Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Democrats Government Security The Military United States

Russia Wants DNC Hack Lawsuit Thrown Out, Citing International Conventions (zdnet.com) 267

Posted by BeauHD from the I-want-a-pony dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: The Russian Federation has responded to a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and has requested the overseeing court to throw out the lawsuit altogether. The lawsuit, filed by the DNC in April 2018, names a slew of figures as defendants, such as the Russian state, Russia's military intelligence service GRU, the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, and several members of the Trump campaign, such as Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner, and George Papadopoulos. According to an 87-page indictment, the DNC accused Russia and the other defendants of carrying out the hacking of DNC servers in 2016 and then leaking data online via the WikiLeaks portal in an orchestrated manner for the benefit of the Trump presidential campaign.

The lawsuit, which has its own Wikipedia page and was likened to a lawsuit the DNC filed against Nixon after the Watergate scandal, seeks damages, but also for the court to issue a declaration about the defendants' conspiracy. But in a letter sent to a New York court, presented by the Russian Embassy in the U.S. and signed by a representative of the Russian Ministry of Justice, the Russian Federation wants the lawsuit thrown out. In the 12-page letter, the Russian Federation argues that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") grants Russia immunity. "The FSIA provides that foreign sovereign States enjoy absolute jurisdictional immunity from suit unless a plaintiff can demonstrate that one of the FSIA's enumerated 'exceptions' applies'," the letter argues. "The DNC's allegations regarding a purported 'military attack' by 'Russia's military intelligence agency' do not fall within any of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to the Russian Federation's sovereign immunity."

"Any alleged 'military attack' is a quintessential sovereign act that does not fall within any exception to the FSIA or the customary international law of foreign sovereign immunity. The Russian Federation's sovereign immunity with respect to claims based upon such allegations is absolute."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Wants DNC Hack Lawsuit Thrown Out, Citing International Conventions More

Russia Wants DNC Hack Lawsuit Thrown Out, Citing International Conventions

Comments Filter:
  • This is silly that we are chasing foreign military for spying/hacking on American politicians. In fact, it seems wrong that we are pursuing Assange. They are NOT American citizens or under American legal system. In addition, I believe that they all did this while outside of our nation.

    The ones to go after, are the Americans that worked for/with the Russians and Assange. That is what Mueller is up to. Supposedly, he has a large number of indictments waiting to go.

    • It's not as straightforward as that. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides a commercial activity exception [wikipedia.org] that appears to be the basis for this lawsuit, which names Russia as a co-conspirator in a racket. [wikipedia.org] Trump is also named as a co-conspirator.

    • Re:IMNAL, but this seems right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @07:50PM (#57671036)

      The Russians leaked the fact that Hillary colluded with the DNC to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. So they "leaked" the truth. Maybe instead of targeting the Russians we should focus on cleaning up our own sleazy institutions, starting with the DNC. If the DNC was seen as less corrupt, they might even help their party win a few elections in the heartland.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

        Allegedly the Ruskys. More likely Seth Rich.

      • Re:IMNAL, but this seems right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @08:05PM (#57671090)

        Suppose you break down your neighbor's door in order to reveal the truth about something that lies inside the house. Does revealing the truth immunize you?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Livius ( 318358 )

          If there was a crime in progress and you had something in the way of probable cause, yes.

          • If there was a crime in progress and you had something in the way of probable cause, yes.

            Not automatically it doesn't. You'll find yourself in a lengthy court case trying to prove your innocence.

            • You thought you heard a scream and that someone was in danger. Yeah real hard...

              • You thought you heard a scream and that someone was in danger. Yeah real hard...

                If you tried to use that excuse to break into a house you may find out how "real hard" it would actually be to make that fly in a court case.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          When it is a threat to the democracy of the nation, not only do you break the door down but pretty much you take the fuckers outside and shoot them in the head, so exactly what is your fucking point. They did not give a fuck about MS13 assassinating the leaker at the behest of DNC insider because otherwise they could testify exactly where the information came from.

