Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections

[Jim Lane]

62. I haven't changed.

You were always responding to what you thought I said, despite my constant efforts to point out what I had actually said.

For example, I never said that the judge "was really some kind of Whisperer giving clues to Bernie supporters about refilling the suit." What he actually did, in dismissing it, was to explain his reasons. That's fairly standard practice and is considered a good thing for judges to do.

Now, one consequence, if he explains the flaws in this complaint, is that he necessarily gives the plaintiffs' lawyers some information that might be helpful to them if they decide to start another case. But that's a side effect of his decision, not its purpose.

Similarly, he dismissed the case without prejudice. That means that his decision wouldn't bar a new case. Again, though, that's not because he was covertly trying to help the plaintiffs. It's because the basis of his decision was subject matter jurisdiction, rather than the merits. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally without prejudice.

You write, "Now you are saying that others think it refuted the attacks on the DNC when that is not true." I saw such comments. I decline, however, to take the time to go hunt them up and link them. Your posts, of which this one is a prime example, evince no willingness to pay attention to what I actually say, so frankly I'm not going to bother. You can just go right on thinking that I'm wrong.