After more than a year, scores of interviews, mountains of documents, raids on witnesses, and tens of millions of dollars squandered away, there is still no evidence to support the allegation that President Donald Trump was involved in any type of "Russian collusion."
In what appears to be a desperate attempt to get the "L" (for loser) off its forehead, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks. The suit puts forth a wild conspiracy theory to try and divert attention away from its embarrassing loss in the 2016 presidential election.
A host of federal laws that were supposedly violated are cited in the suit, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the tried-and-true fave of the left, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The lawsuit is a redux of the 1972 DNC lawsuit during the Watergate investigation against then-President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee. That litigation ended in 1974 when the Dems took a settlement of $750,000 from the Nixon campaign — on the very same day Nixon vacated the Oval Office.
In a statement contained in a press release, current DNC Chairman Tom Perez publicized the suit using identical phrases that CNN and MSNBC guests and hosts have been parroting for almost two years.
Perez claimed the lawsuit was filed because "Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy" in an act of “unprecedented treachery."
The timing of the legal maneuver is a huge tell. Recent news coverage has been splattered with stories about the much-anticipated book tour of former FBI Director James B.Comey, which has not exactly been going according to plan and has even managed to elicit its share of ridicule and disdain.
Two news stories involving the Obama appointed Inspector General have cracked the liberal media firewall: 1. A criminal referral on the fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and 2. The launch of a new investigation into Comey over the release of his self-incriminating memos.
Meanwhile President Trump’s poll numbers have hit a high-water mark and seem poised to go even higher with the historic news that North Korea may be willing to denuclearize.
At the same time the Democratic generic ballot numbers appear to be falling.
Adding to a growing political anxiety for the DNC is the fact that the organization is running short of cash. It's for this reason and so many others that the group has seemingly adopted the Saul Alinsky strategy of pinning your political rival with the dirty deed you've committed.
Audaciously, this is the same DNC that rigged its own primary, as former interim DNC chairperson Donna Brazile has documented. It is also the same DNC that colluded with the Russians for real on the DNC bought-and-paid for fake dossier.
Legally speaking, the Democrats may rue the day that they filed this action. In civil lawsuits, defendants are entitled to conduct discovery, including having the ability to subpoena the production of documents and other evidence and depose witnesses under oath.
Republicans would no doubt jump at the chance to subpoena the DNC computer server and obtain the communications and documents that show how, in its own primary process, the DNC swindled the supporters of 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
The DNC repeatedly refused to allow the FBI to access its server so that law enforcement could verify the allegation that Russia had hacked the server during the presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC reached a dubious arrangement with the FBI in which a third-party company conducted forensic investigations on the server and shared details with the FBI.
The list of documents and witnesses involved with the purchase of the fake dossier and the subsequent FISA abuse scandal is lengthy and includes the names of Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and Glenn Simpson — all of whom could be deposed as a result of the DNC lawsuit.
Additionally, defendants in the suit would be able to bring a host of counterclaims including ones that might involve defamation, conspiracy to defraud, and federal election money laundering.
Allegations that the Hillary Clinton campaign laundered millions of dollars in contributions from big name donors could also potentially become a part of the discovery effort.
As reporter Amy Chozick outlines in her book, "Chasing Hillary," during the very same time period that the DNC lawsuit contends the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia, the Clinton campaign was engaging in an effort to elevate President Trump’s candidacy and tie him to the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Some Democrats are wise enough to see that the DNC lawsuit poses a whole slew of problems for them, as illustrated in the comments below:
- California Rep. Jackie Speier described the suit in a CNN interview as an “ill-conceived” idea that is “not in the interest of the American people."
- Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.) told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the legal action is a “silly distraction."
- Gloria Borger, the reflexively liberal chief political analyst at CNN, said that the DNC lawsuit is a "100 percent stunt" designed to "raise money," adding that “they want to keep the story moving."
The DNC needs to come to grips with the reality that it was a main player in the rigging of the 2016 presidential election, handing the nomination for president to a flawed candidate, who was under criminal investigation at the time of her nomination and who flat-out lost an election that diehard Democrats believed she already had in the bag.
James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood. Read more reports from James Hirsen — Click Here Now.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.