According to Democrat logic, Donald Trump colluded with Russians to hack into the Republican National Committee. That is a reasonable conclusion drawn from a particular action taken by the Democratic National Committee.
From CBS News: “Three months after filing a lawsuit against the Trump campaign, the Russian government and WikiLeaks that alleges a massive conspiracy to tilt the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has so far been unsuccessful in its attempts to serve WikiLeaks.” (Quote Source)
DNC officials need to explain why Russians tried to hack into the RNC if Trump was colluding with them.
They also need to explain something else: Why it is permissible for liberal media outlets to report information given to them by a third party that obtained the information illegally, while it isn’t permissible for Wikileaks to do the same?
If a third party gave the liberal American media some dirt on Donald Trump, then the liberal American media would report it even if the third party acquired the dirt through illegal means.
If reporting political dirt to the the public makes one guilty of collusion, then CBS was guilty of collusion during the Rathergate scandal of 2004. One could claim that Dan Rather colluded with Bill Burkett to tilt the 2004 election in John Kerry’s favor.
The difference between Wikileaks and Dan Rather is that Wikileaks reported something that was true.
How the truth is obtained might be a crime or a tort, but telling people the truth, in itself, isn’t a crime or a tort.
Here is more from that CBS News story: “Friday’s motion is a new attempt to deliver the lawsuit to WikiLeaks and since WikiLeaks’ exact physical presence is unknown, the DNC argues the lawsuit can only be served electronically, not physically.”
If Wikileaks is not physically within U.S. jurisdiction, then how can Wikileaks be required to conform to U.S. law? If a British newspaper had reported what Wikileaks had reported, then would the DNC be suing that British newspaper in a U.S. court?
Those Russian hacker should be punished for what they did, and if Vladimir Putin participated in the hacking, then he should be punished, too. Yet, Wikileaks should not be held to a different standard that “traditional” American media members are held to.
By the way, here is something else that Democrats should consider. From Real Clear Investigations:
The Mueller indictment also states flatly that the hacking entity calling itself Guccifer 2.0 and a website called DCLeaks.com are both Russian government fronts. But it does not mention that in June 2016, just before the GOP convention in Cleveland, Guccifer 2.0 released 237 pages of damaging information on Trump, including opposition research accusing the Republican frontrunner of raping his ex-wife. The hacked research, titled the “Donald Trump Report,” delved into Trump’s personal life and portrayed him as a “misogynist.”
Although the Obama administration’s intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking operations “with the goal of hurting Clinton’s candidacy and ultimately helping to elect Trump,” it also acknowledged in passing that Republicans were likewise targeted.
Would Democrats care to explain why Russians attacked Trump via Guccifer 2.0 if Trump was colluding with them?
Oh, look! The New York Times is listed as one of the “Co-publishers, Research Partners and Funders” of Wikileaks.
The “Wanted” posters say the following about David: “Wanted: A refugee from planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats. If seen, contact the Alien Task Force.”