Democrats, be careful what you wish for.
When the news broke Friday that the Democrat National Committee had filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump campaign for literally helping its candidate win an election, the party’s water-carriers in the media were full of intimations that it was the end of the Trump presidency.
But as the story settles in that the DNC is accusing Trump’s camp of being involved in the hacking of the DNC’s computer systems, some possibilities raised by the suit make it look like the worst potential move by Democrats since the party made Hillary Clinton its nominee in 2016.
In fact, it could be political suicide.
That’s not the spin in the liberal-loving media, of course.
USA Today published an Op-Ed from former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile headlined, “Democrats Were Crime Victims. If Trump Won’t Protect Elections, We Will.”
PBS’ “NewsHour” interviewed a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution and headlined the piece, “How the DNC Lawsuit Could Become a Powerful Tool.”
But conservative radio host Mark Simone is raising another possibility, and it’s one that could make any DNC lawsuit over the 2016 elections very uncomfortable for the party and its leaders.
“Of course the DNC lawsuit against Trump, Russia and Wikileaks was just a cheap Stormy Daniels PR stunt, but major Dems are furious at the DNC,” Simone wrote. “This lawsuit would allow Trump to do discovery, to depose and put under oath Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Obama and others.”
Of course the DNC lawsuit against Trump, Russia and Wikileaks was just a cheap Stormy Daniels PR stunt, but major Dems are furious at the DNC. This lawsuit would allow Trump to do discovery, to depose and put under oath Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Obama and others.
— MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) April 21, 2018
Now that’s a tantalizing possibility.
Naturally, a civil lawsuit would involve sworn depositions, and since Brazile herself has labeled Clinton’s campaign as being the real power behind the DNC at the time of the hacking, the former candidate for the presidency might become a prime candidate for close questioning.
And this time, the questions wouldn’t be softballs lobbed by FBI agents giving Clinton the kid-glove treatment because they thought she would win the White House.
And it isn’t just Hillary that could be on the spot.
And then there’s the grand-daddy deposition of them all. Former President Barack Obama was the de facto head of the Democrat Party during eight years in the White House. Trump campaign lawyers — and the American public — could finally get a chance to know what the former president knew and when he knew it when it came to Russia’s alleged “tampering” in the 2016 election.
Chances are, none of that would go well for Democrats.
From all public evidence, the Democrats’ claim of “Russian collusion” by the Trump campaign is just hot air. As New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin pointed out Sunday, the DNC’s own lawsuit is the strongest sign yet that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has come up empty thus far with ammunition against Trump.
The lawsuit is the DNC’s best chance of keeping the Russia story going for the midterm elections and the rest of Trump’s terms, but it’s also the best chance yet that some of their key players might get caught unwilling or unable to answer legitimate questions about Democrat behavior — and get caught doing it under oath.
While they might be wishing that the lawsuit keeps making news, the old saying is as true now as ever: be careful what you wish for.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.