L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:34 pm
I wish they would cite the case in articles like that.
Yeah, well, I don't mind sharing access to this sort of document with you. Your attempts to re-litigate decisions can be mildly entertaining, if not particularly effective or convincing.
Just stop with making threads about personal attacks on me. Attempts to relitigate? Dude, the article did not provide the legal basis for the motion, or the rationale for the decision. My post was speculation as to what the motion was about, and what the order of dismissal means.
L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
You could search the
court website yourself using the case number given below, if you don't trust the link I supply.
Excellent, thanks. The article refered a "US court" - so, I had searched the US district courts for the case. There is one, but it
There was no trial. But, and my speculation as to what the court's reasoning would be on a motion to dismiss was basically correct. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss which required the Plaintiff to offer evidence that the Defendants made a false and defamatory statement with malice aforethought (meaning knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard to the falsity). The court did not rule on whether the statements were false, or whether the statements were defamatory. The court simply ruled that even if false, no evidence was produced as to the Defendant's knowledge/reckless disregard, and therefore failed to meet the burden to produce clear and convincing evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's subjective knowledge was that it was false, or that they acted with "reckless disregard" of the truth. The court ruled, for example, that wasn't sufficient that the Defendant "should have known better" than to publish the statements -- the test is whether Plaintiff can offer proof that the Defendant harbored "subjective doubt." That's a hugely difficult standard to meet. It's a function of US law on defamation.
L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
"We are, however, pleased that the Court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr. Steele’s negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election – which they did not."
[
source]
Nowhere does Epstein make any such statement.
The same lawyers claim that they will appeal. Given that Epstein dismissed with prejudice, it seems that they're milking their Russian clients but what the hell, those clients have rubles to burn.
I haven't parsed the opinion to see if the PR statement about what the court agreed with is true or false. And, it doesn't matter. The opinion is the opinion. However, dismissals with prejudice just relate to whether they can file the same lawsuit again. A dismissal without prejudice means that they cannot file a new lawsuit to try to allege with greater or more specific allegations in order to state a claim on which relief can be granted. A dismissal with prejudice means they cannot refile a new case, and their only recourse is via appeal. An appeal is, however, an uphill battle, to say the least. The trial court level standard was high enough, and then add to that that the appellate court's determination of whether judge Epstein made an error is going to be an "abuse of discretion" standard (which means that deference is given to the judge's findings of fact, and they will only be overturned if found to be unreasonable conclusions and that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude as he did under the given facts and evidence).
L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
On Brennan, criticism of Trump's action is warranted.
Whether it is, or isn't, is itself a matter of opinion. Some people think it's "warranted." Other people think it's "unwarranted" (meaning not justified). Whether warranted or unwarranted in terms of "authorized," under the US system, no criticism requires authorization or warrant. All criticism is in that respect "warranted," by the right of every citizen to criticize the President of the US. That does not mean, however, that appointed officials, or retired appointed officials, get to keep their security clearance when they call the President a traitor, vile, venal, etc.
L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
He used his power as president to gratify his desire to strike at a political opponent. Whether it's the norm for former high-ranking intelligence officials to refrain from criticizing any president while in office or not is irrelevant: Trump has made it blatantly clear that previous norms and niceties are out the window as long as he's in office.
Brennan used his power as a former CIA director to strongly imply that he has secret, incriminating information regarding the President, and that the President is committing treason by being friendly to Russia (verbally, even though the policies of the US administration are quite strongly ant-Russian these days, as we are sending more troops to the Russian border, bombed Russian assets in Syria, and imposed strong sanctions against Russia). Brennan is entitled to do that, but he's not entitled to have security clearance, and if the President is not comfortable with him having security clearance - because of Brennan's animus toward the President and desire to see the President impeached, arrested, or tried for Treason, and therefore will not be seeking Brennan's input on policy or intelligence matters, then it stands to reason that the clearance would be removed.
L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
While I'm not a defender of Brennan's past actions, I think the truth about them is worthwhile. He didn't bug Senate offices. What the CIA did was circumvent a firewall, which allowed them to search Senate staff documents and emails. I'm unaware of any evidence that Brennan signed off on this intrusion, but maybe you can cite any such evidence or reports. The reports I read stated that Brennan actually ordered the operation to cease when he learned about it.
He lied to Congress, and under the Obama Administration, there were serious efforts on the left to see him fired.
I want to add that the accusation that the President is a traitor should be enough to get him fired, if he were still employed, and it should be enough to get his clearance revoked. These kinds of allegations from CIA director level people can have serious policy and international relations consequences. They can effect the way the President has to deal with other countries, and can effect how they deal with him. The President is the one who sets executive policy toward any country, and Brennan doesn't. Brennan has a right to an opinion as to who the President should be friendly to, and what the President should say to "call out" Vladimir Putin when they meet. He can say all he wants about it. But, the President has the constitutional authority to revoke security clearance, and to otherwise assert the actual policies of the executive branch, which can be diametrically opposed to what Brennan thinks is best. If the President decided to enter into a treaty of frienship with Russia, and ally with Russia outright, calling it the sense of the US administration that Russia is a fast and true friend to the US, lowering tariff barriers, and removing sanctions, then the President has the power to do so. He could sign such a treaty, subject to the ratification power of the Senate. He would not be a traitor for doing so. Why? Because no matter what the CIA Director or former CIA director thinks about Russia, in the final analysis they are advisors to the President, and they are not the President.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar