DNC sues Russia, Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over alleged election interference

I think that they will try to depend on Crowdstrike again, but the problem with that is the bank of FBI e-mails that will now be vulnerable for discovery. What the House failed to obtain through stalling tactics on the part of the DOJ are now going to be subject to 6th Amendment compulsory release protocols.

Perez and his team have got to be dumber than dirt for thinking that the FBI and DOJ can also cover for them in a civil case.

 

The RNC and Trump should immediately file a countersuit suing the DNC, Clinton, Obama, and Comey. Once they do, the DNC can not dismiss the lawsuit - they only could drop their part of it. Once there is a countersuit a lawsuit does not end unless both file to drop it.

 

'What a worthless message. But, since you make that claim, what illegal or bad activities could be a narrative crafted from your personal emails? I can't think of anything whatsoever could be even concocted to make me look bad.

 

That is what discovery is for. Merely making the allegation is a countersuit allows discovery on the issue. You really have NO clue how civil suits work, do you?

 

Very eloquently put Sir or Ma'am.

 

Man, you're still as lazy as ever.


Election Finance Violations When Hillary Took Over DNC

She explains that former President Barack Obama had bankrupted the DNC, leaving it $24 million in debt, and that Clinton took over the DNC in August 2015 by agreeing to pay off close to 80 percent of its debt through her Hillary Victory Fund.

Clinton’s bailout of the DNC came with strings attached. Brazile writes, “In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” as well as staffing decisions.

Even before Clinton was the DNC’s nominee, she says, the committee was “fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign” and Clinton used it as a “fundraising clearinghouse.”
Brazile explains that Clinton may have violated campaign finance laws and hidden this through possible money laundering.


In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
— From the book ‘Hacks’ by Donna Brazile, former acting chair, DNC

Under Federal Election Commission (FEC) law, she notes, individuals can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign, with some exceptions.

Hillary got around this, Brazile says, since “individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC.”

Brazile writes, “Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races”—an arrangement that she notes Politico described in a May article as “essentially … money laundering.”





https://www.theepochtimes.com/clint...-election-against-bernie-sanders_2349172.html




And Hillary's stranglehold resulted in the DNC FAILING in it's legal requirement to be an UNBIASED ARBITER of its own primary, which it absolutely was not.

ELECTION LAW violation. Any agreement to secretly and dishonestly attempt to interfere with a federal election would fall squarely within Section 371’s prohibition on conspiracies to defraud the United States.”

 

I remember when the DNC violated its own rules to campaign for Hillary, I started a thread on it IIRC.

Interesting to hear from the inside how she was not only gutting the democrat name nationally, but also gutting the funds of local democrats.

All this besides what went down with Bernie supporters.

No wonder she wasn't popular amongst the dems who still voted for her.

 

I suggest you take up your assertion with the intelligence community both before and after Donald Trump made his appointments if you doubt that Russia is behind the hacks.

 

Discovery going both ways does not entitle the defendants to the get their hands on the DNC server or private communications unless they relate to the relevant topic for the underlying lawsuit or counterclaim.

 

I am not criticizing him for being anonymous. I am pointing out one reason why his "parody" is a weak analogy.

 

Podesta and Clinton were accused of being part of a pedo sex trafficking ring based out of a pizza place because of the secret coded messages contained in their emails.

Like I said, let me read 20,000 of your private emails and I will be able to "expose" the sick sadistic torture of old people you perpetrate at those "birthday parties."

 

Make another troll post.

 

Stupid Democrats.

When they drop their lawsuit we'll all know why. This wouldn't be the first time a litigant dropped a suit to conceal evidence undermining their case from discovery...

 

LOL democrats are so funny.

Being a scumbag isnt the problem, Its that the American people found out theyre scumbags, thats the problem.....

 

I really hope they don't and the Trump campaign and RNC file a counter suit. Of course I doubt the court is going to get involved in a campaign issue.

 

That it was Russia remains an assertion, and Trumps and the RNC will use discovery to defend against the claim.

 

...so Democrats will continue behaving like scumbags.

The arrogance doesn't end there, either. Scapegoating Russia for their faceplant in 2016 absolves them of having to do something about their bad "progressive" ideas, policies and candidates.

As the song goes, Blame is better to give than receive...

 

The CIA has the ability to imitate any other country on the internet

So its really impossible for laymen like us to know who is hacking who

 

Perhaps you should provide some actual proof to back up your assertion, because Honest Jim Comey and his handful of hand-picked apparatchiks (a far cry from the 17 intelligence agencies canard that has been debunked and retracted) had this to say about their judgements concerning the DNC "hacks":

It's your assertion, so substantiate it yourself.

Oh, that's right - you can't. You want others to disprove something that has never been proven.

 

Trump's own intelligence appointees agree that it was Russia.

 

Do you doubt the conclusion of Trump's intelligence appointees?

 

They believe Russia attempted to meddled in the election, but it is still supposition and just an assertion they were the ones who phished Podesta's email and got his password which got access to the DNC emails They didn't get a chance to see the evidence remember? The defense will have discovery into the DNC emails and servers and the Clinton campaign to defend themselves against a claim they were involved.

Of course the actual Russia interference that occured was through the Clinton campaign and the DNC and that will become a subject here and Clinton's cronies immunity deals means they cannot claim the 5th in depositions.

 

Which one has said for a fact and what evidence was provided to substantiate the statement of fact it was the Russian government that hacked the DNC email server and got the email file?

 

As I said, you can't substantiate your assertion.

“judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

Since you took the liberty of deflecting instead of substantiating your assertion, I'll take the liberty of reminding you of the identity of the Obama appointee whose office presided over the ICA report that was issued on January 6, 2017:

 

Good observation !

The Democrats are taking a huge risk considering all that they have been able to get away with.

Investigative reporting has uncovered a great deal of Democratic corruption that Perez strangely seems to be oblivious to.
True leaders are usually on top of the reality that they are dealing with.
In this situation, there is no outcome that will honestly vindicate the Progs' propaganda.