RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events TACO Tuesday!

So just because ONE judge (at this particular stage in litigation, in a long series of court cases Sharyl Attkisson has pursued over a decade now, in legally pursuing justice when her computer was hacked and her privacy invaded), ONE JUDGE ruled against Attkisson's case, PARTIALLY, and you say this fully discredits both her legal case, and discredits her entire 45-plus years as a nationally recognized award-winning investigative journalist ?!?

Be serious.

The judge in the case made it clear that it was a question of jurisdiction, that by his judicial opinion, the case did not have legal merit in the legal realm of his district court in the Maryland region, BUT that she was free to pursue the case in other jurisdictions. As I read the article, the case could possibly be pursued in New York state (CBS News where she worked a the time is based in New York City), or also possibly Washington DC, Virginia, or other states not mentioned in the article. It was not clear in what city Attkisson's computer was when she was hacked and surveiled.

At least one previous judge ruled in Akisson's favor on the case, for her o go forward with he case o his point.
And another lawyer and George Washington University law professor (her attorney) expressed "disappointment" with the judge's ruling, that :

• 
  “The court’s ruling seems to require that a U.S. citizen, before she can even get to discovery, must identify in advance the precise governmental agent who hacked into her computer system,” Berman said. “This burden will be almost impossible to meet in most cases of government surveillance, and denying even meaningful discovery or a hearing on the issue is simply incompatible with the rule of law in a democratic society.”

and

• Attkisson stressed that the decision had not gotten into the merits of her case.

The FBI or DOJ folks hacking Sharyl Attkisson's computer could have done it remotely from anywhere in the U.S., or anywhere in the world. So it seems more than a bit obstructive to legally prevent her atorneys from doing legal discovery to find where and who, and legal footprints and documentation, for who and how she was hacked.

There are clearly security experts who advised Attkisson this was very high-tech surveillance, that only the FBI, DOJ, NSA and other intelligence field agencies could possibly use. She is a highly regarded invesigative journalist, and not some wack job who with no basis , or paranoid and making wild baseless accusations. She has been advised by experts before pursuing the case, and gone through the proper channels, and probably at very large personal legal expense.

In a televised interview 5 or so years ago when she left CBS, Attkisson described being home and seeing her computer come on as someone was hacking her computer remotely, and even deleted investigative material from her computer files. At the time, she was doing invesigative reporting on the Obama White House. And we all know how virtuous and beyond abusing their power the folks at that time (and many probably still there) are. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peer Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, on down. And dozens --if not hundreds, THOUSANDS-- of others, among Barack Obama / George Orwell's 97% Democrat-donating 38,000 agens in FBI (and more, anoher deep state / Democrat army of bureaucrats in DOJ).



Oh yeah !!
SO virtuous. They'd NEVER think about deliberately scuttling multiple cases against Hillary Clinton, so their candidate could win, or so she could even remain eligible to run.
They'd NEVER manufacture deliberately untrue or malicious cases against Donald Trump, or Scooter Libby, or Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, JUST to politically smear them and cause them to lose to their preferred Democrats, to rig elections. So the Republican would lose, thus creating a glide path for the Democrat opponent. Except they did, over and over. (Kevin Clinesmith: "Vive le resistance !" )