The Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a lawsuit Friday afternoon in a Manhattan federal court against the Russian Government, the Trump campaign and various individuals it alleges participated in the plot to hack its email servers and disseminate the contents as part of the 2016 election.
The DNC poses a serious threat to an ethical choice to oppose the Republican side of the Duopoly.
From the DNC suit, para.170, as quoted in the article:
“Wikileaks and Assange released and transmitted DNC trade secrets, including confidential, proprietary documents related to campaigns, fundraising and campaign strategy, on July 22 and Nov. 6, 2016. Each release constituted a separate act of economic espionage” (empahsis mine).
Well, there we have it, if any were still in doubt: the Democrat party admits it’s a profit-making enterprise.
Someone inside the DNC needs to leak the info regarding the Seth Rich case, I’d bet that info would make this lawsuit disappear in a snap. What about it DNC, anybody in there have any integrity ?
What Clinton, Perez, Podesta, and the rest of the Clinton cabal didn’t figure out until it was too late was that Assange was languishing in a second rate embassy in London because he called out Hillary and her state dept for their sleazy dealings in Ukraine under the command of the uber sleazy Victoria Nuland (well, that and all the spying they did on the leaders of nearly all of our allies)
The fact that wiki leaks didn’t publish anything that wasn’t true seems lost on these DNC imbeciles. Just like Trump and countless other criminals lamenting their ill advised shenanigans, they aren’t sorry for what they’ve done. They’re sorry they got caught.
This whole thing is like some second rate movie script.
The same lawsuit was filed after Nixon orchestrated the theft at the DNC during his election. It was a crime and so was the theft of the e-mails published on Wikileaks. There needs to be a difference between media that check their sources and those who do not. Printing lies is not a public right. Democracy depends on an educated public. That is what is lacking in the US especially after decades of Fox-head daily lies creating a President like Trump and his organized criminals.
Very well said! So many well meaning, albeit politically, sophomoric dems. think their party can be reformed.That is probably one reason Glen Ford called the Democratic party: " THE MORE EFFECTIVE EVIL"
The final nail in neoliberal Democrat’s coffin. Or how to lose an election when you can’t lose.
Time for progressive Democrats to rise or die.
Well, I suppose that has got to be about the last gasp for any hope for the Party, though I suppose some of the principals are rejoicing that they have at last purged its last remnants of progressivism or liberality.
Human beings, since before recorded history, have found that principles] satisfy a seemingly unique propensity to explore the BEST ideas and ways best serving open discovery for the necessity of shared lives. Advertising, on the other hand, has ginned up and is now utterly and totally inebriated on premises of manipulation for Manufacturing Consent. This is the “political” model of Citizens United. It is also a good example of the superficiality demanded by the methodologies. Are citizens united? …just about as much as a trump’s a$$!
Might we explore some Sociocratic Pinciples … and refashion the ship of state??
In a sociocratic organization, whether it is a business, an association, or a community, power is vested in all members of the organization. Each person has the power and responsibility to make the decisions that govern their own participation in the organization.
The Three (or Four) Basic Principles
Observing the basic principles is important because they ensure that the organization doesn’t slip back into autocratic or disorganized decision-making. There are many more practices and methods that are essential to implementing the basic principles but these requirements guide the adaptation of those methods to specific circumstances. The three basic principles are essential.
The principle of consent governs policy decision-making. Consent means a member has no argued and paramount objections to a proposed policy. “Argued” means reasoned or explained. “Paramount” means all important. An objection is not a veto; it is a valid reason why a particular decision will prevent a member of the group from doing their job or otherwise supporting its aims.
Objections are solicited because they provide positive information. The reasoning behind them allows the group to improve the proposal so all members of the group can work toward the aim more effectively.
Policies are decisions that limit or permit future operational decisions and actions. They include budgets, strategic plans, allocation of resources, including money and people, and the basis for leadership by the Operational Leader. Policies govern the day-to-day activities of the working group.
An extension of consent, and sometimes presented as a fourth principle, is that people are elected to roles and responsibilities by consent. The members of the working group nominate and discuss the task description and nominees availability and positive ability to fulfill the task, and then consent to the assignment. The nominee must also consent. This process ensures that the team selects the person that the group believes is the best for the task and that they will support on the task. The task description and the discussion ensures that the person elected understands the group’s expectations.
