What was represented in the NY Times article as the Judge's finding was actually a restatement of the DNC's allegation not the Judge's "finding." A motion to dismiss does not weigh the facts of the case that would be presented at trial it only reviews issues of jurisdiction and the applicability of the legal arguments raised in the Complaint.
In the motion to dismiss, the statements from which the NY Times extracted the words are correctly qualified as allegations. In reading the NY Times article, this central, critical point is absent is their declarative statement. From the Opinion and Order the original statement can be seen.
"The action arises out of the alleged actions of the Russian Federation in unlawfully hacking into the DNC's computers in connection with the 2016 presidential elections and thereafter distributing stolen materials from those computers."
The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtedly the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case." [pp 1 and 2 of 81]
A "Motion to Dismiss"
The rules under which a motion to dismiss is evaluated is presented and discussed in the opening paragraphs of the Opinion and Order.
"In deciding a motion to dismiss ", the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." While courts should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.
In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider documents of which judicial notice may be taken. A court may also consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint as well as documents the plaintiff either had in the plaintiff's possession or had knowledge of and upon which the plaintiff relied in bringing suit.
The following facts are taken from the Second Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss. [pp 4 and 5 of 81]"
It is easy to assume that these misleading articles,
misinforming the public, are not simply errors.