• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN makes fun of the DNC lawsuit.

Slingshot Bob

Slingshot Bob

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
11,166
Reaction score
3,034
Location
A country liberals hate. America.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Man, you know if CNN calls this a stunt it is really frivolous. More distraction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2971...-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra

On Friday, CNN's Chief Political Analyst mocked the multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, calling it a complete stunt.
The DNC's lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, claims members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to promote Trump and damage Clinton and seeks to collect financial damages from the alleged hacking of the DNC's servers — which the FBI still has not seen.

"How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?” Brooke Baldwin asked political analyst Gloria Borger.
“A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent," Borger responded. "They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new."
"Everyone has been — every Democrat, political Democrat has been charging that the Trump campaign was in collusion with WikiLeaks, etc.," Borger continued. "We know that the DNC was hacked, we’ve been talking about this since the campaign. And honestly, it’s just — it’s just a way to raise money."
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Man, you know if CNN calls this a stunt it is really frivolous. More distraction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2971...-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra

On Friday, CNN's Chief Political Analyst mocked the multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, calling it a complete stunt.
The DNC's lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, claims members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to promote Trump and damage Clinton and seeks to collect financial damages from the alleged hacking of the DNC's servers — which the FBI still has not seen.

"How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?” Brooke Baldwin asked political analyst Gloria Borger.
“A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent," Borger responded. "They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new."
"Everyone has been — every Democrat, political Democrat has been charging that the Trump campaign was in collusion with WikiLeaks, etc.," Borger continued. "We know that the DNC was hacked, we’ve been talking about this since the campaign. And honestly, it’s just — it’s just a way to raise money."
Click to expand...

CNN is fake news, so lawsuit is not a stunt. Right?
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Man, you know if CNN calls this a stunt it is really frivolous. More distraction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2971...-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra

On Friday, CNN's Chief Political Analyst mocked the multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, calling it a complete stunt.
The DNC's lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, claims members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to promote Trump and damage Clinton and seeks to collect financial damages from the alleged hacking of the DNC's servers — which the FBI still has not seen.

"How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?” Brooke Baldwin asked political analyst Gloria Borger.
“A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent," Borger responded. "They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new."
"Everyone has been — every Democrat, political Democrat has been charging that the Trump campaign was in collusion with WikiLeaks, etc.," Borger continued. "We know that the DNC was hacked, we’ve been talking about this since the campaign. And honestly, it’s just — it’s just a way to raise money."
Click to expand...

We are starting to get more properly cynical of power.

When we get better dishonest taxing of the legal system will carry a penalty.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Man, you know if CNN calls this a stunt it is really frivolous. More distraction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2971...-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra

On Friday, CNN's Chief Political Analyst mocked the multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, calling it a complete stunt.
The DNC's lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, claims members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to promote Trump and damage Clinton and seeks to collect financial damages from the alleged hacking of the DNC's servers — which the FBI still has not seen.

"How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?” Brooke Baldwin asked political analyst Gloria Borger.
“A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent," Borger responded. "They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new."
"Everyone has been — every Democrat, political Democrat has been charging that the Trump campaign was in collusion with WikiLeaks, etc.," Borger continued. "We know that the DNC was hacked, we’ve been talking about this since the campaign. And honestly, it’s just — it’s just a way to raise money."
Click to expand...
There is an active federal investigation into the matter, they should wait until it's findings are released.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
A broken clock is right every 12 hours.
Click to expand...

Translation: “A CNN analyst agrees with me so they are correct this time”.

Trumpbots are a dime a dozen among fake conservatives.
 
Praxas said:
Translation: “A CNN analyst agrees with me so they are correct this time”.

Trumpbots are a dime a dozen among fake conservatives.
Click to expand...
Translation: "I like translating what people say to fit my narrative, I am not a very good listener but I have a good imagination"

Not my fault people are butthurt CNN actually told the truth. Take it up with CNN. Remember that rare honest moment from Bill calling Obamacare, "the craziest thing I have ever seen"?

Truth from any source, is still truth.
 
I love the comments on the youtube of that video. Like 50 morons saying "the DNC wasn't hacked, it was a leak!!!" How stupid can they get.

NeverTrumpGOP said:
CNN is fake news, so lawsuit is not a stunt. Right?
Click to expand...
No no, see, when Daily Caller and Brietbart cherry pick CNN, it turns that Fake news, into real, un-filtered American Truth news!
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Translation: "I like translating what people say to fit my narrative, I am not a very good listener but I have a good imagination"

Not my fault people are butthurt CNN actually told the truth. Take it up with CNN. Remember that rare honest moment from Bill calling Obamacare, "the craziest thing I have ever seen"?

Truth from any source, is still truth.
Click to expand...

No truth to you is what fits your narrative. Trumpbots are a dime a dozen and just as useless.
 
The points of the suit are, IMO:
  • to create a deposition opportunity,
  • to potentially obtain a court victory based on the "preponderance of evidence" standard rather having to await a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction, and
  • to create a foil by which Trump and others can be "tried in the court of public opinion" much as the GOP used its congressional majority to do to Hillary.

