Last Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch heard oral arguments regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by attorneys representing the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in the class-action lawsuit filed against them. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of Democratic Party donors who made financial contributions to Bernie Sanders and the Party under the presumption the primary would be conducted fairly per the DNC’s charter. The lawsuit was filed in June 2016 following the release of leaked emails showing behind-the-scenes collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and other entities to ensure Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee prior to Americans casting votes in the party’s primary contests.

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.

The following is a list of numerous jaw-dropping statements made by lawyers on behalf of the Democratic National Committee that should be examined as the American public awaits the Judge’s order.

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.

In the first of many galling and naive assertions, the Democrats’ counsel advise U.S. Federal Judge William J. Zloch, recently promoted to a Senior bench, that the lawsuit should be dismissed outright because litigating the DNC’s business would “drag the Court right into the political squabbles”. Zloch, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, is told: “There’d be no way constitutionally to offer redress”, despite this being the Court’s “one job”. City, state, county, and Federal courts review legal issues related to political squabbles big and small on a daily basis, and specifically exist as a separate branch of our government to perform this function independent of political disputes arising in the executive or legislative branches of the government.

Jaw on floor reading #DNCFraudLawsuit transcript

They legit tell a FEDERAL judge "That's 4 @TheDemocrats 2 decide. The Court can't do that" pic.twitter.com/Lg58XLcHqr

— Zach (@zachhaller) April 28, 2017