Another DNC Trainwreck
 

D.N.C. Lawsuit Alleges Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Why? Must be a two year cycle of being stupid (Hint: H-->) instead of focusing on things that really matter. Like have a message to the voters instead of Trump is bad.

Don't you normally wait for the issue to be settled before suing for damages? This is really going to enrage and energize the wingnuts making Mueller's job a lot more difficult. Is it because of all the limelight that DNC enemy Comey is getting while Hillary is complaining in the background that nobody likes her. Count me in. :rolleyes:

Proves once again to me that the DNC is fundamentally stupid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/u...p-lawsuit.html

If Nunes had run a legitimate investigation rather than a cover-up for Trump, the DNC would likely have not done this. Now, if this case goes forward, all of Trump's minions can be deposed under oath by real investigators. Something similar was done by the DNC during Watergate and they were awarded a bunch of money for it.

Thanks Finn, I will read up on it later today.
But in this instance, both the DNC and Trump Campaign cheated. Trump was better at it.
Hillary should accept that she is not well liked by the electorate and stay out of politics for now.

I thought you didn't care. :rolleyes:

This is about nothing more than keeping the Dem base riled up. Won't take long for this case to be thrown out of court, assuming it comes before a judge who is competent and an adult.

House investigations are far more likely to be circuses than they are to accomplish anything productive.

That said, you also have had an FBI investigation, a Senate investigation and now a Special Counsel. None of them have found any evidence of that which the Dems are claiming in their CIVIL suit.

The Dems know there's zero evidence of Russian collusion. Schiff has stated that there's no evidence. Mark Warner has said that there's no evidence. DiFi has said she's not seen any evidence. Joe Manchin has said there's no evidence. Hell, even Maxine Waters admits there's no evidence. You're probably one of the remaining few and proud hyper-ventilators that still think there is evidence, you poor deluded fool.

^^^ 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

It's a matter of convenience, but feel free to sue me. :)

What is your problem Rajoo? Do you think the belief that Hillary is intrinsically awful is threatened by any showing that other factors contributed to her defeat? For this reason, malicious corruption by others should be ignored?

Actually, the FBI investigation was rolled into the Special Counsel's. As for the Senate's investigation, I still don't have full confidence in the Republicans, particularly after their ridiculous reaction to the Comey memos (somehow they think they proved Comey to be the liar and Trump the truth-teller:confused:), not to mention their silence about Nunes' disreputable and unethical antics.

Read items 6-19 starting on page 6 of the lawsuit. Sounds like quite a bit of evidence.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ikileaks/2914/

In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" supporting the allegation as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, "pleading the fifth" in a civil case or deposition allows an inference of guilt, unlike in a criminal trial. In any event, a similar civil suit was filed against Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate and the DNC won a settlement of $750K.

If it also serves to keep the Democratic base on a low boil and increase contributions to the DNC, no harm in that.:cool: