Connect with us


Judge Dismisses Trump’s ‘Ridiculous’ Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton, Hints Penalties For His Lawyers



Donald Trump

A federal judge on Friday dismissed Donald Trump’s conspiracy lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and hinted that his attorneys could be penalized for bringing such a “ridiculous case before the court.

District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks filed a 193-page ruling that finds Trump’s allegations were “neither short nor plain,” and the judge found many of the claims unfounded and ridiculous.

The judge said Trump’s claim that he was the victim of a plot by Hillary Clinton and others relied on misrepresented evidence, legal theories rejected by the Supreme Court and hyperbole to settle political scores.

“Many of the Amended Complaint’s characterizations of events are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached,” Middlebrooks found. “For instance, the contention that former FBI director James Comey, senior FBI officials, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ‘overzealously targeted’ Plaintiff and conspired to harm him through appointment of special counsel are strikingly similar to the conclusory and formulaic allegations found deficient in the seminal Supreme Court case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal.”

“What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” the judge added.

“Plaintiff has annotated the Amended Complaint with 293 footnotes containing references to various public reports and findings. He is not required to annotate his Complaint; in fact, it is inconsistent with Rule 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. But if a party chooses to include such references, it is expected that they be presented in good faith and with evidentiary support. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.”

The judge said the evidence did not show any reason why Trump should be entitled to any of the relief he sought, and he cited a federal rule authorizing sanctions against lawyers who filed claims that aren’t supported by evidence or existing law.

“In presenting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not being presented for any improper purpose; that the claims are warranted under the law; and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support,” Middlebrooks wrote.

“By filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s lawyers certified to the Court that, to the best of their knowledge, ‘the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,’ and that ‘the factual contentions have evidentiary support,’” the judge added. “I have serious doubts about whether that standard is met here.”

As noted by multiple reports, Trump’s attorneys Alina Habba and Peter Ticktin unsuccessfully tried to get the case before Trump-appointed District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, but instead, it landed in the court overseen by Middlebrooks, who wasn’t happy with the filing.

“Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm,” Middlebrooks ruled in his dismissal. “He is seeking to flaunt a 200-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.”