Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Democrats The Courts Politics

Democratic Party Files Suit Alleging Russia, the Trump Campaign, and WikiLeaks Conspired To Disrupt the 2016 Election (cnbc.com) 669

The Democratic Party is suing Russia, the Trump campaign and the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks for conspiring to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. From a report: The multi-million-dollar lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court says that "In the Trump campaign, Russia found a willing and active partner in this effort" to mount "a brazen attack on American Democracy," which included Russian infiltration of the Democratic Party computer network. The Trump campaign, according to the lawsuit, "gleefully welcomed Russia's help." The suit says that "preexisting relationships with Russia and Russian oligarchs" with Trump and Trump associates "provided fertile ground for [the] Russia-Trump conspiracy." The common purpose of the scheme, according to the Democratic National Committee, was to "bolster Trump and denigrate the Democratic Party nominee," Hillary Clinton, while boosting the candidacy of Trump, "whose policies would benefit the Kremlin." Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the party's suit "is not partisan, it's patriotic."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democratic Party Files Suit Alleging Russia, the Trump Campaign, and WikiLeaks Conspired To Disrupt the 2016 Election

Comments Filter:
  • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:08PM (#56472053)

    Clinton is running again, that should be obvious to all now. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, LONG time!

    • by KiviPall ( 220594 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:14PM (#56472101) Journal

      Clinton is running again, that should be obvious to all now. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, LONG time!

      I honestly hope she will be in prison by that time. BTW, as you probably know: "Criminal Referral Issued For Comey, Clinton, Lynch And McCabe; Rosenstein Recusal Demanded" This is getting really interesting and there is hope, that those swamp creatures end up behind bars.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:31PM (#56472271) Homepage Journal
        I'm wondering why they haven't sued themselves for the underhanded things the Clinton campaign and the upper echelons of the Democrat party did to poor old Bernie Sanders, and basically rigged their primaries for Hillary.

        Seems THAT was the major impediment to the Dem party and it was from within, not external sources.

        • by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:46PM (#56472421) Homepage Journal

          They have no case, even against themselves. Bernie lost because the DNC rigged the primary - legally. All according to rules.

          Except, perhaps, maybe, the Clinton campaign starving his campaign by laundering donations through state committees. But that's an FEC violation waiting only for the FEC to act, as the allegations have been in the public domain for more than a year, and the evidence seems overwhelmingly obvious. Especially to Bernie.

        • I still don't see what this primary rigging was. I voted for Bernie in the Virginia primary no problem.

          • by Megane ( 129182 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:52PM (#56472483) Homepage
            You voted for a delegate to represent a candidate, not a candidate. They also had a big chunk of "superdelegates", appointed by the party itself, so that everything wouldn't be left in the hands of smelly, stupid individual voters like yourself.
            • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

              You're describing a republic, not a pure democracy. Oh the irony!

            • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @03:50PM (#56473471)

              You voted for a delegate to represent a candidate, not a candidate. They also had a big chunk of "superdelegates", appointed by the party itself, so that everything wouldn't be left in the hands of smelly, stupid individual voters like yourself.

              Imagine if you dislike gun violence and have never owned a gun and you get robbed at home by a gun toting criminal who takes stuff you really don't want to lose. And then you buy a gun so this won't happen again and I call you an "ammosexual gun lover and supporter of gun violence who hates kids". I get that it's fun to claim that the Democrats did this so only the big cheese could pick the winner, but that's about as accurate as calling you an ammosexual in my example.

