Democrats sue Russia, Trump campaign for alleged 2016 election conspiracy

By Mark Hosenball and David Alexander

 

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at Naval Air Station Key West for a visit to the Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF South) federal anti-smuggling and anti-drug trafficking agency in Key West, Florida, U.S. April 19, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic Party sued the Russian government, U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign and WikiLeaks on Friday, charging that they carried out a wide-ranging conspiracy to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

The party alleged in its federal lawsuit in Manhattan that top officials in Trump's Republican campaign conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and tilt the election to Trump by hacking Democratic Party computers.

 

The lawsuit alleged that Trump's campaign "gleefully welcomed Russia's help" in the 2016 election and accuses it of being a "racketeering enterprise" that worked in tandem with Moscow.

 

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign," said Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee. "This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery."

 

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but the campaign operation Trump has already set up ahead of the 2020 president election called the lawsuit frivolous and characterized it as a fundraising effort.

 

"This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party," the campaign's manager, Brad Parscale, said in a statement.

 

Defendants in the lawsuit include three people who have been indicted as a result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling: former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Manafort associate Rick Gates and former campaign aide George Papadopoulos.

 

Also named as defendants were Donald Trump Jr., Trump associate Roger Stone and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

 

Trump has repeatedly denied his campaign colluded with Russia and Moscow has denied meddling in the election.

 

Four U.S. intelligence agencies reported last year that Russia sponsored the hacking of Democratic Party groups and other actions during the 2016 campaign. Part of the effort was to benefit Trump over Clinton, the agencies said.

 

The DNC blames Russia for breaches of its computer systems in 2015 and the first half of 2016.

 

Hackers disseminated internal communications of party officials as the Democratic nominating convention began and WikiLeaks released thousands of emails, some of which were embarrassing for the Clinton campaign and were intended to stoke conflicts among the party's supporters.

 

Most of the accusations appeared to be based on news reports and publicly available legal documents and offered little new information about alleged collusion with Moscow.

 

MIDTERM EFFECT

 

Democrats are keen to remind voters of the issue of Russia and the 2016 election ahead of November's midterm congressional elections. Early polls show Republicans run some risk of losing control of Congress.

 

“The suit gives Democrats a useful and perhaps compelling narrative to counter the president’s and Republicans’ mantra of ‘no collusion,'" said Leonard Williams, a political science professor at Manchester University. "From that partisan standpoint, it is exactly what their candidates and spokespeople need."

 

WikiLeaks, and attorneys for Trump Jr., Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Stone said the lawsuit was based on "a left-wing conspiracy theory."

 

"NO proof or evidence," he wrote in an email to Reuters.

 

The lawsuit, should it go forward, seems likely to help keep the spotlight on the issue of Russian election interference and possible collusion by the Trump campaign. Both are being investigated by Mueller, whose office declined to comment on the Democratic lawsuit.

 

Through the process of legal discovery, lawyers for the Democratic Party could force the defendants to produce documents they say relate to the collusion issue.

 

The lawsuit "might not have any journalistic, judicial, or political staying power," Williams said.

 

"Whether it amounts to more than a story to tell remains to be seen," he said. "It might lead to additional discovery of events and relationships that we don’t yet know about."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-21

'Sue Russia'    and the US never interferes right?  they just make themselves look foolish continually instead of focusing on Trump's many faults and bad strategies. 

8 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

'Sue Russia'    and the US never interferes right?  they just make themselves look foolish continually instead of focusing on Trump's many faults and bad strategies. 

Ah...America.

 

A country where Ethos and Logos have both fled leaving Pathos to tread the boards alone and unattended.

Edited April 20, 20188 yr by Odysseus123

Turnabout is fair play. 

 

I hope the discovery process uncovers all the dirty tricks the HRC camp pulled on Sanders.  I honestly believe the Dems would be in the White House had they not torpedoed Bernie.  He could have beat Trump.  HRC could just beat herself.

 

Now we shall expect a case against the USA Government filed in Moscow. 555.

Crazy.

 

Continue with the nonsensical trolling and get a suspension.   Read the OP and respond accordingly.  

Well they have a good case because That’s absolutely what happened.

Not lock her up but lock him up for collusion. 

It certainly gives the impression of sour losers.

 

However I do think they have a point, with contacts between the campaign and Russian contacts proven.

 

I do see the possibility it may backfire though. I think they should have waited till Trump fired Muller.

