Judge tosses suit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians

A federal judge on Tuesday tossed a lawsuit claiming that the Trump campaign and former adviser Roger Stone colluded with WikiLeaks and the Russian government to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the presidential election.

"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 the Clinton-appointed judge. "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.”

Take extra care to notice......

wrote the Clinton-appointed judge

The #Resistance is dead

While they try to twist it in true triggered fashion, Trump wins again Bigly!

"While we are disappointed in and respectfully disagree with today’s decision from the District Court to dismiss this case on the grounds that it does not belong in Washington, D.C., this case is far from over," Protect Democracy's Ian Bassin said in a statement to Politico.

Trump, MAGA, WIN. The Commiecrat Party loses once again.

Source

From politico:

But Huvelle made clear that her decision was a technical one based on issues of legal jurisdiction and was not a definitive ruling on allegations that the Trump campaign struck an illicit deal with the Russians during the presidential contest.

"It bears emphasizing that this Court’s ruling is not based on a finding that there was no collusion between defendants and Russia during the 2016 presidential election," Huvelle wrote. "This is the wrong forum for plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The Court takes no position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims."

www.politico.com...

Not really a MAGA win.

Just another kick of the can down the road. It will end up in another courtroom somewhere.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Their own judges are over it. That's pretty telling.

a reply to: introvert

And will be tossed out again. You guys are looking like the "Benghazi" vocalists. 'Member them? I 'Member.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

And will be tossed out again.

It very well could be tossed out again. I cannot claim to know what another judge will do in the future. Impressive that you apparently can.

You guys are looking like the "Benghazi" vocalists. 'Member them? I 'Member.

I look like the "Benghazi vocalists" for pointing out what the judge actually said?

Interesting.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

And will be tossed out again.

It very well could be tossed out again. I cannot claim to know what another judge will do in the future. Impressive that you apparently can.

You guys are looking like the "Benghazi" vocalists. 'Member them? I 'Member.

I look like the "Benghazi vocalists" for pointing out what the judge actually said?

Interesting.

They got it placed before a Clinton appointed Judge and it failed. Don't bother crossing your fingers and toes, stick them in yours ears and cover your eyes with them, a better use.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

They got it placed before a Clinton appointed Judge and it failed.

Based on a matter of jurisdiction, yes. Not based on the veracity of their claims.

Don't bother crossing your fingers and toes, stick them in yours ears and cover your eyes with them, a better use.

I'm just pointing out the facts in this case. Do you dispute what I have posted?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They got it placed before a Clinton appointed Judge and it failed.

Based on a matter of jurisdiction, yes. Not based on the veracity of their claims.

Don't bother crossing your fingers and toes, stick them in yours ears and cover your eyes with them, a better use.

I'm just pointing out the facts in this case. Do you dispute what I have posted?

All I see is a Trump Win, and the #Resistance fading into obscurity.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They got it placed before a Clinton appointed Judge and it failed.

Based on a matter of jurisdiction, yes. Not based on the veracity of their claims.

Don't bother crossing your fingers and toes, stick them in yours ears and cover your eyes with them, a better use.

I'm just pointing out the facts in this case. Do you dispute what I have posted?

All I see is a Trump Win, and the #Resistance fading into obscurity.

Ironic you say that, considering that you just said this:

Don't bother crossing your fingers and toes, stick them in yours ears and cover your eyes with them, a better use.

Cover your eyes in a manner that you see only what you want to see. Like a horse with blinders.

Good news, however not the big one we wanted.

A couple of washed up DNC hacks brought the suit forward, to which a fed judge layed the smack down on it.

They were "disappointed" 🤣 and said, "its far from over" 😂, like every other villian that says this when defeated.

The crux of the article says, you can't bring frivolous lawsuits without any real evidence and hope to win.

If a special prosecutor wtih a politically biased team can't find any collusion, short of actually planting fake evidence, then I don't know what the leftist will actually do 😏

a reply to: introvert

Yup. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

Yup. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

MAGA MAGA MAGA?

Did I do it right?

a reply to: introvert

stop being ridiculous.... when's the last time you left the basement?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

Yup. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

MAGA MAGA MAGA?

Did I do it right?

Sure. If it makes you feel better. Gotta make sure your feelings are being cared for. Wouldn't want you to be offended.

a reply to: introvert

Its a big win when even Clinton appointed judges know they can't get away with this nonsense. There was, of course, no determination of the outcome of the Special Counsel. That is obvious and just Politico's 'but but but' paragraph.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Good news, however not the big one we wanted.

A couple of washed up DNC hacks brought the suit forward, to which a fed judge layed the smack down on it.

They were "disappointed" 🤣 and said, "its far from over" 😂, like every other villian that says this when defeated.

The crux of the article says, you can't bring frivolous lawsuits without any real evidence and hope to win.

If a special prosecutor wtih a politically biased team can't find any collusion, short of actually planting fake evidence, then I don't know what the leftist will actually do 😏

It is also important what this judge further noted: canvassing, meetings and stuff are not proof of collusion but normal business of a political campaign.

Look at the catchy name under which suit is brought..... Protect democracy.....

It allows for the suspicion that these dino's actually want
1. Less republican form of government
2. Less political activity of non democrats....

Interesting...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

From your source:

She noted that her ruling is based on the technicalities of the lawsuit and doesn’t take a position on whether the Trump campaign and its officials actually conspired with the Russians during the election.

First, the case does not clear Russian collusion and it does not deal with government as a whole, but only a lawsuit against Roger Stone, and then only on a technicality.

Misleading title, misleading information in the thread.

Am I surprised?

No.

a reply to: Kharron


can you do me a favor and send me a link to an isolated individual action that's verifiable that is proof of collusion?

just 1 single item, an individual isolated action not "maybe, could, would, may, looks like, perceived"

actual action, an individual action

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Kharron


can you do me a favor and send me a link to an isolated individual action that's verifiable that is proof of collusion?

just 1 single item, an individual isolated action not "maybe, could, would, may, looks like, perceived"

actual action, an individual action

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Can one person commit collusion alone, theoretically? Or you want me to provide evidence on an ongoing federal investigation?

The most perplexing thing of all here is that the source used contradicts the premise of the thread. In three separate paragraphs in the source, the journalist goes on to explain that this is a private lawsuit, has nothing to do with the Russian collusion but with privacy violation, and that it does not take any stance on actual collusion.

Why post a thread with a source that defeats itself? Unless one expected people not to open it and read? Maybe the OP knows you so well guys, he knew most were not even going to read the source and just take to commenting?