              The superdelegate thing was a reaction, maybe an overreaction, to the 1972 and 1980 election disasters the Democrats suffered. The rules at the time forced them to nominate what were basically unwinnable candidates. Superdelegates were put in so that there wouldn't be any more brokered conventions (the 1968 one also ended in a White House loss) and if something weird happened in the vote where a fringe candidate with almost no chance of victory somehow ended up with a small majority of elected delegates (McGovern in 1972), the superdelegates could save the election by voting for a better candidate. Now it's fair to argue if maybe the intentions were OK but it gives the appearance (accurate or not) of the common citizen's vote not mattering or if maybe the voters want to run a bad candidate they should be allowed to do so, but it's not really an attempt to stifle the voters so special interests get their way. I know the Sanders supporters are going to claim until they die that Bernie won and Clinton stole the nomination, but the superdelegates did not put her over the top. People forget that in 2008 the superdelegates voted mostly for Obama and they didn't mostly vote for supposed vote stealing Hillary. There's yet to be a nomination in which the superdelegates clearly voted for a 2nd place candidate in the popular vote to deny the voters their will. But again, the fact that people think that is exactly what happens all the time is possibly a very good argument that the system should be eliminated.

              • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @05:27PM (#56474179)
                Lmao "unwinnable canidate". Hillary was the most unwinnable candidate in 50 years, perhaps ever, losing to a reality TV star with no education, unquestionably bad morals, and a penchant for laundering dirty money through real estate. She never was really even a democrat, not supporting LGBT rights, calling blacks "super predators", she was force fed so much corporate dough on the campaign trail she kept passing out. She had that private server for the express purpose of conducting business without the legally required oversight, unbelievable she had "no intent of breaking the law" as comey claims. For gods sake look at her voting record. Superdelegates went for obama because he played corporate ball, like Clinton, like they likely will for Kamala Harris . They shat thier pants because Bernie didn't want or need the money and certainly wouldn't sell out to corporate America.
            • The superdelegates are a checks and balance against demagoguery.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            'rigged' is probably too strong a word. The DNC gave certain advantages to the Clinton campaign, which one would expect when you have a candidate that is deeply entwined with an institution as opposed to an outsider with few personal or political connections to the group. But 'rigged' gives a false impression that there was cheating or tampering involved, which there wasn't.
            • 'But 'rigged' gives a false impression that there was cheating or tampering involved, which there wasn't.

              Except that the DNC gave Hillary the debate questions ahead of time.

            • by smugfunt ( 8972 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:53PM (#56472997)

              Rigged it was, at least in New York:
              A catalogue of SNAFUs [nydailynews.com]
              An admission of guilt [nypost.com]

              • by skam240 ( 789197 )

                Your second article is not an admission of the DNC rigging the election, It's an admission by the New York Board of Elections of illegally purging their voter rolls of voters. There's no mention of who was even purged or any exploration of a motivation in the article.

                The link to your first article isn't working for me.

              • You forgot to directly mention the 100,000 voters purged illegally from the primary rolls in just the Bronx alone [wnyc.org]. There was widespread voter fraud across the USA during the primaries and the presidential election, but it was carried out domestically, in clear violation of the law, even destroying evidence under subpoena, with zero punishments. It's going to happen again, and spread, because they can get away with it clean and free.
            • 'rigged' is probably too strong a word. The DNC gave certain advantages to the Clinton campaign, which one would expect when you have a candidate that is deeply entwined with an institution as opposed to an outsider with few personal or political connections to the group. But 'rigged' gives a false impression that there was cheating or tampering involved, which there wasn't.

              That makes sense, to a degree. However, a large portion of Clinton-voters blame her loss on Sanders-voters. They defend the actions of the DNC with the notion that Bernie was an outsider, then they turn around and blame his supporters for electing Trump by not falling in line with Clinton after Bernie lost the nomination. Why would you expect the supporters of an "outsider" candidate to fall in line behind Clinton when she represented the party that rejected their candidate of choice for being an outsider?

    • by pollarda ( 632730 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:14PM (#56472107)
      Their Mueller investigation must truly be going poorly. It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded. They've found wrong doing by various underlings but, considering the average person commits three felonies a day.... Now the Democrats want their own investigation where they themselves can run it and leak with impunity.
      • by PeopleAquarium ( 5372665 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:28PM (#56472239)
        None of us know if they've found anything saying Trump colluded, including the Democrats. That part of the investigation isn't finished, and so they're unlikely to talk about it for fear of damaging the investigation.

