Democratic Party lawsuit says Russia, Trump campaign, WikiLeaks conspired to hack 2016 presidential campaign

Some might claim that you should have spelled that “yoking”, but given the image of egg on one’s face is one consequence of consorting with bigots I’ll argue that it’s allowable.


I’m surprised the RNC isn’t listed, though they could be added later if evidence shows up during discovery of their involvement.

Remember the audio recording of Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy discussing how Trump was paid by the Russians after their meeting with the Ukrainian PM and Ryan laughed awkwardly and shut down the topic? They were discussing other people (unnamed) who were in the Russians’ pockets. IIRC, McCarthy said, “You know who I think is paid by Putin: Rohrabacher and Trump.”

What isn’t being investigated, to my knowledge, is who in the Republican Party knew about Trump’s relationship with the Russians and how deep it goes. THAT would make sense as a target for the DNC. With Republicans retiring and not seeking re-election left and right, even in pretty solidly R districts, maybe they are getting out before the inevitable happens and the trail leads back to their doorstep.


It’s a test of my mettle, which I will admit here but not to them. Have to deal with their constant insults, dodging, lying, obfuscation, non sequitur, mischaracterization, strawmanning, etc. They are exceedingly illogical shadow creatures.

I HAVE considered self-immolation as a means of personal cleansing. Not quite there yet.


Ah, there’s that old Soviet style whataboutism. I knew one of you Pravda readers would pop in eventually.

Here’s the thing, the wrong actions of the U.S. in rigging international elections in no way excuses the wrong actions of Russia in rigging ours.

As for the DNC rigging elections, if you are right, then all I can say is it must have been a half assed effort. But still, no matter what the DNC did or didn’t do, we don’t excuse criminals simply because other people are criminal too.


More to the point: this lawsuit isn’t about calling out Russia for their nefarious actions. This is about calling out Americans for conspiring with hostile foreign agents to undermine their own country’s most basic democratic institutions.


Well, he might mean the Green Party or whatever the current splinter-leftist third party darling is right now. Voting for which, in the American two-party system, is a handy way of throwing away your vote and helping the Republicans. Which, considering all that old ignite-the-infighting bullshit his post was larded with, is most likely his goal.


I’d be willing to bet it’s one more leg in the complex project to keep the Trump shit in the courts and under investigation in ways that aren’t subject to Trump’s authority.

He can’t go firing judges and lawyers in a civil law suit to quash it. And it still makes the campaign and Trump organization subject to supeona, discovery etc. There’s already been a number of less direct law suits revolving around the issue. You got the Cohen investigation in a separate section of the DOJ. Multiple states’ Attornies General involved with Mueller.

I read this as more backup. One more tier protecting the overall investigation from baby’s first watergate.

The lawsuit specifically alleges financial loses as the outcome. And seeks monetary damages. That’s a big thing with establishing standing to sue. As with the multiple lawsuits around the Trump Hotel in DC. The details I’ve seen very much look like a law suit constructed to answer the question “how do we sue over this, how do we keep this in court at long as possible”

A good lot of what you list requires a constitutional amendment, or would only truly stick with a constitutional amendment. Which requires more than clear majorities in the federal legislature. You need that whole 2/3rds thing. And ratification in a majority of states. That’s not likely any time soon.


Agreed, and I know. But that shit needs to be put out there. Needs to be on the table, not just talk. Who cares if they pass a law that gets challenged? Move forward anyways. Let the republicans be the ones openly fighting against voting rights. Let the republicans be the ones openly fighting against Medicare, Social Security and voting day as a national holiday. Put them on the defensive.


That the Democrat party wishes to misdirect the public from their own incompetence in running a hugely unpopular system oligarch and thereby losing the election, and from their own malfeasance in rigging the primary process to subvert democracy by working against Bernie Sanders, is not a surprise. Their “blame Russia” strategy was hatched almost immediately after the election. Of course, Wikileaks, a true journalistic organization with a perfect record of publishing true information in the public interest, has been a thorn in the side of both Democrat and Republican hides for years. When they published the “Collateral Murder” video and the Iraq War Logs, the Left loved them. When they published information perceived as hostile to Democrat interests, the Right suddenly loves them and the Left decides they’re a Kremlin puppet. #FakeNews is bipartisan, especially when it targets the number one transparency organization in the world.

1 Like

It’s “Democratic party”, and your use of “Democrat party” is kind of a tell. Really, everything about your post screams “Either a pro-Russian troll, or just someone who gets all of their information from bad sources”. Including your “bothsame!” claims and fulsome praise of WIkiLeaks as “a true journalistic organization”.

Also, despite what butthurt people keep saying, the primary wasn’t rigged against Bernie Sanders any more than any party primary would be an uphill struggle for an outsider going against a well-regarded longtime party insider.



