Slashdot Mirror
Russia Wants DNC Hack Lawsuit Thrown Out, Citing International Conventions (zdnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: The Russian Federation has responded to a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and has requested the overseeing court to throw out the lawsuit altogether. The lawsuit, filed by the DNC in April 2018, names a slew of figures as defendants, such as the Russian state, Russia's military intelligence service GRU, the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, and several members of the Trump campaign, such as Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner, and George Papadopoulos. According to an 87-page indictment, the DNC accused Russia and the other defendants of carrying out the hacking of DNC servers in 2016 and then leaking data online via the WikiLeaks portal in an orchestrated manner for the benefit of the Trump presidential campaign.
The lawsuit, which has its own Wikipedia page and was likened to a lawsuit the DNC filed against Nixon after the Watergate scandal, seeks damages, but also for the court to issue a declaration about the defendants' conspiracy. But in a letter sent to a New York court, presented by the Russian Embassy in the U.S. and signed by a representative of the Russian Ministry of Justice, the Russian Federation wants the lawsuit thrown out. In the 12-page letter, the Russian Federation argues that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") grants Russia immunity. "The FSIA provides that foreign sovereign States enjoy absolute jurisdictional immunity from suit unless a plaintiff can demonstrate that one of the FSIA's enumerated 'exceptions' applies'," the letter argues. "The DNC's allegations regarding a purported 'military attack' by 'Russia's military intelligence agency' do not fall within any of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to the Russian Federation's sovereign immunity."
"Any alleged 'military attack' is a quintessential sovereign act that does not fall within any exception to the FSIA or the customary international law of foreign sovereign immunity. The Russian Federation's sovereign immunity with respect to claims based upon such allegations is absolute."
The lawsuit, which has its own Wikipedia page and was likened to a lawsuit the DNC filed against Nixon after the Watergate scandal, seeks damages, but also for the court to issue a declaration about the defendants' conspiracy. But in a letter sent to a New York court, presented by the Russian Embassy in the U.S. and signed by a representative of the Russian Ministry of Justice, the Russian Federation wants the lawsuit thrown out. In the 12-page letter, the Russian Federation argues that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") grants Russia immunity. "The FSIA provides that foreign sovereign States enjoy absolute jurisdictional immunity from suit unless a plaintiff can demonstrate that one of the FSIA's enumerated 'exceptions' applies'," the letter argues. "The DNC's allegations regarding a purported 'military attack' by 'Russia's military intelligence agency' do not fall within any of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to the Russian Federation's sovereign immunity."
"Any alleged 'military attack' is a quintessential sovereign act that does not fall within any exception to the FSIA or the customary international law of foreign sovereign immunity. The Russian Federation's sovereign immunity with respect to claims based upon such allegations is absolute."
"We didn't do nothing, but if we did, it was a military attack, which we're allowed to do, so buzz off" -Russia
This is silly that we are chasing foreign military for spying/hacking on American politicians. In fact, it seems wrong that we are pursuing Assange. They are NOT American citizens or under American legal system. In addition, I believe that they all did this while outside of our nation.
The ones to go after, are the Americans that worked for/with the Russians and Assange. That is what Mueller is up to. Supposedly, he has a large number of indictments waiting to go.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm a never-Trump Republican. I hate the fact that the cheeto won. But I don't like this lawsuit at all.
AIUI, they're suing people for leaking the truth. They're saying the truth hurt the Clinton campaign and gave us this gimboid.
The allegedly damaging contents of those emails are things the voters had a right to know.
Much like truth is a defense to defamation, it ought to be a defense here.
How come they never let the FBI examine the the server
FBI: DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05...
The Russians' did the American people a favor by hacking the DNC. It exposed what most Bernie Sanders supporters suspected, but could not prove: that the DNC had already decided that their handpicked gal Hillary was going to win the primary, no matter how much support other primary candidates had. There was nothing "democratic" about the process. The DNC wanted Hillary to win the primary and they got what they wanted. But come November, Hillary lost out to Trump. Ooops.
Neither of us is likely to get what we want, and Putin knows it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Care to cite even a shred of evidence? After two years of the crap, maybe just the tiniest shred of evidence?
Bernie is NOT a pure socialist; lets clear that up once and for all. His favorite countries to use as examples are roughly half socialistic and half capitalistic. He never said he wanted to get rid of ALL of capitalism. If you claim he did, please reference it.
I don't know why he uses that label; it freaks out too many. His phrase choice is poor political judgement in my opinion.
Maybe he just likes getting the right all frothed up* and doesn't really plan on being President. Hillary suggested something along these lines in her book, although it appears speculative rather than via clear documentation or usage of a certified mind-reading device. (If you have one, I wanna buy it.)
* I admit, I do. Sue me.
Table-ized A.I.
Treaty-wise, I don't know, but some fact-finder will render a decision and then we'll all know.
Right- and wrong-wise, I think it should be, for two reasons.
