The judge ruled that the case was brought before the wrong jurisdiction.
One of the many events that the left likes to claim led to Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election was the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s email servers. The digital breach uncovered evidence that the party sought to undermine challenger Bernie Sanders, wrote racist communications, and uncovered evidence of other wrongdoing.
In response, two large DNC donors, as well as one staffer, filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign and Roger Stone, claiming that they colluded with Russia and Wikileaks to hack the DNC’s server. Now, the lawsuit has been dismissed by the federal court system, by a Clinton-appointed judge, no less. Frankly, much of what she wrote in her decision was shocking. She basically did all she could to slander the President’s campaign, but was forceed to follow the law.
The lawsuit was filed by two donors to the party, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, as well as a former staffer to the party, Scott Comer. They were assisted in the process of filing the case by the leftist organization Protect Democracy.
It had been filed in federal court last year, and targeted the Trump Campaign and Roger Stone. The suit seemed to suggest that Stone somehow had knowledge beforehand that WikiLeaks would be publishing the information from the DNC’s email server, leading them to believe that he might have been the go-between for the campaign and the Julian Assange-operated web page.
Stone attracted the scrutiny due to claims that the emails came from an “inside source,” and from the tweet he made about the event in August 2016, saying Clinton’s campaign chief John Podesta would soon have his “time in the barrel.”
The leftists, and the media, strategically ignored some of the other things that Stone said, like when he suggested that it was the Russians who were likely behind the hacking.
In dismissing the case, Judge Huvelle made it very clear that she wasn’t dismissing it because there was, in her opinion, no evidence that the campaign or Stone ‘colluded’ with Russians to hack the DNC.
Indeed, in her decision, she outright wrote that she wanted to emphasize that the ruling was “not based on a finding” that there was no collusion.
Rather, the case was rejected by the court because the judge believed that Washington D.C. was not the proper venue for the suit.
The anti-Trump group ‘Protect Democracy’ suggested that they saw this coming.
The group’s director, Ian Bassin, said that he felt the court made it clear that it believed there was enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy “between the Trump Campaign and the Kremlin,” but that the court also said that the case was brought before the wrong jurisdiction.
It’s interesting that the judge felt the need to go so far in its ruling as to make sure the leftists that brought the lawsuit, along with everyone else, know that the court isn’t ruling on the merits of the case in any way whatsoever, but rather a legal question of the appropriateness of venue.
What’s the next step for Protect Democracy and the three leftists who pushed for the lawsuit? They have two options, really.
On one hand, they could file the case again wherever it’s more appropriate. For example, filing in New York City (where the Trump campaign was likely headquartered based, legally speaking), or wherever Roger Stone has a business or home would be more acceptable.
On the other hand, if they’re not sure that they have a case (they don’t), then filing the case a second time would be a waste of money, designed only to harass the Trump campaign and Roger Stone.
It seems unlikely that, even if the suit was filed in the appropriate venue, it would result in some finding that Donald J. Trump’s campaign was engaged in collusion to hack the DNC’s servers. Ignoring questions of evidence, there’s the fact that Robert Mueller’s special investigation, currently in its second year of operation, has still found no such proof, and has not even found something approaching proof for the claim.
However, because of the rabid, ignorant, hating nature of the plaintiffs, they will probably persist, especially as it is mostly being handled by a democrat organization with financial backing whose purpose seems to be harassing Donald Trump and his agenda.
Hopefully, it ends up dismissed in the next case, as well.