General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump Campaign: Ok we did it, but it's not illegal
Lawyers for the campaign asserted in court papers a right to disclose even stolen information.
In a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit accusing President Donald Trumps campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election, Trump campaign lawyers have tried out a new defense: free speech.
The lawsuit, filed last month by two donors and one former employee of the Democratic National Committee, alleges that the Trump campaign, along with former Trump adviser Roger Stone, worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked DNC emails, thereby violating their privacy.
But the Trump campaignrepresented by Jeffrey Baltruzak, Michael A. Carvin, Nikki L. McArthur, and Vivek Suri, all of the law firm Jones Dayresponded in a brief filed Tuesday that the campaign cant be held legally responsible for WikiLeakss publication of the DNC emails.
Furthermore, the Trump lawyers argued, the First Amendment protects the campaigns right to disclose informationeven stolen informationso long as (1) the speaker did not participate in the theft and (2) the information deals with matters of public concern.
The motions language seems to further an argument made by Trump and his allies as they await the findings of Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation into a potential conspiracy between the campaign and Russia in 2016: namely, that collusion, even if it involved the coordinated release and exploitation of a candidates emails during the presidential election, is not a crime.
More: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/trump-campaign-defends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/
Freethinker65
(10,048 posts)Any stolen info should have been handed directly to the FBI.
unblock
(52,319 posts)c'mon, contraband is contraband. it's illegal for a reason. this ridiculous legal "theory" allows people to profit (possibly involved in the original theft crime) to profit from the fruits of criminal activity, and it consigns the victim to permanent, expensive, and unnecessary damage without compensation even if the original thief is caught and punished.
meow2u3
(24,773 posts)The entire GOP is a criminal enterprise and using stolen materials against Democrats is proof positive. They'll stop at nothing, not even murder, to keep power.
They belong behind bars, not in power.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)number of reporters would be in prison for receiving such information.
The catch in this case is going to be if they were engaged in making the deal before the server was hacked and or before the emails were stolen in which case the issue is not receiving the emails but rather the issue would then be one of them being a co conspirator in a major computer crime.
Edit: Not to mention of course the issue will be what payment was discussed.
If it involved the sanctions or any other quid pro quo between Russia and the United States in the event that Trump would win we have a violation of the Logan Act.
meow2u3
(24,773 posts)Stolen emails are still stolen property. Hacking into someone else's computer to steal property is still a crime.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)in the past when for example the varies newspapers published information that Manning stole.
No, the real problem will be what payment was under discussion and when was the server hacked and when were the emails stolen and if it was hacked and or the emails were stolen while they were in talks and or soon after said talks then thats going to be a huge problem for all those involved especially Trumps son and his son in law.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)but, the NY Times had a right to publish them
Lithos
(26,404 posts)This information/data had value and the Trump team used this value to their advantage. So, a better analogy is - if I steal insider information from a company and use that information in the Stock Market, then it would be illegal because of insider trading.
You can not profit from stolen goods. The case for Free Speech is that the NY Times did not demonstrably profit from the use of this data. Rather they exposed this to the public light.
In this case, this information represented distinct and unique insight which would have cost the Trump organization millions to self-develop, if at all. This value was presented to their campaign by a foreign agency - which is in itself a major violation of Campaign finance due to the valuation (greater than the individual contribution), but also the source - foreign. They then used this information to help target and direct their campaign. Add to this that they probably colluded in advance with the actual theft - Trump's speech directing the Russians to do so, then they become part of the bigger conspiracy.
Beausoleil
(2,845 posts)But for the purposes of defrauding the United States? Not a valid exception.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts).... and freely available to the general public. Calling attention to information that already exists in the public domain through no fault of your own is not a crime.
If they had anything to do with obtaining and then proving them to WikiLeaks, there would be an argument to be made.
procon
(15,805 posts)lots of money to acquire from legitimate companies who suss out political dirt for sale. As a valuable commodity, the emails are no different than any other stolen property.
Also, wouldn't the Dirty Hands doctrine apply? Trump can't claim a defense when he has acted in bad faith regarding the subject matter of the complaint.
calimary
(81,467 posts)He'll provide you all the cover and all the back-up you're gonna need when it comes time for THAT elite group (of nine justices - majority CONservative) to vote.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)It's OK to get help from the Russians, so long as it is against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)donkeypoofed
(2,187 posts)Guess that's their only defense due to not being able to deny it.
Man, oh Man, but they'd be howling to the moon if Democrats did that!
blugbox
(951 posts)Arguing that hacking and conspiring with foreign countries and releasing stolen information to the public is "free speech"
Arguing that a Democrat releasing evidence of Republican crimes to the public = "lock HER up"
I want to scream
htuttle
(23,738 posts)"Sure we did it, but so what."
Response to MelissaB (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)server and or before they stole the emails in which case the ones involved become co conspirators to a major computer crime.
JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)...we can take it to the Supreme Court.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,416 posts)If not this time, maybe next.
GOTV!
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? I would not be surprised.
Thomas is the real unknown though because its going to depend on which SCOTUS judge has been doing most of his thinking for him these days now that Scalia is dead.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,416 posts)mcCONnell was lead conspirator in obstructing Obama in appointing Federal judges and then packing those benches using twitler.
Kavanaugh's record is 91% rulings in favor of corporations. I expect those are the same types packed during these 2 years.
Wednesdays
(17,408 posts)Next move will be underwater...in somewhere like the Indian Ocean!
iluvtennis
(19,872 posts)sanatanadharma
(3,728 posts)..cuz it is only free-enterprise
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)What's the problem? We were trying to find out what was in Hillary's emails!
Something wrong with that?
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)There are no more checks & balances.
No "Fourth Estate" either.
America is broken.
lancelyons
(988 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Mr. Trump will be dogged by his own crimes for a very, very long time, even if its all struck down by his Supreme Court. He may stave off accountability in his crimes but he will never hoodwink anyone other than his pathetic base again. He is exposed and will be shunned by those whose admiration he craves. His only recourse will be to wallow in the pigsty of his knuckle dragging minions. I suspect he hates them more than he hates women.
Let him grab their p#*@y.
C_U_L8R
(45,020 posts)It's still possession of stolen property and then some.
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)NO Perjury!! This is such BULLSHIT!!
knightmaar
(748 posts)Does that include the speaker ordering the theft on national television?
Because that really sounds like participating ... but I'm not a lawyer.
bdamomma
(63,922 posts)what jerks. making up their own rules while the go on ruining this country.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)Say that's okay because it isn't illegal until that lie fails, blame Obama, Clinton anyone, cuz President Unindicted Co-conspirator is always someone's victim, when that lie fails, fall back on outlandish conspiracy theories that the gullible mouth breathers will buy.