Finally, there is some good news this election cycle and no one is talking about it.
It is hard for me to express how good it made me feel the other night when I heard the Democratic National Committee and its loathsome chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, are being sued in a civil class-action lawsuit. It couldn’t happen to nicer people and even if nothing comes of it, I’m just pleased to know it’s a thing.
The suit names a hundred or so plaintiffs but as soon as word got out about it, thousands more clamored to climb aboard and the list continues to grow. The plaintiffs include donors to the Democratic National Committee, donors to the Bernie Sanders campaign, and just to make things fun, all registered Democrats.
As exciting as I find this news, it’s not being widely reported. Aside from a bunch of niche market, fringe websites and blogs, the only semi-legitimate news source reporting on the story is The New York Observer. I say semi-legitimate since the Observer’s prior claim to fame was being the original source of Candace Bushnell’s column “Sex and the City,” which begat the TV show and movies of the same name. It’s not somewhere I normally go for actual news since I always found the pink paper a little off-putting.
The fact that the Observer is published by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, probably goes a long way to explaining the paper’s diligent coverage of a story of Democratic disarray and comeuppance. But it’s a good story, you should read it. Don’t worry, Kushner got rid of the pink paper.
According to the Observer story, anyone who donated to Bernie Sanders is eligible to join the class-action suit. That’s a possible plaintiff pool of more than two million people, many of which are feeling pretty cranky these days about their hero’s perceived mistreatment by the Democratic establishment. One of them, Rhiannon Crandall, of El Paso, Texas, was ticked off enough to sign on to the lawsuit after donating a grand total of one dollar to the Sanders campaign.
Actually, the list of plaintiffs and their contribution amounts in the filed court documents are fascinating reading. (Take a look. It’s online.) Amounts range from Crandall’s dollar into the low four figures. There are some real head-scratchers among them. Dominic Ronzani, of Deerfield Beach, Florida, contributed a grand total of $38.54. Where did that number come from? A busted piggy bank, perhaps? If so, it’s no wonder Ronzani is piqued at Wasserman Schultz and her alleged shenanigans.
Last week in this space, I kvetched and whined that the unchecked power of the two major political parties was responsible for the stunningly unpopular presidential candidates on both sides. I did not know at the time that, at least on the Democratic side, that power had been grabbed and is alleged in this lawsuit to have been achieved by fraud.
Because according to the charter and by-laws of the Democratic party, the party is required to be neutral in the choice of a presidential nominee. That came as quite a surprise to me since they have been so glaringly not neutral right from the beginning. I’m really glad the rule is there even if no one follows it. That’s something. Not much. But something.
For starters, the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Hillary Clinton’s co-campaign chair in 2008 gives the appearance of impropriety. But the appearance of impropriety has never bothered either of the Clintons, and in this case, it hasn’t bothered Hillary’s former employee who has repeatedly refused to resign.
According to the lawsuit, the DNC was treating Clinton as the nominee, dismissing and discouraging other candidates, and making plans to counter the inevitable character attacks against Clinton long before a single primary vote had been cast. The suit makes the case that the DNC, guided by Wasserman Schultz, was acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign, rather than a neutral entity.
One of the more interesting twists on this story is that it isn’t your usual “he said/she said.” Remember a couple of weeks ago when the DNC was hacked, supposedly by Russians who stole opponent information about Donald Trump? Turns out, it was much more than that.
Some of that information was leaked by an anonymous hacker who calls himself Guccifer 2.0 and according to the Observer, it is very damning to Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. Other sources lead me to believe it is less so. I haven’t had time to read much of the original documents yet but I eagerly await that pleasure.
It is interesting to note that the DNC has not questioned the authenticity or accuracy of those documents. It also cracks me up that the bulk of the evidence for five of the six charges in the lawsuit comes from these leaked documents and the sixth charge of negligence is because the documents were hacked and therefore the DNC failed to protect its donors’ personal information.
I had not heard of Beck and Lee, the Miami-based law firm that filed the suit before this week, and after listening to one of the lead lawyer’s videos about the suit, I’m not completely convinced their only concern is the welfare of their clients. There does seem to be some political motivation on their part but even so, those are some good lawyers.
I mean, seriously, they sue on five charges using evidence acquired from the defendant and just in case that doesn’t work, they sue the defendants one more time for providing them the evidence to sue them with.
That’s some devious thinking. I think old Deb and the DNC might need to watch their backs.
Reach Bill Colvard at 336-415-4699 or on Twitter @BillColvard.