Trump To "Counter" DNC Lawsuit; Seeks Servers, Clinton Emails And "Pakistani Mystery Man"

a reply to: TheGOAT

Yeah. Lesser of two weevils.

Lucky us.

a reply to: Grambler

Someone charged with murder doesn't get to hire their own coroner to examine the body.
They don't get the gun. Or the knife, or the candlestick.
They would get a report.
Someone charged with auto theft doesn't get to have their own finger print guy test the vehicle.
A rapist doesn't get to hire a doctor to examine a rape victim.
The hackers don't get the server.
They get a report. They get to examine the same data the forensic investigators looked at.
They only get what they need to launch a defense.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually they can.

😎

a reply to: Sillyolme

What? They absolutely do. Forensic pathologists, for instance, are hired frequently to conduct a second autopsy/labs.

You absolutely can examine the evidence, including questioning the methods by which it was collected/discrepancies in documentation, etc. In fact, it is your right. A basic right, to confront your accuser (including their evidence) and to challenge it before trial.

a reply to: Sillyolme

A rapist doesn't get to hire a doctor to examine a rape victim.

An accused rapist does

The hackers don't get the server.

An accused hacker does

It is called "discovery" and it part of your right to face your accuser/their evidence.

Just to be clear, indictments NEVER equal guilt. Accusations NEVER equal guilt. Evidence alone NEVER equals guilt. Only conviction in a court of law does that. And until that very second in time, you're afforded all the rights of presumptive innocence and the right to face your accuser/their evidence, and to dissect it for your defense. The system IS rigged on behalf of the accused, and rightfully so. The ACCUSER must entirely prove their case, the burden is solely on them.

The person accusing someone of rape must prove the rape actually happened and that XX person is responsible. The person accusing someone of hacking must prove the hack actually occurred (DNC can't do that, they never turned over the evidence to LE/CI).

Like I said, the near-broke DNC will be liable for a significant amount of legal fees. This is clearly a last-ditch effort, since they DO NOT have evidence Mueller doesn't have. My bet? Someone told Schiff he's looking pretty damn stupid making sure-fire claims of "Collusion now obstruction" while every shred of evidence we DO have suggests otherwise. They're trying to save face by stretching out the illusion that *something* may happen to Trump.

It won't.

Anyone know why Nunes didn't subpoena the DNC as part of his investigation of Russian meddling and hacking?

Oh wait, that's not what he was investigating. Is it? He's been busy trying to prove that Trump was wiretapped.

a reply to: Phage

The DNC took the hard drives and destroyed them, or wiped them.

What makes you think the DNC would allow anyone to examine the hard drives?

a reply to: burntheships

But isn't that what the OP is cackling about?

This will allow trumps campaign to have access to info about Awan and the server he had, and the dnc server.

I mean the fbi couldn’t be bothered to look at the server, so it will be nice for someone who is not paid for by the dnc to actually see it

a reply to: Phage

Irregardless, there will still be plenty of dirt to find
through depositions and discovery.

The DNC is doing themselves a disservice with this
frivolous suit. As if its not bad enough for them already,
Wikileaks has stated they will countersue.

This will be fun!

Personally, I think the Dims just did this for headlines
and hope they can get some $ since their donations
have dried up from Shillary.

a reply to: burntheships

I think you mean regardless.

But I agree the suit will go nowhere.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Wait till they find and prove the planted "evidence".

😎

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Phage

Irregardless, there will still be plenty of dirt to find
through depositions and discovery.

The DNC is doing themselves a disservice with this
frivolous suit. As if its not bad enough for them already,
Wikileaks has stated they will countersue.

This will be fun!

Personally, I think the Dims just did this for headlines
and hope they can get some $ since their donations
have dried up from Shillary.

Yup

They're scamming for more donations to launder.

Caught once, try again.

Caught twice, try again ......

☺

a reply to: Phage

I prefer Webster.
www.merriam-webster.com...

But from your link...

Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude asshole will correct you.

It depends on if the Dims are smart enough to realize
they lost, have bad candidates and voters are not excited
about pledges to raise taxes and confiscate guns.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wait till they find and prove the planted "evidence".

😎

This could be part of the "insurance plan".

Interestingly enough, the dead spy in the bag may
come back to haunt them.

a reply to: burntheships

I prefer Webster.

Then you should take their advice. Your source:

Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

a reply to: Phage

Your not my professor, lol.

But back to the topic, since you don't think this lawsuit will
go anywhere even though you've invested heavily in the discussion
why are you trying to deflect back to Devin Nunes?

a reply to: burntheships

Heavily invested? Hardly. I've asked one question. And still don't have an answer.

If there is something damning to be found in regard to the DNC and Russian meddling in the election, why did Devin Nunes not pursue it? Why did he not subpoena the DNC? He such a respected investigator. Isn't he?

I don't know why. That's why I asked.

Here's another question. Do you think the DNC is unaware of the rules of discovery? Which is the topic of this thread. Is it not?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Someone charged with murder doesn't get to hire their own coroner to examine the body.

I'm not going to go through all your baseless suppositions, but here's a quick one on second autopsies.

If there is any reason to suspect that the deceased died from something other than the alleged actions of the defendant (i.e., natural causes) or in a manner incompatible with the theory of the prosecution, the lawyer should retain the services of a medical examiner to carefully review the autopsy results and, if necessary, perform a second autopsy. 

The exception to this is probably going to be your rape reference. The defense won't examine the victim. But if the state destroys or loses the samples in the rape kit thereby denying the defense the opportunity to conduct their own forensic examination of the samples, then the rape kit becomes inadmissible.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

And???

What are they going to discover besides what everybody already knows...that the Russians Hacked the DNC???

When you go off on a 4 or 5 post reply tangent with one sentence using multiple "????" at the end and "lol" and "haaa hahaha", do honestly expect people to take you seriously? I'm surprised the mods haven't warned or banned you yet. You do this often and your pink profile text is not very hard to miss.

I'm honestly dumbfounded the stupid DNC filed this type of lawsuit, they really just put the nail in their own coffin by doing this. Do you honestly think this is going to drag Trump in deeper? This is only going to cost the DNC, bigly. The amount of evidence they're going to be forced to turn over for everyone to see is going to be astounding, and if it ends up they have none of it, or it all was "erased", you can be sure A LOT of voters are going to say "HMM, that's fishy, where did it all go, and, if there's nothing to hide, why was it all destroyed?"

You can prop this up all you want, but this is really, really bad for the DNC.

a reply to: Grambler

Trump can counter for the DNC server that the DNC refused to give to the FBI HOWEVER..... this is from the DNC lawsuit that was filed the other day. You can't get info from a wiped drive or drives in this case


Clause 85 of DNC lawsuit