Another DNC Trainwreck
 

D.N.C. Lawsuit Alleges Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Why? Must be a two year cycle of being stupid (Hint: H-->) instead of focusing on things that really matter. Like have a message to the voters instead of Trump is bad.

Don't you normally wait for the issue to be settled before suing for damages? This is really going to enrage and energize the wingnuts making Mueller's job a lot more difficult. Is it because of all the limelight that DNC enemy Comey is getting while Hillary is complaining in the background that nobody likes her. Count me in. :rolleyes:

Proves once again to me that the DNC is fundamentally stupid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/u...p-lawsuit.html

If Nunes had run a legitimate investigation rather than a cover-up for Trump, the DNC would likely have not done this. Now, if this case goes forward, all of Trump's minions can be deposed under oath by real investigators. Something similar was done by the DNC during Watergate and they were awarded a bunch of money for it.

Thanks Finn, I will read up on it later today.
But in this instance, both the DNC and Trump Campaign cheated. Trump was better at it.
Hillary should accept that she is not well liked by the electorate and stay out of politics for now.

I thought you didn't care. :rolleyes:

This is about nothing more than keeping the Dem base riled up. Won't take long for this case to be thrown out of court, assuming it comes before a judge who is competent and an adult.

House investigations are far more likely to be circuses than they are to accomplish anything productive.

That said, you also have had an FBI investigation, a Senate investigation and now a Special Counsel. None of them have found any evidence of that which the Dems are claiming in their CIVIL suit.

The Dems know there's zero evidence of Russian collusion. Schiff has stated that there's no evidence. Mark Warner has said that there's no evidence. DiFi has said she's not seen any evidence. Joe Manchin has said there's no evidence. Hell, even Maxine Waters admits there's no evidence. You're probably one of the remaining few and proud hyper-ventilators that still think there is evidence, you poor deluded fool.

^^^ 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

It's a matter of convenience, but feel free to sue me. :)

What is your problem Rajoo? Do you think the belief that Hillary is intrinsically awful is threatened by any showing that other factors contributed to her defeat? For this reason, malicious corruption by others should be ignored?

Actually, the FBI investigation was rolled into the Special Counsel's. As for the Senate's investigation, I still don't have full confidence in the Republicans, particularly after their ridiculous reaction to the Comey memos (somehow they think they proved Comey to be the liar and Trump the truth-teller:confused:), not to mention their silence about Nunes' disreputable and unethical antics.

Read items 6-19 starting on page 6 of the lawsuit. Sounds like quite a bit of evidence.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ikileaks/2914/

In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" supporting the allegation as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, "pleading the fifth" in a civil case or deposition allows an inference of guilt, unlike in a criminal trial. In any event, a similar civil suit was filed against Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate and the DNC won a settlement of $750K.

If it also serves to keep the Democratic base on a low boil and increase contributions to the DNC, no harm in that.:cool:

My problem as you put it is not a problem, but a strong opinion.

DNC rigged Hillary's nomination who was a lousy candidate. DNC's name is in the mud, deservedly so. Now that DNC has reared it's ugly head with this idiotic lawsuit, net result may be turning off the Dem voters again. I disagree with Finn that this will keep the Dem base in low boil.

They should spend their money and energy campaigning. That's how we won AL & PA special elections. But then if Hillary had really learned to campaign instead of treating the presidency as an entitlement, we would not be in this predicament. There is only so much Trump bashing can get you, much as I enjoy it.

You may be right. However, it could be argued that Trump was on the ballot in Virginia, Alabama and Pennsylvania and he was most responsible for the trouncing the GOP took in those elections. Trump is motivating the Dem base like never before. Bigly.

Of course it is. :rolleyes:

With friends like the scorpion left, who needs Republicans? (grin)

Seems like a problem to me when you're practically calling the thing a 'witchhunt,' and displacing to Hillary. Could have been a Trump tweet if you'd kept the length down a little.

Actually, the case has nothing in particular to do with Hillary. And what the Repubs and Ruskies did is a major offense, requiring redress, regardless of how bad Hillary may be.

I do not believe that. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x9h0n4PRNk

You know that Whell is getting desperate if he is using Maxine Waters as a character witness for the Dotard.:p

I will bite and yes I am calling this a 'witchhunt', not that the DNC needs anymore witches in their ranks. As to making a case out of this, I will bet a lot of money against it. DNC got suckered and sidestepped answering when asked how much this is going to cost.

Why doesn't the DNC sue Bernie for masquerading as a Democrat and call for a boycott of Comey's book. :rolleyes:

Observation: disagreement generally causes people to entrench and be more extreme in their positions. Example above.

Argue the point instead of meting out judgements. Also, this is where my avatar comes into play. ;)

How can this lawsuit be won since there is no case to be made? Why would a judge allow this case to move forward? What is there to be gained other than a DNC penance for Hillary's loss. :rolleyes:

With all his antics, Trump is not dividing the GOP base. H--> on the OTOH has managed and continues to divide the Dem base just for being who and what she is (pls ask if you need a clarification here :)). It's a matter of winning the upcoming contests, not 'what happened'! :rolleyes:

Why do you say there is no case to be made?

