Federal judge dismisses DNC hacking/collusion lawsuit against the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks

  Putting another nail into the coffin of the already dead Russian collusion narrative, last night a Federal Judge tossed out the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Russia, Wikileaks, and members of the Trump campaign because…there was no collusion.

  Here is more:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit the Democratic National Committee filed against the Trump campaign, the Russian government, WikiLeaks and various Trump campaign officials over alleged involvement in the hacking of Democratic Party email accounts during the 2016 presidential race.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl rejected the central theory of the racketeering suit: that the Trump campaign, campaign aides and Trump allies abetted the theft of the emails by encouraging WikiLeaks to publish the messages and by urging they be released when they would be of maximum political benefit to then-candidate Donald Trump.

  Did you catch that? Donald Trump’s joke during the campaign, which basically started the whole conspiracy theory known as Russia collusion, does not amount collusion with a foreign government, but here is more:

Koeltl said such actions were protected by the First Amendment when taken by people not involved in the actual hacking.

“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants … they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern,” the judge wrote in an 81-page opinion. “The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability.”

“The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election,” Koeltl wrote. “This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

Koeltl, a Manhattan-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, also rejected the DNC’s contention that fundraising-related records amount to trade secrets that get special protection under the law.

“The DNC’s interest in keeping ‘donor lists’ and ‘fundraising strategies’ secret is dwarfed by the newsworthiness of the documents as a whole,” the judge wrote. “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.”

   Liberals are sure to lambaste this decision but they should remember that if the Democratic National Committee, like the Republican National Committee, acted when they were informed somebody was trying to hack into the system none of this would have happened. But while the Republican National Committee took the threat seriously and took actions to prevent a hack the Democratic National Committee laughed it off because they thought it was a prank call when the FBI tried to inform them.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium