Posted on 07/31/2019 8:08:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Conspiracy theories may get a lot of traction on social media, but they don’t fare nearly as well in federal court. The Democratic National Committee learned that the hard way yesterday after having their lawsuit against Donald Trump’s campaign over Russian collusion dismissed for being “entirely divorced from the facts.” Not only did the DNC not provide any evidence of collusion, the sharing of DNC e-mails after their publication is covered by the First Amendment, Judge John Koetl ruled:
A federal judge in New York on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Wikileaks that alleged a vast, international conspiracy to tip the scales of the 2016 presidential election.
In an 81-page opinion, Judge John Koeltl wrote that the Russian government was the “primary wrongdoer” in the alleged plot to hack into the DNC’s systems and steal a trove of emails and documents. …
On Tuesday, Judge Koeltl ruled against the DNC, emphasizing that they did not allege that anyone other than the Russian government participated in the hacking of their systems, and failed to “raise a factual allegation that suggests that any of the defendants were even aware that the Russian Federation was planning to hack the DNC’s computers until after it had already done so.”
“The DNC argues that the various meetings and conversations between the defendants in this case and with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC’s information show that the defendants conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials,” Koeltl wrote. “That argument is entirely divorced from the facts actually alleged in the Second Amended complaint.”
After three years of shrieking hysteria over Russia collusion, and three years of prominent Democrats like Adam Schiff insisting that proof of it exists, the DNC couldn’t make a single proffer on it. Instead, they relied on an argument that the Trump campaign’s sharing of the information post-hack was evidence of the conspiracy pre-hack, which as Koetle concluded is simply nonsense. “While the court is required to accept the factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint,” Koetl wrote, “it is not required to accept conclusory allegations asserted as facts.”
It’s a pretty sad end for the Russia-collusion theory. A civil suit has a lower standard of proof than a criminal prosecution, and the DNC couldn’t even muster enough to keep the judge from dismissing the complaint. Small wonder, then, that Donald Trump wasted no time declaring victory:
….vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big “stuff” especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2019
That’s probably too optimistic as the focus has shifted to obstruction in Congress, but it’s still an embarrassment for those Democrats who have flogged the collusion narrative for the last two-plus years. It might, however, signal a problem for the Department of Justice in their upcoming prosecution of Julian Assange. The Wall Street Journal notes that Koetl’s ruling might signal how Assange can disentangle himself from some of the charges he faces, at least:
Judge Koeltl’s ruling addressed a central concern about press freedoms raised in another case about WikiLeaks. In May, the U.S. Justice Department charged Mr. Assange with violating the Espionage Act for an alleged effort to obtain and publish classified information about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. U.S. authorities are seeking to have Mr. Assange extradited from the U.K., where he was arrested in April.
The Department of Justice had better prepare their case against Assange better than the DoJ did. Koetl pointed to Bartnicki in ruling that publication of materials stolen by someone else is still covered under the First Amendment if the publisher didn’t participate in the theft. Even if Wikileaks directly and actively sought out the hackers to get the data, the publication would still be protected, Koetl ruled. That’s something to watch when Assange comes to court.
The judge has ZERO facts to support this, except CNN and some fly-by analysis by Mueller. All evidence indicates that the DNC breach was an inside job.
Makes perfect sense as democrats are “Entirely Divorced From Reality”
Will any of this change the direction of Nadler and Schiff? Probably not. They are WASTING YOUR MONEY, folks...recall them...make ‘em suffer for their idiocy and nonsense. They are incompetent a*holes undeserving of any respect.
“Entirely Divorced From Facts” aka LIARS?
Judge appointed by Bill Clinton. So, there goes that argument too.
It was not an inside job. The Russians did it. That much is conclusively proven. What was not proven is whether the Trump campaign helped or knew about it, other than Trump saying publicly that he would like it if they did so.
“It was not an inside job. The Russians did it. That much is conclusively proven. ”
—-
Link please.
The Democrats are running a taxpayer funded campaign for 2020 right out of the HOR.
The purpose of which is to poison the whole process and damage Trump as much as possible.
Correct, there is ZERO evidence that the Russians had anything to do with the DNC info getting to Wikileaks.
That was disinformation to distract from Seth Rich’s murder.
The legal point is that Trump should no more be in trouble for benefiting from hacked emails getting published than Hillary benefiting from leaks to the NYTimes.
In fact, it would be much easier to make the case for conspiracy from leaks to the Times
.recall them...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No recall possible for federal offices.
The best that can be done is to primary them out in a Democrat primary.
They are from districts that would elect a glass of water with a D on it, as Nancy Pelosi put it.
No one wearing an R jersey, no matter how liberal, can get elected from those districts.
What evidence is there it was the Russians?
The download speeds are indicative of local (thumb drive) not internet.
The FBI never examined the DNC computers.
You bought the propaganda.
Corrupt Democrats rule through judicial tyranny. So it’s good that this judge has decided not to play their game.
More disinformation.
Show me proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
The entire story that this thread is based on has that exact conclusion. The judge in this case, reviewing the evidence says yes it was the Russians but you didn’t prove that Trump campaign was involved.
The Mueller Report showed all the evidence. We know not only who did it but what exact chairs they were sitting in. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear both had access. It’s not in dispute by anyone except literal crazy people.
I can’t read WSJ, it won’t allow me. but also, have you learned nothing about trusting MSM?
Nobody, not even the FBI, has seen DNC servers. At minimum, its impossible to say who stole the DNC dox. Russian “tags” on the documents have been shown to be fake. There are experts who say download speeds of DNC documents to Wikileaks could only have been done by a direct connection.
and Koetl is a Clinton nominated judge.
Absolute nonsense! Conclusively proven by who? The FBI? The DHS? No, the only people who actually had access to that server was CrowdStrike and their conclusions are worth less than a bucket of spit.
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.