Posted on 07/04/2018 3:38:28 AM PDT by Libloather
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's campaign and former Trump adviser Roger Stone conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential race.
U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle said in a ruling Tuesday evening that the suit's efforts to tie the Trump campaign and Stone's alleged actions to the nation's capital were too flimsy for the case to proceed in a Washington, D.C., court.
"The Trump Campaign’s efforts to elect President Trump in D.C. are not suit-related contacts for those efforts did not involve acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracies to disseminate emails that harmed plaintiffs," wrote Huvelle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. "Campaign meetings, canvassing voters, and other regular business activities of a political campaign do not constitute activities related to the conspiracies alleged in the complaint."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
They need a judge who can be bribed.
Can they legally court-shop and judge-shop to refile? If they can’t get a.
Favorable ruling in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,, I say “good luck with that.”
Let’s hope that Justice Thomas and 4 others can sharply reduce court shopping.
Shopping for an activist god inna black dress.
I would love to see Trump push Tort reform!!
We need reform to limit the overreach of the Feral District Judges.
This is insanity. In a world screaming “fake news” this lawsuit is about a “conspiracy” to publish real news!
I’m no legal expert, but isn’t this double jeopardy?
The case was tossed and didn’t go to trial, so I don’t think double jeopardy applies. That would only apply if it had gone to trial and there was a decision in favor of the defendant.
Depends on whether the suit was dismissed with or without prejudice. It would be unusual for the judge to dismiss with prejudice, however, unless the claim was especially egregious.
But discovery would be interesting. Who hacked the DNC? Did the democrats hack themselves to stage a crime against themselves and frame Trump? Did the Awan bros help? Why was FBI not used? Does Assange know who?
People did not turn away from Hillary Clinton because her emails were hacked, they turned away from Hillary Clinton because her e-mails exposed her as a rampant criminal and a traitor.
Lots of interesting unanswered questions, aren’t there. What do you think the chances of us ever learning the truth are?
Very nicely explained in a single, short sentence!
Better than a Friday dump because we know nobody will be taking a five day weekend.
Or pressured:
“Got dirt?”
So glad the US judiciary tosses out ridiculous suits - although isn’t the one with Mann vs Steyn still going on?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.