        That's probably what this is about. The Dems are getting impatient too.

        The bits and pieces that have come out about the underlings who were charged (and pled guilty in some cases), do strongly imply that there is at least some evidence that something criminal has happened and that Trump was involved.

        This lawsuit is likely a fishing expedition by the dems, who want access to whatever Mueller is sitting on. The lawsuit will give them a way to gain access to more of Mueller's intel.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Getting a warrant for Cohen about a pornstar payment really is far and away removed from "russian collusion".

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Trump has a lot of investigations going, so it's easy to miss, but that wasn't the Mueller Russia probe. It was a whole different can of worms.
            • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:39PM (#56472889)

              No, it's the same "investigation" which has no morphed into a full-blown witch-hunt determined to overthrow an elected President by any means necessary. Now it turns out there was never any basis for a Mueller in the first place.

              Yes, Trump is a circus clown.

              But that circus clown has inadvertently ripped the mask off the thoroughly corrupt establishment. We should all be thanking him for exposing them for what they are.

              • by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @03:48PM (#56473455)

                No, it's the same "investigation" which has no morphed into a full-blown witch-hunt determined to overthrow an elected President by any means necessary.

                No. It's not.

                Mueller referred something he found that indicated Cohen had acted illegally to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who asked the FBI to conduct the raid. The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, signed the warrant, so the either the evidence that Michael Cohen broke the law and was likely to destroy evidence if issued a subpoena was pretty convincing, or even people Trump has appointed to their positions are joining the "witch-hunt conspiracy" to overthrow him.

                But that circus clown has inadvertently ripped the mask off the thoroughly corrupt establishment.

                Are you sure it's not the clown who's thoroughly corrupt? Because Trump has a long, long history of corruption. I'm not sure why I should believe he's stopped being a corrupt, double-dealing, backstabber now that he's president.

                • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20, 2018 @05:58PM (#56474421)

                  Mueller referred something he found that indicated Cohen had acted illegally to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who asked the FBI to conduct the raid. The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, signed the warrant, so the either the evidence that Michael Cohen broke the law and was likely to destroy evidence if issued a subpoena was pretty convincing, or even people Trump has appointed to their positions are joining the "witch-hunt conspiracy" to overthrow him.

                  Also, the AG for the SD of NY is Geoffrey Berman, who was appointed to the position by Trump.

                  So Mueller (a Republican/GOPer), went to Rosenstein (a Trump-appointed GOPer), to referred it to Berman (a Trump-appointed GOPer).

        • by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:54PM (#56472503)

          Spare me. If they'd found a shred of evidence it would have been leaked already like they leaked everything else. This whole "investigation" has been a sham trial by media and now they're just trying to goad Trump into doing something they can use to extend the party...

          It's all over but the shouting. I see this as an act of desperation by the Democratic party. Mid-term elections are coming soon, the economy is doing well, unemployment is down, and they have been mostly too busy obstructing and absent from helping.

          The guy won. Move on.

          • by PeopleAquarium ( 5372665 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:31PM (#56472827)

            The guy won. Move on.

            Whether Trump won or not isn't the question. The question is "Did he criminally collude with the Russians to interfere in a United States presidential election?" It's an important question, because that basically undermines the entire electoral process of the nation, and makes Trump an enemy of the state.

            Neither of us knows the answer to that question though. If anyone can find out though, Robert Mueller can.

            He's the Republican, war veteran, investigator who took down Sammy the Bull and Teflon Don. He's also very tricky. For instance, the thing where he subpoenaed a bunch of emails that were already in his posession, just to see which ones they would leave out was brilliant. It worked. They tried to hide evidence by omitting the ones that made them look guilty and saved Mueller the hassle of reading through thousands of emails. They pled guilty not long after they realized they'd been duped.

