The Democratic National Committee sues the Russian government, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, charging that they carried out a wide-ranging conspiracy to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
QUESTIONS
- Does this get in the way of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe?
- Is this a real lawsuit or a publicity stunt for fundraising?
- Any effect on the midterms in November?
- Can this case survive a motion to dismiss?
answers to some of the questions in last night’s newshour interview:
Judy Woodruff:
We return to the lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee today against President Trump’s campaign, several top Trump advisers, WikiLeaks and the Russian government.
The DNC alleges a massive a plot to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, in part by hacking the Democratic Party’s computer network and by releasing stolen e-mails.
I spoke with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez a short time ago, and I started by asking why they filed the suit when the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller is still under way.
Tom Perez:
Well, there are three reasons, Judy.
First of all, we don’t know when Director Mueller will finish his investigation. And he should take all the time he needs to do a thorough job. We have to file within a statute of limitations. And so, if we sit and wait and wait, then we’re frankly committing legal malpractice.
A year ago, when I came to the DNC, it was clear to me that we had been hacked and we had been hacked by the Russians. It was less clear to me a year ago whether there was a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
It has become abundantly clear to me that there is that conspiracy. And because we have done our homework, we have filed this suit. And then, finally, Judy, I’m very concerned about the upcoming elections.
Civil lawsuits have an important purpose of deterrence. And I hear from so many people across this country, they have hacked before, they interfered in 2016, and they’re going to do it again. What are you going to do about it, Tom?
[…continues…]
remember perez was a prosecutor at one time and knows of where he speaks
more from above pbs link:
Judy Woodruff:
Well, I hear you, but to get back to the point about conspiracy, this is something that we know, again, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is looking into it. We don’t know yet, the public doesn’t know yet if that actually happened.
It may appear to some people that it did, but until the dots have been connected and there is some legal basis for that, are you at risk in a lawsuit of getting ahead of what are known facts?
Tom Perez:
Well, I’m very comfortable of where we are now.
I feel we have ample evidence to demonstrate in a civil proceeding what we’re doing. And we have a different burden of proof. It’s a lower burden of proof in a civil case. And so I have dealt with this from the criminal side as a DOJ prosecutor, and I understand and I have great respect for the work that Director Mueller is doing.
And we have great respect that they will continue to do the independent, thorough job that they need to do.
But we also have — we were hacked. And they tried to cause chaos in the DNC and in the Democratic Party, and we need to seek justice in a civil case, and we need to deter.
wiki about perez:
Thomas Edward Perez (born October 7, 1961) is an American Democratic Party politician and attorney who was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February 2017. Perez also served as the United States Secretary of Labor from 2013 to 2017. Prior to that he worked as a consumer advocate and civil rights attorney before serving as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Born in Buffalo, New York, Perez is a graduate of Brown University, Harvard Law School, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He worked as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before serving in the Department of Justice from 1989 to 1995, where he worked as a federal prosecutor, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He worked as a Special Counselor for Senator Ted Kennedy until 1998 when he served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the final years of the Clinton administration.
[…continues…]
more about him from wiki:
Thomas Edward Perez was born and raised in Buffalo, New York, to parents Grace (née Altagracia Brache Bernard) and Rafael Antonio de Jesús Pérez Lara, who were both first-generation Dominican immigrants.
His father, who earned U.S. citizenship after enlisting in the U.S. Army after World War II, worked as a doctor in Atlanta, Georgia, before moving to Buffalo, where he worked as a physician at a Veterans Affairs hospital.
His mother, Grace, came to the United States in 1930 after her father, Rafael Brache, was appointed as the Dominican Republic’s Ambassador to the United States. Brache was initially an ally of Rafael Trujillo, but after a falling out, he was declared an enemy of the state, forcing him and his family to remain in the United States.
Perez is the youngest of five brothers and sisters, all of whom but Perez followed their father in becoming physicians. His father died of a heart attack when Perez was 12 years old. Perez graduated from Canisius High School, an all boys Jesuit school in Buffalo, in 1979.
Perez received his Bachelor of Arts in international relations and political science from Brown University in 1983. He joined the Sigma Chi Fraternity there. He covered the cost of attending Brown with scholarships and Pell Grants and by working as a trash collector and in a warehouse. He worked in Brown’s dining hall and for the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.
In 1987, Perez received a Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School and a Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In 1986, while a student at Harvard, Perez worked as a law clerk for Attorney General Edwin Meese
and for those wonks who get off on the boring nitty gritty, here’s an excerpt from “Overview of Civil RICO” by the ‘Lectric Law Library:
Most civil RICO claims are filed under 1962(c), which makes it unlawful to “conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct” of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The four primary elements of this subsection, as set out by the Supreme Court, are “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” fn1280
The interpretation of the first three of these requirements (the fourth is relatively uncontroversial) is shrouded in considerable uncertainty, only some of which has been resolved by the Court. The judge should therefore give early attention to determining the definitions applied in the circuit.
[…see entire overview to get a better understanding of the hoops to jump thru and what’s to be expected…]
maher meets avenatti
Used to like the boring nitty gritty dirt band…..
Rachel (starting 3 minutes in) talks about the dnc civil RICO lawsuits, both now and the one against Nixon campaign (the latter which they won btw) … vintage shots of david Brinkley and wapo pix included.
