The Trump Campaign Says Exploiting Hacked Emails Is Free Speech
Source: The Atlantic
While there is no evidence yet that the Trump campaign knew about or aided in the hacking itself, campaign-finance laws prohibit candidates from accepting anything of value from a foreign national. The Trump campaign could face legal exposure, then, if a prosecutor could prove that Trump or his campaign associates made an agreement with Russia to publish the stolen emailswhich were clearly valuable to the campaign, given how often Trump quoted from them during ralliesvia a third party such as WikiLeaks, as Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, has written.
The campaigns lawyers argued that the plaintiffs hadnt made a plausible case that the campaign and the Russians engaged in a collaborative effort to release the plaintiffs emails to influence the election. But they seemed to acknowledge the emails value: The DNC emails clearly deal with matters of significant public concern.
Their argument is timely, and troubling: The midterm elections, less than 30 days away, are as vulnerable to hackers who steal information and then dump it onto the web to influence voters as the presidential election was two years ago. Both parties face high stakes: Democrats hope to take back the House and the Senate, whereas Republicans are clinging to their majorities as a wave of GOP lawmakers chooses not to run for reelection. So far, however, only House Democrats have pledged not to use stolen or hacked materials in their campaigns this fall. As I reported last month, their Republican counterparts declined to match that commitmentand one of the major sticking points was how to address the press coverage of hacked materials.
Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest, the Trump campaigns lawyers wrote in their brief. They went on to justify the disclosure of the hacked materials by arguing that they were in the public interest. Every disclosed email was (1) a work email (2) sent or received by a political operative (3) during a presidential campaign, they wrote. Indeed, the disclosed emails dealt pervasively with important public issues. They revealed the Democratic Partys conduct during its presidential primarieswhich are public processes structur[ed] and monitor[ed] by the state. They revealed the DNCs interactions with rich donorseducating citizens about the influence of moneyed interests. And they revealed the closeness of the partys ties to the media. (Here, again, the lawyers seem to be emphasizing the value of the emails, which could prove problematic with regard to campaign-finance laws.)
Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/trump-campaign-defends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/
They are getting closer to admitting that they colluded
AllaN01Bear
(18,242 posts)ludicress speed GO.!
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Will they change their minds?
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)I guess not
RobinA
(9,893 posts)beat me aside to do it!
SunSeeker
(51,563 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)And they affect the outcome of an election... Its treason.
cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)Thats not to say it might not be a criminal act however as if they made or were engaged in talks to get a hold of them from the Russians before the server they were one was hacked or before they were stolen that would make them co conspirators.
cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,692 posts)Laying down the astroturf for a pathetic attempt at plausible deniability.
safeinOhio
(32,687 posts)Peaceful protest must be banned and illegally hack emails are free speech. Kind of goes with Corporations are people and money is speech. 1984?
Initech
(100,079 posts)And are close to getting an iron grip on the courts. At this point there's no one to stop them.
sanatanadharma
(3,707 posts)because...
...what ethics?
DBoon
(22,366 posts)as well as sending anonymous death threats
not fooled
(5,801 posts)is taking notes and nodding in agreement to prepare for when this case makes it to the scrotus.
Free speech? Sure, for the pukes, he says.