In another mind-boggling act by the left, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is suing the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks for allegedly disrupting the 2016 campaign. This lawsuit from the DNC seems an act of pure desperation. We’ll let you decide.
As we know, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein allegedly told President Trump he is not the target of either special counsel Robert Mueller’s collusion investigation, or the target of the investigation into his personal attorney Michael D. Cohen. Yet, just one week later, the Democratic National Committee files a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks. But here is the interesting part: Trump himself is not named as a defendant.
But before I get into the absurdity of it all, think about this for a minute. The DNC is actually trying to sue a sovereign foreign government in an American court? Are you kidding me? It’s hard enough to sue our own government, let alone a foreign one. How do they expect to compel the Russian government to do anything? Just naming the Russian government in the court documents is counterintuitive. Let alone the rest of their complaint. Our courts have no jurisdiction over a foreign government.
In order to hear a case, the courts in the United States must have two types of jurisdiction: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to whether a court can hear a case on a particular subject—it is usually pretty clear. Personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, refers to whether a court has power over the person being sued and can be difficult to determine.
The basic concept behind determining personal jurisdiction is evaluating whether courts in that state have a vested interest in the parties and a right to make binding decisions over said parties. How can the courts exercise personal jurisdiction over a sovereign foreign government? It’s ludicrous. It’s called Foreign Sovereign Immunity and can be found under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1602 – 11.
The Washington Post, who first reported the DNC’s lawsuit, alleges that contact Russian officials had with the Trump campaign amounted to collusion—a theory pushed by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) for months. But these accusations do not fall within the scope of the very specific and well-defined seven listed exemptions to sovereign immunity. As such, our courts cannot establish jurisdiction.
Case in point: Several Russians were indicted as part of the special counsel probe spearheaded by former FBI director Robert Mueller, alleging that they interfered in the 2016 election through a social media propaganda campaign. None of the 13 have come to the U.S. to face their indictment.
Ignoring the jurisdiction issue for a moment, the DNC is alleging, in the complaint filed in federal district court in Manhattan, that top Trump campaign officials “conspired” with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump. But hacking the email servers of the Democratic National Committee and disseminating information from them isn’t even mentioned. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and duplicity of the DNC here?
DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement: “During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign.” But again, no mention of Hillary Clinton or her home-grown server which was hacked by no less than five foreign government intelligence agencies.
But wait, the double-standard doesn’t stop there.
Tom Perez went on to say, “This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.” Wait, are we talking about Donald Trump…or Hillary Clinton? I’m confused.
To make matters even worse for the Democrats, former FBI Director James Comey’s new book—which was highly anticipated in light of allegations of obstruction of justice—has not yielded the smoking gun they had hoped for. Even Comey admits that Trump (or his campaign) did nothing illegal. Comey wrote in his book; “I have one perspective on the behavior I saw, which while disturbing and violating basic norms of ethical leadership, may fall short of being illegal [emphasis added].”
So then why file the lawsuit at all?
In short, the DNC could be hoping that the lawsuit will reinvigorate the Russian collusion theory, helping to raise funds ahead of the election. For months, Democrats have been soliciting donations based off of the Mueller probe.
In 2017, the DNC raised just half that of its GOP counterpart, the Republican National Committee (RNC). It has reported that the RNC raised $13.8 million in February alone, and ended the month with $42.9 million cash on hand, and zero debt. Contrast that with the DNC, which has not yet reported its numbers but finished February with only $10 million on hand.
Those numbers have to have the DNC running scared. The DNC is eagerly shopping for a fundraising gambit. Based on preliminary numbers, with legal funds taking off, including those set up for figures involved in the Russia investigation and viewed favorably by Democrats like Andrew McCabe, the gambit looks to have paid off as it appears the lawsuit looks like a potential money-maker for the DNC.
So, however absurd it may seem from a legal standpoint, the lawsuit might have an alternate purpose: Enabling the financially strapped DNC a fresh opportunity to dip into donors’ pockets, and potentially energizing smaller dollar donors in order to put its most competitive foot forward this November.
In fact, this lawsuit looks like a “do-over” of a tactic used by the DNC in 1972, in the context of the Watergate scandal. While that lawsuit did yield $750,000 in damages, it’s a trivial sum compared to what the DNC might be able to bank by hyping the lawsuit to an energized base ahead of November elections.
But here is one thing the seemingly desperate left is forgetting: The DNC is facing a double-edged sword because discovery works both ways.
Roger Stone, a former top Trump advisor, is named in the DNC’s lawsuit alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, along with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, and more. He discussed his reaction on the “Jimmy Mathis Show.”
“These lawyers need to be sanctioned,” Stone said of the DNC lawsuit. “This is bogus, it is meritless, baseless, it is a strung together fantasy of things they find suspicious because of their left-wing worldview. I think it is probably a fundraising device for the DNC. But, as you pointed out, it has opened the door for discovery, so we’re going to find out if they were really hacked by the Russians…”
And therein lies a huge problem for the DNC. What if, in defense against the charges, the lawyers call Hillary Clinton to the stand? Or dare I say Obama? What if the defense subpoenas those mysterious missing emails from Hillary’s server? What if, during the discovery process, the defense can show actual collusion occurred between Hillary, Obama, and the Russians? By filing this lawsuit, the DNC could be opening the proverbial Pandora’s box.
Regardless of their motivations or reasons, it is pure absurdity for the DNC to have filed this lawsuit. It’s even more irrational to continue to pursue the suit to its finality. There are just too many dangers.
My best guess is this lawsuit is a pure farce, concocted by the DNC to stir up their base and raise money. The DNC is broke, the Democrats have no platform or message resonating with voters, and no viable candidates with November just months away. Mark my words, this lawsuit will vaporize once the elections are over.
