• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Democratic Party Donors Sue Trump Campaign Over Leaked Emails Tied to Russia

B

brianmcdoogle

Member
via The New York Times.

Two Democratic Party donors and a former party staff member have filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against President Trump's campaign and a longtime informal adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr., accusing them of conspiring in the release of hacked Democratic emails and files that exposed their personal information to the public.

The case was organized by Protect Democracy, a government watchdog group run by former Obama administration lawyers. It filed the claim just short of a deadline under a one-year statute of limitations for privacy invasion lawsuits: WikiLeaks published the first archives of stolen Democratic National Committee emails, which intelligence agencies say Russia hacked to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and help Mr. Trump, last July 22.
Click to expand...

The plaintiffs also include two Democratic Party donors, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, whose Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, and other personal details became public when WikiLeaks published the files.
Click to expand...

If a judge permits the case to reach that stage, the lawsuit would become a new and independent fact-finding investigation into the Trump-Russia issue — one that is overseen by a judge rather than by congressional Republicans, like the oversight inquiries conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or by the Trump administration, like the criminal inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Click to expand...

Didn't see a thread on this in search.

Upg542w.png


Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.
Click to expand...
 
S

sturgboski

Member
I hope all this ends with the destruction of his empire and his entire brood with nothing and, for most, in jail. I also hope the same for anyone in the GOP who has the stench of this on them. I really hope that includes Ryan and McConnel.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Do they have enough cause to do this?

I'm all for anything to tie Trump up in the courts, but I'm not sure if this is really a thing that's going to be too helpful. Can you really sue someone for something that there isn't evidence of yet in an attempt to get the evidence?

I mean... if you can... huh. But that seems a bit too exploitable.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Kickz said:
No idea what this will do but ok
Click to expand...

If a judge permits the case to reach that stage, the lawsuit would become a new and independent fact-finding investigation into the Trump-Russia issue — one that is overseen by a judge rather than by congressional Republicans, like the oversight inquiries conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or by the Trump administration, like the criminal inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Click to expand...

You just had to read the OP.
 
T

Trouble

Banned
plagiarize said:
Do they have enough cause to do this?

I'm all for anything to tie Trump up in the courts, but I'm not sure if this is really a thing that's going to be too helpful. Can you really sue someone for something that there isn't evidence of yet in an attempt to get the evidence?

I mean... if you can... huh. But that seems a bit too exploitable.
Click to expand...

Probably not a few days ago.
 
T

theWB27

Member
plagiarize said:
Do they have enough cause to do this?

I'm all for anything to tie Trump up in the courts, but I'm not sure if this is really a thing that's going to be too helpful. Can you really sue someone for something that there isn't evidence of yet in an attempt to get the evidence?

I mean... if you can... huh. But that seems a bit too exploitable.
Click to expand...

It says the judge would be able to look for evidence independent of ant republican bs.
 
T

Tagyhag

Member
Well at least they're doing something.

Rather than the usual Democrat M.O. of just sitting with their thumbs up their ass as every opportunity passes them by.
 
J

Jams775

Member
plagiarize said:
Do they have enough cause to do this?

I'm all for anything to tie Trump up in the courts, but I'm not sure if this is really a thing that's going to be too helpful. Can you really sue someone for something that there isn't evidence of yet in an attempt to get the evidence?

I mean... if you can... huh. But that seems a bit too exploitable.
Click to expand...

From what I understood that email between Jr. and the lawyer was enough to show something illegal was going on. I forget the one, something about taking help from a foreign country or something. The lawyer said Trump Co didn't even necessarily need to actually profit from the help, as in they didn't have to get something from that lawyer but the intent to gain help was illegal enough.

Sorry that I don't remember exactly. But from what tv lawyers and supposedly college teaching lawyers have been saying is there are like about 4 law broken.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Jams775 said:
From what I understood that email between Jr. and the lawyer was enough to show something illegal was going on. I forget the one, something about taking help from a foreign country or something. The lawyer said Trump Co didn't even necessarily need to actually profit from the help, as in they didn't have to get something from that lawyer but the intent to gain help was illegal enough.

Sorry that I don't remember exactly. But from what tv lawyers and supposedly college teaching lawyers have been saying is there are like about 4 law broken.
Click to expand...
Oh, I believe he broke laws, I'm just not seeing yet how this ties to the leaked e-mails. But I'll be very happy to see this lead somewhere.

