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."

Comments

Should this be actionable?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Should this be actionable?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

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. 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Re:Should this be actionable?

[serviscope_minor]

What do we call people who assert without proof?

Trump.

Re:Should this be actionable?

[Solandri]

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.

As long as we're talking about having an ideal world, can you agree that it's simply not fair for 90% of the press to mostly be trying to dig up dirt on one party, and only 10% trying to dig up dirt on the other party? If the press reports an equal amount of corruption in the Republican party as in the Democratic party, I'd take that as a pretty good sign that the Republican party is a lot less corrupt.

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?

I've been thinking about that too. Apparently we're upset that people who cannot vote in our elections tried to influence our election.

But by that reasoning, shouldn't both political parties be prohibited from taking money raised outside a state or Congressional district, and using it to campaign for a candidate in those races? After all, that's money from someone outside that state/district who doesn't have a vote in that race trying to influence that election.

Re:Should this be actionable?

[Areyoukiddingme]

As long as we're talking about having an ideal world, can you agree that it's simply not fair for 90% of the press to mostly be trying to dig up dirt on one party, and only 10% trying to dig up dirt on the other party?

This continued myth about the alleged domination by liberal media is a wonderful talking point. It's also a goddamned lie.

For every NPR radio station, there are literally 10 times as many hard right (and lunatic fringe right) radio stations broadcasting Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. (In order of increasing lunacy.)

Fox News has the highest viewer ratings of all cable news channels and has since goddamn 2002. That's 65 straight quarters. And it's 1/3rd of the cable news channels. There are only 3 of any significance.

Local TV station ratings in major markets are mostly behind the Nielson paywall, but the Fox affiliate dominates the news hours in dozens and dozens of major markets. I can't find the comprehensive list, but leaks through the paywall make it pretty clear that if the Fox affiliate isn't the most watched in the majority of major markets, it's a close run thing.

Newspapers are about the last bastion of liberal media, with The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times enjoying national circulation, with only the Wall Street Journal playing for the other team. But that ignores local newspapers, which display a strong conservative bias everywhere that's not a coastal state. None of them have particularly relevant readership numbers anymore, national or local.

Online media is whatever your search bubble makes it. Judging by voting patterns, it's split precisely in half. The efforts of major portals to distort it to left-leaning simply aren't working. Engagement maximization algorithms are winning, constructing impenetrable search bubbles for every individual.

Books are increasingly religious, and therefore implicitly conservative, at local libraries across the country. Libraries respond to circulation numbers, and what they're shelving has shifted drastically in the past 20 years.

Hollywood movies are try-harding liberal views lately, but they're fiction, and often bad fiction at that. Their influence on people's politics ranges from minimal to the inverse of the apparent desired affect (see my post about non-white non-male 'hackers' in Hollywood media).

Music? Music is sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Nothing's changed much since the 70s, with the possible exception of the invention of Christian heavy metal in the 80s. So music has ticked slightly to the right since then. Perhaps this is what you're referring to. I question the actual political influence of music though.

Aside from music, nowhere else does a liberal view dominate.

If The DNC were so concerned

[Crashmarik]

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...

Re:If The DNC were so concerned

[phantomfive]

At one time in history, Democrats didn't trust the FBI. And for good reasons.

When Trump got elected, I thought maybe we would have a chance of bi-partisan dislike of the FBI. But that turned out to not be the case.

Re:If The DNC were so concerned

[Tablizer]

You have to admit the party in power has more control over that Bureau than the one not in power. It's not 100% independent, being the Executive branch pretty much runs it, as set forth by the Constitution.

Perhaps it should be independent, but fixing that requires refactoring the Constitution, which is about as likely to happen as me winning a billion dollars in the lottery while riding a unicycle backward chewing gum blindfolded during an earthquake.

Re:If The DNC were so concerned

[Aighearach]

You do know that individual employees of the US Government are allowed to vote, and are members of political parties just like the rest of Americans? Right?

And that, most cops at all levels of government are Republicans?

Just like, most of the teachers and social workers are Democrats!

Re:If The DNC were so concerned

[Patent Lover]

Probably because the FBI never asked:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a...