First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties. If you think that the Republican party is not hiding a bunch of dirt, please explicitly state that, because otherwise it is hypocritical.
Second, if, as seems likely at this point, these hacks were carried out by someone acting on behalf of the Russian government, then every American should be fighting mad. Agents of an adversarial power interfering in our elections? Are you kidding me? That's a violation of our sovereignty. And yes, I know that the US has a bad history of doing this to other countries. They also have every right to be royally pissed off at us for that.
My post here will undo moderation in this thread, so please believe that I mean this.
I do not normally find myself at odds with you on most issues, but I cannot believe you just wrote that. You can't reasonably force only one party to undergo extreme involuntary transparency and not see that as grossly unfair. I don't mean that as "stomp your feet and cry" unfair, I mean it more like "stuffing ballot boxes" unfair, or "paying cash for votes" unfair. That's not the American way (or, not the American way I learned about when I was a kid).
Couple that with the involvement of an adversarial foreign power.
How many people on your propaganda team worked on this?
the DNC has neutered the super delegates. They stopped short of eliminating them (old power structures are hard to kill completely) but they're basically gone baring a miracle.
But to be blunt, the DNC's shenanigans are tiny, tiny potatoes next to the Sheldon Primary
Basically, it's not just cheating that kept Bernie out of the Whitehouse. America has a ruling class. We don't like to acknowledge their existence, but they're there. And they're not shy about it either.
So the DNC delt a blow to that ruling class, but it was a pretty minor blow. At the end of the day they still choose most of the political candidates out there, and they'll continue to until Americans make refusing corporate PAC money a litmus test to get past the primary.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"The Russian Federation has responded to a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee..."
...
"According to an 87-page indictment..."
The DNC is bringing forth this lawsuit, not the state, so it's not a criminal case but a CIVIL lawsuit. It even says so on page one of the documents posted, "Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-0350" and "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (emphasis from the original). Therefore, it can't be and indictment because that is only used in CRIMINAL cases brought forth by the state and not in civil cases. ZDNet therefore got their terminology wrong, either on purpose or accidentally. Either way, it is a basic point of law that even I caught at first glance.
Maybe they need to stop watching so much legal dramas on TV. Heaven knows those get it wrong all the time. If you can't get something this basic right, how can we trust your "legal analysis" on anything else?
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
and we can talk about it.
But, no. I am talking about when we show the best that is within us, not the worst.
Does this apply to the DNC itself too? The RNC? Are they obligated to release their own dirt? How do you claim to enforce that? I don't know what the RNC is hiding, but it seems odd to reverse the burden of proof like that.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything like that. Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it. ShangaiBill made a comment that seemed to blame the DNC for having dirt. THAT'S what I responded to.
Also, the media is doing a fine job of leaking dirt on Trump. Why do they need Russian help again?
Moreover, the main thing the DNC was guilty of was rigging their own primaries. We know the RNC isn't doing that because we got Trump, the weakest candidate.
The media isn't leaking Trump dirt, they're reporting it. But this is all coming out now, after the election, rather than before, which is when the DNC got hit. Completely different thing.
Not at all. I want the dirt on everyone released. The media is already doing a good job on releasing Trump's dirt on their own, I don't think they need Russian help. But the fact that they ignored all the DNC dirt bothers me.
They didn't ignore all the DNC dirt. The media is where I learned that Hillary's campaign management was running the money for the national party, which is how she took the nomination. The media is where I learned about the whitewater bribes and where I learned about her date-rapist husband. The media is where I learned that Obama had an American citizen assassinated overseas. They aren't ignoring DNC scandal. Wake up.
I'm sorry, but these complaints seem hypocritical to me. Showing us how you'll excuse your own side for the sake of power is why we mistrust you, you know. Overreacting to silly memes and wanting to ban free speech just makes you look like tyrants. You can wax poetic about Putin all day, but he's not the one convincing us that you're untrustworthy with power, you're doing a fine job of that yourself with the overreactions.
And here you just went off on some alternate reality. I don't know what the f you're talking about. You keep accusing me of political positions I don't hold.
What's with all of the spergy TL;DR Boomer posts whenever it's something relating to politics I thought these people were only on the Facebook containment zone.
Most sane posters have left Slashdot, it's a place to have the same sort of surface-level "discussion" and tantrums that you find everywhere else now.
Now that the sublime has passed.
All we can do now is just enjoy the show.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
agreed.
No it's not. Hacking requires a two way communication meaning, there is no way to rip it from the servers without the servers actively transmitting that info . If it's secret or condendential, keep it off networked machines. Duh.
Mod up. Out of pints
You're thinking of the children in cages at the border? The cages built under the Obama administration,
So if Trump is os great why didn't stop that with an executive order. You are completely delusional: the policy of separating children from their parents (and sometimes simply losing the childred!) was Trumps through and through. You love Trump, you refuse to ever criticise him and so you too, personally, share some of the blame for what he does.
And your "hurrr but OBAMA" makes you no less responsible.