          I personally would have liked to see the court case but like the Russian government I could guess exactly what kind of shite show it would have

          • Go back to 4chan.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dargaud ( 518470 )

            MS13 assassinating the leaker at the behest of DNC

            I did not follow this stuff closely, so I did a quick search. Were you referring to this ? [copy pasta from wikipedia]

            The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories,[2] including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder.[3][4] It was also contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[3][4][6] Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[4][7] Snopes.com,[8] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[3] The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amiga3D ( 567632 )

          This reminds me of the guy that had his VCR stolen and the tape in it was him having sex with pre-teens. The burglar was so disgusted he sent the tape to the police. They DID use it to prosecute.

        • Your analogy is for two individuals living under the same legal jurisdiction. A more apt analogy in this case would be you live near the border, and you use a telephoto camera to reveal the truth about something going on inside a neighboring house on the other side of the border (i.e. in another country).

          Even if peeping into a house is illegal in that country, the fact that you did it from your country would probably immunize you. In fact that's what should scare you most about this. If the DNC were t
        • So you're saying the New York Times and the Washington Post should have been prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon Papers. Thanks for playing ass-hole.

      • My post here will undo moderation in this thread, so please believe that I mean this.

        I do not normally find myself at odds with you on most issues, but I cannot believe you just wrote that. You can't reasonably force only one party to undergo extreme involuntary transparency and not see that as grossly unfair. I don't mean that as "stomp your feet and cry" unfair, I mean it more like "stuffing ballot boxes" unfair, or "paying cash for votes" unfair. That's not the American way (or, not the American way I

      • the DNC has neutered the super delegates. They stopped short of eliminating them (old power structures are hard to kill completely) but they're basically gone baring a miracle.

        But to be blunt, the DNC's shenanigans are tiny, tiny potatoes next to the Sheldon Primary [washingtonpost.com]

        Basically, it's not just cheating that kept Bernie out of the Whitehouse. America has a ruling class. We don't like to acknowledge their existence, but they're there. And they're not shy about it either.

        So the DNC delt a blow to that

        • Basically, it's not just cheating that kept Bernie out of the Whitehouse. America has a ruling class.

          Yes, it is pathetic how the Koch brothers were able to just buy the presidency for Jeb Bush.

        • That is why I am backing public funding, combined with ranked-choice voting. The second should allow for the destruction of the DNC and GOP. The first will make it harder to bribe politicians (which is what is going on). Lawrence Lessig has this right.
        • Destroying ballots after a primary for a Federal office is a felony. That's not small potatoes.

      • Wrong. Marc Elias was general counsel for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign who paid the Russians to spy. It was not Hillary.

      • Personally, I would rather see BOTH the GOP and Dems die. They are corrupt sleazy groups that have more in common with the Chinese communist party than they do with that America was. Sadly, it will take time to do that. I know that I will be dead by the the time the first one is killed off.

      • Selective truth is a lie. In fact, all the best lies are approximately true, because they're the hardest to detect.

      • That'd be great if Russia used a whistleblower defense here.

        I'm surprised the DNC wants to keep airing their dirty laundry.

  • Should this be actionable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2018 @07:29PM (#57670926)

    I'm a never-Trump Republican. I hate the fact that the cheeto won. But I don't like this lawsuit at all.
    AIUI, they're suing people for leaking the truth. They're saying the truth hurt the Clinton campaign and gave us this gimboid.
    The allegedly damaging contents of those emails are things the voters had a right to know.
    Much like truth is a defense to defamation, it ought to be a defense here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rsborg ( 111459 )

      What's the truth here, that Russia hacked the DNC? You know what else is factual? Your personal contact information, SSN and banking details. Do you want that thrown up on pastebin with a "someone should do something" advisory?

