Did The Dnc Break Us Laws?

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal executive leadership board of the United States Democratic Party. The DNC has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. In 2002, the Federal Election Commission fined the DNC $115,000 for its role in fundraising violations in 1996. In 2016, the DNC was accused of breaking federal laws by allowing undocumented immigrants onstage at the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, there have been allegations that Hillary Clinton broke the law by rigging the DNC in her favour during the 2016 Democratic primary.

Did Hillary Clinton break the law with her takeover?

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal executive leadership board of the United States Democratic Party. In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party.

In 2017, former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile revealed that the Democratic primary was rigged for Clinton after she took control of the committee a full year before she was the official nominee. Attorney Cleta Mitchell appeared on Tucker Carlson's show and stated that she believed this constituted a violation of Federal campaign finance laws because it allowed Clinton to exceed the spending limits, as well as the coordination between the candidates and their parties, put in place by McCain/Feingold.

Clinton's takeover of the DNC also led to the resignation of Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall, and Chief Executive Amy Dacey.

In addition, Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State was the subject of intense scrutiny during her 2016 presidential campaign. While no charges were filed, Clinton's actions may have violated strict laws governing the accessing and storage of classified government information. The FBI concluded its investigation in 2016, stating that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material, but that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring criminal charges in this case.

While Clinton's takeover of the DNC and her use of a private email server may have raised legal and ethical questions, it is important to note that she was not charged or convicted of any crimes related to these matters.

Did the DNC break the law by rigging the primary for Clinton?

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal executive leadership board of the United States Democratic Party. In presidential elections, it raises funds, commissions polls, and coordinates campaign strategy. While it provides support for party candidates, the DNC does not have direct authority over elected officials.

In 2016, the DNC was accused of rigging the primary in favour of Hillary Clinton against her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders. This accusation first arose after the publication of hacked DNC emails by WikiLeaks in July 2016, which showed former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others may have tipped the scales in Clinton's favour. This led to several resignations, including that of Wasserman Schultz.

However, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman, Donna Brazile, while Clinton's campaign took over the DNC's funding and operations early in the primary season, and may have used that power to undermine Sanders, it was not illegal. Brazile wrote that she found an agreement between the national committee and Clinton's campaign, which gave Clinton "control (of) the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised" in exchange for taking care of the debt leftover from President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign. Brazile said that while this was unethical, it was not a criminal act.

The DNC was fined $105,000 in 2022 by the Federal Election Commission for not properly disclosing the money they spent on opposition research against Donald Trump, which became known as the Trump-Russia dossier. The Clinton campaign was also fined $8,000 for the same violation.

Did the DNC break the law by not allowing the FBI to access its servers?

There are conflicting accounts of whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC) allowed the FBI to examine its hacked servers.

The FBI has stated that it “repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated". This delay caused “significant delays” and prevented the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier. The FBI was forced to rely on information from a third-party tech company, CrowdStrike, which first discovered the hack in May.

However, the DNC disputes these claims, stating that they had “several meetings” with the FBI and other agencies, “responded to a variety of requests for cooperation”, and that the FBI “never requested access” to their servers. Instead, they agreed to let a private firm, CrowdStrike, access the servers and share its findings with the FBI.

Then-FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI never had direct access to the DNC's servers but maintained that this was because the DNC blocked their inspection. It is unclear whether the DNC's actions were illegal, but the situation has raised questions about the integrity of the investigation and the possibility that the FBI based its conclusions on inferior-quality evidence.

Did the DNC break the law by filing a lawsuit against WikiLeaks?

On April 20, 2018, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a civil lawsuit against WikiLeaks, the Russian Federation, and other entities and individuals, including Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. The lawsuit accused the Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks, alleging a conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election for Donald Trump.

The DNC served WikiLeaks with a lawsuit over Twitter, with the law firm representing the DNC, Cohen Milstein, setting up a dedicated Twitter account to fire off a single tweet linking to the legal documents. This method of service was approved by a judge, citing a similar case in 2016 where a defendant was served over Twitter due to their active presence on the platform.

The lawsuit claimed that WikiLeaks violated the First Amendment by disseminating stolen material. However, Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed the case with prejudice on July 30, 2019, ruling that holding WikiLeaks liable for publishing DNC emails would endanger press freedom. The judge also noted that the Russian Federation enjoys state immunity.

The DNC's lawsuit against WikiLeaks and other defendants sparked comparisons to the 1972 Watergate scandal, where the DNC filed a lawsuit against Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President. While the DNC's more recent lawsuit was dismissed, it brought attention to the alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign, Russia, and WikiLeaks, and the potential threat to freedom of the press.

In conclusion, while the DNC's lawsuit against WikiLeaks did not result in a successful legal outcome, it brought attention to the alleged involvement of various entities in influencing the 2016 presidential election and sparked discussions about the boundaries of freedom of the press.

Did the DNC break the law by not complying with public funding laws?

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal executive leadership board of the United States Democratic Party. It is responsible for articulating and promoting the Democratic platform, coordinating party organizational activity, and organizing and calling for the Democratic National Convention held every four years to nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the United States.

In the context of public funding laws, the DNC is subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which is enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FECA imposes limits on campaign contributions to candidates for president and Congress, and requires candidates to disclose the sources and amounts of their campaign funds.

While there have been allegations of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign breaking campaign finance laws in relation to the funding of an opposition research dossier on President Trump, this does not appear to be directly related to public funding laws.

Therefore, without specific details of the alleged non-compliance with public funding laws, it is challenging to provide a definitive answer as to whether the DNC broke the law. However, it is important to note that failure to comply with FECA requirements can result in civil or criminal penalties.

Frequently asked questions