DNC files lawsuit against Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks

[Emily Lake]

It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.

No--it's not about showing evidence--they could do that without the lawsuit.

It's about compelling the GOP to produce documents. (And depositions--answering questions under oath.) They can make some fairly wide-ranging requests for documents relevant to the case at hand--refusal will bring sanctions and if extreme enough, contempt of court. Lying can bring jail time. Furthermore, you don't need to meet the standards of a search warrant.

What kind of documents would they compel the GOP to produce? The claim is that the GOP colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers, right? What documents would they be asking for in relation to that?

I know I'm not a lawyer and all that jazz... but this doesn't make sense to me. I'm fairly certain I'm missing a core concept here.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.

No--it's not about showing evidence--they could do that without the lawsuit.

It's about compelling the GOP to produce documents. (And depositions--answering questions under oath.) They can make some fairly wide-ranging requests for documents relevant to the case at hand--refusal will bring sanctions and if extreme enough, contempt of court. Lying can bring jail time. Furthermore, you don't need to meet the standards of a search warrant.

What kind of documents would they compel the GOP to produce? The claim is that the GOP colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers, right? What documents would they be asking for in relation to that?

I know I'm not a lawyer and all that jazz... but this doesn't make sense to me. I'm fairly certain I'm missing a core concept here.

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

 

[Emily Lake]

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

I'm sorry, I really am missing something here. I'm envisioning this:

DNC: Turn over all documents related to your conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC server!
GOP: Here you go *hands over an empty box*
~~FIN~~

In a civil suit, how do they go about this? Do they get a search warrant? That would seem a bit much, to be able to get a search warrant on what seems to amount to speculation. I mean, how do they even tell whether a response of "no such documents exist" is legitimate? Or is there some greater aspect to the GOP being compelled to comply?

 

[Elixir]

What kind of documents would they compel the GOP to produce? The claim is that the GOP colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers, right? What documents would they be asking for in relation to that?

I know I'm not a lawyer and all that jazz... but this doesn't make sense to me. I'm fairly certain I'm missing a core concept here.

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

...and such riveting testimony it would be!
"NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION! I plead the 5th. NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

I'm sorry, I really am missing something here. I'm envisioning this:

DNC: Turn over all documents related to your conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC server!
GOP: Here you go *hands over an empty box*
~~FIN~~

In a civil suit, how do they go about this? Do they get a search warrant? That would seem a bit much, to be able to get a search warrant on what seems to amount to speculation. I mean, how do they even tell whether a response of "no such documents exist" is legitimate? Or is there some greater aspect to the GOP being compelled to comply?

You wouldn't ask a question like that in the first place.

Rather, you would ask for things like documents concerning meetings with Russians etc.

Consider a mock jury I was on (the data we saw was real, it was a real case but our decisions were simply words. However, lawyers for both sides were watching and I strongly suspect what we said was taken into consideration in settlement talks.)

The defense asked for and got the patient's medical records regarding treatment for the incident. A bunch of them with pain scores of 0 or 1. I'm sure they hated handing those over but it would have been obvious if they were missing. (And, amazingly, most of our "jury" still felt she should get something for what happened. None were knowledgeable enough about how things would actually play out to see that the lawyers and doctors would see 100% of the amounts they were talking about. We didn't really have time and I didn't enlighten them anyway because the lawyer had slipped up on the quickie voir dire they had performed and only asked what we did, not what our family members did. I can't imagine that I would have ever been on a real jury for such a case.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

I'm sorry, I really am missing something here. I'm envisioning this:

DNC: Turn over all documents related to your conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC server!
GOP: Here you go *hands over an empty box*
~~FIN~~

In a civil suit, how do they go about this? Do they get a search warrant? That would seem a bit much, to be able to get a search warrant on what seems to amount to speculation. I mean, how do they even tell whether a response of "no such documents exist" is legitimate? Or is there some greater aspect to the GOP being compelled to comply?

First step, showing the DNC has standing. The evidence part is irrelevant until a judge says this case can be a case.

 

[Trausti]

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

I'm sorry, I really am missing something here. I'm envisioning this:

DNC: Turn over all documents related to your conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC server!
GOP: Here you go *hands over an empty box*
~~FIN~~

In a civil suit, how do they go about this? Do they get a search warrant? That would seem a bit much, to be able to get a search warrant on what seems to amount to speculation. I mean, how do they even tell whether a response of "no such documents exist" is legitimate? Or is there some greater aspect to the GOP being compelled to comply?

The GOP is not a party. But anyway, the DNC would send a discovery request for all emails/communication from this date to that. The defendants would move for a protective order, as, after all, an underlying premise of the DNC lawsuit is that campaign emails are commercial trade secrets. The judge may or not review the emails before production. Yet, if campaign emails are commercial trade secrets (wouldn't think that), then the parties would be under penalty not to disclose anything outside the litigation. This assumes, of course, that the lawsuit is more than frivolous flimflam.

 

[Trausti]

What you're missing is that you don't have to have proof of a document's existence. That's why it's called "discovery". And as several people have stated, the prize here would be to force Trump to testify. He can't be sued directly at this point; that's why the DNC filed against the campaign (an organization), and not Trump directly. He can be ordered to testify for this.

