Thread by @KlasfeldReports

Good morning from New York.

Yes, there’s another big hearing in SDNY—today, the DNC’s racketeering lawsuit against the Trump campaign, Russia, Assange and others heads to court.

Oral arguments over dismissal & sanctions motions.

Live-coverage from me at 3 p.m @CourthouseNews.

@CourthouseNews That's the case with a caption that looks like this.

@CourthouseNews T-minus roughly 30 minutes and counting.

@CourthouseNews Before it starts, read up on Team Trump's recent motion--and the DNC's reply.

Trump wants DNC to face sanctions for pursuing this suit after the Mueller report. DNC replies it's based on a misreading of the report and civil v. criminal law. courthousenews.com/selectively-qu…

@CourthouseNews Just received word that a scheduled live-feed has been cancelled for these proceedings. So, look out for my dispatches after the hearing has ended.

@CourthouseNews Back from the hearing, which focused exclusively on dismissal motions rather than sanctions.

Some takeaways:

* Defendants wanted judge to take judicial notice of Mueller report; DNC did not.

* No ruling on the motions, but Judge Koeltl asked sharp q-s at heart of DNC's case.

@CourthouseNews Some of those issues Koeltl pressed on:

* DNC does not allege any of the defendants outside of Russia *executed* the hacks, rather than encouraged them and disseminated the stolen emails.

* First Amendment concerns on publication, in series of questions likening to WaPo.

@CourthouseNews Other issues got more technical:

* DNC alleges trade secrets violations, and the parties wrangled on what qualified as a trade secret, such as the party's voter data.

* Whether Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies.

* What qualifies as a "predicate act" under RICO statute

@CourthouseNews On the Mueller report:

Judicial notice refers to whether the judge may consider it in his dismissal motion. The DNC discouraged that consideration, and all of the defendants encouraged it.

@CourthouseNews Though sometimes colorful, the hearing was ultimately inconclusive, and so my editors and I decided not to run an immediate story on it, except as background for a report later when a ruling is issued.

Here are some notable quotes form the attorneys summarizing their positions.

@CourthouseNews Trump's attorney Michael Carvin: "There's nowhere in the complaint where they separately allege hacking."

"They didn't participate in the hacking. They didn't conspire in the hacking."

He ridiculed the claims as "facially feeble" and "wild-eyed speculation."

@CourthouseNews Emin Agalarov's attorney Scott Balber noted that the allegations against his client stem from the Trump Tower meeting.

George Papadopoulos's attorney Caroline Polisi called claims against her client "particularly anemic and borders on the absurd."

@CourthouseNews Noting many of the claims involve the meeting with Russian-tied Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud, Polisi said: "The DNC is trying to rewrite history with speculation and innuendos."

@CourthouseNews WikiLeaks' attorney Josh Dratel hammered press issues, saying the lawsuit "would open up a huge gap in First Amendment protection for all."

Dratel also made the argument that emails were published on DCLeaks and Word Press before WikiLeaks, to undermine trade secrets claim.

@CourthouseNews Judge Koeltl pressed DNC's attorney Joseph Sellers on that issue.

Sellers agreed "publication alone would not be sufficient," but he said WikiLeaks did more by "soliciting and encouraging."

This is when Koeltl pressed the WaPo analogies.

@CourthouseNews Another DNC attorney, Geoffrey Graber, argued that the inferences from the known facts put together should overcome a dismissal motion.

Such as the "shocking" Trump Tower meeting, Manafort/Gates passing on internal data to Konstantin Kilimnik ("a likely Russian spy").

@CourthouseNews "All these facts, taken together, paint a stark picture of guilt, your honor," Graber said, adding that there was also evidence of "witness tampering and cover-up."

@CourthouseNews Those are the major points of a hearing where the judge reserved decision.

More when the ruling is issued.

Have a great weekend.