7 Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuit

From Counter Propa:

Transcripts released from the hearing Friday expose numerous shocking revelations presented by the Democrats’ counsel arguing in support of the Motion to Dismiss regarding the way the Democratic Party views its obligations and responsibilities in conducting the primary nominating process. Judge Zloch did not issue a ruling from the bench; he will issue a written order in response to the Motion to Dismiss at a later, unspecified date as he considers the merits of the defendants on the Motion. (following points discussed in article)

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.

Zloch also made a pointed question to clarify if the Democratic Party interprets its ability to show favoritism as “business as usual”, which DNC Attorney Bruce Spiva subsequently denied.

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”.