Lots of deficiencies. "Nunes’ complaint 'includes many rote statements of law and conclusory allegations which fall short of meeting' a legal standards determined by the Supreme Court,” O’Grady wrote."
That's one deficiency. Ever occur to you that the judge was really just seeing weaknesses in the case structure making it vulnerable to its defendants and rejected it so that Nunes could go back and redo it better so that it stands up better against Fusion?
I didn't even consider such a thing for a second.
It is not the role or function of the judge to instruct the plaintiff on the deficiencies of his/her filings. That's what law school is for. It is the function of the judge to rule on the validity of the arguments, and whether or not the plaintiff has a case. Furthermore, there was nothing instructive in the ruling. All it says is in plain speak "You don't have a basis for a case here. We're done!"
You speak of theory, I speak of practice. Judges are human. I used to teach/tutor logic (Boolean algebra) and various other things to people. Its rather common to be handed a flawed argument and give it back to the person pointing out its holes so that the student can go back and correct it. In fact, that is the very best way to learn. Not saying that's the case here or was INTENTIONAL, but either way, the judge did Nunes a favor because there is nothing stopping Nunes now from correcting the deficiencies and resubmitting the suit.
Nothing except the fact that he has no case... spin and hyperbole don’t go very far in court where facts and evidence are required.
I don;'t know the details other than the fact that members of our government and certain political figures involved in the 2016 election were actively working with Fusion and foreign governments where money exchanged hands in an effort to create a fraudulent document in an effort to try to find, use and convict Trump of things he wasn't actually doing.
How is that not abuse of power? Corrupt and conspiracy to influence an election? Then there is the FISA court swindle.
So, there is a case---- if Nunes fails to or is unable to make a compelling one, either he's incompetent or institutionalized deep state corruption wins again by burying the proof.
But THANK YOU Devin for trying.