Trump fined nearly $1M for ‘revenge’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

[NxNW]

Trump fined $1M for bogus lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.” While Mr. Trump has often blamed his lawyers for his problems, the judge, in his ruling on Thursday, addressed Mr. Trump’s history of using the courts as a cudgel, going back decades in his business career.

“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. Mr. Trump’s claims were “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” the judge wrote, adding, “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

Oddly enough, Fox News has not covered this story.

 

[durangodawood]

I remember a time when conservatives were gung ho for tort reform. But that was before they chose a champion whos notorious for abuse of the legal system as a business strategy.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Trump fined $1M for bogus lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.” While Mr. Trump has often blamed his lawyers for his problems, the judge, in his ruling on Thursday, addressed Mr. Trump’s history of using the courts as a cudgel, going back decades in his business career.

“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. Mr. Trump’s claims were “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” the judge wrote, adding, “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

Oddly enough, Fox News has not covered this story.

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

 

[Brihaha]

Trump fined $1M for bogus lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.” While Mr. Trump has often blamed his lawyers for his problems, the judge, in his ruling on Thursday, addressed Mr. Trump’s history of using the courts as a cudgel, going back decades in his business career.

“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. Mr. Trump’s claims were “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” the judge wrote, adding, “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

Oddly enough, Fox News has not covered this story.

Fox News did publish a story about Trump dropping his frivolous lawsuit against Leticia James an hour ago. It was interesting how they decided to omit the sanctions imposed on Trump yesterday for his frivolous suit against Hillary and others. I am now curious about whether Trump will continue his other frivolous lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize committee hahaha. I loved the judge's comments. "Mr Trump is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process." It's cathartic to watch Trump finally face consequences for his actions.

 

[durangodawood]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

Interesting to think about where that line should be drawn. How much is the nomination an actual connection? Generally I dont think the pres is personally involved with hardly any of the judges they nominate.

 

[Desk trauma]

Interesting to think about where that line should be drawn. How much is the nomination an actual connection? Generally I dont think the pres is personally involved with hardly any of the judges they nominate.

Also keep in mind Clinton left office in 2001.

 

[com7fy8]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

But the fact he is somehow connected with Bill Clinton could make you so you aren't impartial about his ability to be impartial.

If I have been informed correctly, Donald Trump's administration chose some number of federal judges and loaded the Supreme Court with a conservative majority; and yet, those judges and the majority Court overruled Donald's claims to have a legitimate case that the election was stolen.

So, it is possible they whom he appointed were able to be impartial. So, may be the judge ruling on Donald's recent case knew he could be impartial. It is possible that a conservative colleague was offered the case, and said, I know you aren't stupid, take the case which isn't even a case!

 

[essentialsaltes]

@hugolowell
Just in: Trump withdraws suit against NY State AG Letitia James — the type of frivolous case that was cited by the judge who last night imposed sanctions of nearly $1 million against Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba

 

[Whyayeman]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

I don't know of any particular bias in Clinton appointed judges that justifies the slur that such judges would have a political bias.

 

[NxNW]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).

He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

If he had been nominated by Trump, would he be impartial?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If he had been nominated by Trump, would he be impartial?

No...either one would demand a recusal - in a normal world.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't know of any particular bias in Clinton appointed judges that justifies the slur that such judges would have a political bias.

Judges typically recuse when they have a known or perceived bias like this- appointed by the defendant's husband. No, no, no.

 

[Pommer]

Judges typically recuse when they have a known or perceived bias like this- appointed by the defendant's husband. No, no, no.

That’s always been up to the judge in question’s hands. Is that “wrong” now, for some reason?

 

[Whyayeman]

That’s always been up to the judge in question’s hands. Is that “wrong” now, for some reason?

Nothing. It is the Trump way. Always attack the person.

 

[Blade]

Not sure why this is news. What I mean by that is.. this would be like you or me getting a parking ticket for $2. Then these things are never over so. So many times I have hmm read things like this about president Trump yet when going back to court and gets it over turned.. its so odd that never gets talked about. Its so odd. The fact Hillary has gotten away with so much. Fact there are still "people" out there that out right lied in front of congress we can all go back and rewatch it and no one will disagree yet nothing what so ever happen to them.

So.. IF Trumps Lawyers were wrong in this then praise God if not I pray it some how gets over turned. This could be as far as it goes and the Judge just does what they do best. We all have that right to fight it

 

[Whyayeman]

Not sure why this is news.

Anything about Trump is news. That an ex-President mounts a frivolous civil case against, among others, his opponent in a Presidential Election is bound to be of interest to the public.

Trump is the most litigious of all US presidents. That in itself is newsworthy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

@hugolowell
Just in: Trump withdraws suit against NY State AG Letitia James — the type of frivolous case that was cited by the judge who last night imposed sanctions of nearly $1 million against Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba

Trump withdraws a second suit against Letitia James.

The next morning [after the Hillary-lawsuit sanctions] Trump voluntarily dropped his lawsuit in Florida federal court against James, which Middlebrooks also had been handling.

Days later, Trump dropped his appeal of the dismissal of the suit against James in New York federal court for the Northern District.

Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement, “This appeal was voluntarily withdrawn for strategic purposes.”

 

[ThatRobGuy]

C'mon folks, trying to chastise people for frivolous lawsuits should be reserved for when corporate spin misrepresents a story about someone suing McDonald's because their coffee was hot, not for righteous causes like when a bitter ex-president goes on a "revenge tour" to stroke their own ego.
</sarcasm>

 

[DaisyDay]

Any chance he actually paid the fine?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump fined $1M for bogus lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

If at first you get fined a million dollars, try try again.

I guess Trump heard that Hilary was attacking Southern California and has decided to revive this lawsuit.

Trump attorney Habba resurrecting dismissed lawsuit that already led to a $900K fine​

The reanimated lawsuit, in which Habba warned she would ask for Middlebrooks [who tossed the case and issued the fine] to be removed from hearing it, was inspired by the Durham report submitted in May which Trump and Habba have seized upon as evidence to be used in the re-filing.

Citing the Durham report, Habba wrote it “seismically alters the legal landscape of this case,” before adding, "corroborates many facts and allegations about which this court expressed skepticism.”

Since the main thing to come from the Durham Report is two failed prosecutions, it's hard to see how it will help this stale and hopeless case of whiny complaints from 2016.