- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,764
This is a stroke in print....Smooth move exlax.
Uranium One punch a Nazi = whiff
Russia Collusion FBI investigation punch a Nazi = whiff
Bernie Sanders suit windmill punch a Nazi =
This is a stroke in print....Smooth move exlax.
Uranium One punch a Nazi = whiff
Russia Collusion FBI investigation punch a Nazi = whiff
Bernie Sanders suit windmill punch a Nazi =
I dont like to talk about my personal life.I have heard that you did gay shit. Real life butt stuff.
Care to comment?
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
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):
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.
- 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
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.
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.
Ya who cares about Russian meddling or possible collusion right? As long as your side won
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.