Election 2016

Democrats Sue Trump Campaign, Russian Government, and WikiLeaks

The suit claims a RICO conspiracy and demands millions.

|

Trump nomination
KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom

The Democratic National Committee is filing a massive lawsuit against the Russian government, President Donald Trump's campaign, and WikiLeaks, alleging a conspiracy to disrupt the presidential election in Trump's favor.

Trump himself is not being sued, though his campaign, his son Don Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his associates Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and George Papadopoulos are, along with many others. The complaint was filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And what a doozy of a lawsuit it is. It claims violations of everything from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to the Wiretap Act to the Stored Communications Act, plus two racketeering violations, a.k.a. RICO claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the favorite law of conspiracy theorists.

To attempt to summarize the 66-page lawsuit is to attempt to summarize two years of accusations about the relationship between the Russian government and people surrounding Trump. The lawsuit accuses Russia of infiltrating the DNC's cybersecurity, stealing data and communications, and then offering them to help Trump's campaign, sometimes with WikilLeaks as a go-between.

The DNC claims that this conspiracy "undermined and distorted the DNC's ability to communicate the party's values and vision to the American electorate; sowed discord within the Democratic Party at a time when party unity was essential to electoral success; and seriously compromised the DNC's internal and external communications." This seems like the appropriate spot to remind folks that some of the leaked emails showed the DNC treating presidential candidate Bernie Sanders like gum stuck on the bottom of their collective shoes. It "sowed discord" in the sense that it showed Democrats that their party's leadership had already taken sides and lined up behind Hillary Clinton.

The organization claims that it saw a drop in donations and that it paid more than $1 million to repair the cybersecurity damage. The DNC is seeking millions of dollars from the defendants, plus acknowledgment of the conspiracy.

There's a bit of a tightrope to walk when it comes to judging the merits of the case. The DNC absolutely should use the courts to seek redress from whoever infiltrated their systems and stole their data. It is absolutely a violation of their privacy and property, just as it would be if people were to break into your home and take your stuff. Step back from the political partisanship and the roiled-up outrage, and you'll see that the DNC does at least have a legitimate case against the individuals who hacked the party and then distributed the data they found.

But then, of course, politics gets involved and the rest of this goes bonkers. After all this time, the DNC still appear unwilling to contend with the reality that the party pushed forward an unappealing candidate with a privileged, condescending attitude and an unearned sense that she was entitled to the presidency. It was Clinton who drove people away from the polls, not a vast plot hatched in Moscow. Heck, millions of people who did cast votes that November ignored the presidential race entirely.

I won't dismiss the idea that people in the Trump campaign may have been more than happy to get sketchy and potentially illegal help from the Russians. But it really does the DNC no good to act as though they played no role in their own failure.

Besides, you know who else really wanted to see Donald Trump become the Republican candidate? Clinton's own campaign.

Read the DNC lawsuit here.

NEXT: Cop Charged With Using Illegal Traffic Stops to Pick Up Women

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A conspiracy of the Trump campaign that began before the Trump campaign ever existed.

    Ambitious.

    1. Look, do you want to bash the fash, or do you want to be temporally consistent?

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.jobs63.com

      2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.jobs63.com

    2. I’m waiting for the investigation to reveal that the DNC wasn’t really hacked. The leakers just legitimately logged on using the passwords they found on Clinton’s unsecured server.

      1. “Your username and password are both ‘password’?”
        “It just seemed easier.”

        1. +1 Bigetti

          1. lib’s didn’t just take their ball and go home….

            They took their ball, went home, moved up to a cabin in the woods, wrote a Manifesto, and started mailing pipe bombs.

            1. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week… >> http://www.jobs63.com

      2. Discovery is going to be a bitch on that count. The DNC servers have still not been looked at by ANYONE but their own contractors.

        1. And have been wiped and run through a cement kiln since.

          1. Wiped? Like, with a cloth?

            1. Yeah, to get rid of the digital fingerprints!

        2. Right. Trump’s campaign will demand discovery including getting copies of the hard drives, and the emails between the DNC and within CrowSpite itself (given what state that server is in now). All they’ll be able to prove is the data was downloaded to a thumb drive (CrowSpite didn’t tell us this, instead we learned it from outsiders based on the data Wikileaks leaked). And another issue is assessing the “damages” considering HIllary wanted all her emails released for transparency. Or the fact that if it weren’t for DNC/Clinton shenanigans there would have been no harm.

          This is a reflection of Hillary feeling entitled to win, and rejecting the loss any way she can (she still controls the DNC as nothing has changed other than they made Brazille the fall girl). And it amounts to a lawsuit against their political opponents because they won.

          The Democrats have just accused Trump, of trying to win a campaign: which is exactly what Clinton was doing. But Clinton is the one engaging in unethical, and criminal, behavior. More and more keeps coming out about their conspiracy to beat, and then impeach Trump. And it looks very bad.

          1. Trump called full of shit that Comey memos prove no collusion or obstruction.

            ” The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
            Donald J. Trump, Sioux City Iowa, 1/1/2016

            Trumpbots be PROUD that Trump said they have neither conscience nor morals!

            Over a year with NO evidence on collusion … STOP THE WITCH HUNT!
            Nearly three years with no evidence on Hillary … EXTEND THE WITCH HUNT!

            Left – Right = Zero

      3. Or the passwords they got from that family of ‘IT experts’ that was memory-holed, you know, the one that was working with half the Dems in Congress.

        1. Hey, they’re South Asian, assuming they’re good with computers is a mistake anyone could make.

          1. They’re Pakistani. Except I think Imran’s wife is Ukrainian born.

      4. LarryA, the DNC wasn’t hacked. Their own insider, Seth Rich, gave their emails to WikiLeaks. And we know how he was repaid.

      5. Isn’t it already known that there was no ‘hack,’ that it was legitimate passwords used, and those were obtained via phishing and/or social engineering?

        1. Hacking sounds so much cooler than “calling up John Podesta and asking him for his password when he’s sleepy,” though.

          1. No need to ask – it’s always “creepyartwork.”

          2. It literally was podesta if i remember correctly. The dreaded “you’re apple I tunes password requires changing” email.

          3. Podesta was probably distracted at the time. Most likely mesmerized by the rump of a prebuscent boy. Kind of like Tony.

            1. Your mom said the same thing, the last time we fucked.

        2. I’ve heard that before, and I have little trouble believing it, but does anyone have any reliable links to substantiate that? I don’t have much tolerance for those who mindlessly repeat false claims, so I like to avoid the practice myself. 😉

          1. I did a Bing search:
            how the DNC passwords were obtained
            And got 8.6m results and most of the first were alluding to phishing, weak passwords, emailing passwords, etc. from a variety of sources.
            I’m Mr. Sevo Nobody, and my stuff is ‘way better protected than what that looks like.

            1. It can be protected with a thimble.

  2. The DNC claims that this conspiracy “undermined and distorted the DNC’s ability to communicate the party’s values and vision to the American electorate

    …by releasing internal communications that reveal how incredibly fucked up and corrupt the internal workings of the DNC are.”

    1. To be sure, making it known that they were crushing all dissent can really hurt unity.

    2. ^THIS.
      There still seems to be no acknowledgement that the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have done the things that were revealed. It’s still “If voters didn’t know how corrupt and privileged we are, we would have won.”

      1. If one achieves power, then all action to get that power is justified.

    3. Well they are constantly telling us how great Europe is.

    4. STEP ONE: Sue everyone
      STEP TWO: Send out mass fundraising flyers #Resistance in action!
      STEP THREE: Profit!!!!!!

  3. “I won’t dismiss the idea that people in the Trump campaign may have been more than happy to get sketchy and potentially illegal help from the Russians.”

    Do you have proof of any of this Shack or just the same innuendo of a conspiracy theory that has been mainstreamed by warmongers and Democratic partisans?

    At what point are you guys going to treat this like any other conspiracy theory? If believing in pizzagate got you cocktail party invites would you pretend like that’s real too?

    1. Hell, the crazy Benghazi and Fast and Furious conspiracy theories had more evidence than Russia fever dreams, but again, no one was getting rewarded with cocktail parties for believing in that nonsense.

      1. Errr… Fast and Furious didn’t really happen? Benghazi didn’t occur because the CIA was running guns into Syria? What part is the conspiracy nonsense?

    2. I won’t dismiss the idea that people in the Trump campaign may have been more than happy to get sketchy and potentially illegal help from the Russians.

      Hell, i believe that. I also believe the Clinton campaign would have been (and most likely was) just as happy to receive same, and that the only real result for either side was the creation of this disruptive Russian interference narrative and the associated doubt cast on American political institutions. Which was the whole point, from a Russian perspective.

      1. Do I think that Trump would have colluded with Russia to win the election if given the opportunity? Sure. But, in reality, Trump and his campaign were not competent enough to do such a thing.

