Would not the DNC have to prove that the Russian Federation did these things? Or is hearsay and “expert testimony” from their partisan paid experts enough? Surely the defendants would have the right to examine the primary evidence. In which case it will be very difficult to demonstrate the Russian Federation has anything to with the hack – as independent experts have already testified.
There’s lots of theories about how this data got out. One of the most convincing is that a gentleman by the name of Seth Rich was so horrified by the corruption inside the DNC in favour of Hillary R. Clinton (rigging the deck against her competitor Senator Bernard Sanders for the party’s nomination for President) that he decided to leak the contents of an internal server to Wikileaks. Julian Assange who is a relatively straight shooter (his credibility and that of Wikileaks partially depends on being seen as truthful) more or less said as much. There is a long Wikipedia article which all too professionally tries to bury this theory. Methinks the maiden protests too much.
I’m very surprised that the DNC really wants to go through a court process here with disclosure and formal examination of evidence. It seems the DNC must have strong assurances by highly placed directors within the security agencies that due process will not be diligently followed. The whole case can only be a charade of justice, some kind of political puppet theater.
From a legal perspective, it’s fascinating to watch a common-law legal system and due process destroyed by political imperatives. How much remains of a republic when the fireworks is over is an interesting question. Neither did Rome remain a republic, despite strong institutions and tradition
Would not the DNC have to prove that the Russian Federation did these things? Or is hearsay and “expert testimony” from their partisan paid experts enough? Surely the defendants would have the right to examine the primary evidence. In which case it will be very difficult to demonstrate the Russian Federation has anything to with the hack – as independent experts have already testified.
There’s lots of theories about how this data got out. One of the most convincing is that a gentleman by the name of Seth Rich was so horrified by the corruption inside the DNC in favour of Hillary R. Clinton (rigging the deck against her competitor Senator Bernard Sanders for the party’s nomination for President) that he decided to leak the contents of an internal server to Wikileaks. Julian Assange who is a relatively straight shooter (his credibility and that of Wikileaks partially depends on being seen as truthful) more or less said as much. There is a long Wikipedia article which all too professionally tries to bury this theory. Methinks the maiden protests too much.
I’m very surprised that the DNC really wants to go through a court process here with disclosure and formal examination of evidence. It seems the DNC must have strong assurances by highly placed directors within the security agencies that due process will not be diligently followed. The whole case can only be a charade of justice, some kind of political puppet theater.
From a legal perspective, it’s fascinating to watch a common-law legal system and due process destroyed by political imperatives. How much remains of a republic when the fireworks is over is an interesting question. Neither did Rome remain a republic, despite strong institutions and tradition