            If Trumps guilty Mueller will prove it. If he's innocent then Mueller will prove that. Until he closes the investigation though there is zero chance that either of us know what the evidence actually says.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ksevio ( 865461 )
            There's plenty of evidence already available to the public (Jr meeting with Russians to talk about getting help in exchange for sanction relief is an obvious one). Seems like Mueller is just working through the mountain of evidence to get a solid case rather than push something flimsy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Their Mueller investigation must truly be going poorly. It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded. They've found wrong doing by various underlings

        If a significant portion of the people you personally selected (by your own claims!) to work under you/advise you/etc have been caught doing something illegal, then you are either complicit in that illegal activity or incapable of proper leadership and oversight. Both of which should be indicators that you really shouldn't be running a country.

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

          If a significant portion of the people you personally selected (by your own claims!) to work under you/advise you/etc have been caught doing something illegal

          Everyone you work with and are friends with has been doing illegals things. What does that say about you?

          • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:46PM (#56472419)

            If a significant portion of the people you personally selected (by your own claims!) to work under you/advise you/etc have been caught doing something illegal

            Everyone you work with and are friends with has been doing illegals things. What does that say about you?

            That I probably shouldn't be president?

          • "Everyone you work with and are friends with has been doing illegals things. What does that say about you?"

            That if you have sufficiently powerful friends you can avoid the consequences, if only for a little while. Or longer, if your friends keep their power and still protect you.

        • As has previously been pointed out it is virtually impossible for anyone to survive scrutiny by a prosecutor. Especially when you're running businesses and involved in constant deals. Odds are you and I also fall into that category of "complicit in that illegal activity" as well.
        • Despite hitting all those points, Obama muddled through eight years.

        • by pollarda ( 632730 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:47PM (#56472425)
          Not necessarily. Flynn's confession was coerced. He'd spent over a million on legal and lost his house and they were saying they were going after his son next. The judge who presided is currently reviewing everything which is almost unheard of after a plea. I'm sure you are a good guy and all but I'm equally sure that if a Special Council looked through your life close enough they could put you away. I had this same conversation with a friend who was high up in the Bill Clinton campaign. He didn't believe me. I rattled off a bunch of laws that I suspected he'd broken and let him know that all those could send him to prison. He said: "Oh, I didn't know doing those was illegal". I said: Yep, that's my point. There is a lot of stuff that we do every day that is covered by felony level laws that we don't know about or simply ignore because we don't think they apply. All it takes is for a prosecutor to decide to follow up. I'm still waiting for someone to look at Huma Abbedin's forwarding classified emails to her husband to print. They are ignoring it. But I know that if any of my friends that I grew up with in Los Alamos did that with our nuclear secrets there would be hell to pay.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by apoc.famine ( 621563 )

            And your evidence for this is what?

            That's what I thought.

            Why is it so hard to let the investigation play out, and see what happens in the end? Why do you absolutely have to defend someone you've never met, that you know nothing about, on charges you don't understand based on evidence you haven't seen?

            What has this person done for you that you are so loyal to him? It's baffling to me.

            • Why is it so hard to let the investigation play out, and see what happens in the end?

              Indeed. We have, like, seven Benghazi investigations, and the GOP faithful are whining about a single investigation into a foreign power influencing our electoral process. Investigations take time. This has only just begun. I believe that Trump is mostly innocent on the Russia front, but almost certainly guilty of breaking the law in his financial dealings. If he did anything wrong, then the FBI would be wise to wait until after the next presidential election before laying any charges.

      • by dlkwnt ( 521328 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:37PM (#56472329) Homepage

        It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded.

