Law DNC Loses Racketeering Suit Over 2016 Election Hack

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Untitled-1.jpg

MANHATTAN (CN) — Hours before the Democratic presidential debates, a federal judge dismissed the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit that accused the Trump campaign, the Russian Federation, WikiLeaks and others of interfering in the 2016 elections.

“The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtably the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case and the entity that surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC’s computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft,” wrote U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, a Clinton appointee.

Before weighing the evidence against Russia, however, Koeltl found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act foreclosed him from holding it liable the DNC server hack.

The DNC blamed a host of secondary actors in a conspiracy, including Russian-linked Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud; oligarchs Emin and Aras Agalarov; and Trump family members and campaign figures like Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone.

Finding these claims likewise unconvincing, Koeltl ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected them from liability related to disseminating stolen emails.

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” the 81-page opinion states.

Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

“If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet,” the opinion states. “But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange argued last year that the DNC’s lawsuit threatened freedom of the press. Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the American Civil Liberties Union echoed those concerns in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Joshua Dratel, an attorney for WikiLeaks, applauded Koetl’s ruling.

“It reaffirms some important First Amendment principles that apply to journalism across the board, regardless of whether you’re a powerful institution or a small independent operation,” Dratel said in a phone interview.

Attorneys for the Trump campaign, Kushner, Manafort and Stone did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Agalarov family, whose entanglements in Trump’s Miss Universe pageant and the Trump Tower meeting took focus in the lawsuit, expressed a desire to put the lawsuit behind them.

“The Agalarovs are pleased with the court’s decision and hopeful that it will bring an end to this saga,” their attorney Scott Balber said in an email.

Judge Koeltl dismissed the lawsuit without leave to refile. DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson and its attorney Joseph Sellers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether they would pursue an appeal.

Papadopolous’ attorney Caroline Polisi reiterated her position from oral arguments that the allegations against her client were “anemic and bordered on the absurd.”

“As we argued in our motions to dismiss and oral argument, the DNC’s case was nothing more than an attempt to re-write history, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary,” Polisi said in an email.

The Trump campaign sought to sanction the DNC for continuing to pursue the lawsuit after special counsel Robert Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia. The Democrats noted that civil liability is a lower standard, and Mueller documented copious ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Declining to wade into that controversy, Koeltl rejected sanctions and did not consider the Mueller report in his ruling.
Full Article

I know not everyone trudges through the TDS thread since it's a bit enormous, so I wanted to toss this out here into its own thread. TL;DR: A Federal judge just dismissed the DNC's lawsuit against the Trump campaign, Russia, WikiLeaks, etc. with prejudice. Judge Koeltl cited the Pentagon Papers case in finding that there could not be liability for the publication of stolen materials. This is probably the most-important part of the ruling:

"If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them 'secret' and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

Do you want to know the best part? Judge Koeltl was appointed by Bill Clinton and is part of the SDNY.
 
Last edited:
I was puzzled all along that the DNC expected its internal communications to be treated like state secrets...but refused to accept responsibility for securing them to that standard.

Then again, Hillary didn't do such a great job of securing actual state secrets either.
 
Papadopolous’ attorney Caroline Polisi reiterated her position from oral arguments that the allegations against her client were “anemic and bordered on the absurd.”

“As we argued in our motions to dismiss and oral argument, the DNC’s case was nothing more than an attempt to re-write history, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary,” Polisi said in an email.
The DNC in a nutshell honestly. Where is that picture of the lady with the sign that said "It's not rigged, you're just losing"? :story:
 
Congratulations white people DNC party. You lost to a person that does nothing but post on Twitter and picks fights and declared bankruptcy at least twice. How exceptional do you have to be to manage that?
 
Even when the law tells the DNC, "Fucketh Thou!", it means they need to cut it out with the Russia-gate garbage.
 
Congratulations white people DNC party. You lost to a person that does nothing but post on Twitter and picks fights and declared bankruptcy at least twice. How exceptional do you have to be to manage that?
Not filing a literally unwinnable lawsuit would have been a good place to start. They lost this particular fight on day one, the courts just had to catch up to them.
 
"When did the rules start applying to us too?" -DNC
 
Congratulations white people DNC party. You lost to a person that does nothing but post on Twitter and picks fights and declared bankruptcy at least twice. How exceptional do you have to be to manage that?
I think he declared bankruptcy at least four times.
 
Remember, they started this not because the allegations/documents weren't TRUE, but that someone had the temerity to leak them, and, IT MADE THEM LOOK BAD.

Same with Veritas, the issue wasn't that they told a fib, they admit those tape recordings were the truth, not doctored or fake... but, since the truth cast them in a negative light, it's OBVIOUS LIBEL!

They have slowly come to believe their own hype that the public is so dumb, so incapable of independent thought, and so completely under their sway that they feel, literally, entitled to your positive opinions under penalty of law.... to the modern Democratic mind, it is AGAINST THE LAW to make them LOOK BAD even if the alleged poor behavior is exactly what they're DOING.

When are they going to learn this strategy of "Viciously kill the messenger for carrying an unpopular message" not only isn't legal or logical but isn't even working?
 
Last edited:
Remember, they started this not because they allegations weren't TRUE, but that someone had the temerity to leak them, and, IT MADE THEM LOOK BAD.

Same with Veritas, the issue wasn't that they told a fib, they admit those tape recordings were the truth, not doctored or fake... but, since the truth cast them in a negative light, it's OBVIOUS LIBEL!

They have slowly come to believe their own hype that the public is so dumb, so incapable of independent thought, that they feel literally, entitled to your positive opinions under penalty of law.... to the modern Democratic mind, it is AGAINST THE LAW to make them LOOK BAD even if the alleged poor behavior is exactly what they're DOING.

When are they going to learn this strategy of "Viciously kill the messenger for carrying an unpopular message" not only isn't legal or logical but isn't even working?
They're like an very incompetent version of Big Brother. It's like they're becoming an half-assed version of a conspiracy theorists ideas.
 
They're like an very incompetent version of Big Brother. It's like they're becoming an half-assed version of a conspiracy theorists ideas.
That's exactly why it's going to suck once they eventually end up back in power. Look at how nakedly corrupt they are when they have none. The only thing really saving us from them is their incompetency, and that problem will largely be mitigated by their access to competent people once a Dem gets back into office. Then all bets are off.

It's going to be a sad day when Trump can't be president anymore and we have to take some second fiddle loser in his place. Can you imagine having to eventually choose between Jeb, Hillary, Yang or Bernie once there are no good choices left?
I think *his companies declared bankruptcy at least four times.
Fixed that for you.
 
Last edited:
I'm more than a little interested to see if this descison can be used as precedent for defending future leaks of information on this scale. I'd love to see influential political and corporate trusts hacked and their dirt spilled for everyone to see. I guarentee you there's a bunch of internal information hidden behind terms like "secret" when in reality its only a secret because it would massively piss people off.
 
Back
Top Bottom