When newly elected Democratic National Committee officers gathered in late March at a Washington hotel, the agenda included a brief but robust discussion of a pledge not to intervene in party primaries, according to two people who attended the meeting and a third who was briefed on it.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.
Am I misreading it that the assumption the allegations are true is used to deliberate whether the lawsuit is nonetheless inappropriate on other grounds?
None of this means that the judge believed or found them to be true. It means they don’t matter.
Edit: On reflection, I had the right interpretation. Embarrassing for the others…
Pretty fucking rich when you have this:
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
This right here is why the democrats have been getting their shit kicked in.
Am I misreading it that the assumption the allegations are true is used to deliberate whether the lawsuit is nonetheless inappropriate on other grounds?
None of this means that the judge believed or found them to be true. It means they don’t matter.
Edit: On reflection, I had the right interpretation. Embarrassing for the others…