Actually, I think you're the mirror image of Trump here. He denies collusion and even Russian influence because it might reflect badly on him; you deny them because they might 'reflect well' on Hillary.

Because they are mindless, uncritical, unthinking, Fox “News”-watching idiots now, for the most part, like Whell. They have no idea they’ve fallen for the biggest con job in history, pulled off by the biggest con artist in history.

Man are you desperate or running out of ideas if you have to compare me to Trump. :rolleyes:
I am passing up an opportunity to insult you here but keep it up and I might change my mind. ;)

IMO, Hillary is a loser and she should be driving a Lexus to round out her image. :D

I'm just struggling to make sense of your reaction here.

Perhaps it would shed light if you answered the question in #20?

My apologies for skipping over this. There is no case to be made since there is no direct evidence that we know of until special counsel Mueller & his team has finished their investigation. Even then, the entire truth may not come out till they are hopefully leaked.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...201-story.html

I strongly suspect that there was collusion between state sponsored Russian hackers, Wikileaks and Trump campaign. But so far only connections between Trump campaign officials and Russia have been either proven or suspected. So as of now there is no case to be made, so there should be no lawsuit.

After I started this thread yesterday, every expert opinion I have read so far also claims that there is no case to be made as of now. If DNC is scoring cheap points with their dwindling band of supporters, so be it.

IMO, the reason DNC had difficulty raising money during the 2016 election cycle was because they rigged the primaries, not Russian hacking or Wikileaks. This claim is part of the DNC lawsuit.

If that interpretation is correct, the case is a poor idea and will be thrown out. But the court may feel that the connections you mention, and other public evidence, are enough to let the case, and discovery, go forward. We'll see.

Garber of the LA Times piece is just the sort of Republican lawyer Trump wishes he could get, but can't, for some reason....

I am glad that you did not take the opportunity.

I was only kidding, DQ is a genuine person with some opposing views to mine. :)

A political maneuver to dredge more info from the trump swamp. Just have to wait and see if it bears fruit or blows up in their face.

The Dotard's response to the DNC lawsuit (and he has promised a counter lawsuit).

Trump calls the Russia lawsuit ‘funny.’ He once sued to prove he wasn’t an orangutan.
Pretty ridiculous to sue people using their real last name "Trump" while his is an adopted name. As diabolical as can be as well as dumb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.ed1b5c3210f9

Oh, you mean the memos that the Inspector General is now recommending charges against Comey for leaking? :rolleyes:

What they have is hearsay, innuendo and (to borrow from Donny's cute reference), "'No true Scotsman' fallacy".


I thought you weren't a Democrat? :rolleyes:

You and your fellow Dems have been hoping breathlessly for criminal charges to come from any or all of the various investigations. Since there's NO EVIDENCE of any collusion, you now turn to a civil suit because the breathless hope for criminal charges has crumbled.

I think you're absolutely right, the suit is all about fun-raising and keeping folks like you riled up. Now, go run and get your checkbook.

The IG has not recommended charges.

Actually, all of the items on that list are factual. List for me all of those which are hearsay or innuendo.

I was a registered Republican until 2003. Now I'm an independent and align more closely with former Republican Never-Trumpers.

Oh, bullshit. "Former Republican Never-Trumpers" wouldn't likely cheer for Dem fundraising....

....unless, of course, you want the Dems to commit fully and financially to the cicil suit, and starve funding for 2018 candidates. If so, good on ya, and keep up the good work. :cool:

You're correct, but there is an investigation. That doesn't mean that there will be charges, but it suggests that there's something that's has caught the IG's attention.

There are plenty of disjointed and poorly supported factoids in there. The opening suggestion, for example, that "individuals tied to the Kremlin" informed the Trump campaign that the Krelmlin intended to interfere is a great example of weakly supported allegations that pass for "fact" with you.

That's exactly what occurred with Papadopolous and later in the invitation to the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

Huh? All sorts of Never-Trumpers voted for Hillary (I didn't BTW), just like numerous Never-Trumpers support a Dem House takeover to reign in the guy who is destroying their party. Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens, David Brooks, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bob Corker, among many others, come to mind. It definitely explains my (relative) support for the Dems over Trump and his sycophantic GOP. It's called patriotism (as opposed to the tribalism that you personify).

Check out this exhaustive list of Republicans (or former Republicans) who eschew tribalism in favor of patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...campaign,_2016

Here's a summary of the Trump / Russia BS which includes Papadopoulos' role. I certainly don't see anywhere in here where he was given evidence that the Russians were going to interfere.

https://www.politico.com/trump-russi...line-of-events

Or is that what is "believed" or "alleged" to have occurred during the meeting with the "professor".

Don't see any references to giving money to the Dems.....

Keep kicking those strawmen, Mike. Sooner or later you'll find gold cause even a stopped clock is right twice a day... :rolleyes:

You didn't say anything about them giving money to the Dems. You said "Former Republican Never-Trumpers" wouldn't likely cheer for Dem fundraising..." Cheering for the Dems to save our republic is different than giving money to the Dems. Just ask Bob Corker (or me). I hope the Dems will take over the House (due to the GOP House's abrogation of responsibility to oversee the Trump adminstration), but haven't and won't contribute to them. I'd say there are countless patriotic NeverTrumpers who feel exactly the same way.