While the mainstream media have been doggedly and extensively covering any narrative that casts President Donald Trump in a negative light, there is one story the reporters and pundits largely have spurned: the lawsuit looming over the Democratic National Committee, alleging it favored former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The DNC came under fire in June 2016 after damning evidence surfaced from documents leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 showing that the party and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz heavily favored Clinton over Sanders.

“The elephant in the room for the DNC isn’t Trump or the GOP or Bernie bros or Russian hackers; it is its own elitist, corporatist, cronyist, corrupt system that consistently refuses to listen to the will of the people it hopes to represent.”

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Maine Police searching for woman who left dog poop in mailboxes of Trump supporters: Defaced campaign signs

A class-action suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 28, 2016 by residents of 45 states against both the committee and Wasserman Schultz for “intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious” conduct in violating Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter.

They represent three classes of plaintiffs: donors to the DNC, donors to the Bernie Sanders campaign, and all registered Democrats — and they want their money back.

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

On April 25, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss, with the DNC’s lawyers arguing that the party has every right to pick candidates in back rooms.

“There’s no contractual obligation here … it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva argued in court.

[lz_ndn video=32346373]

MORE NEWS: Will You Ever Go Back To The Office?

The major news organizations shunned the controversy and allowed it to slip into near-oblivion as they hammered President Trump.

An article published Saturday on the liberal progressive website Salon notes that the mainstream media “almost completely blacked out coverage of this lawsuit.”

A writer for the Observer wrote on Monday: “In large part, the mainstream media [have] not covered the lawsuit in the six months between the court’s initial hearings in October 2016 to its latest hearing on April 25, 2017.”

The revelation that the Democratic Party is fine with rigging elections, and has no qualms about lying to its members and pretending to be neutral, is certainly interesting news. But many in the media apparently didn’t want anyone to pay too much attention to this.

“For Sanders supporters, the lawsuit provides an opportunity for vindication for being cheated and attacked by the Democratic establishment,” Observer reporter Michael Sainato wrote. “Now, the DNC is on record arguing that its voters have no reason to trust it to maintain free and fair elections.”

“Spiva’s defense is blatant proof that despite the fact that the DNC fashions itself as the party of the people, it is openly and clearly an oligarchy — a fact also made clear by its use of superdelgates,” Salon writer Sophia McClennen wrote.

[lz_related_box id=”795212″]

A WikiLeaks document dump also revealed that former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile appeared to favor Clinton when she leaked a Democratic primary debate question to Clinton in an email. Sanders supporters cried fowl. But the media largely spurned them in favor of dogging Trump.

“The elephant in the room for the DNC isn’t Trump or the GOP or Bernie bros or Russian hackers; it is its own elitist, corporatist, cronyist, corrupt system that consistently refuses to listen to the will of the people it hopes to represent,” McClennen wrote. “This all proves that the DNC has a serious problem not only with the democratic process but also with the very idea of representing the will of its constituents.”