Just man up and own your actions and opinions.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
For someone who's not a socialist, he sure has a lot of repugnant friends who are socialists and holds America in contempt just like a socialist.
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, VENEZUELA and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
--Bernie Sanders
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I seem to recall stories that discussed the logs and the transfer speeds.
Apparently the transfer speed was far in excess of anything any internet connection could handle, indicating someone being inside the network...inside job.
There was is much crap and bullshit flying about about all this it's hard to know what the truth is.
Doubt we will ever know for sure.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
US inequality and lack of cross-class mobility is embarrassing. If you don't recognize your country's faults, you won't improve. Blind love of country is irrational. (Venezuela got addicted to and burned by oil, something GOP also wants.)
Table-ized A.I.
Then why does the socialist Left spit on our working class and call them deplorable? Let's be honest: there is a huge problem with the socialist Left shitting all over them. And yet these same people pretend to represent the working class? Makes zero sense.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No Zippy no one plead guilty to election law violations or working with the Russian government or anything to do with the 2016 election. In fact no one was charged with any election law violations. Period.
Moron.
No ass-hole they are stating that *IF* they did it is protected under the customary international law of foreign sovereign immunity.
They also remind the court that "the US has many times benefited from the same international accords in regards to its military's cyber operations."
So keep pretending the United States does not engage in military's cyber operations.
You know that didn't happen right? Moron.
Trump couldn't cyber if his cholesterol level depended on it
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
That's not an indictment. Indictments are criminal proceedings. This is a civil suit---it says so on the very first page.
Note that the party is the DNC, not a state or federal agency. Criminal prosecutors file indictments for serious crimes with serious consequences. Civil actions are slap-fights over money, and that's what this is.
If you scroll down to the "Prayer for Relief" on p. 69, you'll see that, yes, all claims are relieved by money, money, and more money (plus a court order telling the defendants not to do it again).
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Do I smell bigly hypocrisy and/or projection? I thought being polite & PC was made unfashionable by T.
Who specifically insulted the "working class"?
Table-ized A.I.
Why call somebody "X the socialist" if they are not pure socialist (or very close to)? That makes no sense to me. Please explain.
Table-ized A.I.
You're lying to yourself (on purpose, obviously). Kids WERE being separated from adults when illegally crossing the border. Under Obama. Why? Because it was (and still is) required by law.
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
The law says you can't hold kids for more than a short couple of weeks, even though adults - especially those that have been tied to other crimes - are held for longer periods of time as they are processed.
That's the law allowing it, not the law requiring it. Try again.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
For the same reason you call someone a capitalist even if they aren't a "pure" capitalist: because the world isn't cut and dry.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Was it even a hack then? As consultants don't they already have admin access? You hardly need to hack when you are ready have valid login credentials assigned to you , just working through standard apis
If it doesn't improve communication in its context, either skip it altogether, or qualify it with specifics and details.
Table-ized A.I.
In 1960, an American family of four with one working class income could afford a home, a car, three square meals a day, and all the other requirements of a decent lifestyle. In 2010, fifty years later, an American family of four with one working class income was struggling to avoid living on the street if they weren't already there. This didn't happen by accident, nor was it the product of impersonal economic forces. It was the result of specific, easily identifiable policies carried out by a bipartisan consensus and backed to the hilt by the privileged classes across the political spectrum.
The good people, the morally virtuous people, thus enthusiastically supported policies that plunged tens of millions of Americans into destitution and misery. In the usual fashion of aristocracies, furthermore, they insisted that the policies that benefited them were the only moral options, and that anyone who objected to them could only be motivated by deliberate evil. For those inside the self-referential bubble of elite culture, it all seemed so straightforward: the sufferings of those people whose interests aligned with those of the privileged were all-important and had to be addressed, while the sufferings of those crushed by policies that benefited the privileged were their own fault and didn't matter anyway.
It's funny. Trump has delivered what the Dems have wanted for decades. That is, that trade deals require foreign workers to be paid closer to American wage scales. The Dems, by all right, should be applauding this deal. But they are so consumed by hate that they can't even be happy when they win. But then they long ago abandoned their working class base in favor of idiotic identity politics. So they probably don't even know they won.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Recognizing your own faults is fundamentally different from thinking that income equality makes a country successful.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care. Many have no legal family in the states to go to, so HHS is the legal default and exactly who gets them. By law. Quit pretending you don't understand this just so you can somehow make all of that Trump's fault. It was happening under Obama. Pretending it wasn't, and that pictures of kids being detained don't date back to Obama, is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, the guy who is speaking plainly about the problem and is actually working with Mexico to solve it - he's the bad guy. But the previous guy, who lied to you about it for eight years, he was the one who was good at it. Gotcha.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires
No. You're making shit up because you can't stand the fact that Trump has done something less than perfect.
: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care.
Nice deflection but that's not under debate, is is? We both know it isn't.
There is NO requirement that kids are separated from their parents because there is no requirement that the parents are held. Now stop pretending that is the case.
SJW n. One who posts facts.