You've got him now.!!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed
Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the fact
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Imagine that. Yet another lawsuit against Trump being dismissed once it goes through the entire process.
you made the point of his high supreme court winning percentage in another thread after someone had indicated he had a very low winning percentage in the courts, and that a win in the supreme court would wipe out losses in courts below, which has been the case multiple times.
what's his win/loss record in the supreme court, and how many losses does his supreme court wins negate?
This part has nothing really to do with the base reasoning for dismissal, but WTF....
But, even if the Russians had provided the hacked documents to the Trump team directly, the judge wrote, it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself. Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.
Koeltl cited the infamous Pentagon Papers case in which the Supreme Court held that The New York Times and The Washington Post were protected by the First Amendment when they published articles concerning the government's public justification for the Vietnam War.
How in the fvck the judge can compare American journalism to actual foreign intelligence actions is beyond logic.
But, even if the Russians had provided the hacked documents to the Trump team directly, the judge wrote, it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself. Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.
Koeltl cited the infamous Pentagon Papers case in which the Supreme Court held that The New York Times and The Washington Post were protected by the First Amendment when they published articles concerning the government's public justification for the Vietnam War.
How in the fvck the judge can compare American journalism to actual foreign intelligence actions is beyond logic.
That's right, I still call out idiocy.
I see you thought you would sneak back on here, Bill....guess again!
I knew you were the one who banned me, even though you lied and said you didn't. Don't worry, won't be coming back, I just wanted to get you to admit it was you. Toodles.
So having knowledge of you being banned makes me the banner? Not that it matters.
But that's like saying me knowing Manson was sentenced to the death penalty makes me Charles Older.