Death by a thousand paper cuts is the most plausible way we bring this administration down, imho.
 
J

Jams775

Member
plagiarize said:
Oh, I believe he broke laws, I'm just not seeing yet how this ties to the leaked e-mails. But I'll be very happy to see this lead somewhere.

Death by a thousand paper cuts is the most plausible way we bring this administration down, imho.
Click to expand...

Didn't it this exchange happen just 2 weeks before the hacks? Maybe that's why? Yeah, I don't know how they're linking it.
 
D

Damaniel

Banned
I have a feeling that any judge looking at this will fail to find sufficient standing to let the case go forward as-is. If anything, Hillary or her campaign organization should be filing the lawsuit - they were most directly affected by the leaked emails.

The suit sends a decent message (and shows that at least a couple Democrats out there have found their spines), but I don't expect anything to come of it.
 
C

Cheezus

Member
Anything that makes Trump's life harder in the short term is welcome news. Tie his administration down in lawsuits so he has less time and resources to pursue the toxic Republican agenda.
 
T

theWB27

Member
Damaniel said:
I have a feeling that any judge looking at this will fail to find sufficient standing to let the case go forward as-is. If anything, Hillary or her campaign organization should be filing the lawsuit - they were most directly affected by the leaked emails.

The suit sends a decent message (and shows that at least a couple Democrats out there have found their spines), but I don't expect anything to come of it.
Click to expand...


Why don't democrats have a spine? They've made other attempts like passing legislation that would trump have to show his taxes... on more than one occasion.

What should the party with no power be doing to show this spine they so lack?
 
G

greatgeek

Banned
Damaniel said:
I have a feeling that any judge looking at this will fail to find sufficient standing to let the case go forward as-is. If anything, Hillary or her campaign organization should be filing the lawsuit - they were most directly affected by the leaked emails.
Click to expand...

I don't see how standing is a problem--the plaintiffs were injured when their personal information was illegally obtained and published. If there's an issue, it would be the plausibility of the Trump campaign conspiring in the hacking and/or publication based on the evidence that's been reported on.
 
B

brianmcdoogle

Member
Damaniel said:
I have a feeling that any judge looking at this will fail to find sufficient standing to let the case go forward as-is. If anything, Hillary or her campaign organization should be filing the lawsuit - they were most directly affected by the leaked emails.

The suit sends a decent message (and shows that at least a couple Democrats out there have found their spines), but I don't expect anything to come of it.
Click to expand...

Definition of standing in the United States:

  • Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract).[35] The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
  • Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[36]
  • Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[37]
 
D

Dynomutt

Member
Why? Let the big dogs set precedence first. Dems stay premature like Hillary and those damn fireworks. Celebrating a touchdown before you even get to the end zone.
 
D

Damaniel

Banned
theWB27 said:
Why don't democrats have a spine? They've made other attempts like passing legislation that would trump have to show his taxes... on more than one occasion.

What should the party with no power be doing to show this spine they so lack?
Click to expand...

The Democrats have a history of cowardly behavior. Some recent ones off the top of my head:

  • They failed to file articles of impeachment against President Bush or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'
  • Obama failed to publicly disclose that Russia had made efforts to undermine the 2016 election - sure, we don't publicly know the full details, but there was certainly information known that he could have released. He was afraid of 'interfering' with an election, but look what mess we're in now as a result
  • The whole 'they go low, we go high' thing - like it or not, we're not a country that appreciates 'going high' anymore. When your opponent is willing to toss dirt - even downright lies - at you, trying to explain the truth to people does a whole lot of nothing (remember - if you're explaining, you're losing). Democrats are so afraid of looking bad that they cede races to candidates that aren't, and often refuse to run viable candidates in redder districts due to fear of losing. That doesn't mean we need to be racist bigots like Republicans - it means that we need to dig for dirt and use it.
  • We spend too much time trying to 'cross the aisle' with a party that has no interest in that. Gore's selection of Lieberman - the ultimate DINO - as his VP nominee and the party's willingness to make 'compromises' that removed single-payer from the ACA in an attempt to make it more palatable to moderates and DINOs make the party look weak. In the current environment, our stance toward the GOP should be 'fuck you' - zero compromise, one hundred percent obstruction, nothing less.
 