        At this juncture furthering this conspiracy theory is just creating a more hawkish and dangerous foreign policy discussion in this country and has convinced the president that he will be applauded by the right thinking people in this country for having a bellicose foreign policy if trolls the Russians. It is irresponsible to push Russia fever dreams at this point.

        1. It’s just weird to me that people think it’s a new and horrifying thing for countries to try to mess around with each other’s elections. Of course Russia tried to sow chaos in the U.S. election! That’s what geopolitical rivals do! The U.S. would do the same, if Russia had an actual election rather than a giant Putin rubberstamp.

          1. “”The U.S. would do the same, if Russia had an actual election rather than a giant Putin rubberstamp.””

            Both Russia and the US was interfering with the Ukraine elections. Depending on how you define interfering.

            1. Not just geopolitical rivals do this, but even allies. And it’s nothing new!

              I was reading about how the British government conspired to help get Woodrow Wilson elected because they thought he’d bring the US into World War 1 (which they were correct about).

              Alas, another reason to detest the UK government.

              1. Russia -as the USSR- was “interfering” with our elections decades ago. It’s hardly a new habit. Remember all the international Front organizations?

                1. It is rarely mentioned, but Nixon was right and the Soviets were helping the Democrats and the anti-war movement. However, that doesn’t excuse Watergate.

              2. Don’t recall reading about that. I do recall that Wilson ran on an anti-war platform. In fact when he ran for re-election in 1916 one of the more popular slogans was “He kept our boys out of war!”

                It wasn’t until after his re-election, and the German resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare that we declared war. Ludendorff thought that he could win the war for Germany by eliminating Russia, then beating the Allies on the Western Front. He was confident that the German army could win before enough American troops showed up to make a difference, by resuming unrestricted U-boat attacks.

          2. I don’t really care about interference or what Trump or his half retarded son or fully retarded staffers did. I’m more concerned with the bellicose climate that all this innuendo is creating.

            We dropped bombs on Syria and leftists like Chris Hayes are mocking other progressives who were opposed to the bombings (pretty much just Glenn Greenwald and Max Bluementhal) because they were aligning themselves with Tucker Carlson and Russia. Meanwhile, the NYT and WaPo say that we didn’t go far enough in our bombings and David Frum thinks this proves that Trump is in Putin’s puppet.

            I don’t know where people think these Russia fever dream nonsense ends, but it’s pretty clear that it ends with the US more embroiled in the Syria conflict at the very least.

            1. “I don’t know where people think these Russia fever dream nonsense ends”

              WWIII

            2. “”I’m more concerned with the bellicose climate that all this innuendo is creating.””

              I can agree with that. Especially when intel believe the purpose of all this was to de-stable the US by sowing discord. It means the Russian plan is working.

              1. He’s very concerned about all the concern.

                I’m concerned that all the concern is misplaced.

                Most of what other governments do being not our concern.

            3. “I’m more concerned with the bellicose climate that all this innuendo is creating.”

              HILLARY EMAILS DEVIL APOCALYPSE.

              You, 2016

        2. “Do I think that Trump would have colluded with Russia to win the election if given the opportunity?”

          I’m still waiting for someone to define “colluding”.

          1. Same here.

            It’s liberals, so they think it means whatever they want it to mean.

            1. Bingo! We have a WINNER!

            2. For conservatives, it’s whatever their half-educated parents taught them from a televangelical homeschooling outline.

              Are the right-wingers scoffing at this litigation aware that when the Democratic Party filed similar claims against the Republican Party earlier, the Republicans settled and paid?

              Or, as usual, are they ignorant as well as backward and bigoted?

          2. “Doing things for somebody else’s benefit that they used to do for our’s.”

        3. “…Trump and his campaign were not competent enough to do such a thing.”
          On the other side of the equation, how, exactly, was Russia supposed to be able to effect the 50 State elections that picked the president?

      2. It wasn’t so much that Hillary received help from the Russians, it’s that Hillary gave help to the Russians.

        1. The 1980’s called…

        2. And Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. grrrrr

    3. Do you have proof of any of this

      There’s definitive evidences that people’s curiosity was stoked. And that’s all Shack is saying. He is not claiming that there was real follow-through or even real consideration.

      1. There is evidence that Papadopoulos, a low level staffer, wanted to get in contact with Russians for discussions. And there is evidence that Don Jr. met with a Russian who claimed to have damaging evidence about Hillary, which he provided information about.

        Papadopopulos never met any Russian who was willing to meet with him and no one on the campaign seems to have paid him any mind. And Don Jr. ended his meeting with Russian when it was clear that there was no damaging evidence about Hillary. That is what is known. Everything else is irresponsible nonsense that is fostering an aggressive and dangerous foreign policy stance.

        1. when it was clear that there was no damaging evidence about Hillary.

          Most of the damaging evidence about Hillary came from her own campaign.

        2. Everything else is irresponsible nonsense that is fostering an aggressive and dangerous foreign policy stance.

          Agreed. But I’ll still argue that Shack’s statement was nuanced and specific. irresponsible nonsense, as much as it feels right, is not the most reasonable approach to writing a nuanced piece.

          Drink!

          1. It’s nuanced the same way pig shit has a scent.

      2. “There’s definitive evidences that people’s curiosity was stoked.”

        Third funniest thing I’ve read all day.

        Man, I love this place.

    4. “Step back from the political partisanship and the roiled-up outrage, and you’ll see that the DNC does at least have a legitimate case against the individuals who hacked the party and then distributed the data they found.”

      I don’t dispute that for a second. Unfortunately for them, the DNC does not appear to have a legitimate case against the targets of this lawsuit to prove that they are those individuals who hacked the party.

      1. They have a legitimate case of hilarity.

      2. How can they prove the hack? My understanding is the evidence has been destroyed.

      3. Legitimate case of what?

      4. Aren’t they supposed to be providing actual facts to specify & support their claims? It sounds like they’re following the “spaghetti” strategy: throw a bunch of wet spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. Worse yet, they’re citing claims of fact as opposed to actual, I dunno, facts.

        Or is it just me?

  4. This is happening. The Democrats have left the stratosphere.

    1. The thin air up there does explain a few things.

    2. I know. It’s great!

      #BlueWave
      #TrumpRussia

    3. If this thing doesn’t get laughed out post haste they also run the risk of taking a chunk of the judiciary with them.

  5. Uuuuuh, wow, yeah, OK. Good luck with that one, losers!

  6. I won’t dismiss the idea that people in the Trump campaign may have been more than happy to get sketchy and potentially illegal help from the Russians.

    Huh?

    1. Bill Kristol ‘libertarianism’

    2. I’m going to go a step further than Scott, and say I fully believe that the Trump campaign were more than happy to get help.

      1. Tell me that everyone means help other than the 13 Russian trolls with a limited grasp of english who belonged to a click farm that the NYT reported on two years prior and found that they were a mundane advertising and affiliate marketing group.

        1. I have no idea. I have no opinion on what help they did actually get, just that they probably appreciate help.

          I know nothing I’ve seen so far has been especially eye raising. Which is why, I think, when I say that people who disagree respond with “So you’re okay with a foreign nation interfering in our elections?” By keeping it vague they let me make up whatever horrifying thing “Interfering” means.

          1. “Keeping it Vague” was the name of my high school garage band.

          2. I know some very reasonable people who are convinced that the Russian meddling changed the outcome. I don’t know how one can draw that conclusion from the information that we have now. I also don’t think the Cambridge Analytica shit mattered either.

            Political campaigns are shady af. Lying, cheating, and tricking are essential strategies.

            1. Sometimes intelligent people are really, really good at talking themselves into believing ridiculous shit.

      2. Help in what? Trolling?

        Why on earth would Trump hire Russians to troll? There is zero motive for it. Start your own Media Matters/Share Blue through one of your PACs and wash your hands of it. Colluding with a foreign power to do something you could easily do yourself is idiotic. I don’t care what you think of Trump, you’re a fool if you think he is stupid.

        As far as the DNC hack, I also doubt the Trump campaign hacked the DNC. Did they use available information to damage their political rivals? Yes. When has that ever not happened?

        1. Everyone appreciates a little help now and then, TLBD. That’s just human.

  7. I propose we now refer to Democrats as the Stupid Evil Party.

    Anyone second that?

    1. So does that mean we refer to the Republicans as the Evil Stupid Party?

      1. I could go for the “standing in the back, looking stupid party”.

      2. How does that affect the concept of Left – Right = Zero? Is that covered by the associative property from algebra?

        1. (Evil + Stupid) – (Stupid + Evil) = 0

          It checks out.

          1. Evil*Stupid – Stupid2 + Evil2 – Stupid*Evil

            Stupid2 + Evil2.

            Lot of Evil and Stupid there.

        2. I told Hihn that Left = Right is a more clear form of his statement, but he told me that I was an idiot who would learn algebra some day and of course that’s what it means.

          Really, I think Hihn is often not as clear as he could be in his writing. Anyone else ever get that feeling?