As much as I am a fan of Simpsons, the history of third-party candidates for presidency is one of defeats and/or being a spoiler. The all-time best performing third-party candidate was, I think, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, where he actually came second, beating the Republican candidate and incumbent president Taft. Woodrow Wilson won the actual presidency, of course.

In local elections, third-party vote may be meaningful. In the presidential election, it really is throwing your vote away.

1 Like
  1. When you say my use of the word “Democrat” party is a “tell,” you’re really saying it is your excuse to stop considering what I have to say because of your own bias. The word “democratic” is an adjective I refuse to debase by using it to name one of the two “establishment” parties. The “Democratic” party is as anti-democratic as the Republican party. I think you have to be willfully blind support either.
  2. By smearing anyone who disagrees with your belief system as a “pro-Russian troll” or “just someone who gets all their information from bad sources,” you ensure that you will never be able to honestly examine your own construct fields. This kind of tribal closed-mindedness is endemic to both parties and both “sides.”
  3. Do you believe Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky and every other high-profile Wikileaks supporter across the political spectrum are Russian trolls, too, or just that they all get their information from “bad sources?”

For readers who want to understand the unified propaganda war on Wikileaks, including the attempt by the West to assassinate Julian Assange without trial by denying him the medical attention he needs despite several UN rulings that he is being unlawfully detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, this is the deep-dive you’ve been looking for:


They are. Sometimes in quite explicit terms. It’s openly their platform. And they’re not on the defensive. Even as a good portion of the DNC and assorted progressives have been publicly attacking them for it. Because, surprise, many people agree with this shit. They’re not idiots, they haven’t been fooled. They legitimately believe this stuff is not just OK. But good.

I agree that the left in general not just the DNC could do a hell of allot better setting the conversation. There’s no reason that we should be using loaded political terms from the right to discuss so many issue. “Gun control”. "Entitlements.

It is just talk until there’s a practical path to make it happen. A lot of these things ended up in the DNC national platform for the last election. Even more of them have made it into state level platforms. There are many, many, many voting rights lawsuits and gerrymandering lawsuits. Many of the laws you’ve proposed have been introduced. Doomed laws. Most didn’t get out of committee. And it’s routinely dismissed as a political stunt.

The ideas are out there. People are pushing them. Giving angry speeches. Hell even good ole Chucky Schumer. Has been regularly mouthing off about them. And some small progress on those issues is being made despite a minority position across the board in government. Mostly through the courts.

1 Like

Except that the Democratic party’s leadership had a lot to do with electing Trump, by way of putting that ham-sized thumb on the scales in Clinton’s favor.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that while the 2016 GOP primary field consisted of: four current senators, three current governors, six former governors, one former senator, and Trump, the Democratic field consisted of one senator, two ex-governors, and Clinton.

1 Like

You’re not getting what I’m saying. They need to be the ones on the defensive, defending against the language being used by the agenda-setters. Right now, they set the agenda and define the terms and the language. How do you think they fooled everybody? By shaping the terms of the debate. It’ll be our turn soon, and we need to change the way this stuff is talked about.

The other thing is, they are not talking about Citizens United, voting day, electoral college, protecting Social Security and Medicare… which is my point… those things need to go on the agenda. They are not, right now. Right now it’s who the hell knows what. I could look it up, but I know without looking that those 4 things are not substantively on the agenda.

1 Like

I can disagree with you about what specific items should be on the agenda, but your premise is still completely correct.

The ultra-right frames the debate, and everyone else goes along with it, which guarantees an ongoing, continuous shift to the right no matter who wins.


For fucks sake, just be careful. It’s a jungle out there.

You might need a better group of acquaintances. This world has many proven ways to reduce your intelligence, but one of the easiest is to hang around with idiots. Or as I’ve come to call them these days, “Trump supporters.”

1 Like

It’s an indicator that one is either a movement conservative trying to bait liberals or someone who’s profoundly ignorant about American politics. It’s difficult to take such people seriously.

There’s this thing called a capital letter that’s used to denote a proper name. Combining it with scare quotes as you did in the subsequent sentence or calling them the “Democrats” in quotes would have got your point across without making you look like a fool.

This is true. A critical thinker allows for the existence of (to give a few examples that have shown up here) useful idiots, those who feel America can do nothing right, and those who support Putin because it benefits them or their employer financially. The Russian trollies from the I.R.A. are usually far more clumsy than you and use brand-new accounts.

Snowden is no longer a supporter of Wikileaks over how it handled the DNC leak. Ellsberg, as much as he identifies with the leakers, understood from his own experience that leaks are best released to the public through a responsible and reputable press.