Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Khanna says Honda perjured himself; judge denies Khanna's motion

Ro Khanna taking questions from supporters
Sept. 22 at a town hall in Fremont.
Ro Khanna believes Rep. Mike Honda committed perjury when he claimed in a lawsuit last week to have never solicited Khanna's campaign contributors.

Khanna's attorney issued a response Monday to a lawsuit filed recently by the Honda campaign alleging a "cyber attack" by Khanna's campaign manager on its digital files containing confidential donor information.

The Honda campaign filed its own response in federal court Wednesday afternoon opposing Khanna's motion.

The motion sought by Khanna asks to allow expedited discovery and possibly a deposition of Honda, Khanna told the East Bay Citizen. He also asserts four of the six people who claimed they were harmed by Khanna’s campaign emails were actually coerced by Honda to produce false affidavits.

“We want to expedite discovery to depose them and ask them why they lied,” Khanna said in an interview. “Honda committed perjury and encouraged six people to do the same.”

According to the filing, Khanna’s attorney wrote Honda’s claim in the lawsuit that he never solicits supporters of his opponents is false. “Yet he has actively solicited Mr. Khanna’s supporters–a practice he continues to this day–and Honda’s papers explicitly reveal files entitled “Khanna Donors” which Honda continues to access,” wrote Khanna's attorney David Berger.

Rep. Mike Honda at a social security town hall
in Fremont last month.
In an interview, Khanna refuted the claim by some Honda donors that they did not have prior contact with him, including San Francisco attorney Dale Minami. “He doesn’t know me?” said Khanna. “I sponsored a table in 2011 for an event he organized.” Another sought Khanna out for an internship, he said.

The lawsuit, wrote Khanna’s attorney, is “political gamesmanship” and no evidence was presented by Honda that the alleged incident “caused any tangible harm.” Honda also took no action in the roughly four months after the alleged incident became know to the campaign in late May, according to the filing.

Khanna’s legal move, however, appears centered on forcing Honda’s hand to submit to questioning from his lawyers. The motion, in theory, would push adjudication of the case until after the Nov. 8 election, but buy time for Khanna’s attorney to potentially depose Honda before Election Day, along with the up to six who submitted signed affidavits on the incumbents behalf.

The motion filed by Khanna's attorney also claims Honda's attorney has not handed evidence over to them. “This brief extension is necessary because Honda refuses to produce the targeted, minimal discovery necessary to conclusively prove that its allegations are not merely false–they are sanctionable.”

In a response to the motion, Honda's campaign filed a response in federal court Wednesday afternoon saying Khanna's attorney failed to adequately give them time to discuss the case this week and is more than willing to share its evidence in a timely manner. "Having rebuffed Plaintiff's efforts to meet and confer, Defendant Ro Khanna for Congress, Inc. and Defendant Ro Khanna, shamelessly seeks to distract the Court with red herrings and innuendo," wrote Honda attorney Gautam Dutta.

Honda’s campaign said Wednesday the motion is merely an attempt to obfuscate evidence that Khanna’s campaign manager and the candidate illegally accessed the Dropbox account containing Honda's fundraising data, or, as the Honda campaign manager Michael Beckendorf called the incident, “a modern-day Watergate.”

“The response is nothing more than Ro Khanna using Republican bait-and-switch tactics to distract voters from his illegal Russian hacker-esque cyber attack on Congressman Honda’s campaign,” said Vedant Patel, Honda’s campaign communication director. “The fact, through clear digital fingerprints, are that Ro Khanna and his staff had access to important and confidential files related to the Honda Campaign and were using these files illegally in clear violation of federal law.”

In addition, Honda's latest filing asks the court to order Khanna hand over all documents allegedly obtained by his campaign manager Brian Parvizshahi from the Dropbox account containing Honda's donor information; emails from Khanna's personal email, specifically on Oct. 3, 2015; and Parvizshahi's job application with the Khanna campaign. Parvizshahi resigned on Sept. 22, the same day Honda's campaign filed a lawsuit alleging he violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.


So Khanna is trying to use info he stole from Honda to attack Honda? And wouldn't the file named "khanna" contain previous Honda donors that switched to Khanna, not stolen emails? BTW, Ro's motion was just denied.

The guy is unhinged, he even include my and my wife's petition in his stupid countersuit.

This will backfire on Honda. This whole thing is so stupid. He knows he is going to lose, so he is pulling out every desperation tactic that he can think of. What a sad little man he has become. He has lost his soul.

"The fact, through clear digital fingerprints, are that Ro Khanna... had access" if that's true isn't that bad?

I do wish Ron Cohen would show up and remind us (correctly) that policy should be the discussion not legal wrangling.

By MW:

The position of the legal system is that in order to be guilty of a crime, a person must have at least a minimum level of intelligence, in other words know what he is doing and be able to basically understand things. So therefore, and based on that principle, if a person suffering from severe mental retardation commits a criminal act, he cannot be convicted and found guilty since he did not know what he what he was doing.

And since I strongly suspect that Honda is suffering from severe senility, that brings up the issue as to whether the court system would have the authority to declare Honda legally guilty of anything.

And speaking of senility and/or being a "sophisticated," fancy talking, and "highly educated" extreme mental retard, do you remember the high ranking member of the Democratic Party who responded to members of Congress that did not want to vote for s controversial bill she backed by saying "YOU CAN READ IT AFTER WE PASS IT!!!"

Well, thanks for mentioning me.

The Federal Government is broke; Obama is about to start WW III by threatening the Russians over a small country in a hellish civil war in Syria; there is an electronic "run on the bank" going on at Deutsche Bank; ObamaCare premiums are going up well over 10% for the year; the stock markets and the Federal Reserve Bank are "rigged"; Obama vetoed a bill in favor of his friends in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia who was clearly part of 9/11 and (thankfully, Congress overrode him; tomorrow control of the internet is going to the U.N. Globalist...but, rather, in CD#17, we are concerned because two Democrats are in the courts over a list of names, where one low-I.Q. campaign stole from another.

Yes, a crime may have been committed, and that is important to resolve. Clearly, the lives of people in CD#17 will be changed by the outcome...NOT.

This "Top Two" system has left us with two Democrats fighting over nothing, because they will both (at least 99% of the time) take voting orders from Nancy Pelosi.

They are both so constrained by Democratic policies, there near no issue for them to disagree about.

So very sad that we have to vote for one person with a significant ethics investigation, and another person, who, I must say, in each campaign, seems to find himself in significant trouble.

I too, yearn for a discussion of the issues that impact our lives. Elizabeth Warren seems to be the only person in the (D) party who can put together a good string of thoughts -- like breaking up the banks. Otherwise, it is all Hillary, like nonsense, that has gotten a lot of people killed, here and overseas.

Where are the decent men and women in politics?

Perhaps Ro will run a future campaign were he can stay out of court.

Ron Cohen For Congress 2018

Sorry for typo. Last sentence, meant: "...where he can stay out of court."

Sorry for typo. Last sentence, meant: "...where he can stay out of court."

Post a Comment