        1. The investigation is still ongoing, so to say they haven't found anything is stupid. They haven't announced that they're bringing charges, which is a totally different thing.
        2. The investigation involves classified information so the idea that you or I or anyone in the public sphere knows what the have and have not found is laughable at best.
        3. Watergate took over 2 years, the Ken Starr investigation took like 6 years, some Mafia prosecutions took decades. The investigation will end when it's finished following all the evidence. The only thing the fact that it's been a year tells us is that there's a lot of evidence to deal with.

        • by pollarda ( 632730 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:49PM (#56472457)
          There are so many people pissed at Trump that it is hard to believe that if they had found something, someone wouldn't have found a way to leak it. People are using leaks as weapons and even leaking false information for the same end. The fact that there aren't any detailed leaks is telling....
          • Oh, if the FBI leaked information, then they'd besmirch their reputation, and destroy any chance of pursuing prosecution. It's possible, just possible, that they are professionals, and the conservative media are trying to argue the ref.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They have found some stuff, like Cohen. Considering he gave up Hannity after being asked just twice, I can't see him staying loyal to Trump when facing a decade or more behind bars.

      • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:07PM (#56472619)

        Their Mueller investigation must truly be going poorly. It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded. They've found wrong doing by various underlings but, considering the average person commits three felonies a day.... Now the Democrats want their own investigation where they themselves can run it and leak with impunity.

        On the contrary Mueller's investigation seems to be moving fairly quickly [fivethirtyeight.com].

        And he's gotten a bunch of guilty pleas, including from Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates who were some fairly important campaign members. Not to mention having Manafort absolutely dead-to-rights on really serious money laundering. Cohen, Trump's lawyer/fixer, being under direct investigation and having his documents seized. Not to mention Kushner, Trump's son in law, is now being investigated for both his company's long history of fishy dealings (submitting fraudulent docs for renovation permits), not to mention the question of who gave Kushner 1.2 billion to bail out the family business [thinkprogress.org] and why?

        You are correct that we don't have any public indictments connecting the Trump campaign with Russian intelligence, but the investigation is far from over, and Mueller isn't likely to show his hand until he's ready to charge someone.

        For instance, there's already rumours that Mueller has evidence that Cohen made a secret trip to Prague, an major allegation from the Steele Dossier that Cohen has denied. But Mueller may not want to make that evidence public at this point in the investigation, nor may he want to do it in October when he might be accused of inappropriate interference like Comey did. But if that evidence doesn't come out till after the election it doesn't help Democrats till 2020, and if they don't win a house they won't be able to launch congressional investigations.

        More likely the suit has 3 objectives.
        1) See if they can use subpoenas to get their hands on any proof of collusion before the midterms.
        2) Open a line of legal inquiry going that Trump can't pardon/fire his was out of.
        3) Keep generating Trump-Russia news. As they learned from the Clinton emails once the narrative is established all you need to do it trigger the keywords to be effective.

    • insane (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheMeuge ( 645043 )

      Frankly, this is utter insanity.
      Don't attribute to malice, what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
      To that I ascribe the activities of the Republican and Democratic parties that got us the 2016 election result.

      This lawsuit is a media and money-grabbing stunt, that is also a further attempt to de-legitimize anyone who disagrees with you. Kind of like on Slashdot, where if you utter anything but a Trump slur, and are immediately called a Russian troll.

      • Calling out Trump supporters as Russian trolls is ridiculous on its face. A bit under half the country voted for him, and a lot of them post on forums.

        That whole narrative lost my interest early on as I don't ascribe to the view that "Russian trolls" are particularly better or more effective at trolling our own elections than our home grown trolls, which are legion, better funded, more fanatic, and native speakers.

    • by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:20PM (#56472163)

      Up until now, the Democrats have generally behaved properly in respect of the Russia investigation, leaving the interference and unwarranted attacks on law enforcement to the White House and the Republicans. However, I was distressed to read about this.

