General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLaurence Tribe on DNC lawsuit: It's NOT a sham.
Link to tweet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.64d9a05ffd68
The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.
The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trumps campaign, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.
This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency, he said.
SNIP
malaise
(269,157 posts)BRILLIANT.
Rachel nailed it last night
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Roy Rolling
(6,928 posts)Brilliant. When the GOP hopes to turn the fire off after the Mueller investigation, this lawsuit keeps the issue on a slow boil. Nevertheless, they persisted.
malaise
(269,157 posts)It is brilliant
DemoTex
(25,400 posts)Brilliant, indeed.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with a civil suit by the DNC. I wish everyone in America could see the network news's initial groupthink reports dismissing that as a shabby maneuver by Democrats to get money. The civil suit's revelations forced them to abandon their disgraceful slandering of our party and face up to and report the truth about the Republican administration.
malaise
(269,157 posts)hilarious. I am so proud of Dems.
What some folks don't see is that the ReTHUG leakers are planning all sorts of hearings about leaks as their campaign strategy.
Go Dems! Yet again history will be on their side.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and once again that's going to bite their asses bad.
I'm very excited about this civil suit. As someone was pointing out, civil suits do not require the same ironclad level of proof that DOJ prosecutions do, and no doubt all evidence can and will be disclosed to the public as it proceeds.
Since a civil suit is now obviously a major weapon we've held from the beginning, I'd like to hear details of the strategy of holding it back initially and then deploying it at this point. Probably a special investigator was more doable from the beginning and we pushed that direction first, but there's always so much behind these decisions that we aren't aware of.
malaise
(269,157 posts)and smart heads knew it would lead all the way back to Nixon and thus filed suit. The cyber break ins have taken a little longer to prove and now Dems have pounced.
One more thing - while most were ignoring the civil suit, Nixon won that 72 election, but over time that suit helped bring down crooked Nixon. Have no fear, ReTHUGs and their Con-in-Chief are correctly very nervous about this suit.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)right up front. And it was just as available to congress and our fourth estate.
Oh yes about the civil proceeding only proceeding past the election. I just looked and the break-in was June 12, 1972. I haven't gone and read about this, obviously, and didn't remember that congress and the DOJ hadn't even begun involvement until after Nixon was reelected.
Also, there were RULES and ETHICS governing DOJ actions that could influence elections (just as there were in 2016, even if they were severely violated). So take August, September and October right off the table for any public announcement that an investigation was being opened.
malaise
(269,157 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Who can doubt "Mr. You know, I just don't know/wasn't aware/probably should have realized" did his best to understand?
Hekate
(90,774 posts)The entire GOP is so corrupt it boggles the mind.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to hit.
I loved Rachel's segment for also giving corrupt and intellectually dishonest media their own due.
BigmanPigman
(51,625 posts)I thought it was bogus until she explained how it was used during Watergate and that helped me understand it a lot more. Tom Perez knows what he is doing apparently.
malaise
(269,157 posts)He's very effective to date.
gademocrat7
(10,665 posts)Chump and his cabal are treason weasels.
Deb
(3,742 posts)It often seems a party to a lawsuit refuses answering questions from reporters.
7962
(11,841 posts)Anything trump related anyway.
Most litigation is not a mixture of law and politics and, aside from which, the GOP is not a defendant. The Trump campaign, on the other hand, is a defendant.
As a general proposition, in normal litigation, it is inadvisable to say anything about a legal proceeding in which you are a party. There are a LOT of reasons for that. Likewise, it is inadvisable for a lawyer in a matter to use your case as a vehicle for self-promotion or media attention.
You want to really blow your mind? This, believe it or not, is an actual rule for lawyers in California:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules/Rule-5-120
...and before you think that rule only applies in criminal matters, consider this subsection:
" ( 7 ) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):"
In other words, that rule is, hypothetically I guess, supposed to apply to any matter under litigation.
The loophole wide enough to drive an Avenatti sports car through, appears to be:
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
As the primary condition is what "a reasonable member" would believe which, in this context, means "California lawyers", one might conclude that the rule is entirely consumed by the exception there. It is virtually an oxymoron.
Deb
(3,742 posts)You've given me a direction to start a google search.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)but well known individual. Maybe that is why Avenatti is appearing on television so much.
certainot
(9,090 posts)when it comes to the gop the media includes 1200 radio stations going 15 hrs/day to blame democrats and now the 'deep state' for everything - it's all a conspiracy to destroy american democracy
if 1hr was worth $1000 then those 1200 radio stations are worth $5bil/yr or $18mil/day
dedicated to obstructing investigations, intimidating witnesses, and influencing juries
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)This lawsuit has merit
Cha
(297,532 posts)hasn't happened until now..
Were suing the Trump campaign and Russia.
Much more..
https://medium.com/TheDemocrats/were-suing-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-72a6b76067e6
no_hypocrisy
(46,160 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)"whistling past the graveyard".
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,033 posts)usaf-vet
(6,196 posts)I waiting for the time when we drag the GOP into an alley with paramedics on stand-by. But until that happens this will do.
The filing can tell the country what Trump and his cabal have been up to.
Each time a new piece of evidence shows up amend the lawsuit.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)A lawsuit takes years and can have all sorts of twists and turns, some not to the liking of either side.
Time will tell.
dalton99a
(81,568 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Keep driving him insane. Sooner or later he will crack.
triron
(22,013 posts)spooky3
(34,467 posts)High unemployment rate among attorneys.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6457898
Cha
(297,532 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)No matter what happens, it gives me some pleasure that the con man in the W.H. is going through psychological turmoil over the events surrounding him and about which he can do nothing, except scream out "LIAR" in tweets. SAD.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)I've been very much hoping that this lawsuit would add something substantial to the criminal proceedings, not follow them. Any number of useful bits of information could come from discovery.
Cha
(297,532 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Instead Donna Brazille stepped out in front of the Ohio investigation and said nothing to see here, just the usual misunderstandings. Never mind that the report said otherwise, that's all it took to shut down that whole question for freaking 14 years! So hell yeah, it's about time to take legal action! I don't know what the heck Jackie Spier is thinking but she's on the way wrong side of this one.