Judge tosses suit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians

Collusion implies conspiracy, conspiracy is more than one--last I heard.

This court decision addressed nothing but a jurisdictional issue, nothing more. A victory of sorts, I suppose, but hardly earth shattering.

Some of you are seeing what you want to see, not what's actually there.

**grabs some popcorn

let the-clutching, bbbegin

also said that the meeting in DC doesnt give DC jurisdiction because the meeting doesnt prove there was an agreement made between Trump team and Russians.

Plaintiffs also argue that the Trump Campaign planned and negotiated at least part of the 24 conspiracies through meetings that took place in D.C. (Pls.’ Opp. at 19.) There are two meetings in the District that occurred prior to the July 22, 2016 email publication: (1) the Trump Campaign’s March 31, 2016 meeting at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C., and (2) the April 27, 2016 foreign-policy speech President Trump gave at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C.—where agents of the Trump Campaign may have had a conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Plaintiffs attempt to suggest that these activities should be treated as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracies. Yet, plaintiffs do not allege anything more than that there was a March meeting at a D.C. hotel where the Trump Campaign adopted a favorable approach to Russia and an April meeting at another D.C. hotel where high-level Trump Campaign officials talked to the Russian Ambassador. These contacts, as alleged, do not establish specific jurisdiction over the Trump Campaign. At some point, agents of the Trump Campaign, such as George Papadopoulos may have learned—at a meeting in London on April 26, 2016—that Russians had emails concerning Hillary Clinton.16 But in any event, there is no indication that the two meeting that occurred in the District related in any way to the emails or to discussions about working with Russian agents to publish those emails

ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

Yup. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

MAGA MAGA MAGA?

Did I do it right?

By George, I think she's got it!

a reply to: dragonridr

For the reasons stated below , the Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants and , alternatively , that Washington D.C. is not the proper venue for plainti ffs’ suit.

Page 2

Basically, the court said 'this is above my pay-grade', dismissing the suit, go higher?

No not what the judge said at all in fact they point out the lawsuit cant go higher. What they said was that in order to have jurisdiction they have to show that an illegal act took place in DC. But the judge said there is no indication that the two meeting that occurred in the District related in any way to the emails or to discussions about working with Russian agents to publish those emails

a reply to: introvert

We shouldn't mince the judge's decision either

"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.”

The DNC's lawsuit has no standing because there is zero evidence Trump broke any laws. No evidence to indicate he knowingly and willingly conspired with others to break US law (all required elements of a conspiracy charge)

Civil suits have a much lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

originally posted by: dragonridr
No not what the judge said at all in fact they point out the lawsuit cant go higher. What they said was that in order to have jurisdiction they have to show that an illegal act took place in DC. But the judge said there is no indication that the two meeting that occurred in the District related in any way to the emails or to discussions about working with Russian agents to publish those emails

Yeah I just read the analysis at the bottom. Needs to go lateral, to New York or Virginia. Because D.C. is just a temporary base of operations for the campaign. And even then it will be about the privacy violation for the emails used during the collusion.

A technicality and nothing to do with what this thread wants the readers to think. I think we have years of courts to go before anyone gets to the bottom of this. Even beside Mueller's investigation.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: introvert

We shouldn't mince the judge's decision either

"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.”

The DNC's lawsuit has no standing because there is zero evidence Trump broke any laws. No evidence to indicate he knowingly and willingly conspired with others to break US law (all required elements of a conspiracy charge)

Civil suits have a much lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

It's not a DNC lawsuit, it's a private lawsuit from three parties: Roy Cockrum, Scott Comer and
Eric Schoenberg.

Fox article just makes a connection that two are donors to the DNC and one was an employee in the past. That's MSM for you.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Trump, MAGA, WIN.

Yeah, it's a win... a little one. By definition, if the plaintiff does not succeed, it is a win for the defendant.

But the bigger issue goes a bit deeper. We have all seen (and some of us have acknowledged) since the election, a "temper tantrum" of sorts from the DNC and their most enthusiastic followers. The courts exist for two and only two reasons: In the case of criminal court, to punish lawbreakers, and in the case of civil court to make right improper actions between people. However, the armadillos (my new term for those who can't get over the election) have tried to use the courts for something else: to get their way.

There is a principle in the US: the people hold the ultimate power. Every 2 years, we hold elections to determine who will represent us and run the country; every four years, we determine a President. We held such an election in 2016, and the winners were announced. Donald Trump won the Presidency, and more Republican candidates than Democratic candidates won the Congressional seats. According to our way, that settles who will be in power in the next term, subject only to the legitimate constraints of our Constitution.