      It is totally inappropriate to engage in this kind of political theater while Mueller's investigation is ongoing. When Trump and the Republicans are lying and attempting to interfere, by all means denounce their actions forcefully. However, lowering yourself to their level just feeds into the narrative that all politicians are the same, and they are all unprincipled conmen. It makes it harder to defend the institutions that are under attack.

      I really believe if a small group of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in Congress could come together to denounce all anti-democratic activities, and pledge to act together in the country's best interests, they would do themselves and the country a great deal of good. The silent majority would applaud them. I am not holding my breath. I appreciate, by the way, that acting ethically here is more difficult for the Republicans as their administration has a lot to lose. However, I think that they could present their actions as heroic and vastly enhance their personal reputations in the process.

    • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:24PM (#56472205)

      Clinton is running again, that should be obvious to all now. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, LONG time!

      You're right- and bad news for Democrats. With her ability to raise financing she'll be a significant player in the primaries no matter who else runs. Hillary, like Trump, is a very polarizing figure. Disgruntled Republicans aren't going to vote Hillary- they would shoot themselves before voting for her.

      She may not win the party nomination this time around, but even if she doesn't she'll probably hurt her rival nominee enough to help out Trump long term. If Hillary runs, even if she doesn't win nomination, it increases the odds of four more years of Trump.

    • by dbialac ( 320955 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:25PM (#56472215)

      Choices:

      [ ] Take responsibility for doing everything they could to stop well liked candidate Bernie Sanders from winning the primary. Take responsibility for putting up a horrible and incredibly disliked candidate.
      [ x ] Make excuses and sue the other side because they won with an equally horrible candidate.

      • by jythie ( 914043 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:07PM (#56472621)
        I am saying this as someone who voted for Sanders, but to say that Sanders was well liked while Clinton was unpopular just isn't the case. Clinton got more support from the DNC, but she as still quite popular with Democrats and Sanders had a lot of detractors. At the end of the day, the primary was won by more people liking Clinton than Sanders. One can argue that the DNC used its position to influence who people liked and who they did not, but we were still in the minority.
        • IF it wasn't for the full on Rigging of the Primary, Clinton wouldn't have won anything. She was a horrible candidate. People only voted for her because (D) behind her name. Far too many people vote that way, which is how you get Clinton vs Trump.

          Party before ethics and principles. BOTH parties are guilty.

    • by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <.apoc.famine. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:31PM (#56472275) Journal

      I honestly don't think she will. And I don't think this is evidence of anything related to a specific campaign.

      The DNC did the same thing after Watergate. That was a pretty successful lawsuit, and they gained a lot from it. My guess is that they're seeing echos of Watergate here, and playing the same hand that was successful the last time this sort of thing happened.

      And a civil lawsuit will be very damaging to the RNC win or lose. They will be forced to air some dirty laundry in court, and it will likely demonstrate just how unprepared they were to be hitching a ride on the Trump train. My guess is that there's just as many distasteful things happening in the RNC as in the DNC, and this is one way to bring some of them to light.

      I also fully expect a counter-suit from the RNC along the same lines. If that doesn't happen, I think some good money is on them having done some really problematic things that they want to limit exposure on.

  • by QuesarVII ( 904243 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:08PM (#56472055)
    By actively preventing Bernie from getting the democratic nomination they made a Trump victory much more likely. Tons of people voted "not Hillary" with their Trump vote.

    I'm not saying there was no Russian collusion, but lets look at all the reasons.
    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:26PM (#56472223)

      By actively preventing Bernie from getting the democratic nomination they made a Trump victory much more likely. Tons of people voted "not Hillary" with their Trump vote. I'm not saying there was no Russian collusion, but lets look at all the reasons.

      Personally, I would probably have voted for Bernie because, much like Trump, I know most of his crazier policies would never make it through and, unlike Trump, Bernie would do what he actually thought was best for the country. However, since the Democrats were dead set to run Hillary, I ended up voting for Johnson.