          1. BULLY!

          2. (chortle)

            *manic rant with lots of caps and bold*

            *link to something I said that doesn’t apply to your comment*

            (snort)

            1. Classic!

              (giggle)

              1. Something strange happened with High the other day (can’t remember which thread). He made on-topic comments with a semblance of thought, no bold or all-caps words, no links, and no Left-Right=0 nonsense. Then he’d come back with his usual deranged shit. Does anyone know what’s happening? Are there two Hihns?

                1. *Hihn not High. Autocorrect!

                2. Drugs are a powerful thing.

                  1. Especially the antipsychotics available at certain nursing homes.

                    1. TBF to Hihn, haloperidol is like a shotgun blast to all of the synapses associated with executive functions.

                3. Its possible there are two. A few socks have imitated other posters.

          3. I’m starting to notice that as well.

          4. “Really, I think Hihn is often not as clear as he could be in his writing. Anyone else ever get that feeling?”

            No, I got the feeling that his writing(about as clear as mud) was as clear as he was capable of making it.

          5. As clear as he could be? Or as clear as one could be?

            I think he’s doing the best he can.

            1. “I don’t feel right, ain’t got enough haters . Somebody send me some, so I can aggravate them” ? Plies – “Watch Dis”

              “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” ? Seanbaby

          6. (Boldface AGAIN in defense of an unprovoked assault, i.e. aggression)

            I told Hihn that Left = Right is a more clear form of his statement, but he told me that I was an idiot who would learn algebra some day and of course that’s what it means.

            BestCarSales is still an idiot … and now also a liar

            It’s a libertarian slogan for over 40 years. THAT is why I use it. (sneer)

            It means they are equal in VALUE. Some day you MAY pass algebra.
            If you think they are equal in CONTENT, some day you MAY pass political science.

            DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

            THIS is equal content: Right-Wing Snowflakes = Left-Wing Snowflakes = Authoritarian

            Now the “revenge” bellowing. I can piss off a dozen or more conservatards, with only 90 seconds of typing!

    2. As long as we refer to the GOP as the Evil Stupid Party.

  8. I can’t think of a better use of the DNC’s money and time.

  9. It was Clinton who drove people away from the polls, not a vast plot hatched in Moscow.

    It’s really obvious. Even more liberal people are starting to recognize it.

    1. Yeah but a fact like that has to possess the mass of a neutron star and be traveling at the speed of light to penetrate the bubble surrounding the Democrat apparatchiks.

      1. I’m sorry, but those kind of analogies are just not going to be comprehensible to anyone but the sciency democrats. They are the party of science you know. 97% of democrats agree.

        1. Yes because being pro-organic, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-nuclear power is the definition of science. And I realize you were being sarcastic.

      2. I fucking love science!

    2. Liberals still don’t understand how little support Trump had. Lots and lots of folks didn’t vote for him, they voted against Clinton. Trump won because he was the second-worst candidate.

      1. It will be hilarious when the Dems run Hillary 2020.

      2. Yup, it’s just like 2000, GW Bush didn’t beat Al Gore. The result in 2000 was the victory of anyone but Gore over anyone but Bush.

        And 2016 was the victory of anyone but Hillary over anyone but Trump.

        1. The result in 2000 was the victory of anyone but Gore over anyone but Bush.

          ^ This. If nothing else, the Dems greatly underestimated how much people under 35 still remembered the PMRC and hated Gore.

          1. Did they hate Gore for rational reasons? Or did he just sigh too heavily and not seem like he’d be fun to have a beer with?

            1. 1) His opposition to freedom of speech
              2) His aristocratic lineage
              3) His (at the time) total lack of interest in the environmental movement
              4) His social conservativism
              5) His poor academic record
              6) His imperialistic approach to foreign policy
              7) The perceived betrayal of left wing economic policies by the Clinton Administration
              8) His general sense of entitlement as an American Aristocrat
              9) His history of being a general sleaze (as a lawyer)

              In other words, he was more like unto GWB than unlike, but with less charisma.

              You’ve heard of Ralph Nader, right? There was a reason he got so much support.

            2. 1) His opposition to freedom of speech
              2) His aristocratic lineage
              3) His (at the time) total lack of interest in the environmental movement
              4) His social conservativism
              5) His poor academic record
              6) His imperialistic approach to foreign policy
              7) The perceived betrayal of left wing economic policies by the Clinton Administration
              8) His general sense of entitlement as an American Aristocrat
              9) His history of being a general sleaze (as a lawyer)

              In other words, he was more like unto GWB than unlike, but with less charisma.

              You’ve heard of Ralph Nader, right? There was a reason he got so much support.

              1. Good thing we dodged that bullet. WTF?

                1. Good thing we dodged that bullet. WTF?

                  We didn’t dodge jack shit. The choice was between Gore and GWB, and we got one of them.

                  1. Yep, both 2000 and 2016 were like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded two shot derringer.

              2. uh, as Bill Clinton pointed out, his opposition to the right to arms was a huge factor, probably as big as these other 9 combined.

    3. Hillary Clinton has been one of the most widely and vehemently disliked women in America since 1992. For basically as long as i’ve been aware of politics, there have been basically two main reactions to her – people either vaguely distrust her, or they outright hate her.

      I live in a blue region in a rapidly purpling state, and it was still shocking (and rare) in 2016 to encounter people who were actually for her rather than just against Trump.

      1. I live in a blue region that’s turning so blue it’s going kind of black, and I don’t sense much love for Hillary here.

        1. blue it’s going kind of black,

          I’m sure the rest of the state would be okay if it necrotized off.

          1. That is hella racist, BUCS and Paul.

            1. Necro, please.

      2. She’s also been the most admired woman in America for most of that time. What are you gonna do being the most famous woman in the world. Obviously not be president–that belongs to any fake-baked car salesman with a shriveled dick before the most qualified woman.

        1. “She’s also been the most admired woman in America for most of that time”

          Yeah, if we’re only counting San Francisco as ‘America’

          1. What country do you actually live in? She was the most disliked first lady in American history. You must not have lived through the 90’s. Literally, any of the other Democratic candidates would have had a better shot at winning than her

            1. Gallup has named her the most admired woman at least 21 times. Get your head out of your stupid partisan ass and into some place with facts in it.

              1. Are you insane?

                http://news.gallup.com/poll/22…..w-low.aspx

                She had a 36% approval rating just after she lost the election. She has never been popular.

                1. She’s been both the most popular and the least popular. It’s kind of natural given her universal name recognition. Now don’t you think the real problem is the gnawing psychological damage done to you by your 5th grade math teacher, what’s her name?

                  1. Trust fund Tony, do try to live in the real world

                  2. She’s been both the most popular and the least popular.

                    I hate to admit it, but this is probably true. I don’t get it, but in certain quarters they’re just mad about her. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

                    1. I admit to being a fan. I completely get why people don’t like her though. (They’re sexist fucktards.)

                    2. All the most sexist people I know are fags.

                    3. “EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T LIKE HILLARY IS SEXIST, ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN WAAAAAHHHHH”

                    4. Yeah, that’s it Tony. She’s hated because she’s a woman.

                      Not because of her obvious hatred of “the little people”, her constant proximity to scandals, her smearing of her husband’s multiple sexual assault victims, her shady financial dealings, her blatant lying, and her overbearing sense of entitlement. It’s because she has a vagina.

                      Of all the dipshits who’ve ever posted here, you’re one.

                    5. Oh, so suddenly “proximity to scandal” is a bad thing?

                    6. Why am I not surprised you ignored the “constant” prefix, as well as the rest of what I wrote?

                      You’re an intellectually dishonest person. “Slimy” ought to be your middle name.

                    7. Why am I not surprised you ignored the “constant” prefix, as well as the rest of what I wrote?

                      You’re an intellectually dishonest person. “Slimy” ought to be your middle name.

                    8. What about Trump’s proximity to scandal isn’t “constant.”

                      Imagine if Hillary or Obama had changed their voice on phone calls in order to get themselves on the Forbes richest list in order to con people into loaning them money they wouldn’t otherwise merit. Just imagine how you’d react.

                    9. (They’re sexist fucktards.)

                      Lol

                    10. “”I completely get why people don’t like her though. (They’re sexist fucktards.)”‘

                      Then you don’t get it.

                      What I find funny in this is that you probably think she give a rats ass about you. She doesn’t. Since the friggin 70s the only thing on their minds have been building a political empire.

                    11. I don’t get it, but in certain quarters they’re just mad about her. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

                      I’ve noticed there’s a certain brand of professional woman who identifies with the “I have to try twice as hard and I still get nothing but hate” narrative. If you combine a personal stake in that narrative with willfully dismissing all evidence of HRC’s general corruption and evilness as just part of the hate, it makes sense. HRC has certainly been more than willing to encourage it.

                    12. Don’t you dare go on about Hillary’s corruption and evilness on this thread where everyone is elbowing each other for licking room beneath Trump’s nutsack. Jesus Christ.

