Yeah, the judge ruled against the Trump motion to bring suit against Clinton - primarily because it's too old.
Primarily because it is too old?
In the excerpt I quoted, the judge basically said, "If I found the Complaint lacking in any respect, you can file an amendment." So she did find something lacking.
They filed an amendment to cover the things she found lacking. And, in her own words, "It is not simply that I find the Amended Complaint “inadequate in any respect”; it is inadequate in nearly
every respect." (Emphasis from the judge.)
In fact, here is what the Judge said was the core problem: "
At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that
Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to
flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."
If the amendment was to address the inadequacies of the original petition, and the amendment not only did not address those inadequacies but "presented substantively identical arguments in support of dismissal in the earlier round of briefing on Plaintiff’s original Complaint" and "failed to cure any of the deficiencies," how do you come to the conclusion that the dismissal was "primarily because it was too old?"
You don't write all that just because a complaint was "too old." You write that because the whole thing was a pile of horse poop from the beginning.
It's all in front of you, William. Open your eyes and
read it, instead of just listening to those who tell you what you want to hear.
