Judge Dismisses Democrats' Suit Against Russia, Trump Campaign

[Kilgore]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-dismisses-democrats-suit-against-russia-trump-campaign-11564539167

A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against Russia, the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and others, ruling the committee’s allegations of a wide-ranging conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election were “moot or without merit.”

The lawsuit, filed in April 2018, alleged the defendants conspired to hack into the DNC’s computer network and strategically leak stolen information to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and improve Donald Trump’s odds of winning the election.

The defendants in the lawsuit included the Russian federation and the country’s military intelligence agency; WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange; the Trump campaign and its onetime chairman, Paul Manafort; Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his longtime adviser Roger Stone, as well as others involved in the campaign.

[kimbutgar]

1. Is this a moscow mitch judge?

[FBaggins]

2. Nope

He's a Clinton appointee.

[triron]

3. A closet Trump supporter, clearly. This ruling is fucked up and contrary to Mueller's testimony, et

I don't care if the judge is a 'Clinton' appointee.

[former9thward]

5. No it is not.

The 83 page decision followed Mueller's' investigation. The judge said the lawsuit was "divorced from the facts".

[StarfishSaver]

12. Did you read the opinion?

[Lulu KC]

4. Bizarre!

A Clinton appointee? I thought this was going to be the easy part--like a civil suit associated with a criminal trial.

[bluestarone]

6. My question is

On what grounds did he dismiss?

[FBaggins]

8. It was devastating from what I've read so far

The only win was that the judge refused to sanction the DNC.

The quick summary is that they can't sue Russia in a US court even if he accepted that they stole documents from the DNC. That the claims against Trump/Wikileaks/etc. for (essentially "collusion" ) didn't even state a plausible legal claim... and that the use of the stolen material is itself covered by the first amendment just like it would be for a news organization.

[BigmanPigman]

7. Some legal feedback from DUers here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142348108

[StarfishSaver]

9. Reading it now

The court ruled the Russian Federation is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which is likely correct.

Reading on...

[FBaggins]

11. Jump to page 51 and following

Sovereign immunity is clear enough... as is 1A protections for disseminating material of public interest after someone else stole it.

The real zinger is on RICO/Campaign Enterprise/AIF Enterprise claims.

[StarfishSaver]

10. The court dismissed the claims against the other defendants for publishing stolen documents

on First Amendment grounds. The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the defendants on this issue.