                    13. Don’t you dare go on about Hillary’s corruption and evilness on this thread where everyone is elbowing each other for licking room beneath Trump’s nutsack.

                      I don’t understand the relationship between those two things, or what it has to do with me. If people defend Trump, I’m not allowed to point out that HRC is corrupt and evil? If I call Trump corrupt and evil, too, then do I get permission?

              2. Let’s keep things in perspective here. In 2017, 9% of people who responded to that Gallup poll considered her the most admired. That means 91% of people have a less than most admired opinion of her. That stretches all the way from somewhat admired to absolutely despised. Also, Michelle Obama finished at 7%. That’s well within the error for counting statistics.

              3. Is “admired” the same as liked though?

                  1. Reminds me of the old Eddy Izzard line about how if you kill one or two people, you are a horrible murderer, but if you kill one or two million people, we sort of admire that.

                    1. Do you have a flag?

                    2. One of my favorite comedic moments. Eddie Izzard is one of the great ones.

        2. Hillary has been the most hated woman in the world since the 80s. Her crusade against free speech and her healthcare idiocy cost the Dems the House in the 90s. She’s never been elected or qualified for any major or important position, and has always relied on nepotistic appointments. The fact that she lost an election that she herself rigged closes the door on all you whiny little “NUH-UH”-ing.

          Course, you know this, Tony. You’re just a stupid, lying, evil fucking creting who has no other argument than to hide behind contradictory manufactured polls put out by the same laughable source that told us she was going to win over 90% of the vote.

        3. She’s also been the most admired woman in America for most of that time.

          By whom?

        4. “What are you gonna do being the most famous woman in the world. Obviously not be president–that belongs to any fake-baked car salesman with a shriveled dick before the most qualified woman.”

          That’s a hell of a thing to say about Obama.

      3. The phrase “Rapidly Purpling State” appears multiple times in CX’s medical chart.

  10. YOU JUST KNEW THAT TRUMP WOULDN’T ACCEPT THE RESULTS GRACEFULLY IF THE ELECTION DIDN’T GO HIS WAY.

    1. Did even the Bush/Gore shit go on this long after the election?

      1. Did that ever end? Talk to your average progressive and they’ll tell you that Bush was “appointed” and not “elected”. Also, Ohio was stolen in 2004. This is a continuation of a disease of the mind that Democrats have suffered from since the turn of the 21st Century: they cannot lose an election gracefully.

        1. This is a continuation of a disease of the mind that Democrats have suffered from since the turn of the 21st Century: they cannot lose an election gracefully.

          Hell, even when they get BTFO, such the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms, they blame “gentrification,” rather than running putrid campaigns.

          Donna Brazille really gave the game away when she revealed that Obama had left the DNC virtually bankrupt by 2016 because he was funneling all his money to his OFA org instead of the party. Why the hell is no one blaming him for sucking his own party’s election strategy arm dry to the point that they couldn’t provide state and local campaigns with funding assistance and campaign support?

          1. Obama diverted money from the DNC to The Orthopedic Foundation for Animals? Well, I guess nobody’s all bad.

  11. The DNC is seeking millions of dollars from the defendants, plus acknowledgment of the conspiracy.

    Say it! Say it! Say Hillary was qualified! SAY IT! Just say it! Admit it!

    *runs out of room crying*

    1. “”plus acknowledgment of the conspiracy.”‘

      They are looking for anther entity to back their story since the actual investigation is not going their way.

      I wonder what they want for relief? Hillary to become president?

      I wonder how much of their claims will meet a dead end because the “unnamed intelligence sources” that lead to this belief can’t be made to give evidence.

    2. As someone here suggested not long ago, Trump should pre-emptively pardon Hillary, with the tag line America Forgives You.
      It’s not like she’ll ever go to trial, let alone jail. So tag her with the pardon and let her deal with that.
      The lulz would be epic.

      1. Damn that would be funny! Can someone refuse a pardon? That would be even funnier.

        1. Yes, to be pardoned you have to admit guilt. Hillary will never do that.

          1. How, exactly? I can believe that to apply for a pardon, you must admit guilt. But did Sheriff Joe ever admit guilt? I don’t think so, but he didn’t apply for the pardon, at least not officially; Trump just pardoned him and he accepted.

            Constitution says nothing about admitting guilt, only that the president

            shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States

            so I think Hillary would not have to admit guilt.

          2. Really?
            Nixon had to admit guilt before he could be pardoned by Ford?
            Citation needed.

          3. “to be pardoned you have to admit guilt”

            Nope, you don’t even have to be accused of a crime. The pardon power extends to all ‘offenses’ against the United States.

            If you were POTUS you could pardon Hillary for wearing one too many pantsuits.

      2. Uhh this actually would be kind of funny but super childish. Then again the DNC just sued Putin and Russia over something insane so the bar is set pretty low.

  12. YES!!! Democrats are justifiably angry about Russia hacking the election, and it’s about time they fought back! There is simply no way Hillary Clinton could lose to a reality TV jackass under a fair election. In fact, even with the whole thing rigged in Drumpf’s favor, Hillary still beat him by 3 million votes nationwide, and only “lost” due to the anachronistic technicality that is our Electoral College.

    After all this time, the DNC still appear unwilling to contend with the reality that the party pushed forward an unappealing candidate with a privileged, condescending attitude and an unearned sense that she was entitled to the presidency.

    That’s not how I was taught in college to use the word “privileged.” Hillary is a rich white cis-woman and Drumpf is a rich white (or more like ORANGE, LOL!!) cis-man. The rules of intersectionality are quite clear that Hillary is marginalized and Drumpf is privileged in this scenario.

    Moreover, Hillary absolutely earned the Presidency. First Lady, Senator from New York, and a highly successful term as Secretary of State? It all adds up to the most qualified candidate ever.

    #StillWithHer

    1. Is this RC Dean? Come on. If it’s you, RC, you should come back.

      1. Why do people think I’m an alternate account for someone else? Why does my position that libertarians should vote Democrat make me a “troll” or a “parody”?

        If anything, this news should convince the doubters I’m 100% serious. The Democrats are doing exactly what a responsible, patriotic party should be doing when a hostile foreign power cheated them out of the Presidency.

        1. The reason why people think you are a troll is because you sound like a bad experiment where scientists crossed all the bad ideas held by Nick Sarwark, Will Wilkinson, Bill Weld, and Bill Maher into one maddening person who claims to be a ‘libertarian’. We like to think that such a thing can’t exist.

          1. I only know who 2 of those 4 people are, so I cannot comment on how my views overlap with those of Nick Starquark or Will Wheaton.

            Regardless, I don’t see how my Reason posts are that unusual given that I agree with Reason’s official position on unrestricted abortion in all 3 trimesters (ENB), open borders and abolishing ICE (Shikha Dalmia), and transgender issues (Shackford). Except for my disagreement with Sullum and Doherty on guns, I’m exactly the type of young reader Reason seems to be trying to reach.

            1. Let’s just say that Reason is not a very good benchmark to measure yourself against

              1. You are both rightwing nutjobs who agree on everything. Why don’t you take yourselves to some rightwing nutjob website and leave this place for us libertarians?

                1. Christ, now Trust Fund Tony is pretending to be a libertarian. Screw it, at this juncture, Bill Kristol and Chris Hayes are totes libertarian-y too

                2. Tony, you get that the root of the word “libertarian” is “liberty”, right? Your views are anathema to such a concept.

                  1. *the same as for

                  2. And do you understand that there are more things in this world that can violate individual liberty than the United States federal government?

                    1. Certainly. What’s your point?

                    2. My point is that I as a liberal, or progressive if you prefer, am in favor of like a thousand times more individual liberty than you are.

                    3. That’s just not true, Trust Fund

                    4. Sure it is, if your standard for absolute freedom is a pampered baby in a crib who somehow has access to recreational drugs.

                    5. Interesting, then, that you’re taking an incredibly anti-speech position here. And that you’re anti-economic freedom.

                    6. Not sure what you’re referring to re: speech, and I don’t believe that “economics” has the capacity to enjoy freedom, unlike human beings.

                    7. Are you be willfully obtuse? You know exactly what is meant by economic freedom. Hint: it pertains to human beings.

                    8. It’s a euphemism for low taxes and lax regulations for corporations and the wealthy.

                    9. It also covers licensing laws and plenty of things that affect poor Americans. Try again.

                    10. Taxes and regulations don’t just hurt the wealthy and corporations. They directly harm the poor by raising the cost of living. Turns out, when you make things more expensive to produce you make them more expensive to consume as well.

                      Imagine someone floated the idea of a head tax. Say, $2000 a year per citizen. You’d be screaming from the rooftops how unfair that is to the poor, and you’d be right. Then you turn around and support policies that have an identical effect, such as corporate taxes and regulation, and continue to believe you’re fighting for the little guy. In reality, you are their worst enemy.

