Well here's a turd that was dropped tonight

[kimbutgar]

11:06 pm

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's campaign and former Trump adviser Roger Stone conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential race.

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle said in a ruling Tuesday evening that the suit's efforts to tie the Trump campaign and Stone's alleged actions to the nation's capital were too flimsy for the case to proceed in a Washington, D.C., court.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/03/trump-dnc-hacking-693965

The ratfucker Stone is getting off.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. Appellate Court immediately.

[virgogal]

5. Nothing to appeal.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

6. Maybe, maybe not.

Appeal reviews procedural mistakes as well for due process. Not just facts etc.
Just bc a case died doesn't mean w new evidence it can be re-opened or re-filed I bet. Just a bet though...from watching Ironsides and Petrocelli.

[Takket]

2. Lawsuit filed by whom? Not mueller

[jberryhill]

9. It was kind of a bullshit suit

Two DNC donors, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, and former DNC staffer Scott Comer, filed the suit last year, alleging that the hacking invaded their privacy and that the Trump campaign and Stone had a role in unlawful activity.


——-

It wasn’t dismissed on any substantive grounds. It was more of a stunt suit.

[Princess Turandot]

10. Here's the intro to the judge's order, summarizing this case...

The plaintiffs are 3 individuals; this is not a special prosecutor's action.

Before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs are two Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) donors (Cockrum and Schoenberg) and a former DNC employee (Comer). Defendants are Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (“the Trump Campaign”),and Roger Stone, who was employed by the Trump Campaign until November 9, 2015,and allegedly continued thereafter to advise the Trump Campaign informally.

Plaintiffs assert that defendants engaged in a conspiracy with unidentified Russian agents and WikiLeaks to publish hacked emails. They bring two tort claims under D.C. law, one alleging a conspiracy to violate plaintiffs’ privacy rights by publicly disclosing private facts and the other alleging a conspiracy to subject plaintiffs to intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also bring a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), alleging a conspiracy to violate plaintiffs’ right to give support or advocacy to their chosen political candidate.

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 plaintiffs’ suit. The Court will grant defendants’ motions to dismiss, deny plaintiffs’ motion, and dismiss plaintiffs’ suit without prejudice.

2 Given this ruling, the Court does not address defendants’ arguments that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to sustain a claim for tortious civil conspiracies or a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

3 Although the Court will explain the distinction between personal jurisdiction and the merits in detail below, 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.

(bolding added)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4573247-Memorandum-amp-Opinion.html

[RDANGELO]

3. The fact that these two plaintiffs did not have enough evidence,

doesn't mean that Mueller wont.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

7. Ergo the "newly discovered evidence" that will possibly breathe life into this case

[spooky3]

4. Badly written article. Later, the judge is quoted as saying

In essence that the case was dismissed on technical grounds relating to the choice of DC vs another venue, and not on the merits of the suit. The lawyers plan to file it in another venue.

How that relates to “flimsy” isn’t clear.

[Petosky Stone]

8. A D.C. judge.

A bitter pill.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Probably a lack of standing by the plaintiffs, as much as anything...

This doesn't "exonerate" Stone, it just dismisses this case, while categorically pointing out that no declaration of guilt or innocence should be implied. In other words, this does nothing to whatever other cases might be brought against Stone, especially whatever Mueller's team might come up with.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Did anybody read the article, or are we just pouncing on the headline?

"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 Huvelle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. "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."

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."

[jberryhill]

14. ...let alone the procedural posture of this particular decision

It's an attention-grabbing headline, but the suit, and this decision, are of relatively no significant consequence.

[jberryhill]

13. No one is getting off

All kinds of people file all kinds of civil suits.

This suit is more along the lines of the "stunt" variety, in that it was filed by two private parties alleging that Roger Stone had violated their privacy, among other things, by his involvement in the hacking of the DNC emails.

These kinds of suits are more along the lines of performance art than actions likely to lead to anything significant.

[Jim Lane]

17. Even this suit might lead to something if re-filed in New York.

The plaintiffs could probably survive the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If they could also survive the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, then the discovery could prove fruitful, even if the suit ultimately fails.

Obviously, the suit by the DNC, the direct victim of the email disclosures, has more promise. Still, I wouldn't go as far as to say that this case was merely performance art.

[jberryhill]

18. Well, you don't win if you don't play, as they say at the fair

[kimbutgar]

15. Thank you all I couldn't understand the legalize of this article

Just that the lawsuit against stone was dismissed.

Thank you all on DU you are all the smartest

[Jakes Progress]

16. A lot of prosecutors and judges will be millionaires

before this is over. putin and koch have enough spare change to buy off a lot more.

[WhiteTara]

19. It's not as bad as it looks. She didn't say to not refile

but the statutes they were using didn't apply. Stone will not get off unless there is no country left. Mueller's got him in his sights.