Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the breaking-news dept.

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."

8 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. And hilarity ensues!!!! by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: And hilarity ensues!!!! by PeopleAquarium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re: And hilarity ensues!!!! by dlkwnt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:And hilarity ensues!!!! by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did you determine that the Mueller investigation is a farce? What evidence do you have that the rest of us don't have?

      From my point of view, I see a couple of convictions and some guilty pleas, and a bunch of people freaking out that their crimes might be uncovered next. That's rather the opposite of a farce. If anything, it looks like a reasonable and fairly well-run investigation. Given how long they usually take, this one seems to be especially fruitful very quickly.

      Again, that seems to be the opposite of a farce. More like shooting fish in a barrel.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  2. Not Partisan...srsly? by RandomFactor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
  3. why don't you just try to actually win? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ...

  4. Not entirely the DNC. by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:It was more than that by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.