Image 01 Image 03

Is MSM distracting from two huge class action lawsuits against DNC?

Is MSM distracting from two huge class action lawsuits against DNC?

Cases focus on primary rigging and failure to pay overtime wages.

By now, every Legal Insurrection reader will likely have been exposed to a deluge of media related to the Washington Post’s assertions about President Donald Trump disclosing highly classified information in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador.

However, the intense media focus on the White House has meant substantially less ink, electrons and time have been spent covering two, significant class action lawsuits against the Democratic National Committee:

1) It’s shenanigans during the primary to weigh the nomination in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
2) Failure to pay its campaign workers for overtime.

I was registered as a Democrat for a significant portion of the primary season, and voted for Bernie Sanders in the California primary. So, I thought I would spend a little time on each of these cases.


This class action lawsuit has been making its way through the court system since October of 2016, and reports are now available covering the the hearing in the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida in which the DNC requested the base be dismissed.

The lawsuit alleges that the DNC and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz violated the DNC charter and helped tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton.

As most conservatives usually have little interest in liberal politics, and the media has even less desire to cover this topic, it took some searching to discover interesting analysis from Bernie supporter and Washington DC show host Tim Black and Huffington Post author H.A. Goodman: Seven Jaw-Dropping Revelations From DNC Fraud Lawsuit’s Motion to Dismiss.

The article they discuss was a report on the hearing itself that discussed these seven revelations, and analyzed them in full.

1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.
4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.
5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.
6. The Democrats’ lawyers takes the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did in fact conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.

To the 7th point, the DNC is likely to be a bit unhappy with the judge’s line of questioning.


The second class-action lawsuit charges that the DNC and others involved in the 2016 national convention in Philadelphia failed to pay overtime wages to some 50 national field organizers.

The DNC adopted an official plank at the convention calling for a $15 an hour national minimum wage, more than double the current federal level of $7.25 an hour. “The Democratic Party believes that supporting workers through higher wages, workplace protections, policies to balance work and family, and other investments,” it said.

That apparently didn’t extend to the organizers, many of whom worked 80-hour weeks, according to Justin Swidler, a Cherry Hill, Pa., lawyer who filed the lawsuit. “They got paid a flat salary of $3,000 a month, which isn’t even minimum wage for some of the hours that they were working,” Swidler told CBS.

Meanwhile, the Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee used some of the leftover money it raised for the DNC to pay nearly $1 million bonuses to staff and volunteers. The rewards ranged from $500 for interns to $310,000 for executive director Kevin Washo.

It looks as if I will have to monitor the developments because it seems our elite media has no desire to report on real scandals involving Democrats.

Bloggers, doing the job the mainstream media won’t do!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 16, 2017 at 4:04 pm

RE: “Is MSM distracting from two huge class action lawsuits against DNC?”


In most cases the Court would just say those suing the DNC did not have standing. That will probably happen with the Primary suit. But, it would be hard to say that with respect to the payroll suit.

American Human | May 16, 2017 at 4:38 pm

None of the 1 – 7 arguments made any sense. Which, I guess, means we’re talking about liberal democrats.

    No, they make sense, but only from the Point of View of the DNC:
    1) None of your business!
    2) If we want to rig our primaries, that’s our decision!
    3) We only have to be impartial as much as we want to be. Which is none.
    4) See Humpty Dumpty vs. Alice, or the This Word Means What I Say It Does section of the Constitution.
    5) I didn’t see it happen, so I can’t be a witness. (i.e. the Bart Simpson defense)
    6) We didn’t have to ram the Hillary nomination through. But we did. So what?
    7) Democracy demands the truth, therefore whatever we say is the truth. If you disagree, you’re lying, and we can ignore you. Lalala. Can’t hear you.

Bloggers, doing the job the mainstream media won’t do!


If I was inclined to be fair, and at this late date I am not, I would point out that the mainstream media no longer knows HOW to do their stated job of reporting.

Advocating for the DNC? Sure. Incitement against conservatives? You bet! Reporting “just the facts”? Not so much.

The question should be asked as follows:

“Is the media running cover for their bosses at the DNC?”

Puts everything into proper perspective.

pablo panadero | May 16, 2017 at 5:08 pm

How in the world does a Bernie Sanders voter get a column in Legal Insurrection?

Ok I already know the answer, but in an alternative universe, does a Trump voter have a column in the huffington post?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to pablo panadero. | May 16, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    I can imagine how.

    If you were a registered Democrat and hadn’t switched your party affiliation yet before the primaries, then Bernie was a protest vote (for millions), and the lesser of two evils……

    Besides there WERE lots of registered Democrats who are really conservatives (unlike the Never Trumpers).

      Yes, there once was a time, like that. If there are any conservative democrats remaining, they probably feel like the legitimate aspect of Islam that has been manifested as ISIS.

      Bernie is a living testament to just how much Americans despise Hillary Clinton. There is absolutely nothing of her character that has any purpose in public life. Monica showed America just how relevant Chappasquatch is, in the full meaning of is.

      The entire community of Chappaqua is all of 289 acres. That’s just about big enough to accommodate a “big back” woman.

    rinardman in reply to pablo panadero. | May 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    How in the world does a Bernie Sanders voter get a column in Legal Insurrection?

    LI isn’t run by a bunch of closed-minded liberals.

    Ok I already know the answer, but in an alternative universe, does a Trump voter have a column in the huffington post?

    Of course not. The huffing&puffington post IS run by a bunch of closed-minded liberals.

      There was a time, in my lifetime, when Democrats were different than the subversive socialists they have become. Still, finding anything about Bernie as relevant to the American experience can only happen on college campuses or California; not to disrespect Massachusetts or most of the rest of New England.

    I’m pretty sure that Linda is conservative. However, in CA they do have this weird rule about the top two vote getters in the primaries go on to the general election. That’s why there is a super majority in state offices.

    So, a voting strategy is to register as a D to impact their primary. Remember “Operation Chaos” that Rush talked about many years ago.

    At least with closed primaries, the voter has to think ahead to be registered. Open primaries allow Ds and Is to cross over and vote for someone that they think their D candidate will beat.

    Easy Peasy.

    Leslie changed her registration to D in order to vote against shrillary in the D primary.

    Leslie is a conservative from the state of California.

    Got it?

    You’re welcome.

Bucky Barkingham | May 17, 2017 at 7:37 am

Were the Russians involved? Is there any dirt on Trump? No? Then not of interest to the FakeNews outlets.

tarheelkate | May 17, 2017 at 9:13 am

For those few sensible people who are still Democrats, the DNC’s answers in the first lawsuit should prove to them that “democratic” no longer describes that party. I doubt the lawsuit will succeed.

The second suit, about overtime, might get somewhere, but it would depend upon the terms on which people were hired and the states where they worked. DNC’s refusal to pay overtime merely goes to show that Dems talk big about being for “the people” but don’t treat actual people decently.