Trump “is seeking to display a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those who have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum,” Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the Southern District of Florida wrote in a scathing 65 .- The page’s decision was released on Friday. The judge also wrote of “the audacity of Plaintiff’s legal theories and how they clearly run counter to binding case law.” Middlebrooks noted “obvious structural deficiencies in plaintiff’s argument” and said “such pleadings waste judicial resources and are an unacceptable form of pleading a claim for relief.” Trump’s lawsuit, filed in March, targeted Clinton and a group of Democratic allies, including Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by an opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign, which compiled a now-infamous dossier which denounces relations between Trump and Russia. . Trump’s suit claimed he had spent more than $24 million defending himself against the allegations and sought damages equivalent to three times that amount. More than two dozen entities and individuals, including the Democratic National Committee, were named in the lawsuit, which comes more than five years after Trump defeated Clinton to win the presidency. The suit also alleged that the defendants had tampered with evidence, deceived law enforcement officials and exploited their access to highly sensitive data sources. “What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to make up for in length, hyperbole and settlement of accounts and grievances,” Middlebrooks wrote. The ruling was a victory for Clinton, who in April asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying, “Whatever the usefulness of the Plaintiff’s Complaint as a fundraising tool, a press release or a list of political grievances, it does not has no value. an action and should be dismissed with prejudice.” In doing just that, Middlebrooks criticized the quality of the legal work presented by Trump’s lawyers. “Many of the allegations of fact in the Amended Complaint are implausible because they lack specific allegations that could provide factual support for the conclusions reached,” Middlebrooks wrote. The judge cited as an example the suit’s allegation that former FBI Director James B. Comey, senior agency officials and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein “overzealously targeted” Trump and his campaign by appointing a special counsel to investigate the role Russia played in the 2016 election. Trump’s lawyers also presented reports to bolster their arguments that simply weren’t true, the judge wrote. The suit alleges that Clinton and top campaign officials conspired and carried out the plot against Trump and hid their involvement “behind a wall of third parties” and refers to a specific page of a report from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. “I went to page 96 of the Inspector General’s Report looking for support for Plaintiff’s conclusory and argumentative statement, but found none,” the judge wrote. Trump’s lawyers may dispute the report, Middlebrooks wrote, “but they can’t falsify it in a memo.” Alina Habiba, Trump’s lawyer, said in a statement that his lawyers “vehemently disagree” with the decision and that it was “full of misapplications of the law.” They will appeal the decision. Despite Trump’s repeated claims that he was exonerated by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III after a two-year investigation, Mueller in 2019 said only that his team had not determined “collusion” and had not found sufficient evidence to charge any member of the Trump campaign with criminal conspiracy. Several Trump associates have pleaded guilty to charges related to the 2016 campaign and Russia, including federal conspiracy or lying to the FBI. And a 2020 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee portrayed Trump’s 2016 campaign as posing counterintelligence risks through its significant contacts with Russia and seemingly determined to conceal the full extent of its conduct. Trump’s lawsuit also focuses on the work of Michael Sussmann, who worked for the Clinton campaign and who tried to get the FBI to investigate possible computer connections between a Trump Organization server and a Russian financial institution known as Alfa Bank. But the lawsuit failed to note that Sussmann had been acquitted of wrongdoing in a separate case, Middlebrooks wrote. In filing their lawsuit, Middlebrooks said, Trump’s lawyers “certified to the court” that to the best of their knowledge their arguments were legally sound and not frivolous. “I have serious doubts whether that standard is met here,” the judge wrote. As for Steele, Middlebrooks wrote that despite the numerous references to him in Trump’s lawsuit, “none specifically attribute a misrepresentation to Plaintiff.” The judge later addressed what he said was the suit’s sweeping attempt to criminalize criticism of Trump, writing: “Neither the plaintiff’s political opposition, nor the plaintiff’s antipathy, nor the engagement in political speech about the Plaintiff that casts him in a negative light it’s illegal. “ Middlebrooks also emphasized the difference between being in conflict with Trump and harming him: “Opposition to Plaintiff’s presidential campaign does not amount to a conscious monetary loss. Statements to law enforcement or comments made in a political campaign are not intended to induce others not to do business with the Plaintiff or his business or to cause direct or immediate financial harm.” “Furthermore,” he later added, “many of the statements Plaintiff characterizes as injurious falsehoods qualify as speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.”