      For this though, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The suit will go nowhere and it will just give the right-wing talking heads and trolls more fodder to rile up the right even more. It's definitely partisan. Maybe an attempt to out-Trump trump? Get him focused on this lawsuit instead of Mueller or Cohen?

    • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:26PM (#56472227) Homepage

      The DNC definitely didn't help itself by putting forward such a boring, unpopular candidate and then doing seemingly everything they could to prevent Bernie from winning.

      By actively preventing Bernie from getting the democratic nomination they made a Trump victory much more likely. Tons of people voted "not Hillary" with their Trump vote.

      It's come out that Russia influenced this too. As soon as Bernie was out of the way, they doubled down stoking the fires to get Bernie supporters mad at Hillary. I doubt any significant amount of people who were voting on policy ended up switching, but those who were voting emotionally to begin with were probably pretty easy targets.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Yes, we were pissed Hillary stole primaries through constant media manipulation, superdelegates, vote rigging, and what was that? Oh yeah. Russia. GTFO with your bullshit.

    • By actively preventing Bernie from getting the democratic nomination they made a Trump victory much more likely. Tons of people voted "not Hillary" with their Trump vote.

      I'm not saying there was no Russian collusion, but lets look at all the reasons.

      There is no way Bernie could have won the election though. He is too-far left, America will never elect a Bernie. Lawrence Lessig was the best candidate the Democrats had, but he didn't have the famous name or backing to really be a challenger and was out before it really began.

      • I live in a red state (Kentucky) in a deep red county. Many people I know were swinging between Bernie and Trump. Hell, I hate anything that smacks of marxism but I still liked Bernie and given the way the GOP treated Ron Paul in previous elections.. I might have been persuaded to vote for him if only as a protest or some flailing attempt at least change something in Washington.
      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:49PM (#56472455)

        By actively preventing Bernie from getting the democratic nomination they made a Trump victory much more likely. Tons of people voted "not Hillary" with their Trump vote.

        I'm not saying there was no Russian collusion, but lets look at all the reasons.

        There is no way Bernie could have won the election though. He is too-far left, America will never elect a Bernie.

        A lot of voters didn't care about far-left or far-right. They were just sick of your average politician. So if the choice was Hillary, the embodiment of an average "corrupt" politician, or Trump, a decidedly non-political person who (at least appeared to) speak his mind, the choice was obvious for them.

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:38PM (#56472343)

      Hilary and the DNC actively promoted Trump [politico.com], because they thought he was the easiest candidate to beat.

      Hillary, far more than Russia, is the reason Trump is president.

      • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:54PM (#56472497)

        Trump did look like the easiest candidate to beat. He ran rallies uncomfortably similar to those of Hitler, blamed every problem the country faced on immigrants, pledged to imprison his political opponents, dismissed one female critic by implying she was only upset because of her period. The reasonable conclusion was that the American public would have to be stark raving mad to vote for a candidate like that.

        Unfortunately, it turns out the American public actually *are* stark raving mad.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:26PM (#56472783)

          Meanwhile, the US economy is doing great, illegal immigration is down, jobs and employment are up, ISIS has lost 98% of its territory, and North Korea seems to be on the verge of denuclearizing... Yeah this Trump guy is terrible!

        • Trump did look like the easiest candidate to beat. He ran rallies uncomfortably similar to those of Hitler,

          You need to break yourself out of your cognitive biases on this one, mate. As soon as you start comparing people to Hitler, you've gone off the deep-end of the partisan swamp. Likewise if you compare the candidate to the Antichrist. Only people who already agree with you will agree with you.

          Trump did not look like Hitler, it's your biases that are distorting the view.

    • I caucused for Bernie. I supported Bernie in the primaries. They didn't prevent Bernie from getting the nomination; the majority of Democratic voters voted for Hillary.
  • by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:11PM (#56472067)

    And more importantly Democratic Party got caught red handed by our Russian hackers conspiring to rig the primaries.

