Democratic Party Sues Trump, Russia, Trump Campaign

zebby23 said:
Yep no evidence at all lol

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about talking in April 2016 to a professor with close ties to the Kremlin who told Papadopoulos that Moscow had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The professor told him about thousands of emails the Russians had from the Clinton campaign.

Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower in June 2016 after being promised "dirt" on Clinton. The campaign later communicated to meeting organizers that they were disappointed they didn't get what they were promised. (Not to mention Trump Jr lied about it) wonder why he would do that?

Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations

Also do you remember the day after Comey was fired Trump had the Russian ambassador in the freaking oval office like they were best buds?

Is this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? We can let Mueller decide but to say there is NO evidence is being willfully blind
Click to expand...

Substantial evidence produces something tangible. Superficial leads and guilt by association aren't enough in a court of law to conclude a guilty verdict, it would make it too easy to frame someone that way. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt these aren't coincidental.
 
It was Facebook ads ..
It was controlling husbands ..
It was a white lash...
It was Russian hackers...
It was James Comey ...
Some of these Democraps can’t lose with grace, this is what happens when everyone gets a trophy growing up and told they’re special. Hell Al Gore took the lost better after a year and he had a legitimate complaint
 
JamesRussler said:
Here's a link to the 66-page complaint, which names as defendants, among others, "The Russian Federation," "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.," "Guccifer 2.0," "Wikileaks," and "Julian Assange."

Scroll down to page 52 and find where it says "Prayer for Relief." This is the part where the complaint states what the Plaintiffs want the Court to do.

The DNC is asking the Court to award the following (summarized):
  • Money damages – compensatory, statutory, and punitive
  • Declaratory judgment that Trump, Russia, et al "conspired" to hack the DNC in order to "impact the 2016 election"
  • Injunction preventing Trump, Russia, et al from accessing, removing, or distributing information from the DNC's servers
To prevail, the DNC will have to prove that their servers were hacked, and that Trump, et al, did the hacking. However, to my knowledge, no independent third party has verifyied that the DNC was actually hacked, and the DNC even refused to let Obama's FBI examine their servers. How will the DNC prove that they were hacked, and that Trump/Russia did the hacking, if they refuse to even allow their servers to be inspected? Nobody – not the judge, the defendants, or the public – will simply "take their word for it." Anyway, as we all know, Robert Mueller has been at this for about a year now. Proving that Donald Trump's Campaign "conspired" or "colluded" with Russia is not as easy as it sounds, even for a federal bureaucracy with unlimited resources and advanced information-gathering capabilities.

And even if the DNC could somehow prove that Trump's campaign colluded with the other named defendants to "hack" their server, how would they go about proving money damages? They are suggesting that the alleged hacking of John Podesta's e-mails caused donations to dwindle, and not the salacious content of those e-mails, the DNC's own surreptitious activities, Hillary Clinton's gaffes/scandals, or her stunning upset loss to Donald Trump. Do they think anyone believes that now? There are millions of other reasons why people may have decided not to donate to Democrats, or, for that matter, vote for Democrats. To that end, the complaint doesn't allege that Hillary Clinton would have won the election but for the alleged "hacking" of the DNC.

Lastly, the DNC has a problem, because Russia is entitled to sovereign immunity. The complaint alleges that sovereign immunity doesn't apply because Russia allegedly "trespassed" on their servers to commit "economic espionage." But "trespass" is not an exception to sovereign immunity, and the activity described in the complaint hardly falls within the "commercial activity" exception described in 28 U.S.C. § 1605.

This complaint is going nowhere. And even if it makes it past the pleadings stage, the DNC is probably better off not airing any more of its dirty laundry.
Click to expand...

As an addendum to my previous post, I'd like to point out that the policy interests behind sovereign immunity absolutely dwarf the interests of the DNC. For one thing, our Courts cannot throw "Russia" in jail for contempt if it fails to appear or comply with Court orders. Unless Russia agrees to avail itself of US laws in a particular context (i.e., in exchange for something of benefit to Russia), our Court is essentially powerless over the massive Eurasian nation. In addition, the USA and its agents must deal with Russia every day for a variety of important reasons, notwithstanding the current state of our national politics. Sovereign Immunity prevents Courts from interfering with all of that. The only thing the Court can accomplish by allowing a tiny (failing) entity like the DNC to sue Russia is cause a diplomatic crisis, and such diplomatic crises are Constitutionally reserved for one President Donald J. Trump. The Court will promptly dismiss Russia from this suit on Sovereign Immunity grounds. You heard it here first.
 
Does the DNC have enough money in their coffers to wage a lawsuit against all three and still give money to mid-term candidates?

This sounds expensive.
 
Fluffernutter said:
Does the DNC have enough money in their coffers to wage a lawsuit against all three and still give money to mid-term candidates?

This sounds expensive.
Click to expand...

That was my though as well. Another poster thought this was all about getting a cash settlement but, even if that works (which strikes me as unlikely), after all the legal fees you’d have to ask if the juice was worth the squeeze
 
How anyone can support Democrats at this point is beyond me. Disgusting.
 
zebby23 said:
Ya who cares about Russian meddling or possible collusion right? As long as your side won
Click to expand...

Yes, Trump needs to be impeached because a bunch of soccer moms fell for some facebook ads. Give me a fucking break.
 
This lawsuit has finally been dismissed out of its misery:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed

The Judge, a Clinton appointee, wrote that the case was "without merit" and ordered that it be "dismissed with prejudice." In other words, it cannot be refiled. The DNC's only hope is to appeal the ruling, which—let's be honest—they will probably do, even though they have no chance.

Here's a copy of the Judge's order:


While I disagree with some of the Judge's discussion of facts (particularly regarding allegations that Russia "hacked" the DNC's servers), his rulings were overall correct. The Judge wrote that Trump and his campaign "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place," and that "at no point does the DNC allege any facts ... to show that any of the defendants -- other than the Russian Federation -- participated in the theft of the DNC's information." Note that the Judge was ruling on Trump's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)—i.e., the Judge was required to accept the DNC's factual allegations (not legal conclusions) as true.

On the bright side for Democrats, this means they will avoid the embarrassing discovery battle that would have ensued if the case had been allowed to proceed.
 
Last edited:
JamesRussler said:
This lawsuit has finally been dismissed out of its misery:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed

The Judge, a Clinton appointee, wrote that the case was "without merit" and ordered that it be "dismissed with prejudice." In other words, it cannot be refiled. The DNC's only hope is to appeal the ruling, which—let's be honest—they will probably do, even though they have no chance.

Here's a copy of the Judge's order:


While I disagree with some of the Judge's discussion of facts (particularly regarding allegations that Russia "hacked" the DNC's servers), his rulings were overall correct. The Judge wrote that Trump and his campaign "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place," and that "at no point does the DNC allege any facts ... to show that any of the defendants -- other than the Russian Federation -- participated in the theft of the DNC's information." Note that the Judge was ruling on Trump's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)—i.e., the Judge was required to accept the DNC's allegations as true.

On the bright side for Democrats, this means they will avoid the embarrassing discovery battle that would have ensued if the case had been allowed to proceed.
Click to expand...

Came here to post this. May be all of this is just distraction. Something bigger up their sleeve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,394
Messages
55,417,493
Members
174,763
Latest member
ThroughTheDakr

Share this page

Back
Top