DNC Sues Russia, Wikileaks, Trump Aides for Conspiring to Hack Its Emails

[caervek]

This reflects badly on the DNC imo.

When you do bad stuff and you get exposed for doing bad stuff the solution is to promise not to do anymore bad stuff (and hopefully to keep to it), not to sue the people who exposed your bad stuff, in an effort to deter anyone else from exposing your bad stuff in future so you can carry on doing bad stuff.

[Dontrike]

This reflects badly on the DNC imo.

When you do bad stuff and you get exposed for doing bad stuff the solution is to promise not to do anymore bad stuff (and hopefully to keep to it), not to sue the people who exposed your bad stuff, in an effort to deter anyone else from exposing your bad stuff in future so you can carry on doing bad stuff.

I guess illegal things shouldn't be punished anymore. Man it's weird how people are so okay with that concept nowadays.

[caervek]

I guess illegal things shouldn't be punished anymore. Man it's weird how people are so okay with that concept nowadays.

There was nothing illegal about receiving the emails and publishing them. The DNCs arguments that a whistleblowing site being given stolen emails constitutes conspiracy to steal them, and that releasing their own emails to the public constitutes the tainting of its image is laughable.

[Dontrike]

There was nothing illegal about receiving the emails and publishing them. The DNCs arguments that a whistleblowing site being given stolen emails constitutes conspiracy to steal them, and that releasing their own emails to the public constitutes the tainting of its image is laughable.

So the fact that the emails were stolen to begin with are not a crime? Alright.

[caervek]

So the fact that the emails were stolen to begin with are not a crime? Alright.

Of course that is a crime, but it's not related to the topic at hand. The DNC aren't going after the hackers, they are going after the whistleblowing organisation the hackers passed the data onto.

[Sage89]

Since the wheels of justice grind slow, and the ultimate outcome of the Mueller probe is uncertain, seems like a prudent move. I mean prosecution or new laws at the highest level won't happen with the current congress. The FBI is inherently conservative, and might be unwilling to publish full finds of all of the linkage.


The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is suing the Russian government, Donald Trump’s campaign, and WikiLeaks for conspiring to steal its emails, taint its image, and put its preferred presidential candidate at an unfair disadvantage in the 2016 election. In a lawsuit filed in federal court Friday, the DNC seeks millions in damages and a formal acknowledgment that the defendants conspired to hack its computers, extract private information, and publish it with the intention of aiding Trump’s candidacy.

Democratic Party Alleges Trump-Russia Conspiracy in New Lawsuit

The Democratic National Committee opened a surprise legal assault on President Trump on Friday, filing a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the organization was the victim of a conspiracy by Russian officials, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.

The 66-page complaint, filed in federal court in New York, uses the publicly known facts of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling to accuse Mr. Trump’s associates of illegally working with Russian intelligence agents to interfere with the outcome of the election. In the document, the committee accuses Republicans and the Russians of “an act of previously unimaginable treachery.”

Happy Friday, Peace

As much as I would love to see the DNC win, I believe this is just a mock lawsuit to draw attention to what they feel happened and have not a chance of winning anything.

[Felya]

Of course that is a crime, but it's not related to the topic at hand. The DNC aren't going after the hackers, they are going after the whistleblowing organisation the hackers passed the data onto.

Russia is not a whistleblowing Organization.

[caervek]

Russia is not a whistleblowing Organization.

But Wikileaks are, the organisation the DNC are suing for handling their stolen emails (not a crime) releasing them to the public (also not a crime) and therefore tainting their name (if your name is tainted by people hearing things you said in your own words that's kinda on you lol).

This is basically a joke lawsuit designed just to waste peoples time and money (and thus to serve as a future warning).

[Felya]

But Wikileaks are, the organisation the DNC are suing for handling their stolen emails (not a crime) releasing them to the public (also not a crime) and therefore tainting their name (if your name is tainted by people hearing things you said in your own words that's kinda on you lol).

This is basically a joke lawsuit designed just to waste peoples time and money (and thus to serve as a future warning).

Wikileaks is accused of working with Russia, making the whistle blower Russia. A guy distributing stolen goods, is committing a crime.

[caervek]

A guy distributing stolen goods, is committing a crime.

Leaked emails aren't stolen goods, once hacked they're free game, it's only the hacker(s) who broke any laws. In order for a third party to get in trouble it would have to be proved that they were in league with the hackers before the hacking, which is all but impossible.

Wikileaks is accused of working with Russia, making the whistle blower Russia.

The DNC are alleging that the Russian government, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks all conspired to hack the emails in order to ruin Hillary's campaign. Which while quite fanciful will be impossible to prove as they cannot prove links between any of them and the hackers, or that they conspired with each other.

Having said that as this is a civil lawsuit in the USA they don't need to prove it, so have a good shot, but like I have said this isn't about winning damages, it's about trying to deflect attention away from the fact that regardless of who opened the trapdoor the DNC and Hillary were hung with their own damn noose.

[Endus]

Leaked emails aren't stolen goods, once hacked they're free game, it's only the hacker(s) who broke any laws. In order for a third party to get in trouble it would have to be proved that they were in league with the hackers before the hacking, which is all but impossible.

It's really not.

Particularly since this is a civil case, not criminal; they do not need to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Just "preponderance of the evidence". If the jury thinks it's more likely it happened than not, that's enough to rule against the accused, in civil court.