I'm sorry, I really am missing something here. I'm envisioning this:

DNC: Turn over all documents related to your conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC server!
GOP: Here you go *hands over an empty box*
~~FIN~~

In a civil suit, how do they go about this? Do they get a search warrant? That would seem a bit much, to be able to get a search warrant on what seems to amount to speculation. I mean, how do they even tell whether a response of "no such documents exist" is legitimate? Or is there some greater aspect to the GOP being compelled to comply?

First step, showing the DNC has standing. The evidence part is irrelevant until a judge says this case can be a case.

The DNC has standing to sue on its own behalf. The real trick is whether the other foreign parties would remain in the suit. Service on Assange would be interesting. And this blogpost, which pre-dates the DNC lawsuit, speaks to why Russia and its alleged agents will probably be dismissed early on.

Other attorneys have occasionally argued (both in and out of court) that cyberattacks falls within the FSIA’s existing tort exception, 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(5).[3] One attorney even tried to provide a “roadmap to this new line of litigation” in a recent law review article.[4] However, I litigated the tort exception in district and appellate courts for well over a decade, and it creates only roadblocks to civil suits for cyberattacks.

In particular, the tort exception’s situs requirement[5] — as well as the discretionary function and misrepresentation exclusions limiting the exception — make any lawsuit against a foreign sovereign for a cyberattack under section 1605(a)(5) very difficult and expensive.[6] Indeed, a recent dismissal under the FSIA in a cyber case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia – where the court dismissed a Wiretap Act claim under the tort exception’s situs requirement – only highlights the challenges of such litigation.[7] In addition, even assuming that a cyber suit falls under the tort exception to the FSIA, a judgment would be extraordinarily difficult to collect upon given the FSIA’s strong immunity provisions related to attachment and execution.[8]

The result is that foreign states can perpetrate cyberattacks with relative impunity in the United States. Even worse, those harmed by such attacks – often individuals or corporations who are innocent of any misconduct – have no effective means of redress against the offending foreign sovereign (or its officials).

Current law doesn't seem to permit the DNC to strip Russia of its foreign sovereign immunity for the fact pattern it is alleging. If the foreign parties are dismissed, the RICO case would collapse. This assumes, of course, that the lawsuit is more than frivolous flimflam.

 

[Emily Lake]

First step, showing the DNC has standing. The evidence part is irrelevant until a judge says this case can be a case.

That makes a bit more sense.

Someone earlier mentioned a statute of limitations that might be part of the decision. So even if they don't really have anything solid, they still have to file the motion while there's time. And since they need to show that there's some solid reasoning (assuming that's what 'standing' means), would it make sense that the DNC is banking on their civil suit being put on hold until Mueller's investigation is done?

Because like I said earlier, it doesn't make sense to me that they would have info supporting their claim of collusion, and NOT just turn it over to Mueller... but if they're expecting to be tabled by the court until the investigation finishes, they could be hedging their bets that Mueller will uncover something that supports their claim.

 

[Malintent]

First step, showing the DNC has standing. The evidence part is irrelevant until a judge says this case can be a case.

That makes a bit more sense.

Someone earlier mentioned a statute of limitations that might be part of the decision. So even if they don't really have anything solid, they still have to file the motion while there's time. And since they need to show that there's some solid reasoning (assuming that's what 'standing' means), would it make sense that the DNC is banking on their civil suit being put on hold until Mueller's investigation is done?

"standing" has more to do with being the person that was harmed. I can't sue Walmart because I read a story that someone slipped and fell... I have to be the one that was damaged in some way. Jurisdiction also matters. I can't bring to the supreme court an issue I had with the hotdog vendor that gave me the wrong change and refuses to make good.

Because like I said earlier, it doesn't make sense to me that they would have info supporting their claim of collusion, and NOT just turn it over to Mueller... but if they're expecting to be tabled by the court until the investigation finishes, they could be hedging their bets that Mueller will uncover something that supports their claim.

The civil case will certainly be "stayed" (delayed), as that is the normal thing that happens when there is a criminal case in progress. The purpose of that is to protect the guilty, believe it or not. Our criminal laws (try to be) very careful not to penalize innocent people. So there are many ways for guilty parties to minimize their exposure to penalty... especially in white collar crime. The civil suit would jeopardize some of those vehicles for the defendant, and that (for some reason I do not understand) is somehow bad.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

(Late) update: Lawsuit was dismissed. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fed...-suit-russia-trump-campaign/story?id=64664813

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From the link:

In an 81-page opinion, Judge John Koeltl wrote that the Russian government was the “primary wrongdoer” in the alleged plot to hack into the DNC’s systems and steal a trove of emails and documents.

Average Joes get in trouble for being secondary wrongdoers. Just as examples to support this concept: accomplices to felonies; receiving stolen property. I guess the laws just don't cover the shady behaviors of the Trump Crime Family in high level political shenanigans.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

From the link:

In an 81-page opinion, Judge John Koeltl wrote that the Russian government was the “primary wrongdoer” in the alleged plot to hack into the DNC’s systems and steal a trove of emails and documents.

Average Joes get in trouble for being secondary wrongdoers. Just as examples to support this concept: accomplices to felonies; receiving stolen property. I guess the laws just don't cover the shady behaviors of the Trump Crime Family in high level political shenanigans.

Here's the full text of the ruling.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DNC-dism.pdf