I believe that Flynn, and his gutter dwelling son who pushed false claims, and conspiracy deceit in conjunction with the rather dim witted Donald Jr. and Jared Kushner engaged in unlawful acts.

This litigation will allow a discovery process that will bring their activities out of the dark and into the sun.

 

If the claims are unfounded they will be dismissed in the discovery process. If there is a basis to expect that the  allegations are reasonable, then they will proceed to trial. The verdict will be decided based upon the facts determined at trial.

 

All I know is that patriotic, loyal Americans would not have colluded with the Russians.

The Democrats are desperate for cash as the 2016 election exposed them for the frauds they are. No one contributes any more, they're in their death throes.

Is there no lengths to which the democrats will go for a little grandstanding?

 

People in glass houses, etc.    This may come back to bite them!!

 

Suing Trump without any evidence of his collusion is fraught with danger.  That evidence may yet be uncovered, but at this stage it hasn't.

This is a smart move.  A president is not immune from civil lawsuits while in office, and the DNC is helping to put down roots for all the corruption investigations that Trump can't dig up by firing Mueller/Rosenstein or by granting pardons.  Lots of facts will be uncovered during discovery.  They probably won't be able to depose any Russians, but Kushner, Manafort, Trump family members and many other people who are close to Trump would definitely be deposed.

 

The DNC did the same thing back during the Nixon trials, and they won.

4 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Suing Trump without any evidence of his collusion is fraught with danger.  That evidence may yet be uncovered [...]

 

I'm glad you see the need for the lawsuit.

Just now, attrayant said:

 

I'm glad you see the need for the lawsuit.

How you could deduce that from my post beats me.

 

On the contrary, launching into a lawsuit, without any evidence, is dangerous at best.   There is always a possibility, however small, that there will be something turned up, but it's not looking likely at this stage, and it may well backfire on the democrats, exposing some shady dealing on their part.   Their choice to go on a fishing expedition, but it may well be an expensive one for them.

I'm sure the lawyers that are closely associated with the people bringing this lawsuit will be well remunerated by the taxpayer for their studious work.

11 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Is there no lengths to which the democrats will go for a little grandstanding?

 

People in glass houses, etc.    This may come back to bite them!!

 

Suing Trump without any evidence of his collusion is fraught with danger.  That evidence may yet be uncovered, but at this stage it hasn't.

Mr. Trump is not being sued. His campaign is. This is very different. People in the Trump campaign are alleged to have engaged in inappropriate acts. 

2 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

How you could deduce that from my post beats me.

 

You stated that evidence might be uncovered by such a lawsuit, did you not?

 

 

2 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

On the contrary, launching into a lawsuit, without any evidence, is dangerous at best.

 

You're playing armchair lawyer.  You don't know that they lack evidence.  It's pretty silly - considering all the slime and sleaze that has turned up so far - that none will be uncovered by depositions in the lawsuit.  

 

Again, there is historical precedent for exactly this kind of lawsuit.

Just now, geriatrickid said:

Mr. Trump is not being sued. His campaign is. This is very different. People in the Trump campaign are alleged to have engaged in inappropriate acts. 

 

My apology, the news item I saw this morning indicated that Trump and his campaign managers, along with russia were being sued.

 

On reading the OP, it doesn't say that Trump, personally,m is being sued.  Let's see what the real case is in a day or two when the hysteria settles.

8 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

You stated that evidence might be uncovered by such a lawsuit, did you not?

 

 

 

You're playing armchair lawyer.  You don't know that they lack evidence.  It's pretty silly - considering all the slime and sleaze that has turned up so far - that none will be uncovered by depositions in the lawsuit.  

 

Again, there is historical precedent for exactly this kind of lawsuit.

 

Just as you don't know that there is any evidence.   You're basing your assumption that there will be on some 'slime and sleaze' that has turned up so far, and on nothing concrete.

 

I have no idea whether there will or won't be, and frankly, I don't care one way or another, but the democrats are hoping there will be.   If not, it will get very expensive for them.

 

 

Some Republican congress people and other dirty tricksters could be caught up in this dragnet - Nunes in particular.   It's actually similar to the Mueller investigation.   I think Dems filed it as a sort of fall-back strategy - in case Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein.  There are other fall-back options.  

 

Unfortunately, not much will be done until January next year - that's when Dems will take a majority in the House of Reps and possibly also the Senate.  Until then, it will be biz-as-usual foot-dragging, lying, obfuscating by the Republicans - which harms the US.