                      Tony, your conception of freedom is more like prison. Freedom from responsibility.

                    11. Citation needed on your sweeping macroeconomic claims.

                    12. A hundred bazillion times!!!

                3. Tony, you worthless fucking Maoist, go sleep in traffic.

        2. Because you’re too perfect. No one is that perfect. You’re a sock.

          1. I appreciate OBL’s dedication to staying in character. It may be time that we need a new term to differentiate this kind of performance art from the type of embarrassing garbage that Hihn, for example, does with his sockpuppets.

            1. OBL is a treasure, and his accuracy is proven by about 40% of Tony’s posts. There have been times I’ve had to double check to distinguish.
              Both are perfect characterizations of Progressivism, only Tony is oh-so-sincere.

        3. Come on now, we know you are just kidding us…

    2. That’s a cute little fantasy.

  13. Did Trump’s lawyer file this suit? You know suing somebody opens yourself up to discovery, and I’m sure the last thing the DNC wants is somebody from Trump’s side wanting to examine this evidence they have that the e-mail hack was Russian – are they really going to turn the server over to Trump for examination when they wouldn’t turn it over to the DoJ?

    1. They know. Discovery is the whole point. The idea is to keep this going even if the Mueller investigation goes away. Now they can dredge all of this up in public and keep the headlines going.

      Stormy is doing her part. What a gal.

  14. Welp, I gotta share this with my proggie friends. I expect their approval to be somewhere between zeal and absolution.

    1. It is getting nice outside. You don’t want to miss out on all the cookout invitations, after all.

  15. Sorry dems-your shitty candidate cost you the election-get over it and move on!

    1. But hey-at least they are being consistent with playing the victim.

      1. Trump has spent his entire presidency whining on twitter.

        1. Trump has been a democrat for most of his life

          1. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. My god the partisan bullshit is neck-high in this room. What shameless fucksticks you all are.

        2. Trump was twatting even before there was Twitter…

        3. Which is, let’s face it, the least bad use of a president’s time this millennium.

          1. I don’t know about that, Shirley. Obama would go out back and shoot hoops – at least then he’s getting exercise, and W would go out an paint a picture. Both of these are more productive than tweeting.

            1. I’m sticking with ‘least bad use’. i don’t want a productive president, nor a physically fit nor artsy president. Genuinely least bad use of his time would be simple rest-state metabolism, at most.

  16. 4/20 will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice, ‘We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!’

    1. The beastie boys?

      1. ‘We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We will go slow and low! That is the tempo!’

    2. One toke over the line, sweet Mary, one toke over the line.

  17. You just know Hillary won’t get the full four-year term after the court rules and she’s installed as president. They’ll only let her serve out the rest of this one and make her run again in 2020. They have it in for her.

    1. That’s why I didn’t allow the women in my life to vote for her.

  18. “”It “sowed discord” in the sense that it showed Democrats that their party’s leadership had already taken sides and lined up behind Hillary Clinton.””

    I would love to see the DNC emails end up in court. The dems would have to acknowledge the validity, or challenge it. A challenge would likely lead to show they are valid.

    We know her operatives are running the DNC. I guess this lawsuit was the best Hillary could come with.

  19. Can America sue the Democrats to make them shut the fuck up? I thought rejecting the Most Qualified Candidate ever put forward in the History of the Democratic Party would do the trick, but apparently it didn’t.

  20. Consultant: If your party can just refrain from being crazy, there is a very good chance that you could win the House and maybe maintain your seats in the Se….

    Democrats: LAWSUIT TIME!

    1. AND GRAB ALL THOSE GUNS WHILE YOU’RE AT IT!

  21. I don’t get why you have to reject the evidence of Russian interference (or at best not care) and be a libertarian. It’s your country too. Just because your Team won doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.

    1. Because there is literally no evidence. If you want to go start wars, because She didn’t win then go assemble a brigade of soy boys to go fight the Russian baddies in Syria. I don’t want even worse relations with the Russians and their allies over conspiracy theories and the fact that rich white liberals are still butt hurt because they lost the election.

      1. If there’s literally no evidence then what do you suppose Bob Mueller is doing with his time?

        See, you don’t have to say stupid bullshit like this. You’re not supposed to be an assboy for the Republican party. Of course I’ve been here long enough to know better.

        1. We know what Mueller is doing: trying to come up with obstruction of evidence to try to justify this investigation that has amounted to nothing related to Russia. And also passing along cases regarding campaign finance violations that again have nothing to do with Russia

          1. *obstruction of justice

          2. So he’s just on a vendetta fueled entirely by emotion. And so is the Trump appointee who appointed him?

            1. You do realize that your claim amounts to ‘if there’s an investigation, there must therefore be damning evidence’? Ergo no investigation could ever, according to you, result in anything other than guilty as a verdict.

              That’s…actually pretty consistent of you. You don’t believe in innocence on the Republican side, no matter the evidence.

              1. I’m not the one jumping to conclusions before the investigation is over. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if they found a bunch of obstruction of justice (since a lot of that happened on live TV), but no actual conspiracy, just monumental idiocy.

                All in all I’m glad we’ve finally dispensed with the silly idea that we should stuff government full of incompetent people and that will somehow make it work better. A small but useful silver lining.

                1. “”If there’s literally no evidence then what do you suppose Bob Mueller is doing with his time?””

                  “”I don’t get why you have to reject the evidence of Russian interference “”

                  “”I’m not the one jumping to conclusions before the investigation is over””

                  Claiming Mueller has evidence beyond what has been presented is jumping to conclusions before the investigation is over.

                2. I’m not the one jumping to conclusions before the investigation is over

                  Just when you think Tony can’t make a more unself-aware comment, he tops himself.

            2. I don’t think Mueller is on a vendetta, he is just being himself: A slimy scumbag who will do anything to get his mark.

              Rosey is just a coward who blows with the wind.

              1. And in all of this Donald fucking Trump is the innocent one?

                1. We know as a certain fact that the Donald Trump campaign conspired to elect Donald Trump to the presidency.

                  What more evidence do you need?

                  #TREASON!

                2. And in all of this Donald fucking Trump is the innocent one?

                  It is starting to look that way, yes.

                  1. I’d read more than the headline if I were you.

                    1. Are you referring to this line?

                      “Trump may not officially be a target, but Mueller hasn’t ruled out making him one at some point in the future, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the unfolding investigation.”

                      An anonymous source in one of the most openly anti-Trump outfits around says that he might someday still come under investigation is what you’re triumphantly hanging you’re hat on?

                      Christ, you’re an idiot.

            3. Mueller is fueled by an affection for lording over an office full of fellow cronies suckling on a particularly well-primed teet on the gub’mint udder. Comey has exposed just how small and predictable these Washington slugs really are.

        2. If there’s literally no evidence then what do you suppose Bob Mueller is doing with his time?

          Looking for an obstruction of justice charge.

        3. Expensing $100+ meals, rent/mortgage, car service, etc.

          They’ve spent 10s of millions of dollars – on what?

    2. Because no one has yet to make a credible argument that whatever Russian malfeasance occurred was either unique or extraordinary.

      Sure, it’s not welcome. But let’s at least prioritize it properly. The substantive evidence that exists does not remotely equate to the attention it’s received.

      1. And where do you pull that assessment from? When else has an adversarial world power interfered in the American presidential election?

        What if they had done it to help Hillary win? Still no big thing? Or would you be self-immolating in Bumfuckville town square over it?

        1. The Russians have been spying and jerking us around for 65 years. You can’t possibly believe is a new thing.

          And there’s no evidence, none whatsoever, that anything they did in 2015/2016 was remotely substantively impactful. If there was meat on the bone, maybe I’d have a reason to bark.

          1. But you’re going to remain dismissive even if Mueller shows concrete evidence aren’t you? Nothing matters to you but that an (R) is in the White House, and you’re trying to convince me of something else.

            1. …If Mueller has concrete evidence, it’s remained hidden in the dark where no one can see it so guessing as to what we would do if he suddenly presented this hypothetical evidence is a fools errand.

              1. Now this ubiquitous talking point I simply don’t get. The Mueller team is not leaking a bunch of shit to the press. Ergo there is nothing? Where did all of you people get this inexplicable nugget of illogic? Hannity, or straight from the Kremlin?

                1. If you want to base your life around faith, fine. But believing that Mueller has evidence, and Mueller actually having evidence, are two radically different things.

                  This Administration leaks so bad, calls that the President makes to foreign leaders get published to the press within days. That’s pretty fucking bad leaking. I don’t really care. Leak all you want. I love the transparency. But I’m not going to then start living some sort of delusion that the really really good stuff, the stuff that I so desperately want to believe is true, is just beyond my reach guarded by the 12 apostles and JC himself.

                  1. There are lots of layers to this. One is Russian interference. Two is whether the Trump campaign played a part in that. Another are other crimes probably committed by the campaign, and I watched with my own eyes the president commit obstruction on live TV. I don’t know anymore than you do where this will end up, I just don’t get why I’m debating supposed libertarians about how sweet and innocent the United States federal executive branch is.

