Federal Judge John Koeltl has dismissed the Democratic National Committee lawsuit against the Trump campaign, Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Richard Gates, Roger Stone, the Russian Federation, various Russians, Joseph Mifsud [!], Wikileaks, and Julian Assange. The DNC alleged in the lawsuit that the Russian Federation had hacked the DNC computers and stolen its emails during the 2016 campaign. The Russian Federation, however, is protected by sovereign immunity and the other defendants appear to have had nothing to do with the alleged hacking and theft. Having afforded the DNC two tries at amending the complaint to give the lawsuit the its best shot, Judge Koeltl has bid the lawsuit a fond farewell in an 81-page opinion and order.
Gregg Re reports on the dismissal for FOX News in “Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims ‘entirely divorced from the facts.'” Re also uploaded a copy of Judge Koeltl’s opinion and order to Scribd. I have embedded it below.
Judge Koeltl’s opinion grants defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The DNC lawsuit is farcical. In footnote 34 at page 81, Judge Koeltl notes the opportunities he has afforded the DNC to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It’s almost funny.
When the DNC filed this lawsuit last year, the organs of the mainstream media were ecstatic. The Washington Post story on the lawsuit carried the bylines of three of the paper’s most prominent reporters and lovingly quoted from the DNC complaint. The Post also sought the opinion of a legal expert with a Watergate connection to validate it:
Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor who specializes in computer-fraud cases, said he thought the Democrats’ suit had merit and, despite predictions from Trump-allied lawyers, was unlikely to go away anytime soon.
“There is no way it’s going to be dismissed,” said Akerman, a partner in the New York office of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm. “At least not on the computer-fraud part of the case, which is really the heart of it. The Democrats have every right to bring this suit as they are aggrieved. My question is: What took them so long?”
By contrast, I wrote briefly here on Power Line that the DNC had not behaved in a manner consistent with the version of events alleged and that the lawsuit was a frivolous frolic undertaken for therapeutic and public relations purposes. On my second point, at least, Judge Koeltl’s opinion can be read to the same effect.
There is probably a reason you haven’t heard or read much about the dismissal in the organs of the mainstream media. The New York Times, for example, devoted a brief story to the dismissal and relegated it to page A25. (“Judge Koeltl said that the national committee’s accusations were ‘totally divorced’ from the facts asserted in the [DNC’s] own complaint — wording that Mr. Trump seized on in a Twitter post on Tuesday night.”) All things considered, they would prefer not to interrupt the continuing Trump hatefest.
NOTE: Judge Koeltl’s name rings a bell with me. He is a Clinton appointee to the federal bench. I commented briefly on Judge Koeltl’s original sentencing and subsequent resentencing of blind sheikh lawyer Lynne Stewart in “Lynne Stewart passes.”
PAUL ADDS: John Koeltl was a college debate superstar for Georgetown University in the mid 1960s.