Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'

Dec 2014
17,727
6,447
The Milky Way
Derps lose again. Smackdown!


A federal judge in frank terms Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.

The ruling came as Democrats increasingly have sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The DNC asserted in court filings that the Trump team's meetings "with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that the Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC's information" were "circumstantial evidence" that they were conspiring with the Russians to "steal and disseminate the DNC's materials."

...

However, Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the facts.

...



Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
33,824
22,666
SoCal
I don't question the judge's decision with regard to the Trump case, but the comment sounds very problematic.

"...did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information."

So does that mean that if a person were to steal information that was a company's intellectual property and then give that to someone else, that the other person could share it freely?
 
May 2019
6,962
8,734
midwest
I don't question the judge's decision with regard to the Trump case, but the comment sounds very problematic.

"...did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information."

So does that mean that if a person were to steal information that was a company's intellectual property and then give that to someone else, that the other person could share it freely?

Yep.
:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Jan 2015
54,180
16,207
Great State of Texas
Derps lose again. Smackdown!


A federal judge in frank terms Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.
The ruling came as Democrats increasingly have sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.
The DNC asserted in court filings that the Trump team's meetings "with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that the Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC's information" were "circumstantial evidence" that they were conspiring with the Russians to "steal and disseminate the DNC's materials."
...
However, Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the facts.
...


Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'
Everything about the Left is "divorced from facts" .....

Just Saying.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
11,983
4,284
California