                    1. It’s really stupid to see the same people who played the “Hillary didn’t go to jail for anything!” card, whine that we haven’t impeached Trump yet because Mueller exists.

                2. “The Mueller team is not leaking a bunch of shit to the press. Ergo there is nothing? ”

                  Jesus, you really don’t pay attention do you? Mueller has leaked everything that could be remotely damaging to Trump.

                3. Ergo there is nothing?

                  So far yes. If it exists, there’s no point speculating about it.

            2. Believe what you will. I’ll stick to arguing about what is.

          2. Truth! They spent like 10 million or something on their internet trolling? In an election that was a multi billion dollar affair?

            And they are the Russians, of course they fuck with us. They have been doing it for decades, their leader is a fucking KGB agent. This is what he knows. The level of attention we have been granting this is so out of proportion and insane.

        2. Go Google Ted Kennedy Russians Election. The results will shock you.

        3. “When else has an adversarial world power interfered in the American presidential election?”
          Pretty sure ever election since the start of the 20th century, if not before. Certainly Germany in the run-up to both ‘world’ wars. After all, ‘attempts to influence’ are what we’re talking about here. That’s 100% of marketing, and electioneering is marketing.
          Elections are an advance auction of stolen goods [HT Mencken], inherently corrupt and corrupting.
          But mostly we’ve been out interfering in elections, and government form and function, pretty much world wide. Now we’re butt-hurt that someone might possibly have tried it here?
          Buncha snowflakes.

          1. Were you this nonchalant about Hillary’s emails? Betcha you weren’t!

            1. How is this responsive to my claim?
              My reaction to the Hillary email scandal has nothing at all to do with the claim that interference by ‘foreign powers’ has been par for the course for at least a century?
              There were no ‘foreign powers’ involved in Hillary’s decision to use a private e-mail server, contra the rules.
              You don’t even rise to the level of pathetic.

    3. How is the DNC and the Clinton campaign getting information from the Kremlin via Steele something other than collusion under the expansive definition the DNC has attempted to create?

      1. My understanding is that it’s OK to pay for oppo research, but a foreign government giving you oppo research violates campaign finance law.

        But you know that, don’t you? It’s really fucking simple, and it’s been explained to you no doubt countless times since you’re concerned about the question and have sought answers to it, yes?

        1. Keep your head in the sand re: the FISC violations. Is it really that hard for you to grasp that both sides do extraordinarily shady and illegal shit? Neither of them gives a fuck about you.

          1. Both-sidesism, the last resort of the Republican who knows they’ve done some shit.

            1. I suppose that’s one way to look at it, if I had ever been a Republican. Another possibility is that I’ve watched both parties pull insanely dirty shit for decades. Hard to claim the moral high ground when you don’t even know what morality is.

              1. It’s laughable that you think “Republican” is a smear word, btw. That might work with your friend group. For those of us who don’t subscribe to blind partisan loyalty, it’s nothing more than an indication of an inability or unwillingness to think in any depth.

                1. I’ve been watching politics a long time too, and one thing I know is that nothing has benefited the Republican party more than the false equivalence bullshit you’re perpetuating. Both sides are not equally bad. They believe in completely opposite things and have taken widely divergent approaches to governing, so it would have to be an enormous coincidence. Tossing up your hands and saying “both sides” serves only to let the worse actor of the hook.

                  1. They overlap on far more than they don’t. For instance, both parties have never seen a war they didn’t like. Well, they disliked it when the other side started it. When they were in power, it was all good. Same re: intelligence abuses. We could go on down the list for hours. You can’t really be this brainwashed.

                    1. They have never seen a deficit that didn’t like either. Of course, as long as it’s their deficit.

                    2. See what you did there? Now Democrats are basically equally complicit for the Iraq invasion as Republicans. Just because you asserted it, no matter how utterly ridiculous such a claim is.

                      And think about climate policy. Republicans just put a climate change denier in charge of NASA, after having put one in charge of the EPA. That’s somewhat of a difference too, and it might be more important than anything else in the long run.

                    3. Now Democrats are basically equally complicit for the Iraq invasion as Republicans.

                      Al Gore probably would have taken military action against Iraq even without 9/11. Gore was campaigning on a more robust foreign policy and in particular no longer ignoring Hussein’s failure to comply with the monitoring programs.

                      Bush took the opposite stance, campaigning for a “more humble foreign policy.”

                      Republicans just put a climate change denier in charge of NASA, after having put one in charge of the EPA.

                      *sigh*

                      How many times have we had this conversation. It starts this way:

                      Me: Can you define “climate change denier”
                      Tony: Someone who denies what Science Says.
                      Me: And what does “Science” say?
                      Tony: That the world is warming and we are causing it.
                      Me: [presents linked evidence that not only is this not the ‘consensus,’ but the aforementioned people don’t actually disagree with it]
                      Tony: You’re just an oil company shill you Dirty Republican Climate Change Denier!

                    4. Could you provide that link again?

                      Libertarians used to be good for at least bashing on fundie science deniers. Now you’re good for absolutely nothing.

                    5. On the “consensus.”

                      Scott Pruitt: “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact”

                      Note the lack of disagreement with the fact of climate change and the lack of any denial of human involvement. Instead, a perfectly accurate statement regarding disagreement as to the degree of impact.

                      Bridenstine’s main crime was pointing out the lack of warming from 2000-2013 back before the numbers were re-adjusted to eliminate the flattening.

                      Do you have any idea how much you sound like a thirteenth-century heresy-hunter?

                      But, like I said, this is probably the 100th time I’ve made you look like an idiot on this, and I have no doubt it will go in one ear and out the other, because Tony.

                    6. You can’t really be this brainwashed.

                      I used to think that, too.

                  2. “I’ve been watching politics a long time too,”

                    And just yesterday, you were in middle school when Clinton was renting the Lincoln bedroom and getting BJs in the oval office.
                    Bullshit one way or the other, bullshitter.

                    1. Awesomely, a quarter century ago is “just yesterday” to Sevo. Sevo is so old school that, when he was attending, it was just called school.

                    2. Citizen X – #6|4.20.18 @ 4:34PM|#
                      “Awesomely, a quarter century ago is “just yesterday” to Sevo.”

                      You missed it there. Tony, “just yesterday” made that claim.
                      You can look it up.

                  3. You are seriously deluded if you believe “They believe in completely opposite things and have taken widely divergent approaches to governing”.
                    You haven’t been paying attention, you’ve been cherry-picking comforting sound-bites.
                    Nixon ? wage & price freeze
                    Clinton ? unilateral military action
                    Bush ? no child left behind, Medicare D
                    Obama ? murder without judicial review on the president’s sole say-so
                    Etc.
                    Or the charming list of “Who said it – John McCain or Hillary Clinton?”

                    The two parties differ primarily in their words, not their deeds. And rarely enough even in words.

                    1. The two parties differ primarily in their words, not their deeds. And rarely enough even in words.

                      ^ This x 1000.

        2. Your understanding is that it is fine to bypass the law by laundering foreign intelligence through 3rd parties?

          1. So are you concerned about that or not? I’m just repeating what I’ve heard from lawyers on TV.

            1. I’m just repeating what I’ve heard from lawyers on TV.

              All the smartest people use this as a life-strategy.

            2. Tony|4.20.18 @ 3:50PM|#
              “So are you concerned about that or not? I’m just repeating what I’ve heard from lawyers on TV.”

              And now for another timeless gem:
              Tony|11.3.17 @ 6:09PM|#
              “If I want to know about the science I’ll usually go to Wikipedia.”
              Don’t worry, Tony. I don’t bother saving all of your bullshit; my hard drive is finite your bullshit knows no limits.
              But there are a couple of wonders worthy of preservation, since they show the proggy ‘brain’ functioning as best it can.

        3. No, your understanding is that Team Blue did it, so it must be above board.

        4. “My understanding is that it’s OK to pay for oppo research, but a foreign government giving you oppo research violates campaign finance law.”

          So when someone hands you info regarding the slimy antics of your opposition, you can’t use it unless you research it to find out if it ever passed through the hands of someone in a foreign government?
          I’d say you’re full of shit, as always.

    4. Because freedom of speech allows any organization the right to print, publish, etc, any ideas they wish irrespective of where they come from.

      And if voters are stupid enough to modify their votes bard upon stupid/false information – that is their fault no matter who made/distributed said information.

      That’s a price we must pay for freedom of speech.

      Lastly, if our country can seriously be destabilized or co-opted by political ads, we are beyond weak to the nearly the same point as we were when President Lincoln suspended writs.

      IE – if we’re truly this weak, the last thing that should concern you is where the info originated, but why we’re not strong enough to withstand free speech.

      1. That may be a noble goal. But it’s certainly not the case under US law at present. Free speech is restricted by a ton of laws, including national security laws.

