Democratic National Committee (DNC) Law Suit Against Russia, Kremlin Accused of “Election Meddling”, Wikileaks and Trump Campaign, “Case Dismissed with Prejudice”
Democratic National Committee (DNC) v. Russian Federation, et al was filed in April 2018.
Presided over by federal District Court Judge John Koeltl, the suit without substance was over fabricated claims of Russian 2016 US election meddling.
It named a long paragraph of defendants, including the Russian Federation, its Armed Forces General Staff military intelligence, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Trump campaign, and individuals connected to it.
The DNC accused the Trump campaign, Russia, and WikiLeaks et al of racketeering cybercrime related to (nonexistent) hacking of Dem computers. More on this below.
New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society Dems disappeared from the US political landscape during the Clinton co-presidency.
Dems shifted hard right, serving privileged interests more exclusively than earlier at the expense of ordinary people they disdain, their rights increasingly denied.
The agenda of both extremist right wings of the one-party state is militantly pro-war, anti-rule of law, pro-Wall Street, pro-corporate empowerment, anti-progressive, anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-populist, anti-ecosanity, and anti-social justice.
The DNC suit without merit falsely called Russia the “primary wrongdoer,” claiming without evidence that it “surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC’s computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft.”
Not a shred of evidence backed the fabricated claims. Judge Koeltl rejected them.
In his 81-page ruling, he said US courts aren’t the proper place for seeking damages against a nation-state. That’s for government branches to handle.
“The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability,” he stressed, adding:
Its lawsuit was “entirely divorced” from the facts…(riddled with) substantive legal defect(s).”
“The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. (They’re) either moot or without merit.” Case dismissed “with prejudice” — meaning the plaintiff may bring another suit on the same or similar grounds.
Koeltl perhaps has no knowledge that the documents in question were leaked by a Dem insider, not hacked by Russia or anyone else.
WikiLeaks is an investigative journalism operation, a noble initiative, publishing material the public has a right to know from sources believed to be reliable, what journalism the way it’s supposed to be is all about — deserving high praise, not criticism or prosecution.
Publishing information is a First Amendment right — no matter how unacceptable or offensive it may be to certain parties.
Earlier Supreme Court rulings upheld this right, including Justice William Brennan’s majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989), saying:
“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
Justice Thurgood Marshall once said:
“(A)bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Nor does anyone else.
Separately he said:
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man (or woman), sitting alone in his (or her) own house, what books he (or she) may read or what films he (or she) may watch.”
“Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s (and women’s) minds.”
As usual, Trump was wrong, tweeting in response to the ruling that “(t)he witch hunt ends” — far from it. It’ll likely continue as long as he’s in office and maybe after he’s gone.
It’s one of the most shameful political chapters in US history, worse than McCarthy’s witch-hunts. He self-destructed from demagogic smear-mongering against prominent figures at a time much different than today’s America.
A lesson wasn’t learned, repeated in new form by what’s been ongoing since Trump defeated media darling Hillary.
Modern-day Russophobia is worse and more threatening than during the height of Cold War hysteria.
Nary anyone in Congress or major media challenges what’s going on. The anti-Russia crowd drowns out voices of sanity, good sense, and sensibility way beyond the beltway.
No Russian US election meddling occurred, no threat by its ruling authorities to the US, West, or other countries.
Most people believe otherwise because of the power of Russophobic propaganda pounded into the public mind.
Instead of a world at peace, hardliners in charge of US policymaking wage endless wars against invented enemies, risking something much more devastating than what’s ongoing.
Instead of highlighting the danger to world peace, establishment media ignore it.
Repeating the century-ago “great red scare” and anti-communist hysteria during the Cold War is as phony now as earlier — with potentially catastrophic consequences if US belligerence is pushed too far.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Featured image is from American Herald Tribune
