Recall that the Democratic National Committee is suing the Trump campaign, the Russian Federation, Wikileaks, and several of their brothers and uncles over the hack of DNC emails and the DNC’s loss of the 2016 elections.
Here, via The Wall Street Journal, is a brief excerpt to the DNC’s filing along with my perhaps rude comments.
V. THE SIGNIFICANT HARM INFLICTED UPON PLAINTIFF
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reach a peak immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general election.
This is bogus. The release (the timing of which is wholly irrelevant) went alongside DNC communications “with the electorate;” it did not prevent anything. The DNC easily could have refuted the claims in the release, point by point. Oh, wait—how does one refute claimed statements, when the statements are plain for all to see?
It’s also highly suspicious that, when the FBI sought access to the hacked servers, from which the “stolen materials” were stolen, the DNC denied the access. Why would the DNC not want the cops to investigate the crime it claims was committed, and the hackers caught and prosecuted?
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen materials also impaired the DNC’s ability to support Democratic candidates in the general election.
See above. In addition, the wedge was driven by the DNC leadership, who were busily stacking the race against one of the candidates—a stack against which “Democratic voters” would have demurred from the jump had they been permitted to know the bias was being acted on before the hack and release.
A question the DNC, even now, has declined to address: had Bernie Sanders won the Party nomination despite the leadership’s best efforts, would they have supported him with the same level of effort and zeal they did the candidate they had designated as the Party nominee before the primary campaigns?
137. The public release of stolen DNC materials was enormously disruptive to the convention, undermining the party’s ability to achieve unity and rally members around their shared values. The release cast a cloud over the convention’s activities, interfering with the party’s opportunity to communicate its vision to the electorate.
Again, bogus. What was disruptive and undermining was the plain dishonesty of DNC leadership and its having been caught in its attempt to fix the election. Besides, Sanders worked very hard, and successfully, to bring the Party together for the general election, despite the leadership’s having so thoroughly cheated him. This beef has no actual damage done.