In a question on the politics stack exchange, a user asks why the Democratic National committee tried to prevent Bernie Sanders from being selected as their candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Is the underlying supposition of this question true? The listed claim includes a Newsweek article about a lawsuit:

A class action lawsuit alleging the Democratic National Committee worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to keep Bernie Sanders out of the White House has been raging on in the courtrooms for months on end

...but it has not been resolved, so no evidence is provided by this. Is there a source with better evidence to suggest that there was genuinely an anti-Bernie conspiracy in the DNC?

One notable example of the claim is this graphic produced by Wikileaks, which claims there is such evidence somewhere within 19,252 emails they released - but gives no details:

Graphic about WikiLeaks dump of DNC emails

  • 3
    Some guy on Politics.SE isn't a notable claim. The notable claim appears to be the class action suit itself, which in turn is something we can't answer until the courts resolve it. – Oddthinking Oct 18 '17 at 20:59
  • 3
    Pretty much everything the DNC did to help/hinder the Sanders campaign is revealed in the e-mail dump. Whether that amounts to "trying to prevent Bernie Sanders from being nominated" or just being less helpful to a candidate that didn't have much of a pre-existing relationship with the DNC (because he had not previously been a Democrat and had a tenuous relationship to the party in general) will inevitably be a matter of opinion. – antlersoft Oct 18 '17 at 22:48
  • 4
    @antlersoft People also say that the email dump showed that Clinton was running a child rape ring in a pizzeria, so asking for sources doesn't seem unreasonable. Wikileaks also isn't impartial and is known for disinformation (in this case afaik most of the claims of illicit activity are about things happening after Sanders already mathematically lost). That said, I agree with Oddthinking. At least as long as no proper source for a specific claim is included (which actually shouldn't be that difficult). – tim Oct 19 '17 at 6:36
  • 2
    I would try to separate this question from the lawsuit for two reasons: 1) It may be off-topic as it may be ongoing (though AFAIK the suit was already dismissed) 2) It's not actually that relevant. There were claims about this long before the lawsuit, and more importantly, the lawsuit could be resolved without giving us any actual answer (eg by ruling that it is irrelevant whether the DNC favored Clinton, because the DNC can choose their candidate however they want because of freedom of association; this is AFAIK what happened, although I might confuse multiple lawsuits here?). – tim Oct 19 '17 at 10:34
  • 2
    @ventsyv Wikileaks is not a reliable source. It has promoted various nonsense conspiracy theories, sometimes even including antisemitism. It is basically a propaganda outlet with strong ties to Russia. That's not to say that anything was doctored, but that the material should be evaluated carefully (not only because it might be doctored, but because wikileaks has a history of using real leaks, but misrepresenting their meaning); any answer using wikileaks as primary source without secondary sources backing up the claims would be a weak answer. – tim Oct 19 '17 at 14:46

Browse other questions tagged .