 

As for 'no evidence.'  That's ludicrous.  That's like looking at a burned-down house and saying, "there's no evidence of fire."  

A post containing offensive slur references to the Japanese has been removed, it was way off topic anyway.

 

Dems or Reps, none of them is fit to run a country like the USA.

Not a fan of Donald at all but Hillary would have been the worst choice. IMHO.

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Some Republican congress people and other dirty tricksters could be caught up in this dragnet - Nunes in particular.   It's actually similar to the Mueller investigation.   I think Dems filed it as a sort of fall-back strategy - in case Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein.  There are other fall-back options.  

 

Unfortunately, not much will be done until January next year - that's when Dems will take a majority in the House of Reps and possibly also the Senate.  Until then, it will be biz-as-usual foot-dragging, lying, obfuscating by the Republicans - which harms the US.

 

As for 'no evidence.'  That's ludicrous.  That's like looking at a burned-down house and saying, "there's no evidence of fire."  

 

Just as 'some democrat congress people and other dirty tricksters could be caught up in this dragnet', albeit unwittingly.

9 hours ago, BobBKK said:

'Sue Russia'    and the US never interferes right?  they just make themselves look foolish continually instead of focusing on Trump's many faults and bad strategies. 

 

Indeed. Just shows how childish and petulant the Democratic party has become. They believed Hilary was entitled to her turn in the White House regardless of all the baggage and skeletons in her cupboards. And can't admit it was her or their fault they screwed up and lost the election. Nor can they accept the result.

 

Perhaps the UK should sue Obama for his blatant interference and attempted coercion in the Brexit campaign? Perhaps his threats to "put the UK at the back of the queue etc" had the opposite effect to what was intended? Perhaps that swung voters in such a close vote?

Was the "estate of joseph stalin" named as a defendant in the suit?

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Some Republican congress people and other dirty tricksters could be caught up in this dragnet - Nunes in particular.   It's actually similar to the Mueller investigation.   I think Dems filed it as a sort of fall-back strategy - in case Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein.  There are other fall-back options.  

 

Unfortunately, not much will be done until January next year - that's when Dems will take a majority in the House of Reps and possibly also the Senate.  Until then, it will be biz-as-usual foot-dragging, lying, obfuscating by the Republicans - which harms the US.

 

As for 'no evidence.'  That's ludicrous.  That's like looking at a burned-down house and saying, "there's no evidence of fire."  

 

No it's like receiving a phone call to tell you your house is on fire and arriving there, breathless with worry, to find the house is perfectly ok and there's a little boy in the phone box giggling after he made the call. 

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

How you could deduce that from my post beats me.

 

On the contrary, launching into a lawsuit, without any evidence, is dangerous at best.   There is always a possibility, however small, that there will be something turned up, but it's not looking likely at this stage, and it may well backfire on the democrats, exposing some shady dealing on their part.   Their choice to go on a fishing expedition, but it may well be an expensive one for them.

The US Security Services have concluded Russia meddled in the US election, Congress passed a bi-partisan act placing sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Just another dumm move by the Democrats which in the end only helps the Republicans to win the midterm elections. Democrats acting like a stubborn greedy teenager. Good luck with that.

Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The US Security Services have concluded Russia meddled in the US election, Congress passed a bi-partisan act placing sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election, there's plenty of evidence.

 

They had concluded that prior to the election taking place, and yet Obama said this at the time:

 

Quote

“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, there’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that it will happen this time, and so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and make his case to get votes.” .....

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-unexpected-obama-trump-convergence-on-russia/553769/

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. Just shows how childish and petulant the Democratic party has become. They believed Hilary was entitled to her turn in the White House regardless of all the baggage and skeletons in her cupboards. And can't admit it was her or their fault they screwed up and lost the election. Nor can they accept the result.

 

Perhaps the UK should sue Obama for his blatant interference and attempted coercion in the Brexit campaign? Perhaps his threats to "put the UK at the back of the queue etc" had the opposite effect to what was intended? Perhaps that swung voters in such a close vote?

Except, of course, that Obama didn't hide his disapproval of Brexit. He didn't launch an army of hackers. He didn't secretly offer to share hacked information with officials of the Remainer movement. The fact that Putin and the Russians didn't want Clinton to be President isn't the probem. The problem is how they pursued that goal.