kiaa: (Default)
[personal profile] kiaa posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
"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."

On one side, what's most damning here is that it's not just damaging information to Hillary that was used by Trump's campaign, but personal information that resulted in people attempting to steal their identities, and in one case, outing a man who was gay and in the closet. That not only crosses the line, but erases it entirely.

However, having said that, will the plaintiffs succeed? Republicans took information that was dumped by Wikileaks and ran with it. But, if I understand this correctly, the information the Republicans used was public domain when Wikileaks released it. So yeah, it's pretty sleazy, but I don't see the plaintiffs winning this case. The Trump campaign did not divulge this information. They only used it. Can Wikileaks be sued in an international court? If so, what are the plaintiff's chances there? And, if they can win there, can they collect? And, on the domestic front, is Trump liable for passing along information that was already dumped to the public by Wikileaks? It's not like these aren't important questions.

For the sake of discussion, let's don't assume a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia here. Let's just go with what we already know regarding Wikileaks and the lawsuit. Doesn't the whole case look more like a temper tantrum by the Dems? A case with no legs - yes or no?

(no subject)

Date: 13/7/17 18:40 (UTC)
oportet: (Default)
From: [personal profile] oportet
Unless the 9th hears this kind of civil case - I don't think they have much of a chance with this.

They probably know that though - their intention probably isn't to 'win' - but just keep the story going to see if it has a positive or negative impact on 2018 - then adjust accordingly.
Edited Date: 13/7/17 18:42 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 13/7/17 19:02 (UTC)
garote: (Default)
From: [personal profile] garote
Pretty much. As worded, their lawsuit asserts a connection between Russia and the GOP, and depends on it. They'd be on firmer ground trying to sue wikileaks -- except that would be like trying to sue The Pirate Bay for copyright infringement.

If they could point to specific instances of Trump campaign people exploiting that information - in official statements or campaign ads perhaps - they'd have a case, Russian involvement or no. But it's safe to assume they can't, or surely they would have done so in the filing.

(no subject)

Date: 14/7/17 14:22 (UTC)
halialkers: An image of Joe Stalin in sunglasses with the phrase "Broseph Stalin" on it (Kaartshaahin Heshatani)
From: [personal profile] halialkers
There's no real good answer I've ever heard as to the end-game of the whole idea that this Administration colluded with the Russians. They have no reason whatsoever to pretend to fear anything the non-US NATO and EU members have except the nuclear arsenals of France and the UK. The inability of those states to decide the Libyan War and France's dual clusterfucks in Syria and Mali underscore that much. They also have no reason to fear the USA, and this Administration and this iteration of the GOP are even less inclined to risk a general nuclear exchange over Syria and the Donbas than Obama was.

And while the Russian ruler is freer to ignore sanctions than his country probably wishes he was, insofar as the voice of the common Russian has ever mattered to the rulers of the place, he doesn't care about sanctions and is ruthless enough to get away with a means of end-running them nobody else who'dve tried it could or would have.

So in that sense the Russians win no matter what they do and the USA gets a further lesson in the reality of relative and absolute decline.

(no subject)

Date: 14/7/17 15:47 (UTC)
policraticus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] policraticus
There is no case here. If you can find the actual person(s) who hacked the information, then you can certainly prosecute them, but it is well established law that once information is out there, it's out there.

What is the lesson here? Don't write anything down that you wouldn't be happy to read on the front page of the NY Times or hear being quoted by Wolf Blitzer. I think I told the story of how appalled my friend was at the utter incompetence of the Democrats to commit to email the kind of things Podesta and Co. were saying. She called it corporate malpractice, something that any lawyer like herself would have blown a gasket over.

Can Wikileaks be sued? Do you really want them to be? Unless you can show that Wikileaks actually suborned the theft of the documents, then they aren't all that different than the NY Times or the Washington Post. Do you want them to be sued? I guess that depends on whose secrets they are revealing. What you need is a clear link between Wikileaks, the hackers, the FSB, and ideally the GOP or the Trump campaign. Good luck filling in those blanks.

This is just political law-fare. It rallies the base of the Democratic party, gets them all in a fother, and hopefully muddies the waters and obstructs or distracts from any real discussion of public policy.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.
A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


Divisive Rhetoric


"Favoring multiculturalism is something Westerners give a lot of lovely lip service to until they have to actually do it."

September 2017

     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24