I suppose it's possible the DNC thinks they've got a reasonable chance of winning the suit and collecting a cash award, but that seems to me hardly "worth it." I really don't know for sure, however, for I'm not privy to the legal arguments the DNC plans to make and I haven't read the filing.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Man, you know if CNN calls this a stunt it is really frivolous. More distraction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2971...-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra

On Friday, CNN's Chief Political Analyst mocked the multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, calling it a complete stunt.
The DNC's lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, claims members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to promote Trump and damage Clinton and seeks to collect financial damages from the alleged hacking of the DNC's servers — which the FBI still has not seen.

"How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?” Brooke Baldwin asked political analyst Gloria Borger.
“A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent," Borger responded. "They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new."
"Everyone has been — every Democrat, political Democrat has been charging that the Trump campaign was in collusion with WikiLeaks, etc.," Borger continued. "We know that the DNC was hacked, we’ve been talking about this since the campaign. And honestly, it’s just — it’s just a way to raise money."
Click to expand...
Ms. Baldwin does not know her history.

Before there was Woodward, Bernstein, Deep Throat, Archibald Cox, et al, there was the DNC Watergate lawsuit against Nixon & the RNC! In fact, the suit brought attention to the matter before Misters Woodward or Bernstein even had any ideas of the ramifications of their soon to be burgeoning story!

And guess what? On the same day Nixon resigned, the RNC settled the lawsuit giving the Dems a check for $750K on the $1M asked!

We've been here, before.
 
MovingPictures said:
There is an active federal investigation into the matter, they should wait until it's findings are released.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Last time the DNC civil suit preceded the investigation, then ran concurrent with it.

As the investigation revealed more crimes, the Dems kept piling them on in their suit in court, to great fanfare, which had a PR effect.
 
Xelor said:
The points of the suit are, IMO:
  • to create a deposition opportunity,
  • to potentially obtain a court victory based on the "preponderance of evidence" standard rather having to await a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction, and
  • to create a foil by which Trump and others can be "tried in the court of public opinion" much as the GOP used its congressional majority to do to Hillary.

I suppose it's possible the DNC thinks they've got a reasonable chance of winning the suit and collecting a cash award, but that seems to me hardly "worth it." I really don't know for sure, however, for I'm not privy to the legal arguments the DNC plans to make and I haven't read the filing.
Click to expand...
Well, their track record with this last time was they won, so why not?
 
Chomsky said:
Ms. Baldwin does not know her history.

Before there was Woodward, Bernstein, Deep Throat, Archibald Cox, et al, there was the DNC Watergate lawsuit against Nixon & the RNC! In fact, the suit brought attention to the matter before Misters Woodward or Bernstein even had any ideas of the ramifications of their soon to be burgeoning story!

And guess what? On the same day Nixon resigned, the RNC settled the lawsuit giving the Dems a check for $750K on the $1M asked!

We've been here, before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think it plays out that way, this time. I predict the DNC will be laughed out of court. If I was the defense attorney, I would gleefully bring up the rigged primary against Bernie and ask the defense if the Russians were behind that too!
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Yeah, I don't think it plays out that way, this time. I predict the DNC will be laughed out of court. If I was the defense attorney, I would gleefully bring up the rigged primary against Bernie and ask the defense if the Russians were behind that too!
Click to expand...
I can respect that. We shall see.

It's also interesting that a civil case has a lower threshold of proof than a criminal case, so Trump could skate free of criminal liability, but the Dems could still (technically) win their civil case. Now wouldn't that be a mess!
 
Chomsky said:
I can respect that. We shall see.

It's also interesting that a civil case has a lower threshold of proof than a criminal case, so Trump could skate free of criminal liability, but the Dems could still (technically) win their civil case. Now wouldn't that be a mess!
Click to expand...

We shall see. My opinion is it is pure distraction. The best defense is a good offense.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, their track record with this last time was they won, so why not?
Click to expand...
Well, there are quite a few reasons, most of which have to do with some dimension of risk.
  • Reasons from the plaintiff's attorney's standpoint:
    • Professional/business risk -- Lawyers are prohibited not only from making frivolous claimsor contentions, but from maintaining them as well; thus filing a suit (and persisting with one) on the "well, why not?" basis can very literally end an attorney's career. Professional discipline, potential sanctions undercourt rules or statutory provisions, and even liability exposure in the form ofactions for abuse of process or malicious prosecution can result in a host of career limiting outcomes ranging from getting a bad reputation to one's a lawyer being disbarred. The consequences, particularly the diminution of professional regard, may attach not only to the attorney, but also to his/her firm.

