Trump Fires Back

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 6 Mar 2019
UPDATED: 6:24 PM 6 Mar 2019

Trump Team Drops Hammer On DNC ‘Fake Hack,’ Expert Agrees

The full court filing has been released by WikiLeaks and is blows the DNC claim of a hack out of the water.

The New York case against Trump's campaign is a giant nothingburger. THere is no evidence of a DNC hack, but on the contrary, plenty of evidence that there was NO Hack.

The president is not one to sit around and wait for the democrats to weave their web of lies without a fight. And last night, WikiLeaks tweeted one such battle in New York District Court.

New York has been harassing the president and circumventing the so-called Mueller investigation by claiming all sorts of RICO violations, conspiracy, computer crimes, and ‘unlawful’ common purposes against the Trump campaign and various Russian enterprises.

However, the president’s lawyers have dropped the hammer on those allegations and the result is stunning.

Basically, the filing asserts that Russia did not hack the Democratic National Committee, and the DNC fabricated the hack.

In fact, in the video below, the former Tech Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), explains that the ‘evidence’ the DNC claims could NOT have been from a Russian hack.

Bill Blinny provides forensic data proving Guccifer2 Data is fraud and Russia did not hack the DNC, despite the fact that Rosenstein used that ‘evidence’ as the foundation for his indictment of ‘Russian hackers.’

Here is just a taste of the full PDF filing, which can be downloaded from the tweet:

In this case, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) seeks to litigate and explain away its candidate’s defeat in the 2016 presidential election. The DNC thus alleges—unburdened by any actual facts—that President Trump’s campaign (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; “the Campaign”) conspired with Russia and a hodgepodge of others to publish materials stolen from the DNC’s computer systems.

But the DNC does not claim the Campaign had any role in hacking its systems and stealing the materials—it attributes that only to Russia. Nor does the DNC claim the Campaign played any part in publishing the stolen materials—it attributes that only to Russia and WikiLeaks.

Instead, the DNC predicates its claims against the Campaign exclusively on allegations that: (1) the Campaign received advance notice of some disclosures; and (2) after disclosures occurred, the Campaign made political use of the revealed information and publicly encouraged additional disclosures.

There are many problems with the DNC’s politically motivated lawsuit. It threatens to unleash discovery that would interfere with the President’s “vast and important” responsibilities, which require “his undivided time and attention.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 697 (1997). It expressly challenges policy decisions the President has made, like the decision to withdraw troops from Syria. And it would inevitably collide with the various investigations (and at least one pending prosecution) relating to alleged collusion between Russia and Americans during the 2016 campaign.

Fortunately, the DNC’s partisan effort to drag the Court into a political thicket already occupied by Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller is legally meritless, and so must be dismissed. For starters, even if the Campaign had a role in publishing materials stolen by others (which the DNC does not claim), the First Amendment protects disclosures of public issues. This protection undoubtedly covers the disclosed materials, which revealed, for instance, the DNC’s questionable conduct during its presidential primaries, its correspondence with wealthy donors, and its cozy relationship with the media.

The DNC’s claims also fail on their own terms. First, the centerpiece of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) consists of claims that the Campaign participated in an enterprise that violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and conspired to violate RICO. But RICO claims are notoriously meritless, and the DNC’s are no different.

Second, the DNC’s claim under the Wiretap Act fails, because it does not allege that the Campaign had any role in intercepting in-progress communications or using intercepted communications.

Third, the DNC’s state-law claims fare no better. Given the defects in the federal claims and the complex issues that the state claims raise, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

But even if the Court kept the claims (and even if the First Amendment did not bar them), they would all require dismissal. The DNC invokes D.C.’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, but fails to plead that this case involves trade secrets; it alleges conspiracy to commit trespass to chattels under Virginia law, but implicitly recognizes that the Campaign had no role in Russia’s obtaining DNC materials; and it asserts a claim under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, but ignores that the Act does not authorize aiding-and-abetting liability (and, again, that the Campaign was not involved in any hacking).

Despite now having attempted three times to assert viable legal claims, the DNC still falls far short. The Court should dismiss all claims against the Campaign with prejudice.

What follows is over 100 pages of evidence that backs up these arguments, including the state’s case not mentioning a single instance of a RICO violation, a complete lack of proof of campaign involvement, and the DNC’s various lies about computer crimes… none are listed.

There are also a number of pieces of evidence, including the “No Sh*t” email, the “Bernie Narrative” email, and article from the Washington post outlining the DNC leaks, another few emails showcasing the DNC racism, and another Podesta email about “HRC Paid Speeches.”

The bottom line: the New York case is a bogus, politically motivated hit job. The president’s lawyers have both the law and the evidence on their side.