WWTBAM Bored

jarnon wrote:Democrats Sue Russia, WikiLeaks And Trump Campaign Over Election 'Conspiracy'

I expected the New York State Attorney General to go after the Trump campaign, after Mueller's agents dug up all the evidence. Instead the Democratic National Committee is suing everyone they can think of now. Though Trump is known for paying to make lawsuits go away, there's no way the DNC will accept a confidential settlement. It's also unlikely they can win in court. Maybe they hope discovery will uncover something politically embarrassing.

jarnon wrote:Democrats Sue Russia, WikiLeaks And Trump Campaign Over Election 'Conspiracy'

I expected the New York State Attorney General to go after the Trump campaign, after Mueller's agents dug up all the evidence. Instead the Democratic National Committee is suing everyone they can think of now. Though Trump is known for paying to make lawsuits go away, there's no way the DNC will accept a confidential settlement. It's also unlikely they can win in court. Maybe they hope discovery will uncover something politically embarrassing.

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Democrats Sue Russia, WikiLeaks And Trump Campaign Over Election 'Conspiracy'

I expected the New York State Attorney General to go after the Trump campaign, after Mueller's agents dug up all the evidence. Instead the Democratic National Committee is suing everyone they can think of now. Though Trump is known for paying to make lawsuits go away, there's no way the DNC will accept a confidential settlement. It's also unlikely they can win in court. Maybe they hope discovery will uncover something politically embarrassing.

What makes you think it's unlikely they can win in court? The facts as they're coming out certainly support an inference that there was a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Democrats Sue Russia, WikiLeaks And Trump Campaign Over Election 'Conspiracy'

I expected the New York State Attorney General to go after the Trump campaign, after Mueller's agents dug up all the evidence. Instead the Democratic National Committee is suing everyone they can think of now. Though Trump is known for paying to make lawsuits go away, there's no way the DNC will accept a confidential settlement. It's also unlikely they can win in court. Maybe they hope discovery will uncover something politically embarrassing.

What makes you think it's unlikely they can win in court? The facts as they're coming out certainly support an inference that there was a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. --Bob

Whether they can "win" or not seems beside the point. Other than possibly getting some default judgments against judgment-proof defendants, this seems to be the sort of lawsuit that's going to drag through the courts on procedural points until well after Trump leaves office. As a practical matter, this will feed into the standard Republican narrative that the Democrats just can't get over the fact they lost the election.

What we should be focusing our efforts on is the 2018 elections. I'm interested in seeing just how this Arizona election next week plays out, but practically every development on the electoral front has been positive for the Democrats. Amazing as it sounds, Republicans may be on the verge of nominating some Roy Moore/Todd Akin like candidates in Arizona (and possibly a second Arizona race if John McCain retires), Mississippi, and West Virginia, and the governor of Missouri may drag down other candidates there as well. The Democrats don't need distractions like this lawsuit at this time.

Bob Juch wrote:Felon Joe Arpaio is running for Senate but may not survive the primary.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Democrats Sue Russia, WikiLeaks And Trump Campaign Over Election 'Conspiracy'

I expected the New York State Attorney General to go after the Trump campaign, after Mueller's agents dug up all the evidence. Instead the Democratic National Committee is suing everyone they can think of now. Though Trump is known for paying to make lawsuits go away, there's no way the DNC will accept a confidential settlement. It's also unlikely they can win in court. Maybe they hope discovery will uncover something politically embarrassing.

What makes you think it's unlikely they can win in court? The facts as they're coming out certainly support an inference that there was a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. --Bob

Whether they can "win" or not seems beside the point. Other than possibly getting some default judgments against judgment-proof defendants, this seems to be the sort of lawsuit that's going to drag through the courts on procedural points until well after Trump leaves office. As a practical matter, this will feed into the standard Republican narrative that the Democrats just can't get over the fact they lost the election.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Felon Joe Arpaio is running for Senate but may not survive the primary.

But he was pardoned! Now he’ll sue BJ for defamation.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The repubs are saying this could be a very dumb move by the dems. They could now get their hands on stuff the dems have been hiding for years. Just reporting what I'm hearing. I have no opinion on it at this time.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:They could now get their hands on stuff the dems have been hiding for years.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The repubs are saying this could be a very dumb move by the dems. They could now get their hands on stuff the dems have been hiding for years. Just reporting what I'm hearing. I have no opinion on it at this time.

It doesn't seem likely. I'm sure they'll ask for it in discovery. But I have a hard time imagining what their relevance argument will be.

And even if they get information of that nature, there's very little doubt in my mind that most or all of it will be subject to an attorneys-eyes-only protective order, and the ground that defendants can't be trusted not to use the information in future elections if they get it. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Felon Joe Arpaio is running for Senate but may not survive the primary.

But he was pardoned! Now he’ll sue BJ for defamation.

Part of the process of being pardoned is admitting, in writing, that you committed the crime.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:But he was pardoned! Now he’ll sue BJ for defamation.

Part of the process of being pardoned is admitting, in writing, that you committed the crime.

Not according to the government.

DoJ wrote:A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. Pursuant to the Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency, which are available on this website, a person is not eligible to apply for a presidential pardon until a minimum of five years has elapsed since his release from any form of confinement imposed upon him as part of a sentence for his most recent criminal conviction, whether or not that is the conviction for which he is seeking the pardon.

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Part of the process of being pardoned is admitting, in writing, that you committed the crime.

Not according to the government.

DoJ wrote:A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. Pursuant to the Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency, which are available on this website, a person is not eligible to apply for a presidential pardon until a minimum of five years has elapsed since his release from any form of confinement imposed upon him as part of a sentence for his most recent criminal conviction, whether or not that is the conviction for which he is seeking the pardon.

DoJ NEVER wrote:Part of the process of being pardoned is admitting, in writing, that you committed the crime.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:Not according to the government.

DoJ wrote:A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. Pursuant to the Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency, which are available on this website, a person is not eligible to apply for a presidential pardon until a minimum of five years has elapsed since his release from any form of confinement imposed upon him as part of a sentence for his most recent criminal conviction, whether or not that is the conviction for which he is seeking the pardon.

Yes, I looked that up before responding.

DoJ NEVER wrote:Part of the process of being pardoned is admitting, in writing, that you committed the crime.