The DNC are alleging that the Russian government, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks all conspired to hack the emails in order to ruin Hillary's campaign. Which while quite fanciful will be impossible to prove as they cannot prove links between any of them and the hackers, or that they conspired with each other.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

http://time.com/4426272/donald-trump...russia-emails/

Trump literally called for Russia to hack the Democrats to find "missing e-mails". Publicly. This is well-known. Now, you might argue that he was bullshitting, but that's what court's about.

[Sormine]

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

http://time.com/4426272/donald-trump...russia-emails/

Trump literally called for Russia to hack the Democrats to find "missing e-mails". Publicly. This is well-known. Now, you might argue that he was bullshitting, but that's what court's about.

The strangest thing to me is that he chose Russia first. The video shows later maybe he was asking anybody (someone in China, some guy in his bedroom, etc.) but that's kind of besides the point. I can't for the life of me think of a reason why he started with Russia.

[Felya]

Leaked emails aren't stolen goods, once hacked they're free game, it's only the hacker(s) who broke any laws. In order for a third party to get in trouble it would have to be proved that they were in league with the hackers before the hacking, which is all but impossible.

What? Now they are not stolen emails? Can I talk to the @Caevek who said this:

stolen emails

The DNC are alleging that the Russian government, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks all conspired to hack the emails in order to ruin Hillary's campaign. Which while quite fanciful will be impossible to prove as they cannot prove links between any of them and the hackers, or that they conspired with each other.

Yes, something they believe they can, most likely based on Trump jr communications with Wikileaks, as well Russia.

Having said that as this is a civil lawsuit in the USA they don't need to prove it, so have a good shot, but like I have said this isn't about winning damages, it's about trying to deflect attention away from the fact that regardless of who opened the trapdoor the DNC and Hillary were hung with their own damn noose.

Yes, that PizzaGate really got the DNC...

- - - Updated - - -

The strangest thing to me is that he chose Russia first. The video shows later maybe he was asking anybody (someone in China, some guy in his bedroom, etc.) but that's kind of besides the point. I can't for the life of me think of a reason why he started with Russia.

It’s stranger if you consider what it exposed... as you can see by all of the charges......

[TexasRules]

So when the dnc turns over their servers and experts can't prove who actually hacked the servers, who do they sue then?

[Endus]

So when the dnc turns over their servers and experts can't prove who actually hacked the servers, who do they sue then?

They know who hacked them.

Hacker using the name "Guccifer 2.0", who's turned out to be a GRU employee; https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclus...igence-officer

That isn't what's up for being found out/proven. What's being argued is that Trump's campaign staff/Russia/Wikileaks conspired to allow/encourage/invite that hack.

[TexasRules]

They know who hacked them.

Hacker using the name "Guccifer 2.0", who's turned out to be a GRU employee; https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclus...igence-officer

That isn't what's up for being found out/proven. What's being argued is that Trump's campaign staff/Russia/Wikileaks conspired to allow/encourage/invite that hack.

Do you think it's provable that only one person hacked the servers? Plus do you think that when the servers are turned over that the defense can prove someone else may have accessed the servers too, thereby making it impossible to say who truly hacked the servers, who paid them, who conspired? That's a lot of conjecture to throw out there for some publicity that everyone knows is a shot in the dark most likely hitting nothing.

[Endus]

Do you think it's provable that only one person hacked the servers?

It's irrelevant. One guy's owned up to doing it, and that isn't being contested by, well, anyone.

Plus do you think that when the servers are turned over that the defense can prove someone else may have accessed the servers too, thereby making it impossible to say who truly hacked the servers, who paid them, who conspired? That's a lot of conjecture to throw out there for some publicity that everyone knows is a shot in the dark most likely hitting nothing.

If there were multiple hacks, that just opens up more angles for conspiracy against the DNC.

And it's particularly silly when the leak was provided through Wikileaks, who identified their source, which was Guccifer 2.0.

[TexasRules]

It's irrelevant. One guy's owned up to doing it, and that isn't being contested by, well, anyone.



If there were multiple hacks, that just opens up more angles for conspiracy against the DNC.

And it's particularly silly when the leak was provided through Wikileaks, who identified their source, which was Guccifer 2.0.

It still has to be proven in a court. Just because someone claims to have done it, doesn't make it true when it comes down to nut cutting time. It has to be proven, and who knows what has been done to those servers. It's strange that they want other people to look through it, meaning they either have really nothing to hide(probablke given the hack)or they have scrubbed so much off it that they no longer care.

[Endus]

It still has to be proven in a court. Just because someone claims to have done it, doesn't make it true when it comes down to nut cutting time. It has to be proven, and who knows what has been done to those servers. It's strange that they want other people to look through it, meaning they either have really nothing to hide(probablke given the hack)or they have scrubbed so much off it that they no longer care.

You're really stuck on this. Who authored the hack is a known fact. I have no idea why you're disputing it. Do you really have nothing else?

[Orbitus]

Of course that is a crime, but it's not related to the topic at hand. The DNC aren't going after the hackers, they are going after the whistleblowing organisation the hackers passed the data onto.

The hacker is the Russian government. SO, yes, they are going after the hackers. They are going after Wikileaks for being a propaganda arm for the Russian government, which they absolutely are. They have RNC and Trump stuff, but won't release it. They barely release anything from the Russian government, certainly nothing that will harm the Russian government.