Re:If The DNC were so concerned

[Crashmarik]

CNN may not be the greatest news outlet but when they quote the FBI as saying they asked and were rebuffed by the DNC, I am tempted to take that as fact.

The DNC hack was a good thing.

[imperious_rex]

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.

Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.

[Tough Love]

So according to you, Americans should do Russia a favor by hacking the Kremlin?

Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.

[king neckbeard]

Clinton was about as much of a McGovern as is possible. She's popular within the party and hated outside of the party. Plus, She lost to Trump, and Trump didn't even know what he was doing. If the "steps" didn't stop Clinton, then the steps HURT getting electable candidate.

Also, I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.

Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.

Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.

[imperious_rex]

Good point. No surprise to me, but ideally, the DNC should be impartial towards the primary candidates. But contrary to their public position, they weren't. The fix was in, and "by hook or by crook" they were going to have Hillary win the party nomination, The DNC hack served to shine a bright light into the dark corners of the DNC's machinations, showing voters that the Democrats play the game just as dirty as the opposition.

Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.

[king neckbeard]

I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.

Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.

Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.

[imperious_rex]

What's the point of having a primary election if the party leadership has already decided who is going to get the nomination? Sanders and all the other Democrat presidential primary candidates should have just stayed home and sat out the primary election process, since the designated nominee was a foregone conclusion. Being an unaffiliated voter, I'm just an outside observer of the Democrats and I find the undemocratic conduct of the party's leadership to be appalling.

Re:IMNAL, but this seems right

[Tough Love]

It's not as straightforward as that. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides a commercial activity exception that appears to be the basis for this lawsuit, which names Russia as a co-conspirator in a racket. Trump is also named as a co-conspirator.

Re:IMNAL, but this seems right

[ShanghaiBill]

The Russians leaked the fact that Hillary colluded with the DNC to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. So they "leaked" the truth. Maybe instead of targeting the Russians we should focus on cleaning up our own sleazy institutions, starting with the DNC. If the DNC was seen as less corrupt, they might even help their party win a few elections in the heartland.

Re:IMNAL, but this seems right

[Tough Love]

Suppose you break down your neighbor's door in order to reveal the truth about something that lies inside the house. Does revealing the truth immunize you?

Re:IMNAL, but this seems right

[king neckbeard]

Those would help as well, but corruption within the DNC is a vulnerability. If they cease to be corrupt, then these methods become ineffective.

Re:Moscow Donald's Treasonous Betrayal of America

[walterbyrd]

Care to cite even a shred of evidence? After two years of the crap, maybe just the tiniest shred of evidence?

The "S" Word [Re:The DNC hack was a good thing.]

[Tablizer]

Bernie The Socialist

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.

Re:IMNAL, but this seems right

[Anonymous Coward]

That is circular and hand-wavy;

No. You will have to explain explicitly for a case to be made.

the first part isn't even relevant, you're not the police.

No. Good Samaritan laws exist. Secondly, are we talking about law or morality? Confounding the two only when it suits your goals does explain,but does not validate the "circular" criticism.

The second part is a self-referential circle.

But you repeat your sans reasoning objection.

Police would need "probably cause," a neighbor won't have that.

No. This has already been covered.

Keep trying Ivan, you'll get these "civics" things figured out eventually!

Very good politicking. You have managed to say nothing with many words and added some mudslinging too!

Should this be actionable?

[BankRobberMBA]

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.

We actually did just that

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:We actually did just that

[ScentCone]

Yes, actually. You can hate Trump's manners, tone, etc ... and still be very gratified that he's taking his job of seating judges very seriously (and sticking with constitutionalists, not would-be legislators as Clinton promised to do). I can recognize that Trump is too fast and loose with his style while speaking extemporaneously, and still recognize that his instincts towards reducing our regulatory burden, protecting the borders, and getting our counterparts in Europe to carry more of their own defense costs are necessary ... and actually being acted upon. Yes, I'm very glad the Clintons aren't back doing everything they're infamous for doing.

And no, nobody was forced to vote for Trump. That's misdirection. We're talking about keeping you from being forced to go to work today to support his re-election campaign through your taxes, even if you don't want him to be re-elected.

Huge error in this

[McFortner]

"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?