    • Should this be actionable? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BankRobberMBA ( 4918083 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @08:30PM (#57671212)

      Treaty-wise, I don't know, but some fact-finder will render a decision and then we'll all know.

      Right- and wrong-wise, I think it should be, for two reasons.

      First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties. If you think that the Republican party is not hiding a bunch of dirt, please explicitly state that, because otherwise it is hypocritical.

      Second, if, as seems likely at this point, these hacks were carried out by someone acting on behalf of the Russian government, then every American should be fighting mad. Agents of an adversarial power interfering in our elections? Are you kidding me? That's a violation of our sovereignty. And yes, I know that the US has a bad history of doing this to other countries. They also have every right to be royally pissed off at us for that.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties. If you think that the Republican party is not hiding a bunch of dirt, please explicitly state that, because otherwise it is hypocritical.

        Does this apply to the DNC itself too? The RNC? Are they obligated to release their own dirt? How do you claim to enforce that

        • Does this apply to the DNC itself too? The RNC? Are they obligated to release their own dirt? How do you claim to enforce that? I don't know what the RNC is hiding, but it seems odd to reverse the burden of proof like that.

          What are you talking about? I didn't say anything like that. Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it. ShangaiBill made a comment that seemed to blame the DNC for having dirt. THAT'S what I responded to.

          Also, the media is doing a fine job of leaking dirt on Trump. Why do they need Russian help again?

          Moreover, the main thing the DNC was guilty of was rigging their own primaries. We know the RNC isn't doing that because we got Trump, the weakest candidate.

          The media isn't leaking Trump dirt, they're reporting it. But this is all coming out now, after the election, rather than before, which is when the DNC got hit. Completely different thing.

          Not at all. I want the dirt on everyone released. The media is already doing a good job on releasing Trump's dirt on their own, I don't think they need Russian help. But the fact that they ignored all the DNC dirt bothers me.

          They didn't ignore all the DNC dirt. The media is where I learned that

          • Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it.

            No, they're not just suing the Russians. They're suing all kinds of people, including people involved in the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) without any evidence, whatsoever, that they had anything at all to do with Podesta's lame password being exploited, or Hillary leaving her pantsuit down while running a highly insecure server handling classified data out of her house. The suit demands that the court pronounce the Trump campaign as complicit in that. It's just more in the ongoing spin effort to desp

      • Do you have any proof of such corruption? What do we call people who assert without proof?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Solandri ( 704621 )

        First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties.

        As long as we're talking about having an ideal world, can you agree that it's simply not fair for 90% of the press to mostly be trying to dig up dirt on one party, and only 10% trying to dig up dirt on the other party? If the press reports an equal amount of corruption

        • As long as we're talking about having an ideal world, can you agree that it's simply not fair for 90% of the press to mostly be trying to dig up dirt on one party, and only 10% trying to dig up dirt on the other party?

          This continued myth about the alleged domination by liberal media is a wonderful talking point. It's also a goddamned lie.

          For every NPR radio station, there are literally 10 times as many hard right (and lunatic fringe right) radio stations broadcasting Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. (In order of increasing lunacy.)

          Fox News has the highest viewer ratings of all cable news channels and has since goddamn 2002. That's 65 straight quarters. And it's 1/3rd of the cable news channels. There are

    • So if a hostile foreign country had sent agents to break into the Trump towers to find any dirt on Trump (like his tax returns and copies of his numerous non-disclosure agreements) to later use for extortion purposes or to use as leverage for international negotiations or to use for supporting a different political candidate at the most crucial times, you would have been fine with it?

      Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Julian Assange is guilty of anything. For all I know, he was just an innocent conduit

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      leaking

      That's now how you spell "hacking".

      The Russians could argue that they just wanted the truth to come out, but then they would have to admit to having done the hack and interfered with a foreign election.

