hillary dnc lawsuit
In 2016 the Democrat National Committee claimed their websites were hacked by Russia and the information was given to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks has always maintained their source for the Podesta-DNC emails was not Russia.


The Obama FBI under James Comey NEVER looked at the DNC servers after the leak. The DNC would not allow it.

Today the DNC sued the Trump Campaign, Russia and Wikileaks for conspiring to disrupt the 2016 election.

This afternoon the Trump campaign responded to the lawsuit.
Today, the Democratic National Committee filed a wide-ranging, partisan civil lawsuit in federal court against the Trump Campaign, WikiLeaks, and the Russian Government. In response, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. notes that this frivolous lawsuit is a last-ditch effort to substantiate the baseless Russian collusion allegations by a nearly-bankrupt Democratic Party still trying to counter the will of the people in the 2016 presidential election. This civil lawsuit is completely without merit and will be dismissed in due time.

"This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party," said Brad Parscale, Campaign Manager of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. "With the Democrats' conspiracy theories against the President's campaign evaporating as quickly as the failing DNC's fundraising, they've sunk to a new low to raise money, especially among small donors who have abandoned them. There is a great deal the American public wants to know about the corruption of the Democrats, their collusion to influence the 2016 presidential election, and their role in prompting a scam investigation of the Trump Campaign. While this lawsuit is frivolous and will be dismissed, if the case goes forward, the DNC has created an opportunity for us to take aggressive discovery into their claims of 'damages' and uncover their acts of corruption for the American people," he concluded.

If this lawsuit proceeds, the Trump Campaign will be prepared to leverage the discovery process and explore the DNC's now-secret records about the actual corruption they perpetrated to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Everything will be on the table, including:

- How the DNC contributed to the fake dossier, using Fusion GPS along with the Clinton Campaign as the basis for the launch of a phony investigation.

- Why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC servers in the course of their investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal.

- How the DNC conspired to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination over Bernie Sanders.

- How officials at the highest levels of the DNC colluded with the news media to influence the outcome of the DNC nomination.

- Management decisions by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and John Podesta; their e-mails, personnel decisions, budgets, opposition research, and more.

Comment: The desperate DNC just seems to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole and should have left well enough alone!
The Trump team would seem to have the law on its side as well:
On Friday afternoon, WikiLeaks responded to the lawsuit on Twitter.


Comment on DNC lawsuit: "DNC is suing WikiLeaks for spectacularly revealing that the DNC rigged its primaries on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The DNC was so corrupt that five of its officers, including its president, were forced to resign." https://t.co/xHDB85FdEw

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 20, 2018

The lawsuit claims that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to bring down Clinton.

"DNC already has a moribund publicity lawsuit which the press has became bored of-hence the need to refile it as a "new" suit before mid-terms. As an accurate publisher of newsworthy information WikiLeaks is constitutionally protected from such suits," the official WikiLeaks account tweeted.

In a second tweet, they added that the "DNC is suing WikiLeaks for spectacularly revealing that the DNC rigged its primaries on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The DNC was so corrupt that five of its officers, including its president, were forced to resign."

WikiLeaks also posted the full text of the lawsuit and linked to a Gateway Pundit article in which we covered a previous filing by Trump's campaign lawyers that explained the publications are protected under the First Amendment - even if they came from Russia. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has long maintained that they did not.



In a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year against the Trump campaign, Trump's lawyers argued that WikiLeaks publications meet the requirements for the Bartnicki First Amendment test and are thus protected free speech.

The first part of the case law is that a defendant may not be held liable for a disclosure of stolen information if it deals with "a matter of public concern." The second portion requires that the publisher cannot have been involved in the theft.

Addressing this portion, Carvin's filing asserts that there can be "no serious doubt" that the disclosures from WikiLeaks satisfied the "newsworthy" and "public concern" portion of the test. There have not been any credible allegations that WikiLeaks themselves stole or hacked the emails.

In a motion filed in October, lawyer Michael A. Carvin also argued that under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), "a website that provides a forum where 'third parties can post information' is not liable for the third party's posted information."

"That is so even when even when the website performs 'editorial functions' 'such as deciding whether to publish,'" the filing contends. "Since WikiLeaks provided a forum for a third party (the unnamed 'Russian actors') to publish content developed by that third party (the hacked emails), it cannot be held liable for the publication."

Carvin went on to argue that this defeats any claim of conspiracy, as a conspiracy is an agreement to commit "an unlawful act."

"Since WikiLeaks' posting of emails was not an unlawful act, an alleged agreement that it should publish those emails could not have been a conspiracy," the filing asserts.

The First Amendment is even more strictly guarded during a political campaign, when it has "its fullest and most urgent application." According to Citizens United, the First Amendment leaves voters "free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes."

Following the lawsuit news, WikiLeaks also hurled a dig at Rep. Keith Ellison, the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee .


Trump's team is not the only group hitting back hard against all the nonsense either. Wikileaks, by necessity, will also make a solid case against 'Russian collusion' narrative - and for the incredibly high level of criminality rampant at the DNC - better known. In fact, they are looking forward to it:
WikiLeaks has announced that they are seeking donations so that they can counter-sue the Democratic National Committee, saying that discovery is going to be "amazing fun."