SDNY. Shall We say it was summarily dismissed. Connor what does summarily dismissed mean? Does that mean the lawsuit had no merit? I think so. Just want to check with you.
Anyone who uttered the turdly idea that Trump colluded with Russia should check themselves into a loony-bin!
Link: https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1156330841884282881?s=19
Lawsuit was dismissed on legal grounds, not because of lack of evidence or lack of factual merits.
After all, a motion for summary judgment contemplates that all alleged facts in the civil complaint are true. Procedurally, a motion for summary judgment asserts that accepting the allegations as true, the lawsuit cannot proceed as a matter of law.
The judge agreed in this case that the Russian Federation is immune because the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act requires that all wrongdoing alleged in the lawsuit occur on US soil. The judge also agreed that the First Amendment protects the Trump Campaign and Wikileaks from this lawsuit.
Your post is reflective of the dangers of being superficially informed by social media. Do not feel bad. The leader of the free world also obtains information in the same superficial manner ... and then makes decisions based upon limited and often flawed information.
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/420269577/DNC-lawsuit-ORDER-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-073019
A motion for summary judgment considers the evidence adduced in discovery.
He decided two things. Russian govt protected by immunity and as a matter of law the elements of a RICO conspiracy couldn't be met. Big surprise after the conspiracy findings of the Mueller Report. Strictly legal findings. Obstruction not even part of the case.
The cultists of course have no idea what any of this means.
did not mention Mueller once last night.
Not once.
Let that sink in.
Not once.
Mueller is in their rear-view mirror.
You should feel so ashamed, and you probably do, but your fingers will never let you type that.
(no message)
never stops winning on this issue because, as he said, "Truth is a Force of Nature."
Just like they abused the term racism, Russian collusion, Russian asset... these supposed-to-be serious charges have become a joke. Its true meaning has been trivialized by their dirty political tactics.
They don't have to because nobody calls him on it, except for Trump and his allies.
(no message)
Kind of sums up the whole Russia, Russia, Russia saga.
(no message)
(no message)
In order to rule in favor of the Trump Campaign, the Court had to assume that all facts alleged by the DNC were true, and all reasonable inferences had to be drawn in favor of the DNC.
So, with all facts and inferences taken in the best light possible for the DNC, the DNC still failed to present a case.
And yet, you think Cole is the one with TDS? If we assume all facts in favor of you, Cole nonetheless wins, and you lose......and yet you persist with your delusions.
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/420269577/DNC-lawsuit-ORDER-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-073019
It held in the absence of evidence of RICO conspiracy or involvement with the theft, the First Amendment protects disclosure of stolen docs by third parties. Mueller already concluded there was insufficient evidence for conspiracy, a very high standard. With that none of this is a surprise.
This says nothing about whether the Russians stole the documents, whether the campaign openly welcomed and used stolen documents from a hostile foreign power, and whether there was collusio between the parties. You guys really think what they did was okay which is just pathetically sad.
At best, you are trying to mix up the actions of Russians with the unrelated actions of Trump campaign members (which I could see people doing at the very beginning, which means they and you thought it more important to overthrow Trump than to stop the Russians--which makes you the Russian asset, not Trump), all to satiate your TDS.
The court clearly pointed out that even if we give you every benefit of the doubt, you have no legitimate basis to believe what you believe.
A hostile foreign govt illegally interfered in our election to help elect yer guy.
Your guy and his campaign eagerly accepted and welcomed that illegal help.
Your guy and his campaign colluded with that power to obtain and use the stolen data.
You think that is fine. But don’t pretend any of that has been disproven,
(no message)
Trump Jr met with them to get the dirt which wasn’t good enough at the time. It soon got better.
John Sununu understands you (although he was speaking of Schiff & Nadler): "What they wish is that their delusional dishonest version of collusion and obstruction were true, but it’s not," the former Chief of Staff to President George H.W. Bush told "America’s Newsroom" on Monday. "Dishonesty has become the hallmark of the Democratic Party, Chairmen Schiff and Nadler in particular," said Sununu. The question is, what makes Frank different from Schiff? Schiff has claimed to have the evidence to push his case forward all along, and yet he fails to present it...like the DNC did in the courtroom. So, why does Frank keep believing them?
Collusion isn’t a statutory conspiracy and obstruction wasn’t part of the case. You know that and are being dishonest with an argument that the opinion in any way impacts those two matters.
I make no claim of additional evidence. What’s there is damning enough.