      That sort of thing is fairly common in the professional world -- public accountancy, journalism, management consulting, advertising, engineering, medicine, architecture, and a host of other professional disciplines. And really, it's not so much about what the general public thinks; instead, it's how one and one's firm is regarded within one's industry. After all, aside from medicine and accounts to do tax returns, the overwhelming majority of the general public rarely purchases anything like the majority of services professionals perform. Business principals and wealthy people do, and neither comprises anything close to even a material plurality of the general public, and neither gives a wet rat's ass about what the general public thinks about the merits of a professional firm or professional services provider's reputation.
  • Statutes pertaining to frivolous lawsuits:

After reading the above and the linked content, you tell me if you think "so, why not?" is a good enough reason to file a lawsuit.
 
Xelor said:
Well, there are quite a few reasons, most of which have to do with some dimension of risk.
  • Reasons from the plaintiff's attorney's standpoint:
    • Professional/business risk -- Lawyers are prohibited not only from making frivolous claimsor contentions, but from maintaining them as well; thus filing a suit (and persisting with one) on the "well, why not?" basis can very literally end an attorney's career. Professional discipline, potential sanctions undercourt rules or statutory provisions, and even liability exposure in the form ofactions for abuse of process or malicious prosecution can result in a host of career limiting outcomes ranging from getting a bad reputation to one's a lawyer being disbarred. The consequences, particularly the diminution of professional regard, may attach not only to the attorney, but also to his/her firm.

      That sort of thing is fairly common in the professional world -- public accountancy, journalism, management consulting, advertising, engineering, medicine, architecture, and a host of other professional disciplines. And really, it's not so much about what the general public thinks; instead, it's how one and one's firm is regarded within one's industry. After all, aside from medicine and accounts to do tax returns, the overwhelming majority of the general public rarely purchases anything like the majority of services professionals perform. Business principals and wealthy people do, and neither comprises anything close to even a material plurality of the general public, and neither gives a wet rat's ass about what the general public thinks about the merits of a professional firm or professional services provider's reputation.
  • Statutes pertaining to frivolous lawsuits:

After reading the above and the linked content, you tell me if you think "so, why not?" is a good enough reason to file a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
You're taking my "Why not?" out of context, I believe.

The context is this specific suit, of which there's prior precedence of it successfully prevailing.
 
Chomsky said:
You're taking my "Why not?" out of context, I believe.

The context is this specific suit, of which there's prior precedence of it successfully prevailing.
Click to expand...
In my prior post (shown below), I thought I was merely giving a brief but accurate answer to straightforward legal-ish question.....
Chomsky said:
Well, their track record with this last time was they won, so why not?
Click to expand...
Xelor said:
Well, there are quite a few reasons, most of which have to do with some dimension of risk.

  • Reasons from the plaintiff's attorney's standpoint:
    • Professional/business risk -- Lawyers are prohibited not only from making frivolous claimsor contentions, but from maintaining them as well; thus filing a suit (and persisting with one) on the "well, why not?" basis can very literally end an attorney's career. Professional discipline, potential sanctions undercourt rules or statutory provisions, and even liability exposure in the form ofactions for abuse of process or malicious prosecution can result in a host of career limiting outcomes ranging from getting a bad reputation to one's a lawyer being disbarred. The consequences, particularly the diminution of professional regard, may attach not only to the attorney, but also to his/her firm.


      That sort of thing is fairly common in the professional world -- public accountancy, journalism, management consulting, advertising, engineering, medicine, architecture, and a host of other professional disciplines. And really, it's not so much about what the general public thinks; instead, it's how one and one's firm is regarded within one's industry. After all, aside from medicine and accounts to do tax returns, the overwhelming majority of the general public rarely purchases anything like the majority of services professionals perform. Business principals and wealthy people do, and neither comprises anything close to even a material plurality of the general public, and neither gives a wet rat's ass about what the general public thinks about the merits of a professional firm or professional services provider's reputation.
  • Statutes pertaining to frivolous lawsuits:

After reading the above and the linked content, you tell me if you think "so, why not?" is a good enough reason to file a lawsuit.
Click to expand...


​
Chomsky said:
You're taking my "Why not?" out of context, I believe.

The context is this specific suit, of which there's prior precedence of it successfully prevailing.
Click to expand...
Seeing as you thought the context is the specific suit [1] the DNC just filed, I don't know what you're talking about.


  • If the specific suit (i.e., its claims/assertions) prevailed before, the DNC can't reprise it. Minimally, it'd have had to have filed the suit and had it dismissed, whereafter a statute changed thus legitimating the resubmission of the same lawsuit.
  • If that specific lawsuit didn't before prevail, and no statutes have changed, why would they bring it again?
The preceding addresses the legal theory of bringing the same suit again. Pragmatically, when before did the DNC bring the specific suit they filed the other day? AFAIK, never.


Note:
  1. And no, I'm not being semantic. I realize that every lawsuit gets its unique case number and that the exact same qualitative filing would, if filed again, would get a new case number upon the second filing being physically accepted by the clerk of a court. The new-case-number aspect isn't the distinction I'm making, and I presume it's also not the one you're making. By "same suit" I'm referring to verisimilitude among the parties (defendants and plaintiff), claims (counts/allegation), prayer for relief and demands because, well, that's it'd take for one lawsuit to be the same as another one.
 
CNN is ran by Democrats... wich means their all FAKE NEWS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom