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.