    Time to stop publicly funding the partisan primary system. We shouldn't be publicly subsidizing secret cabals of rich well connected people conspiring to get "their people" into our government.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 )

      And more importantly Democratic Party got caught red handed by our Russian hackers conspiring to rig the primaries.

      Time to stop publicly funding the partisan primary system. We shouldn't be publicly subsidizing secret cabals of rich well connected people conspiring to get "their people" into our government.

      EVERYBODY rigs primaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:16PM (#56472125)

    They couldn't stand the whisper campaign that Trump himself practiced for say, Obama's Birth Certificate, or Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes, they couldn't handle the investigation by Mueller despite calling for endless inquiries into Benghazi, Whitewater and whatever else. They couldn't even take it when people pointed out that Trump's endless pompous proclamations and self-professed boasting were challenged.

    And wow did they howl when Trump's attorney got raided due to evidence of his acts of various malfeasance being too odious to ignore.

    Now? Now it'll be something in a court of law, and everybody will get to watch.

    Expect them to protest with their empty-handed declarations, that they'll make up in volume what they lack in substance.

  • Evidence (Score:2, Informative)

    by Shiptar ( 792005 )
    No mention of the SecureWorks analysis in the lawsuit..?

    https://www.secureworks.com/re... [secureworks.com]

    Was the most interesting assessment.
  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:18PM (#56472151)

    This will get thrown out....

    It will take awhile, to be sure, but it will get tossed by the first judge who actually looks at the lack of evidence.

    Remember, you can sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING by walking down to the courthouse and paying the fees.

  • by RandomFactor ( 22447 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:22PM (#56472187)

    When I read the national chairman of a political party saying

    ..."it's not partisan, it's patriotic"

    I hear a gangster saying

    ..."It's 'not personal, it's business"

  • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:23PM (#56472193)

    Why don't you instead try to convince people outside of your various interest and grievance groups that you are actually worth voting for?

    Here's a tip: if a clown can beat you, the problem isn't the clown ...

    • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 )

      Sometimes your enemies aren’t colluding, but they’re still all working against you.

      They’re not going to win the lawsuit. There must be some other strategy going on here.

  • by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:24PM (#56472207)
    Is that the Russians supposedly did a terrible, un-patriotic, anti-American thing, by revealing the truth to the American people. And people are screaming "oh my God, no! The truth is a threat to American Democracy!" I mean, does Hillary get any blame for what was contained in those emails? No. The evil thing was that the plebes found out what was in them. We basically operate under the assumption that, if we ever knew what they were saying behind the scenes, we would never vote for any American politician. I mean, perish the thought that we'd ever be relieved ... that we'd ever be pleasantly suprised were a politicians emails to be revealed. That's not even in the realm of possibility. The whole system is rigged so badly, that the truth, the TRUTH, is a poison pill for American politics. We really have nobody to blame but ourselves for this. Voting for the lessor of two evils for 200 years ensures we always get evil and we're clearly good with that. You can't make the arguement that we deserve better. So, anyway, yeah, Democrats suing for revealing the truth to the American people ... and proudly suing at that. Calling it Patriotic even. Weep for us.
  • Who is paying for all this? The DNC was reportedly broke at the beginning of the year. Are they taking money from campaign donations to fund frivolous lawsuits now? [source] http://theweek.com/speedreads/... [theweek.com]
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:42PM (#56472389)

    The really funny thing about that election to me was, there was absolutely no other Democrat Trump could have beat - but there was no other Republican Hillary could have lost to.

    Trump is lite a literal embodiment of proof there is fate or some higher power at work.

  • Brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:10PM (#56472659)

    DNC thinks it can prove what Mueller couldn't so far. Frankly, the collusion conspiracy theory is getting so tiring. The Dems have gone insane and they will lose the White House again in 2020 because they can't seem to offer any new vision for the party.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser

Working...