S

Shauni

Member
Host Samurai said:
Awesome. How many people are suing the Trump org now? I swear I see something new everyday
Click to expand...

I think I read something like there's been more lawsuits filed on Trump than both Obama terms pit together already. Don't quote me though because I can't find the article, might be inaccurate, but it has been a lot. He's far exceeded any other President at this point I'm sure
 
B

brianmcdoogle

Member
Shauni said:
I think I read something like there's been more lawsuits filed on Trump than both Obama terms pit together already. Don't quote me though because I can't find the article, might be inaccurate, but it has been a lot. He's far exceeded any other President at this point I'm sure
Click to expand...

Are you maybe thinking of this from back in February or something more recent?

This flurry of litigation goes far beyond what other administrations faced. At the same point in Obama's presidency, his administration had been sued just five times. The George W. Bush White House faced only four.
Click to expand...
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
Damaniel said:
Obama failed to publicly disclose that Russia had made efforts to undermine the 2016 election - sure, we don't publicly know the full details, but there was certainly information known that he could have released. He was afraid of 'interfering' with an election, but look what mess we're in now as a result
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. They did make a statement on Oct 7 that Russia was behind hacking intended to influence the election: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

What they didn't do is specifically say it was intended to help Trump.
 
D

Darknight

Member
Damaniel said:
The Democrats have a history of cowardly behavior. Some recent ones off the top of my head:

  • They failed to file articles of impeachment against President Bush or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'
  • Obama failed to publicly disclose that Russia had made efforts to undermine the 2016 election - sure, we don't publicly know the full details, but there was certainly information known that he could have released. He was afraid of 'interfering' with an election, but look what mess we're in now as a result
  • The whole 'they go low, we go high' thing - like it or not, we're not a country that appreciates 'going high' anymore. When your opponent is willing to toss dirt - even downright lies - at you, trying to explain the truth to people does a whole lot of nothing (remember - if you're explaining, you're losing). Democrats are so afraid of looking bad that they cede races to candidates that aren't, and often refuse to run viable candidates in redder districts due to fear of losing. That doesn't mean we need to be racist bigots like Republicans - it means that we need to dig for dirt and use it.
  • We spend too much time trying to 'cross the aisle' with a party that has no interest in that. Gore's selection of Lieberman - the ultimate DINO - as his VP nominee and the party's willingness to make 'compromises' that removed single-payer from the ACA in an attempt to make it more palatable to moderates and DINOs make the party look weak. In the current environment, our stance toward the GOP should be 'fuck you' - zero compromise, one hundred percent obstruction, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Speaking truth. Sadly no Dems are capable of getting this across the party.
 
S

Steve Youngblood

Member
More power to them if this works. Worth a shot I guess. My kneejerk reaction though is that this sounds like more of a stunt that is a longshot at best.
 
C

Cabbagehead

Member
Damaniel said:
The Democrats have a history of cowardly behavior. Some recent ones off the top of my head:

  • They failed to file articles of impeachment against President Bush or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'

    Do you have anymore information on this? Because Barbara Lee has been trying to stop the War Authorization for years.
  • Obama failed to publicly disclose that Russia had made efforts to undermine the 2016 election - sure, we don't publicly know the full details, but there was certainly information known that he could have released. He was afraid of 'interfering' with an election, but look what mess we're in now as a result

    Talk to Mitch McConnell about that one. But i mostly agree, still this information and warning was out there and being discussed/had hearing. But it was largely ignored. With the craziness of the email story, wikileaks and the general divide between the parties.
  • The whole 'they go low, we go high' thing - like it or not, we're not a country that appreciates 'going high' anymore. When your opponent is willing to toss dirt - even downright lies - at you, trying to explain the truth to people does a whole lot of nothing (remember - if you're explaining, you're losing). Democrats are so afraid of looking bad that they cede races to candidates that aren't, and often refuse to run viable candidates in redder districts due to fear of losing. That doesn't mean we need to be racist bigots like Republicans - it means that we need to dig for dirt and use it.

    Talk about a slippery slope.

  • We spend too much time trying to 'cross the aisle' with a party that has no interest in that. Gore's selection of Lieberman - the ultimate DINO - as his VP nominee and the party's willingness to make 'compromises' that removed single-payer from the ACA in an attempt to make it more palatable to moderates and DINOs make the party look weak. In the current environment, our stance toward the GOP should be 'fuck you' - zero compromise, one hundred percent obstruction, nothing less.

