<p>Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic National Committee&rsquo;s (DNC) charter states the group will &ldquo;exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the presidential candidates and campaigns.&rdquo;</p>
<p><strong>That is not how the DNC acted during the months leading up to last year&rsquo;s election.</strong></p>
<p>The DNC&rsquo;s unethical preference for Hillary Clinton was exposed last year when WikiLeaks published a series of hacked emails revealing a conspiracy to stop Bernie Sanders from winning the party&rsquo;s nomination. <a href="https://punchingbagpost.com/slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-confirmed-as-wikileaks-contact-not-the-russians)/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>As I wrote in a previous article</strong></a>, the emails are believed to have been leaked by former DNC employee Seth Rich, who was gunned down in DC shortly before the WikiLeaks release.</p>
<p>A group of Bernie Sanders supporters is now suing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former DNC Chairwoman who resigned immediately after the email hack.</p>
<p>The class action suit was filed last June, after leaked emails revealed the DNC had been working to promote Clinton from the start &#8211; despite public promises of neutrality. ;</p>
<p><em>Wildling v. DNC</em> was filed on behalf of 150 Sanders supporters who made contributions to the DNC. These individuals argue that the ;DNC defrauded them out of their money by promising to be neutral when in reality the organization was working to elect Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>The Sanders supports accuse the DNC and Wasserman Schultz of &ldquo;intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious&rdquo; conduct, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.</p>
<p>&ldquo;I wouldn&rsquo;t call this an election case. It&rsquo;s a fraud case,&rdquo; said Cullin O&rsquo;Brien, one of four attorneys representing the Sanders supporters. &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t have a right to take people&rsquo;s money under false pretenses.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The plaintiffs are seeking a return of the money they donated to the DNC, along with &ldquo;special damages&rdquo; and other costs. A dollar amount has yet to be named.</p>
<p>The DNC argues that it is under &ldquo;no contractual obligation&rdquo; to follow its own charter, and is making its second attempt to dismiss the case. They insist the word &ldquo;impartial&rdquo; cannot be defined, which essentially means the DNC&#8217;s neutrality clause is a promise that cannot be guaranteed.</p>
<p><strong>Strangely enough, this massively important case has gotten virtually no media coverage.</strong></p>
<p>&ldquo;This seems like an important case, as important as you can get,&rdquo; said O&rsquo;Brien.</p>
<p>The suit was filed nearly a year ago, but not a single mainstream outlet has covered it.</p>
<p>Jared Beck, the attorney leading the lawsuit against the DNC, says there has been a &ldquo;total blackout&rdquo; of the case.</p>
<p>&ldquo;Honestly, if the Democratic party is seeking unity in a bona fide manger, then it also needs &ndash; I believe as part of that mission &ndash; has to come to terms with the fact that the people that we represent demand and need justice for what happened,&rdquo; argues Beck. ;</p>
<p>If <em>Wildling v. DNC</em> gets past the pending motion to dismiss, Sanders supporters may have the opportunity to dramatically reshape how the DNC conducts business.</p>