First Amendment Right To Steal the Election

FROM EIR DAILY ALERT

Democratic National Committee: It Is Our First Amendment Right To Steal the Election

Feb. 28, 2018 (EIRNS)—In a case brought against the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for stealing the primary elections from Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton (as admitted by Donna Brazile, who took over as DNC Chair from Wasserman Schultz when she was forced to resign), the DNC lawyers argued that it was fully within their Constitutional rights to fix the election! This should sound familiar to those who have followed the LaRouche movement, since the DNC successfully argued in court that the Democratic Party was a “private club,” that excluding LaRouche delegates from the 2000 Democrat Convention, even though had gathered the required number of endorsements from Democrats, was within their rights.

Disobedient Media Editor in Chief Elizabeth Vos reported Feb. 24 that lawyers for the DNC and Wasserman Schultz filed papers in the court arguing that:

“There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign. To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party’s nominee for public office.”

Vos astutely notes:

“It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the First Amendment.... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any fiduciary duty to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved.”

She also reports that the U.K. Supreme Court recently ruled that WikiLeaks cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. Vos continues her report:

“If publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendants’ latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders’ campaign.”