A sociocratic organization is governed by “circles,” semi-autonomous policy decision-making groups that correspond to working groups, whether they are departments, teams, or local neighborhood associations. Each circle has its own aim and steers its own work by performing all the functions of leading, doing, and measuring on its own operations. Together the three steering functions establish a feedback loop, making the circle self-correcting, or self-regulating.
In circle meetings, each person is equivalent and has the power to consent or object to proposed actions that affect their responsibility in the organization.
On a daily basis, activities are directed by a leader without discussion or reevaluation of decisions. This produces efficiency and forward movement. If there is disagreement, the leader makes the decision in the moment. the issue is discussed in the next circle meeting, and a policy is established to govern such decisions in the future.
To ensure that feedback travels up and down and across the organization, circles are arranged in a hierarchy of overlapping circles. The overlapping is formed by the circle’s operational leader and one or more elected representatives who are full members of both circles. This overlap is called a “double link.”
The double-link is unique to sociocracy and forms a feedback loop that allows the system to self-correct. The operational leader is elected by the higher circle to communicate the decisions and needs of the larger organization to the circle. The circle then elects one or more of its members to communicate the decisions and needs of the circle to the higher circle. While each link participates fully in all aspect of circle discussions, they are responsible for communicating specific information.
Other Methods and Practices
There are many other methods and practices that support the governance of the sociocratic organization, but the beauty is the simplicity of the basic principles. As long as the principles are maintained and the values—equivalence, effectiveness, and transparency—guide the application of methods and practices, they will produce organizations that are harmonious and productive. The sociocratic vision.
The hypocrisy of the DNC is beyond the pale. During a TV interview a day or two ago Tom Perez had the audacity to claim this DNC lawsuit is intended to defend democracy — this from the head of the party that
uses so-called ‘superdelegates’ (stupordelegates?) to guarantee that party insiders can subvert democracy
This is silly. The theory of the case is that the Trump campaign, wikileaks, and a foreign government operated a criminal conspiracy via trafficking stolen documents. By saying what they did amounted to economic espionage, they are saying they violated the DNC’s right to proprietary information and are suing as a private right of action. It has zero to do with the DNC etc. being a money making enterprise.
What I see is a lot of self-interested people in the press and politics worried about discovery and dissmissing the case accordingly. For as much as everyone gives the Democratic Party shit for being weak on here, I figured some would welcome the new fortitude. Guess I was wrong.
Not all the data that one wants gets written down, sadly.
This sort of decision would be made between a very few people and then farmed out. What you get on written media then is apt to be the sort of statement that John Podesta made that he would be in favor of making an example of someone, even were it the wrong person.
I take exception to the description of the Ecuadorian embassy as “second rate”. No other great power has offered Assange any assistance.
There were no uncorroborated lies published. Just actual emails.
I look forward to re-reading the emails as the lawsuit plays out in the lead-up to November.
I particularly liked the one from the CFO of the supposedly neutral DNC suggesting they undermine Bernie by highlighting his atheism. That sent a great message to an atheist like myself about religious litmus tests.
Fortitude? Seriously? Real fortitude, for Brand D, would take the shape of admitting its leadership’s role in allowing a game show host to win the presidency. Holding to the unproven theory that the documents at issue were stolen, rather than leaked, is a poor way to start.
And are you suggesting that major-party politics has never made anybody rich? Now THAT’S silly.
Well, you know, when campaign aids are in contact with a foreign intelligence officer throughout the campaign, like Rick Gates was, it was obviously to discuss pancake recipes. If the case moves forward, discovery will be interesting, especially for those who read Norm Solomon and Robert Parry instead of the court filings. This is especially the case if Trump shuts down the Mueller investigation. The information grey zone certain people build their Deep State theories on will continue to contract.
Yep. It’s terrible when foreign governments influence US elections.
You can’t be that stupid. There’s a difference between a foreign head of state meeting the principals of both campaigns—“influence”—and an intelligence service working through a cut-out and with an opposing campaign to “leak” proprietary materials. One is okay, the other illegal. That’s why the FBI warned the Trump campaign of potential penetration, after all. Oh, and likely because they knew via counter intelligence that Rick Gates and others were communicating with a Russian intelligence agent during the campaign. This likely doesn’t bother you though since said agent worked for some “progressives” favorite petro oligarch.