CLINTON-APPOINTED Federal Judge Throws Out Russian-Collusion Lawsuit Against Senior Trump Adviser

[mikegriffith1]

Citing a lack of evidence, yesterday (Tuesday) U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle, appointed by President Bill Clinton, dismissed a lawsuit that claimed that senior Trump adviser Roger Stone colluded with the Russians and Wikileaks to publish hacked DNC e-mails during the 2016 election. Huvelle said in the ruling that the allegations of conspiracy were "insubstantial" to proceed. Politico says that the alleged actions cited in the lawsuit were "too flimsy" to justify further action in a D.C. court:

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. (Judge tosses suit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russia in DNC hack)
​

Judge Hevelle noted that she was not ruling on all aspects of the charge of Russian collusion but only on the part related to Stone's actions cited in the lawsuit. Still, the decision has left liberals scrambling to spin the decision as meaningless, because, until now, liberals have alleged that Stone was one of the Trump advisers who engaged in collusion, which is why the lawsuit was filed in the first place. But even a Clinton-appointed judge could not bring herself to allow the suit to proceed because it was so clearly lacking in substantive evidence.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Next week is the one where it all ends.

 

[Maxdeath]

Anyone with the brain of a rat knew that. There were a lot that were hoping this would take down Trump. To some it does not matter whether it is true or not they just want him gone no matter what it takes. I feel they have some misguided idea that Hillary will then be installed and things will be put back on the crazy track.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Anyone with the brain of a rat knew that. There were a lot that were hoping this would take down Trump. To some it does not matter whether it is true or not they just want him gone no matter what it takes. I feel they have some misguided idea that Hillary will then be installed and things will be put back on the crazy track.

This is especially revealing because liberals chose to target Stone with this lawsuit because they somehow believed they had the strongest case against him! They even got the case in front of a Clinton-appointed judge. And then, oops, delusion and falsehood met reality and sound law.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't hang your hats on this, kids...

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."

 

[mikegriffith1]

Don't hang your hats on this, kids...

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."

Go read the rest of the decision: She said the actions that the suit cited were not sufficient to justify continuing the suit in her court. Stone was based in DC. Liberals have claimed forever that Stone was one of the key "colluders." That's why this suit was filed against him and in DC, because it was based on actions that he allegedly did in DC when he worked for the Trump campaign. And even this Clinton-appointed judge, though she clearly wished otherwise, could not find sufficient evidence in the suit to justify allowing it to continue.

The "technical" aspect was that the alleged actions all occurred in DC, hence the filing of the suit in DC. The "technical" aspect was that the actions alleged in the suit did not warrant allowing the suit to continue in a DC court. Yes, the judge said that she was not ruling on whether or not there was collusion in other areas by other people--but the suit did not address that issue either: it focused on Stone's actions in DC when he worked there for the Trump campaign, and this was supposed to be one of the "strongest" cases that liberals had against Team Trump.

So, yes, we most certainly will hang our hats on this major slapdown of a major part of the alleged "case" for "Russian collusion."

 

[mikegriffith1]

Bump, because obviously liberals don't want to talk about this dismissed lawsuit, even as they post other threads about "Russian collusion." This lawsuit was the first case where liberal attorneys presented their so-called "evidence" of collusion, and even a Clinton-appointed judge reluctantly dismissed it because it was "INSUBSTANTIAL." Go look up "insubstantial."

The liberal attorneys decided to make the lawsuit very narrow in focus--Roger Stone's alleged actions in DC when he worked for the Trump campaign--so they could file it in a DC court and could be assured that it would get before a Democratic judge. The judge clearly wished she could help the anti-Trump cause, but even she could not bring herself to allow this suit to continue because, as she admitted, it simply did not present sufficient evidence to warrant further consideration in a DC court.

The "technical" aspect was that the lawsuit focused only on the allegedly collusive actions of Roger Stone that were allegedly done in DC when he was on the Trump campaign. And the judge ruled that those actions did not constitute conspiracy or collusion and were "insubstantial" to the point that she felt compelled to dismiss the lawsuit.