    Got to win the majority or tie it. For this to even matter, in either you can't have a "Fuck you" or "Lets burn bridges" attitude for very long in politics. Either way it's the reason the Founding Father did not want a party system to evolve in america. They saw the inherent pitfalls. Yet it still happened.
Click to expand...

Lets see.
 
andythinkpad

andythinkpad

Member
For people keeping score outside of the U.S., suing is essentially peak America. We have to go through the suing phase before we start Civic War II.
 
T

theWB27

Member
Damaniel said:
The Democrats have a history of cowardly behavior. Some recent ones off the top of my head:

  • They failed to file articles of impeachment against President Bush or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'
  • Obama failed to publicly disclose that Russia had made efforts to undermine the 2016 election - sure, we don't publicly know the full details, but there was certainly information known that he could have released. He was afraid of 'interfering' with an election, but look what mess we're in now as a result
  • The whole 'they go low, we go high' thing - like it or not, we're not a country that appreciates 'going high' anymore. When your opponent is willing to toss dirt - even downright lies - at you, trying to explain the truth to people does a whole lot of nothing (remember - if you're explaining, you're losing). Democrats are so afraid of looking bad that they cede races to candidates that aren't, and often refuse to run viable candidates in redder districts due to fear of losing. That doesn't mean we need to be racist bigots like Republicans - it means that we need to dig for dirt and use it.
  • We spend too much time trying to 'cross the aisle' with a party that has no interest in that. Gore's selection of Lieberman - the ultimate DINO - as his VP nominee and the party's willingness to make 'compromises' that removed single-payer from the ACA in an attempt to make it more palatable to moderates and DINOs make the party look weak. In the current environment, our stance toward the GOP should be 'fuck you' - zero compromise, one hundred percent obstruction, nothing less.
Click to expand...

They've held out on nearly every one of trump's picks. They've consistently been in the media calling out the gop for their take on investigations.

They've been the only ones grilling people on the stand.

They've been calling out the Healthcare attempts.

They forced a filibuster on gorsuch.

Or does none of that count towards building a spine?
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Damaniel said:
The Democrats have a history of cowardly behavior. Some recent ones off the top of my head:

  • They failed to file articles of impeachment against President Bush or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'
Click to expand...

Wow, you went vintage to find this point, didn't you? Democrats regained Congress in the second half of Bush's second term. He'd already lost the public's support because of Katrina and his Social Security proposal. The Democratic victories effectively neutered him, at least domestically, making impeachment pointless. Why spend time and political capital impeaching an opponent who's on his way out anyway?

Impeachment requires only political will because Congress can impeach the president for anything. You shouldn't treat it as the equivalent of a criminal prosecution. If you lack the support to impeach or see that it would be a waste, you refrain.
 
E

Ermc_G6

Member
There is basically no chance this ends up meaning anything. While Congress supports him, the President is above the law.
 
W

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Autodidact said:
Wow, you went vintage to find this point, didn't you? Democrats regained Congress in the second half of Bush's second term. He'd already lost the public's support because of Katrina and his Social Security proposal. The Democratic victories effectively neutered him, at least domestically, making impeachment pointless. Why spend time and political capital impeaching an opponent who's on his way out anyway?

Impeachment requires only political will because Congress can impeach the president for anything. You shouldn't treat it as the equivalent of a criminal prosecution. If you lack the support to impeach or see that it would be a waste, you refrain.
Click to expand...
All of this addresses impeachment but what about the rest of it?

"or pursue any kind of independent investigation or criminal charges for his war crimes after the fact - he knowingly used false information to pull us into a war that killed thousands, and Congressional Democrats collectively shrugged their shoulders and went 'oh well'"

iirc President Obamas words on this was something along the lines of it "being in the past" which makes no sense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dems: Russia, Wikileaks and Trump Conspired to Beat Clinton
46
3K
StrikeNinja24 replied
Republican donor sues GOP for fraud over ObamaCare repeal failure
44
2K
Slayven replied
ACLU of Maryland sues Trump administration over transgender military service ban
11
3K
_Ryo_ replied
Reuters: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe
2
70
11K
Guevara replied
Trump campaign emails show aide’s repeated efforts to set up Russia meetings
2 3
119
22K
Vagabundo replied
Top Bottom