BRILLIANT.
Rachel nailed it last night
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Brilliant. When the GOP hopes to turn the fire off after the Mueller investigation, this lawsuit keeps the issue on a slow boil. Nevertheless, they persisted.

It is brilliant

Brilliant, indeed.

with a civil suit by the DNC. I wish everyone in America could see the network news's initial groupthink reports dismissing that as a shabby maneuver by Democrats to get money. The civil suit's revelations forced them to abandon their disgraceful slandering of our party and face up to and report the truth about the Republican administration.

hilarious. I am so proud of Dems.
What some folks don't see is that the ReTHUG leakers are planning all sorts of hearings about leaks as their campaign strategy.

Go Dems! Yet again history will be on their side.

and once again that's going to bite their asses bad.

I'm very excited about this civil suit. As someone was pointing out, civil suits do not require the same ironclad level of proof that DOJ prosecutions do, and no doubt all evidence can and will be disclosed to the public as it proceeds.

Since a civil suit is now obviously a major weapon we've held from the beginning, I'd like to hear details of the strategy of holding it back initially and then deploying it at this point. Probably a special investigator was more doable from the beginning and we pushed that direction first, but there's always so much behind these decisions that we aren't aware of.

and smart heads knew it would lead all the way back to Nixon and thus filed suit. The cyber break ins have taken a little longer to prove and now Dems have pounced.

One more thing - while most were ignoring the civil suit, Nixon won that 72 election, but over time that suit helped bring down crooked Nixon. Have no fear, ReTHUGs and their Con-in-Chief are correctly very nervous about this suit.

right up front. And it was just as available to congress and our fourth estate.

Oh yes about the civil proceeding only proceeding past the election. I just looked and the break-in was June 12, 1972. I haven't gone and read about this, obviously, and didn't remember that congress and the DOJ hadn't even begun involvement until after Nixon was reelected.

Also, there were RULES and ETHICS governing DOJ actions that could influence elections (just as there were in 2016, even if they were severely violated). So take August, September and October right off the table for any public announcement that an investigation was being opened.

Who can doubt "Mr. You know, I just don't know/wasn't aware/probably should have realized" did his best to understand?

The entire GOP is so corrupt it boggles the mind.

to hit.

I loved Rachel's segment for also giving corrupt and intellectually dishonest media their own due.

I thought it was bogus until she explained how it was used during Watergate and that helped me understand it a lot more. Tom Perez knows what he is doing apparently.

He's very effective to date.

Chump and his cabal are treason weasels.

It often seems a party to a lawsuit refuses answering questions from reporters.

Anything trump related anyway.

Most litigation is not a mixture of law and politics and, aside from which, the GOP is not a defendant. The Trump campaign, on the other hand, is a defendant.

As a general proposition, in normal litigation, it is inadvisable to say anything about a legal proceeding in which you are a party. There are a LOT of reasons for that. Likewise, it is inadvisable for a lawyer in a matter to use your case as a vehicle for self-promotion or media attention.

You want to really blow your mind? This, believe it or not, is an actual rule for lawyers in California:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules/Rule-5-120

...and before you think that rule only applies in criminal matters, consider this subsection:

" ( 7 ) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):"

In other words, that rule is, hypothetically I guess, supposed to apply to any matter under litigation.

The loophole wide enough to drive an Avenatti sports car through, appears to be:

(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

You've given me a direction to start a google search.

but well known individual. Maybe that is why Avenatti is appearing on television so much.

when it comes to the gop the media includes 1200 radio stations going 15 hrs/day to blame democrats and now the 'deep state' for everything - it's all a conspiracy to destroy american democracy

if 1hr was worth $1000 then those 1200 radio stations are worth $5bil/yr or $18mil/day

dedicated to obstructing investigations, intimidating witnesses, and influencing juries

This lawsuit has merit

hasn't happened until now..

We’re suing the Trump campaign and Russia.

"whistling past the graveyard".

I waiting for the time when we drag the GOP into an alley with paramedics on stand-by. But until that happens this will do.

The filing can tell the country what Trump and his cabal have been up to.

Each time a new piece of evidence shows up amend the lawsuit.

A lawsuit takes years and can have all sorts of twists and turns, some not to the liking of either side.

Time will tell.

Keep driving him insane. Sooner or later he will crack.

High unemployment rate among attorneys.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6457898

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

No matter what happens, it gives me some pleasure that the con man in the W.H. is going through psychological turmoil over the events surrounding him and about which he can do nothing, except scream out "LIAR" in tweets. SAD.

I've been very much hoping that this lawsuit would add something substantial to the criminal proceedings, not follow them. Any number of useful bits of information could come from discovery.

Instead Donna Brazille stepped out in front of the Ohio investigation and said nothing to see here, just the usual misunderstandings. Never mind that the report said otherwise, that's all it took to shut down that whole question for freaking 14 years! So hell yeah, it's about time to take legal action! I don't know what the heck Jackie Spier is thinking but she's on the way wrong side of this one.