Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good to see a judge not swayed by political bias, sticking to the facts.
Quote:
"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.”
Gee, why didn't you also quote the part of the article that states: "She (the judge) 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."
So, we have a nothing burger based on legal technicalities that says NOTHING about whether the Russians and the Trump campaign were in bed together or not.
Gee, why didn't you also quote the part of the article that states: "She (the judge) 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."
So, we have a nothing burger based on legal technicalities that says NOTHING about whether the Russians and the Trump campaign were in bed together or not.
That's because she has no reason to take a position on the conspiracy theory.
I don't know what you thought this thread was about, but its clearly about the merits of the lawsuit or lack thereof.
You are the one that brought up "Russians and Trump campaign in bed together", not I.
This thread and this ruling is specifically about the hack, not the general issue of collusion.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by magaalot
That's because she has no reason to take a position on the conspiracy theory.
I don't know what you thought this thread was about, but its clearly about the merits of the lawsuit or lack thereof. You are the one that brought up "Russians and Trump campaign in bed together", not I.
This thread and this ruling is specifically about the hack, not the general issue of collusion.
YOUR thread title including the phrase "lawsuit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians" didn't bring up the Russians and Trump?
Do you even know what you wrote?
Will you be telling us just what's so political and/or controversial about legal technicalities?
YOUR thread title including the phrase "lawsuit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians" didn't bring up the Russians and Trump?
Do you even know what you wrote?
You left out the word HACK:
"....lawsuit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians in hack".
Without the HACK issue, this judge would not even be involved.
All about the hack, not the general issue of Russian collusion.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by magaalot
You left out the word HACK:
"....lawsuit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians in hack".
Without the HACK issue, this judge would not even be involved.
All about the hack, not the general issue of Russian collusion.
Funny, I don't see any mention in the article of the judge citing HACK as the legal technicality she tossed the case over. And you left out HACK when you alleged I brought up Trump and the Russians together as if you hadn't already done so in the thread title.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
Do you ?
Was it too much effort to read the actual quote with the last two words or just dishonest ?
"Clinton-appointed judge"
"TOSSES lawsuit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians in hack "
Then I guess it won't be too much effort for you to point out just WHERE the judge cited 'hack' as the legal technicality that caused her to toss the case. If you don't it will be readily apparent it's not very key to the decision.
Judge said "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,"
The emails were allegedly acquired by hack.
The lawsuit was about hacked emails.
Then I guess it won't be too much effort for you to point out just WHERE the judge cited 'hack' as the legal technicality that caused her to toss the case. If you don't it will be readily apparent it's not very key to the decision.
"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.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
