Late tonight, Monday the 4th of March, Wikileaks shared a document dump consisting of a motion filed by lawyers representing President Donald J. Trump’s campaign. This motion calls for a dismissal of the “Russiagate” case filed by the Democratic National Committee in the Southern District of New York. We’ve read the report, and we’re here to sum it up.
What is the basis this case, you might ask? The goal posts of “RUSSIA!” have moved so many times that it can be hard for the common man or woman to keep up. This specific case is in regards to the DNC “hack” that was supposedly perpetrated prior to the 2016 election, where emails and documents on DNC servers were publicly released via Wikileaks. The allegation is that the Trump campaign, in coordination with a “hodgepodge” of characters, including the Russian Federation & Wikileaks, conspired to steal and disseminate illegally acquired documents prior to the election. Specifically, Russian intelligence services “hacked” into the DNC’s systems and servers, the first phase of which is alleged to take place in July 2015. After, Russia “colluded” with the Campaign, Wikileaks, and others to “disseminate” the material.
Here we learn that the DNC has alleged a number of claims against the defendants:
- Two counts of RICO charges for acting as a “criminal enterprise”
- The Wiretap Act (intercepting communications)
- The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (defendants stole ‘trade secrets’ from DNC)
- Conspiracy to commit trespass to chattels in violation of Virginia law in connection with….
- The Virginia Computer Crimes Act
The very first sentence in the 151-page filing asserts that the DNC’s purpose for the lawsuit is to explain away the loss that Clinton suffered in the 2016 election.
The defense is made that the disclosures made by Wikileaks are protected by the First Amendment as they were in the public interest for several reasons, including: the Clinton campaign’s wealthy donors, media collusion, and “questionable conduct.” The lawyers for the Campaign methodically, thoughtfully dissect each claim against the Campaign in a logical way.
In my reading of the documents here, the Campaign’s representatives do not offer an alternative theory on the origin of the DNC hack. Many believe that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was slain in Washington D.C. during the election period, was responsible for supplying the original documents released by Wikileaks. A number of people close to those responsible for the hack have corroborated this, including Assange’s mother. He nodded when directly asked if Rich was the source in this interview:
The DNI released this report in 2017 alleging that Russia was indeed the source for the Wikileaks release, which was likely the basis for the indictment of 12 Russian nationals by the Mueller team. Oddly, the DNC had not allowed the FBI or other organizations to analyze their servers for hacking. Instead, they paid Crowdstrike to do so, owned by anti-Putin Russian expat Dmitri Alperovitch, who is a senior fellow on the very anti-Russia Atlantic Council.
In an interview with Sean Hannity, Julian Assange swore that the source of the leaks was not related to the Russian government and was not a state party. Further, we already have established precedent that the Intelligence Community had a vested interest in blaming both Russia and the Trump Campaign for the loss of Clinton.
In any case, we believe that POTUS’s lawyers have provided an adequate defense. Don’t forget Q’s recent reminder – the DA for the SDNY (where this case is filed) reports to AG Barr. 🙂