The armadillos have broken that principle by continually launching lawsuits and investigations against every single action the winners of the election have taken, using whatever convolution of logic they could imagine... not to try and enforce any constitutional compliance, but to keep the leaders of the US from leading. An investigation into "Russian collusion" (not a criminal action) has been ongoing now for almost a year and a half, with plenty of allegations of bias, investigative creep, secret instructions, and no election-related charges to date. Why? Because the President exercised his constitutional authority to fire an FBI director for legitimate reasons, including collusion against the President.

That is an attempt to use the power of government for revenge.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the current administration for everything from more "Russian collusion" (still not a criminal action) to Presidential actions well within constitutional authority to literally use of the Executive Order privilege. That is pure obstruction of government, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, is nothing short of sedition.

The free press in this country has used their constitutional power to press forward any story, no matter how obvious the intent or how frivolous the reports, so long as it can be shown to present the President in am unflattering light. The magnitude of this pattern is so great it has even become quantitatively provable, something I would have once thought impossible due to the variance of different reporting styles, the inaccuracy of perceptions, etc. Everything from the shoes worn by the First Lady to the number of scoops of ice cream the President gets has received large amounts of air time. Yet, precious little positive has been reported on this President, despite a growing laundry list of positive achievements.

Our own leaders, both political and celebrity, have literally violated legal constraints by openly declaring intention to do everything from blow up the White House to harass and physically intimidate members of the administration. Yet, they still walk freely and even are able to continue their actions. Kathy Griffin literally held up a mockup of the President's head in a photoshoot designed to mimic the terroristic assassination of a sitting US President, then responded to public opposition of her actions by threatening the young son of the President... yet she still walks free.

In the meantime, those making the accusations against the legitimate President have themselves been implicated in the exact things they accuse the President of, from the Clinton campaign and DNC colluding with Russian interests through Christopher Steele to develop a questionable dossier while accusing the President of Russian collusion (again, not a criminal offense), to obvious obstruction of justice concerning withheld documentation from Congress by the same DoJ that is trying to find evidence of obstruction of justice on the President, to a list of demands from Chuck Schumer concerning the anticipated North Korean treaty negotiations that were obviously lacking in the Iran Nuclear Treaty which he supports wholeheartedly.

Is it any wonder that a small win as in this case is celebrated?

Is it so inconceivable that a court opinion that the plaintiffs were outside the scope of the court they chose to press the lawsuit in is met with a certain amount of joy?

The real win in this case is that it is irrefutable evidence (again) that the armadillos who brought it had no real working concept of how the courts even work, instead proving for the whole world to see that they care not for legal order but rather are interested in getting any judge, anywhere, any way, to speak out against the President and further obstruct the administration. My prediction is that this post will be responded to by a plethora of armadillos who simply cannot stand the fact that someone is pointing out their own hypocrisy and ignorance of the law.

TheRedneck

The judge’s decision is actually a win for the Democrats. Had they proceeded and failed, double jeopardy prevents a second try.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, it's a win... a little one. By definition, if the plaintiff does not succeed, it is a win for the defendant.

...and double jeopardy begins to apply.

a reply to: seagull

Not yet, but it does steepen the slope. As Ahabstar said above, the judge did not decide against the Democrats, only that the Democrats need to actually present evidence.

I wonder how much of a shock that little requirement was to them? Evidence required... how unfair!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Kharron

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 collusionbut with privacy violation, and that it does not take any stance on actual collusion.

Then why aren't those jacksnips suing Facebook and google?

Rhetorical question.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Evidence required is what is bogging down the Special Counsel as well. Makes for nice theater but there is a world of diffence between collusion and conspiracy when it comes to laws being broken. Collusion could just be unrelated coincidental happenstance. Conspiracy is a planned cooperative effort.

a reply to: Ahabstar

That is exactly the issue. Collusion is not illegal in any way, while conspiracy is. Even with conspiracy, there must be an attempt to do something illegal, otherwise it is no more than assembly and a protected right.

The armadillos have spent so much time trying to pin collusion on Trump, I think they forgot that fact, along with the need for evidence of a crime.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What?! Evidence?? What the Hell for? He's/They's guilty, 'cause we say he is. How dare that judge expect evidence...

a reply to: TinfoilTP


At this point, most Americans wouldn't care if candidate Trump DID "collude" with Russia. And, if Trump won due to Russian assistance, "Thank-you Vladimir Putin!". The reason why, is self-evident.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Muller is the only person I am going to believe.

I am waiting for the investigation to take it's course.

And I am willing to wait as long as it takes to do that right.

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.

It is in a way. The judge noted the lawsuit was trying to construe normal campaign activity as evidence of a conspiracy. Once all that stuff was tossed out, there was no evidence left.