        1. “Free speech is restricted by a ton of laws, including national security laws.”
          Cite missing.

          1. See the United States Code?

            1. I’d also recommend the Code of Federal Regulations.

            2. “See the United States Code?”

              See that distraction?
              Cites, or bullshit.

              1. Dude, are you fucking serious? The whole classified information system is an absolute affront to free speech.

                1. Really?

                  Someone asks you to cite, and the best you can come up with is people working on/in secret areas are not allow to speak publically? Which they agreed to as a condition of working on/in secret projects/areas.

                2. DUUDE, so this claim:
                  “Free speech is restricted by a ton of laws, including national security laws.”
                  Is supported by this?
                  “The whole classified information system is an absolute affront to free speech.”
                  So it is bullshit.

      2. Then we are alarmingly weak. Hardly a single goddamn thing rightwingers and Bernie bros vomit about Hillary Clinton is factual. This was an election that dealt more in name-calling than policy. 2016 uncovered a lot of ugly things about Americans, but the question at hand is cyberwarfare perpetrated by Russia against the United States. Maybe libertarians are the first to be nonchalant about such things, and fair enough, but I guarantee you that if the election had gone the other way the opinions on this site would look very different. And that’s what pisses me off, because you all know it’s true.

        1. And if it had gone the other way, the talking heads would be rolling their eyes and laughing at the sore losers.

          And you know my counterfactual is true.

          1. No, I don’t. Things aren’t always exact mirror images in American politics. And thinking so only gives Republicans a pass.

            1. I get it: only your counterfactuals are the real counterfactuals.

        2. Tony|4.20.18 @ 3:47PM|#
          “Then we are alarmingly weak.”

          Projection ain’t just a river in Egypt, to coin a phrase.

        3. “” but the question at hand is cyberwarfare perpetrated by Russia against the United States.””

          And so far the only evidence of this was given by a tech firm on Hillary’s payroll. No federal agency examined the hardware. If there is factual evidence, Mueller may find it. But so far only Facebook memes have been uncovered. It appears as Mueller has moved on. Perhaps not. But I think you are going to be disappointed when Mueller wraps up and when questioned about collusion, he will respond that there is no evidence that the election count was tampered with and that this is in concert with what the intel agencies have been saying all along.

          1. Why would I be disappointed? If Russia failed to influence the election, that’s a good thing.

            1. Because you’d like the excuse for losing?

  22. It’s impressive how much the DNC wants Trump to be re-elected.

  23. I don’t see how this is a RICO case. Hopefully their writing makes it clear.

  24. I didn’t know you could just sue opponents for political outcomes you don’t like.

    Is that a thing?

    1. You can sue just about anyone for just about anything. It doesn’t mean that the lawsuit has merit.

      1. I was to sue the DNC for conspiring to let Bill Clinton molest the staff for 8 years. Where do I sign?

      2. I don’t know which outcome would be more entertaining – a judge dismissing the DNC’s case immediately for lack of merit, or actually watching this cluster obliterate careers and institutions as it goes through discovery.

        1. They’ll burn the house down trying to get Trump out.

          1. We can only hope.

        2. I kinda like that latter.

          I don’t think the discovery process will do the Dems well. How do you subpoena an unnamed government source? I would like to see some of the people claiming knowledge of it happening actual say it again under oath. Open the discovery process and watch the people who have been fueling this run away.

    2. Since 2000.

    3. And it was a democrat suing. So it seems to be a democrat thing.

    4. “I didn’t know you could just sue opponents for political outcomes you don’t like.

      Is that a thing?”

      That is such a racist, misogynistic, homophobic question, I can hardly believe you asked it.

      Report to the nearest FEMA camp for reeducation immediately.

  25. Just when you think the Republicans have crazy award locked up tight, along comes the Democrats to show that they’re still in the running…

  26. I think the historical trend of losses (and the reasons behind them) are too strong to stop the Democrats from taking the House come November, but they’re gonna try to blow it.

    They’re gonna try as hard as they can.

    1. Just for review:

      Below is the results of the first midterm on the president’s party in the House after a new president takes office going back to 1910.

      First column is House seats won/lost.

      The last column is what I see as the dominant issue(s) of that midterm.

      +9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression
      +8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
      -4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
      -8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
      -9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Death of Harding)
      -12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
      -15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
      -18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
      -22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
      -26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
      -47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
      -48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
      -52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot?Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
      -54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, End of Wartime Price Controls
      -54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
      -57 1910 William Taft Strife within the Republcian Party (Progressives)
      -63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
      -77 1922 Warren Harding Strife within the Republican Party (Progressives)

      Do you realize how pathetic the Democrats would have to be to blow it in the midterms?

      Are they that pathetic?

      Yeah, they might be. This suit is certainly a step in the right direction.

      1. Do you realize how pathetic the Democrats would have to be to blow it in the midterms?

        They lost to Donald Trump. Their ‘pathetic’ bona fides are rock solid.

        1. I agree with Ken.

          The party of the president almost always loses in the first midterm. This midterm is the dems to lose.

    2. They are doubling down on all of the policies and attitudes that have gotten them trounced for the last 10 years.

      I’ll be surprised if they do take the House, even with historical trends. Generally the party out of power adjusts their game-plan and does strongly. The Democrats have not adjusted since the time of the ACA, they’ve just gotten worse.

  27. “There’s a bit of a tightrope to walk when it comes to judging the merits of the case.”

    Second funniest thing I’ve read all day. Just behind “DNC sues sovereign foreign nation in Federal court.”

    Schackford, you are a hoot.

    1. Also, Shaquille’s alt-text is (as always) an absolute delight.

    2. “There’s a bit of a tightrope to walk when it comes to judging the merits of the case.”

      Holy shit, that’s funny!

  28. The DNC absolutely should use the courts to seek redress from whoever infiltrated their systems and stole their data.

    Don’t you have to first identify who stole the data before you seek redress?

  29. ” the DNC does at least have a legitimate case against the individuals who hacked the party and then distributed the data they found.”

    Assuming they were actually hacked, and it wasn’t internal leaking. In which case the criminal culprits would be on the inside of the DNC.

    And when give the opportunity to have the FBI examine the affected serves the DNC said “nope.”

    Any wonder why, Shackford? You won’t ‘dismiss the idea’ that Trump was involved. What if the truth is one of the equally plausible alternatives that it was an inside job and/or the ‘Russian hacking’ line is bullshit meant to hide the truth? Are you unwilling to dismiss that possibility?

  30. So, to sum up the comments, Donald Trump is innocent of conspiracy and obstruction of justice despite the investigation not being over, but Hillary Clinton is guilty of emails despite being found innocent.

    1. Sorry, that didn’t even make my top ten today.

      But thanks for trying.

      1. If I were to assume this thread exists for the sole purpose of annoying me, I’d be paying you idiots a compliment. We’ve gone from Hillary’s emails are the worst scandal since the Mongol invasion to “nothing to see here” while the most scandalous and incompetent presidential administration in history waddles its way into eternal infamy. Why are you all Republicans pretending to be something else? Why is this a fulfilling life for you?

        1. What you never seem capable of grasping is that libertarians are more analytical than tribalistic. That is, they’re more concerned with arriving at an accurate picture of the world than believing whatever it takes to fit in. They are the least susceptible to social desirability bias. YOU are the tribalist, which is why you assume everyone mocking you is a part of the other Tribe even when they aren’t.

          Wikileaks provided very strong evidence that Hillary Clinton committed serial bribery. Focusing on emails is a deflection tactic favored by DNC shills like yourself. How much do you get paid to preach to the unwashed masses, anyway?

          Donald Trump is no angel, and could plausibly a criminal in some regards, but the specific charge “colluded with Russia to win the election” is ludicrous given the evidence we’ve seen. If you’ve studied the anatomy of a conspiracy theory, that’s exactly what it looks like. A web of “connections”, inferred motivations, and wishful thinking substituting for evidence.

          1. Nah, you’re all FOX News or pajamasmedia or Breitfuck addicts and you don’t know which fucking way is up or down. You’re all partisan Republicans either too stupid or too dishonest to say so.

            1. “Nah, you’re all FOX News or pajamasmedia or Breitfuck addicts and you don’t know which fucking way is up or down. You’re all partisan Republicans either too stupid or too dishonest to say so.”

              Anyone claiming that Tony even rarely offers honest engagement should read the above.
              Oh, and I saved this one, since it is a classic:
              Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
              “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

        2. Tony, you truly are a perfect case study of progressivism

    2. Hillary Clinton is guilty of emails despite being found innocent.

      This comment made my day.
      Never stop being you, Tony.

    3. Question, how could she be found innocent if she was never tried, heck she wasn’t even charged?

  31. This is one of those things both parties do to keep their base happy, because when the base is unhappy, it’s hard being a Democrat or Republican.

    Which is all the more reason not to be a Democrat or Republican.

