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

Every one of them. They relied upon classified information and the publicly available information.

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.

ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.

STEWART: Yes, Senator.

ROGERS: Yes I do.

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.

MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.

MCCABE: Yes.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mmittee/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e954a24297e4

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.

ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.

STEWART: Yes, Senator.

ROGERS: Yes I do.

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.

MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.

MCCABE: Yes.

 

From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

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

 

Yes, you said that. It was not a convincing point the first three times either.

 

I didn't say that, the ICA states it verbatim:

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

Hopefully, the DNC will be stupid enough to pursue its lawsuit so we can separate the facts from the alternative facts that the Left has been peddling.

 

THE DNC HACK. Which one testified for a fact it was the Russian government that hacked their emails. And note how Warner would not let them elaborate is in did anything they do change the outcome. And they will still have to prove it IN COURT testimony will not be allowed in court those people will have to be deposed and each will be asked do you have evidence the Russians changed the out come and that tbe Trump campaigned was involved. And then of course they can be asked about the dossier and how it was used.

Perez has screwed the pooch on this one.

 

No, you quoted one tiny portion of part of a sentence of the ICA report in order to push your own judgment. The DNC lawsuit is not going to result in a different conclusion as it relates to Russia hacking the DNC.

 

Change the outcome of the election? What? No, that is not at all a requirement of either the DNC lawsuit nor any potential counter-claim.

 

The lowest score lawyer can figure how to do that. The counterclaim merely needs allege the DNC was engaged in illegal election activities including thru its servers. Problem solved.

 

Is there a statute that makes it illegal for another country to try to influence our elections? Its not like every major country on earth hasn't always done so - nor have we done this to other countries.

 

Then what is the harm they are claiming? They failed to properly protect their server and one of their's gave up his password to a hacker and they had to run a virus scan and get better virus and hacking protection software and may send out a memo telling people not to give out their passwords? Well let's see the server and depose their people who ran it to see if they took proper measures, if they knew they were vulnerable, and let's see their books so we can see this harm they are claiming. Seems to me they should be suing their internet management company.

Perez has screwed the pooch.

 

You're doubting the assessment of the intelligence community regarding their admission that their own OPINIONS do not constitute PROOF?

 

No, I am doubting whether that portion of that one sentence can justifiably negate the conclusions and PROOF contained in the rest of the report.

 

Please explain what "context" changes the clear meaning of that statement.

 

There was only the Crowdstrike report.

The intelligence agencies read the report and said "uh, yeah, they did it".

 

Trump's intelligence appointees.

 

That about sums it up.

 

There is no one home at the DNC. Its like watching a ship slowly steer into the rocks.

 

Wikileaks can claim the same protection the press has. The press ran the Wikileaks documents too - so every press outlet in the USA should be joined in as 3rd party defendants, plus nearly all news networks.

Hopefully, the lawsuit can lead to learning who murdered Seth Rich, since he was the leaker. It wasn't a hack.

 

Well, since the basis of their claim is that the Russians hacked the DNC server and provided the emails to Wiikileaks, the defendants will subpoena the server. AND I believe the "Best evidence Rule" would preclude the DNC from producing evidence from Crowd Strike claiming that the server was hacked, without producing the server itself.

 

And I don't think a judge is going to allow some testimony given outside the court that "we don't know for sure but our analysis believe Russia may have been behind it" into to proceedings

 

You gotta love the Democrats...

With all the lefties railing against Trump and him being a threat to a free press, there they go suing "the press". Well, if it's legitimate for them to sue Wikileaks, it must be legitimate for Trump to sue Buzzfeed (published "Dossier"), Maddow (broadcast tax return), and any press outlet that published any White House leaks.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/20...eaks-poses-a-serious-threat-to-press-freedom/