"Late Monday night Wikileaks tweeted a full federal court filing the Trump campaign dropped onto the heads of the DNC and Russiagate. In short, it blows the DNC assertions out of the water that it was the victim of a computer hack."
"Did Russia hack the DNC? No, according to the filing, which asserts the DNC fabricated the hack."
"This story is developing."
Full document here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5758381-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-of-Motion.html
Marking post to read later.
We have everything.
How can we use what we know?
How do you ‘legally’ inject/make public/use as evidence?
What are you witnessing unfold?
Trust the plan.
Q
Excellent and about time!
I read through the memo of p’s and a’s filed by the Trump Campaign, skimming through much of it but focusing on the parts that seemed like they might state that the DNC fabricated the hack. I didn’t see anywhere in the filing that said or intimated that. It would be unusual to state it in this type of motion, because a motion to dismiss a complaint is required to assume that the facts asserted in the complaint are true. As a result, you have to recite the plaintiff’s facts and then say, even assuming they are true, the complaint still fails to state a legitimate legal “cause of action”.
The Trump Campaign did that, assuming the DNC’s claims that the DNC was hacked by Russia, and the other allegations as true. For example, in the summary of the argument at the beginning of the brief:
“Many of the legal issues in this case turn on the distinction between (1) stealing documents and (2) disclosing documents that someone else previously stole. It is thus essential to emphasize at the outset: The SAC alleges only that the Campaign conspired to disclose documents that someone else—namely, Russia—previously stole. The SAC does not allege that the Campaign itself stole any documents, or even that it conspired to steal any documents.”
.................
Then, later, in the section devoted to stating that the Campaign had not committed any predicate acts, i.e., any actions that are among the ones listed in the RICO statute as being the criminal actions that are conducted by an enterprise which will give it RICO liability (mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion, murder, and many others), the Trump Campaign said the following:
“In fact, the DNC’s allegations affirmatively refute any such inference. As explained above (supra pp. 5–7), the DNC does not allege that the Campaign had any role in stealing—or conspiring to steal—materials from the DNC. Nor does the DNC plausibly allege that the Campaign reached any agreement to disseminate stolen DNC materials. In fact, it does not even claim any American had communications even potentially related to disseminating materials until after Russia and WikiLeaks had already begun such disseminations. It alleges that Mifsud told Papadopoulos about emails “that could harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign” “[o]n April 26, 2016” (SAC ¶ 94), but the DNC does not claim that Papadopoulos discussed disseminating those (or any other) emails—let alone that the Campaign formed any agreement to do so. The DNC then claims that Stone began trying to contact Assange “[o]n July 25, 2016”—after both Russia and WikiLeaks had already begun disseminating stolen DNC materials, “[o]n June 15, 2016,” and “July 22, 2016,” respectively. Id. ¶¶ 147, 156, 162. To be clear, Stone was not a Campaign employee, and the DNC does not claim that he was acting as an agent of the Campaign. Regardless, the DNC offers no basis for concluding that the Campaign conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to do what those entities were already doing. The DNC is thus unable to sustain its allegations that the Campaign joined any conspiracy.”
I do not see anywhere in the filing where the Trump campaign says what True Pundit claims it says. It accepts the premise of a Russian hack, and points out numerous reasons why the DNC’s case fails to make a legal case against the Trump campaign.
Also to be noted, the motion relates to “COUNTS II, III, IV, VIII, XII, AND XIV” of the DNC’s complaint. I don’t know what the situation is with Counts I, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XII. It is possible that those are not pleaded against the Trump Campaign, or that those are claims that are properly pleaded, that Trump will have to go to trial to disprove.
“Did Russia hack the DNC? No, according to the filing, which asserts the DNC fabricated the hack.”
*************************************************************************************
I am reminded of the Thomas Wictor article where he asserts that there are Judas Goats in the DNC.
Filing this lawsuit seems like a good way for Trump Legal Team to get all sorts of discovery/documentation of the real story here.
MOAR POPCORN!
ping for later reading.