  32. “It is absolutely a violation of their privacy and property, just as it would be if people were to break into your home and take your stuff. Step back from the political partisanship and the roiled-up outrage, and you’ll see that the DNC does at least have a legitimate case against the individuals who hacked the party and then distributed the data they found.”

    As the parties have completely hijacked the governmental representation system, in that they get to tell me who will represent me, who can compete with them, and if/when we are allowed to hear dissenting political views, they have (in my eyes) ceased to be a private orginazation. As with a public utility or service, we should have access to their communication, financial records, and the minutes of their board meetings.

  33. Are they going to sue the sun and the moon too? They should.

  34. The concerted effort to protect Hillary from the consequences of her actual crimes is the only racket around here.

  35. Lawsuits are not a one sided event. As the Trump team pointed out, an aggressive discovery phase on their part will be interesting if not embarrassing for the Democrats. Democrats having to answer questions they never wanted to answer, and provide documents they prefer hidden. Should be fun.

    1. It was the DNC that filed the suit. If they were hiding some big dark secret than at least the lawyers should be telling them not to file. They have the advantage since they may be able to prove or spotlight suspected hanky panky by the Trump team.

      Even if not they can still push the message that Russia stole the election, true or not, but getting even 10% of voters to believe it is enough to win elections.

      Let’s say you were embezzling from your company. The boss finds out or strongly suspects and fires you but no charges are filed. You go and tell your lawyer the whole story because you are thinking of filing a lawsuit for wrongful termination. The lawyers advice would be “thank your lucky stars you are not in prison. Go find another job”.

      I think Dems have the advantage in filing the suit. Either that or they are amazingly stupid which is certainly possible.

      1. No, in this day and age of sue and settle many lawyers will take any case hoping to force a settlement. Quite often it is cheaper to settle then fight it even when you are in the right. Most lawyers will tell you to settle rather then fight, because it just is easier and cheaper.

      2. Echospinner|4.20.18 @ 9:23PM|#
        “It was the DNC that filed the suit. If they were hiding some big dark secret than at least the lawyers should be telling them not to file. They have the advantage since they may be able to prove or spotlight suspected hanky panky by the Trump team.”

        Losers still HOPING that their stupidity wasn’t the reason they didn’t see the hag losing”
        Hint, E: You’re a fucking loser still in denial. Grow up.

  36. Tony|4.20.18 @ 5:12PM|#
    “I’m more concerned with the bellicose climate that all this innuendo is creating.”
    HILLARY EMAILS DEVIL APOCALYPSE.
    You, 2016

    (not me, BTW)
    But is is required of proggies that they prove themselves either abysmally ignorant regarding d-communication or willfully dishonest?
    For the millionth time IT’S NOT THE EMAILS!
    The hag set up an ENTIRE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM WHICH SERVED TO KEEP HER COMM HIDDEN FROM ANY FOIA REQUESTS.
    Is that clear, you fucking ignoramus?

    1. Its amazing to me the cognitive dissonance required to ignore this obvious reason for Hillary’s closet server.

      1. She should be in jail. That she wasnt even charged, is an appalling indictment of the deep state and our failing legal system.

        1. Trump full of shit that Comey memos prove no collusion or obstruction.

          ” The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
          Donald J. Trump, Sioux City Iowa, 1/1/2016

          Trumpbots be PROUD that Trump said they have neither conscience nor morals! … “(sniff) Merely proves we have the absolute loyalty he expects!”

          Over a year with NO evidence on collusion … STOP THE WITCH HUNT!
          Nearly three years with no evidence on Hillary … EXTEND THE WITCH HUNT!

          Left – Right = Zero

  37. Here is one reason Trump’s treason, and Reason’s treachery in minimizing it, matters quite a bit:

    https://ww w.reuters.com/article/us- russia-us-cyber-envoy/ moscow-in-talks-with-u-s-to- create-cyb er-working-group-ria-report-idUSKB N1A51MM

    1. “Treason”. Lol….i bet you cant even explain what that means relative to the discussion.

      1. Click the proof. (smirk)

  38. JDS1|4.20.18 @ 9:53PM|#
    “Here is one reason Trump’s treason, and Reason’s treachery in minimizing it, matters quite a bit:”
    Your link doesn’t work, and like most TDS victims, you can’t seem to tell us what you mean.
    Can we assume you’re one more lefty ignoramus?

  39. The Dems must be confident that no DNC staffer will turn up claiming to have leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

  40. The DNC’s basic position…

    -you rubes are too stupid to see through propaganda from those evil republicans
    -you rubes are too stupid to connect the dots, that the DNC couldnt even manage a secure server.
    -screw the election results, you rubes will vote us in, or else

    1. Yep, the next Democratic Party suit will be filed against the voters.

    2. There is a second amendment solution waiting in the wings for people who think we’re rubes… The demcunts are playing with total immolation.

      1. Count the fascists, all in a row.

  41. So, the DNC is mad at Russia and Wikileaks because they ‘think’ they manipulated our election by exposing that the DNC did manipulate our election?

  42. Trump’s cult will throw a gigundous hissy fit … four different whatabout Hillarys … repeat the bullshit that the “witch hunt has gone on too long at over a year with nothing” … and WHY ARE THEY IGNORING HILLARY (only 2-1/2 years with nothing, but Gomers believe that conspiracy theories in the dumbstream media are evidence.)

    The lawsuit will be a slam dunk, since almost all has been admitted , and most is common knowledge– like Trump’s bullshit on the Trump Tower meeting was exposed … by his own son!

    We’re now .. finally .. in the final stages of Trump’s collapse.
    But Pence may be even worse. Will the Christian Taliban rule America … after being initially despised by the Reagan/Goldwater wing (now independents)?

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. You are an idiot, you cunt. This is demcunt suicide.

      1. Typical Trumptard Thug

        Trump’s cult will throw a gigundous hissy fit .

        You are an idiot, you cunt

        PROUD to be deplorable. (shudder)

  43. How many conservatard bots can infest a single page with unprovoked verbal assaults?
    Do a page search for “Hihn” — and that’s only a third of them (so far)

    1. Relax Michael, the net effect is to make you look good. With enemies like God’s Own Prohibots, who needs friends?

      1. “Who it is that dislikes a man reveals much about the man himself. A good man will never have enemies who are anything but petty and childish. ”
        ~ Wicasta Lovelace

  44. 1) This is last gasp desperation. They now realize the criminal probes are dry holes so now they throw a lawyer’s tantrum

    2) It shows once again all of the dem leaders are cunts, irrespective of what is in their pants.

    3) It’s stupid to the point of crazy. It proves all the demcunts are neurotic and obsessed because…

    4) It is crazy dangerous. Sue Assange? HE HAS THE FACTS! He can prove Seth Rich – the man the demcunts killed – stole their data!

    Rabid batshit crazy. Bring it – you will reap disaster.

    1. By God, they will mix their own KoolAid and drink it, too!

      1. Trump BRAGS that they are puppets dancing on a string!

        ” The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
        Donald J. Trump, Sioux City Iowa, 1/1/2016

        The goobers are PROUD to be shit upon by Herr Donald!!

  45. Not a very smart move.. They opened themselves up to ‘discovery’ and since they are VERY secretive (after all, they don’t want everyone to know all the details of how they treated Bernie), the Democrats might have made a SLIGHT mistake.

  46. This is hilarious! The Democratic Party, Trilby to the Svengali of warmunist pseudoscience, tried to do to electrical generating capacity what the Republican Party tried to do to birth control, beer and plant leaves. This is the funniest thing since Hillary sniffling about Jill Stein taking her spoiler votes!

      1. 2Left – Right < 0

        1. You say ONE conservative has more evil than any TWO Democrats combined..
          I say they’re equal to each other. Cuz I ain’t no bigot.
          Educate yourself

  47. When President Donald Trump stop that contovertion ?

    situs judi bola

    1. From his jail cell!
      LOCK HIM UP!!

  48. Are the conservatives belittling this litigation aware that the Republican Party already paid to settle a similar suit and, in connection with another Democratic Party complaint, operated under a federal injunction for decades?

    Or, as usual, are they exhibiting the ignorant element of the Intolerance And Ignorance combo platter that is the current iteration of conservatism?

  49. The guy who infiltrated the Dems systems was Seth Rich. Guess where he is now?
    Oh, and the ‘Paki’ guy. Complete inside job.

    1. Are you joking? Or do you swallow Fake News?

  50. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  51. More evidence that the Democratic Party is dying. Suing people to explain away the party’s stankness from corruption and general unappealing tp most Maerican voters.

    1. (smirk) The Dems are more popular. But both old parties are reviled.

      Left and right are obsolete. Both left with mostly haters.

      You time has expired.

  52. Need evidence the DNC is hurting for cash in spite of their claims of a coming blue wave? Here it is. They are making outrageous accusations in an attempt to get money and coverage for something they know they cannot prove. It is also evidence the entire Russian collusion narrative they have been pushing for two years is collapsing.

  53. great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.