What do you mean it wasn't common knowledge? It's been this way for years. Please don't suggest that finally learning something that is publicly available means that something is rigged.
No, the fact that it was rigged means that it was rigged.
“The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against
Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign, in apparent
contradiction with the DNC leadership's publicly stated neutrality,[8] as several DNC operatives openly derided Sanders's campaign and
discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial
DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[9] The revelations prompted the resignation of DNC chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
[10]The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters…”
The lawsuit that you're referencing was filed by idiots and was dismissed by the judge because it lacked merit. The court held that "To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary."
Yes, the judge ruled that the DNC can do whatever they want, even rig the primaries.
DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules
The issue is that you're calling it "rigged" when the process is pretty open to anyone who bothers to understand it. It is insane to know exactly how something works, watch it work exactly as we've been told it works and then claim that when it does what we've been told it does that is proof that it was rigged.
The process was far from “open to anyone” that’s why the DNC caught flack, because they were caught concealing their actions favoring Clinton.
“Leaked emails show the
Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.“
“Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival,
Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.“
The emails appeared to show support for her over Bernie Sanders.
abcnews.go.com
“The emails show the
officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.“
If you don't like who the DNC trots out as their candidate, vote for someone else.
The democratic process is the federal election, not the private organization's primaries. They shouldn't be equated with each other.
Yes, our “democracy” in the US constitutes voting for the candidate that private organizations handpick while lying to their constituents that they actually have a say… that’s a problem.