      Republicans should be upset about this too. If proven that Russia was responsible for this information coming out then it de-legitimizes Trump's win even further, because he had illegal help (even if he didn't ask for it, although the fact that his staff and family members were meeting with Russians at the ti

  • If The DNC were so concerned (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @07:33PM (#57670948)

    How come they never let the FBI examine the the server

    FBI: DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05... [cnn.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 )
      At one time in history, Democrats didn't trust the FBI. And for good reasons.

      When Trump got elected, I thought maybe we would have a chance of bi-partisan dislike of the FBI. But that turned out to not be the case.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        You have to admit the party in power has more control over that Bureau than the one not in power. It's not 100% independent, being the Executive branch pretty much runs it, as set forth by the Constitution.

        Perhaps it should be independent, but fixing that requires refactoring the Constitution, which is about as likely to happen as me winning a billion dollars in the lottery while riding a unicycle backward chewing gum blindfolded during an earthquake.

        • Yes, you are completely right, but I don't see what difference it makes. The FBI has serious issues and if both parties are mad at the FBI, something can be done, like reducing funding or changing its mission.

        • The FBI is mostly independent, and their employees are mostly Republicans.

          These are both facts.

          The place also leaks like a sieve.

    • Um, reasons...?

      /sarcasm

    • Re:If The DNC were so concerned (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Patent Lover ( 779809 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @09:20AM (#57673272)

      Probably because the FBI never asked:

      https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com]

      • CNN may not be the greatest news outlet but when they quote the FBI as saying they asked and were rebuffed by the DNC, I am tempted to take that as fact.

  • The DNC hack was a good thing. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imperious_rex ( 845595 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @07:44PM (#57671002)
    The Russians' did the American people a favor by hacking the DNC. It exposed what most Bernie Sanders supporters suspected, but could not prove: that the DNC had already decided that their handpicked gal Hillary was going to win the primary, no matter how much support other primary candidates had. There was nothing "democratic" about the process. The DNC wanted Hillary to win the primary and they got what they wanted. But come November, Hillary lost out to Trump. Ooops.

    • Re:The DNC hack was a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @07:59PM (#57671070)

      So according to you, Americans should do Russia a favor by hacking the Kremlin?

    • Biggest part that is wrong about your comment is the claim it was Russia. As it stands only DNC and a company THEY paid to look at the server have said that. That company also has very heavy and far left leaning ideology so any claims they make is well bogus. There has been plenty of experts that came out and looking at file time stamps say there was 0 chance it was an outside hack due to speed at which the files were copied. The only way data could been transferred was by someone with physical access. So

  • Neither of us is likely to get what we want, and Putin knows it.

  • Huge error in this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by McFortner ( 881162 ) on Monday November 19, 2018 @09:02PM (#57671358)

    "The Russian Federation has responded to a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee..."

    ...

    "According to an 87-page indictment..."

    The DNC is bringing forth this lawsuit, not the state, so it's not a criminal case but a CIVIL lawsuit. It even says so on page one of the documents posted, "Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-0350" and "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (emphasis from the original). Therefore, it can't be and indictment because that is only used in CRIMINAL cases brought forth by the state and not in civil cases. ZDNet therefore got their terminology wrong, either on purpose or accidentally. Either way, it is a basic point of law that even I caught at first glance.

    Maybe they need to stop watching so much legal dramas on TV. Heaven knows those get it wrong all the time. If you can't get something this basic right, how can we trust your "legal analysis" on anything else?

  • Now that the sublime has passed.

    All we can do now is just enjoy the show.

  • That's not an indictment. Indictments are criminal proceedings. This is a civil suit---it says so on the very first page.

    Note that the party is the DNC, not a state or federal agency. Criminal prosecutors file indictments for serious crimes with serious consequences. Civil actions are slap-fights over money, and that's what this is.

    If you scroll down to the "Prayer for Relief" on p. 69, you'll see that, yes, all claims are relieved by money, money, and more money (plus a court order telling the defendants n

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close