Posted on 04/22/2018 3:20:35 PM PDT by Signalman
Conspiracy theories are strongest when their claims and evidence are kept vague and shadowy. When they meet the cold light of day — for example, when they are put into writing in a lawsuit — their flimsy nature is revealed and elicits laughter rather than fear.
This week, the Democratic Party seems to have proven this by filing a civil RICO lawsuit against President Trump’s campaign, various campaign staffers (including Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr.), WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and specific Russian officials and operatives.
The DNC has a legitimate grievance against the Russian operatives who hacked their computers and released their emails to the world. The operatives broke the law, and some of them have been indicted. No one disputes that.
But the inclusion of Trump’s campaign as a defendant appears to be a publicity stunt. This might just be the Democrats’ way of keeping the torch of conspiracy theory burning bright after special counsel Robert Mueller wraps up his investigation without charging anyone with treason, or “influencing an election” (which isn’t a crime), or whatever crime they think must have been committed in 2016.
It is noteworthy that Trump himself is not a defendant in this case, and also that there is no allegation that campaign finance laws were broken because of a foreign in-kind contribution. That’s because charges like that one are cut and dry. Either they happened or they didn’t, and clear evidence has to be presented one way or the other.
In contrast, it’s easy to create at least the appearance of a conspiracy in the pages of a lawsuit without offering anything nearly so concrete. Take, for example, Trump’s famous joke at the beginning of the Republican 2016 convention, in which he expressed his hope the Russians would find Hillary Clinton’s “30,000 emails that are missing.” This is actually cited in this lawsuit as evidence Trump’s campaign was in the know or somehow involved in illegally causing harm to the DNC through the Russian releases of stolen Democratic emails.
Also offered as evidence are a couple of pages filled with Trump tweets and Trump speech excerpts that referenced the emails put out by WikiLeaks. That Trump kept talking about and praising the WikiLeaks’ revelations when it was obviously to his political advantage to do so is presented as an indication of ... well, it must prove something. Right?
The lawsuit also points to the fact that WikiLeaks sent private direct messages over Twitter to Donald Trump Jr. so he and his dad could share links to its stolen documents. But is it illegal to share or link to such published material? If so, was it also illegal when people shared links to stories in bona fide newspapers quoting from or even republishing excerpts of the stolen documents? Under fairly recent Supreme Court precedent, the answer is no, it isn’t illegal in either case.
Likewise, part of the conspiracy involves copyright infringement and divulging Democratic Party trade secrets. That’s another legal theory that would clobber press freedom, as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation pointed out. “Countless journalists would be liable for all sorts of campaign-related reporting in the future” if such a case were allowed before a jury, he tweeted. Imagine if any newspaper could be sued for publishing campaign memos leaked by disgruntled staff.
The evidence in this lawsuit remains flimsy even where the Russia collusion story comes closest to being something real. Take, for example, Roger Stone’s correct August 2016 prediction of the release of John Podesta’s private emails. The Democrats’ complaint traces his insider knowledge back to a public Twitter conversation Stone had with Guccifer 2.0 (a hacker with Russian intelligence) on Aug. 17, 2016.
It is very easy to believe Stone, a man with no discernible ethical code, took their conversation offline and learned more details about coming leaks. But how likely does it seem contacts would be established in such a sloppy, artless manner if Trump’s campaign were simultaneously in constructive contact with Russian intelligence?
You never know what a judge is going to do with any given complaint. But if this one doesn’t survive a motion for summary dismissal, it will have already done a service to Trump by weakening the Democratic myth of the 2016 election. If that happens, then Democratic leaders will deserve the backlash and humiliation they get for having brought it in the first place.
No. That was Seth Rich. And the DNC already killed him.
“The DNC has a legitimate grievance against the Russian operatives who hacked their computers and released their emails to the world. The operatives broke the law, and some of them have been indicted. No one disputes that.”
Nonsense. A lot of people dispute that it happened, and there’s been no evidence. Julien Assange says he got the emails from a source inside the DNC, and has all but confirmed it was Seth Rich.
If they had any evidence why not give it to the Mueller investigation?
Let Assange testify under freedom from prosecution immunity and see how fast the suit will be withdrawn.
They have hope because they own the judge
“Sure-thing” Hillary toiled for years to put together a hugely expensive campaign with a cast of thousands.
She was obsessively covered by a fawning media, primed and eager to expose any dirty tricks against their candidate.
Hillary bragged foreign leaders (donors to The Clinton Foundation) backed her candidacy. Her $1.5 billion campaign literally circled the globe.
SO PONDER THIS:
<><> Obama didn’t notice with PDB’s and top intel at his fingertips?
<><> fawning journos with foreign counterparts did not notice?
<><> smart cookie Hillary did not notice?
<><> her huge campaign apparat did not notice?
<><> her foreign donors did not notice Russians were openly working against her?
Hillary talks a lot about misogyny-—sounds more like myopia to me.
Pres Trump wonders why the Obama administration isnt under investigation in the Russian meddling plot against Hillary.
Good point, Pres Don.
<><>Obama was desperate to have Hillary carry out his third term. You’d think he’d be on the lookout for damaging info.
<><> It is next to unbelievable that Obama’s PDBs didnt ferret out this info.
<><> Obama had sophisticated intel at his fingertips.
<><> Obama and his indefatigable NSA snooper, Susan Rice, were rifling through tons of top secret intel 24/7.
Somebody should ask Susan Rice if her incessant “unmasking” didnt unearth a few clues about the Russian offensive against Hillary.
......I think it is 99% certain that elements of the Democratic Party conspired to put a contract on Seth Rich. And, I think the feds know exactly who did it. So, this makes the Democratic Party a criminal organization which means RICO can be used against them. The Rico toolbox is powerful and will obliterate the Democratic Party as we know it which will cause them to reorganize and rename. I think they should call themselves the Stalinist Party.
You never know what a judge is going to do with any given complaint.
The Democrats do. That’s why they filed this suit.
The DNC has a small percentage of the population who will believe anything it says.
I was surprised to find I attend church with not just one but two of those types.
The DNC is about to “discover” the proctological examination known as “discovery.”
Small? I wish.
You might be right.
I only personally know TWO such individuals.
Where does the DNC get its power, though? I can’t quite see it!!
I suspect the RATS are very carefully judge shopping this silly suit.
A delay tactic-—nothing more.
DNC has alot to answer for with the AWAN Brothers sending their Congressional e-mail all over the world.
They can’t pull the suit. All parties would have to agree ;)
If the defendants have any balls... they will turn this around on to the democrats.
And the press has almost totally ignored the contents of the emails and focused only on their hacking.
It wasn’t a hack, it was a leak and they plugged him.
His name was Seth Rich.
Trump keeps setting up these fools like bowling pins.
“Take, for example, Trump’s famous joke at the beginning of the Republican 2016 convention, in which he expressed his hope the Russians would find Hillary Clinton’s “30,000 emails that are missing.” This is actually cited in this lawsuit as evidence Trump’s campaign was in the know or somehow involved in illegally causing harm to the DNC through the Russian releases of stolen Democratic emails.
Really, they want to remind everybody about their missing emails?
“.........I think it is 99% certain that elements of the Democratic Party conspired to put a contract on Seth Rich. ....”
*********************************************************
No need to put out a contract....Hillary Clinton & her associates have people essentially on retainer for any “wet work” they need. And they have access to the untraceable funds they need for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.