Pat, thank you so much for your continuing diligence in providing the background information that humanizes and brings forward the heart of matters affecting poor souls such as us; you are a treasure.
Perez’ bio is a must read.
Also the suit includes much more than violations of statute–it charges the miscreants of violations of the Common Law that our forefathers brought with them to this country and has been part of each of our lives. Go get the bastards!!@#*!
We do it so you do not have to – when you take something out of the freezer and you cannot remember when you bought it, check the expiration date before you eat it. Something that expired in August 2011 is probably going to be more than an odd taste in April 2018.
flatus, thank you for the kind words.
even trail mixers who don’t like Rachel may find her history lesson on the ’72 dnc case intriguing for the little known elements presented…. fun fact like the judge who now will hear the new case worked a brief time for the Watergate special prosecutor.
like the saying “La historia se muerde la cola”
I love Rachel simply because you always learn something. Even at her most tendentious while over explaining, she has the good grace to laugh at herself.
Just think of her as the nation’s schoolmarm and click off whenever your eyes glaze over.
I time shift her until the next morning
History is no longer just repeating or rhyming. It is singing in four part harmony.
Sure, why not sue? It’s the American way. The Dems will need money to protect themselves so why not get it from the people threatening you?
I think it is a good case and it could go forward. People (you know who you are) are always saying the Dems are spineless…
Watching Barbara Bush funeral and just lost it. She picked the hymn I chose for my mother’s funeral. Nothing like having a 57 year old memory jump up and bite you.
We used “In The Garden, “ as well.
This is a lovely service & I’m glad there’s no giant, orange head in Houston.
The rumours are that SFB was not invited as Barbara did not like the orange creature. Someone took a picture of Obama and Melania sitting apparently talking to each other and she has a smile. Something not seen when around the large orange blob.
By the way I meant to add above that the last question, on whether a motion to dismiss would succeed, was home work for our house counsel Pogo.
at some point, each of those 1st ladies there must have thought “will they say loving things like that about me at my funeral?”
Jamie & BiD, agree the chosen music was choice. my favorite was the “joyful joyful ” ending. am sure she delighted in instructing its place in the ceremony. unexpected use of that music seems to lift spirits aloft more than usual as here another time another place unexpectedly, but joyfully beautiful in its surprise.
Flashmob Flash Mob – Ode an die Freude ( Ode to Joy ) Beethoven Symphony No.9 classical music
14,529,031 views
Perhaps DNC should hire Avenatti for this case …
View from the Left: Avenatti’s forecast for Trump gets even stormier—he won’t serve out his term https://t.co/wAtG5KjX7P
The Twitterverse is having a great deal of snarky fun over this photograph. Lots of commentary that all adds up to:
“When Melania is seated next to a good and decent man, her smile gets all the way to her eyes.”
*
Trumpsky tweets that he doesn’t think Cohen will flip for Mueller.
That means Trumpsky knows Cohen has something on him that is flip-worthy.
With enough pressure, Trumpsky will incriminate himself on Twitter in a way that will be clear & beyond any doubt as to meaning.
We do it so you do not have to. When you buy a few dozen oysters and clams, do not wait a week to empty the cooler, you might find you missed taking all the clams out. All you need is to leave one clam behind to be more careful the next time.
Maybe, Barack can flip Melania!
It would be a great time for her to file for divorce, with Trump’s attention focused on other, more urgent legal fronts. She could get half of that oh-so valuable Trump “brand”!
…rather a damning indictment on our political culture that we beatify the deceased wife of a very bad President, simply because she looked matronly.
Almost 3 decades of war in the Middle East, now, thanks to the Bushes.
Poobah, your last question is the one that is the most important. Motions to Dismiss do have a high bar, much higher than motions for summary judgment, both of which dispose of the case but with far different effects. Motion to Dismiss – gone quickly and no discovery; motion for summary judgment – case goes on for months and discovery goes forward prior to the motion. Discovery to the SFB camp is like sunshine to a vampire. Let’s hope the case survives the motion to dismiss.
Ahah! Just saw that I had homework. Sorta anticipated that, but the link to the lawsuit doesn’t work on my phone.
Found a working link. With 12 counts and about as many federal statutes and state laws alleged it’s hard to see a court finding that none of the counts state a cause of action if the facts alleged are assumed as true – the standard for surviving a motion to dismiss. I think it survives.
“Just saw that I had homework. …. but the link to the lawsuit doesn’t work on my phone.”
pogo, that’s like saying the dog ate it or I over slept or my dear uncle joe just died
here I thought you were lost in the law library stacks all this time coming up with a beyond the bandwidth grade A+ answer straight out of a treatise on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..
from the Oregonian: In Portland talk, James Comey calls Donald Trump ‘not morally fit,’ insists Robert Mueller ‘will find the facts’
“Describe Robert Mueller in one word.”
James Comey dropped his head to consider the question from the audience, then quickly looked up and raised the microphone.
“Atticus,” he said.
The packed house at Portland’s Revolution Hall on Saturday gasped at the former FBI director’s comparison of the special counsel to Atticus Finch, the morally upright father and lawyer in Harper Lee’s classic novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” — and then burst into applause.
[…continues…]
Patd, the law library stacks I hang out in are on my computer. No I’ve been working on the honey do list today. Been kinda fun actually.
pogo, a honey do list is a must do above all else….
Maybe he meant the Atticus the Greek.