Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Clinton, DNC, officials involved in Russia probe

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
So.............much.....................winning!!

Trump filed the lawsuit in March in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that Clinton and her "cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot" and "maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative" that Trump was colluding with Russia.

This week, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks threw out the lawsuit, saying that "most of" Trump’s claims were "unsupported by any legal authority" and said the lawsuit lacks "substance."
  • Middlebrooks said Trump exceeded the legal statute of limitations and that "many of the statements that Plaintiff characterizes as injurious falsehoods qualify as speech plainly protected by the First Amendment."
  • "At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," Middlebrooks wrote.

Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."
Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."
“Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner,” Middlebrooks wrote as he began picking Trump’s allegations apart. “It was certainly not presented that way.”
Middlebrooks derides the sloppiness of the Trump team’s presentation, the obvious challenges with the statute of limitations for any such suit and the quality of the evidence offered. At one point, he notes that Trump’s lawyers misunderstood an allegation centered on computer hacking. (“What must be ‘off limits,’ ” he explains, “is the area of the computer from which the information was obtained, not the information itself.”) At another, he reflects on the circuitousness of Trump’s assertions about the FBI probe into interference, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”

“Perplexingly, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Defendants obstructed investigation Crossfire Hurricane by contributing to the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane,” he writes. “That Defendants could have obstructed a proceeding by initiating it defies logic.”
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
So.............much.....................winning!!

Trump filed the lawsuit in March in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that Clinton and her "cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot" and "maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative" that Trump was colluding with Russia.

This week, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks threw out the lawsuit, saying that "most of" Trump’s claims were "unsupported by any legal authority" and said the lawsuit lacks "substance."
  • Middlebrooks said Trump exceeded the legal statute of limitations and that "many of the statements that Plaintiff characterizes as injurious falsehoods qualify as speech plainly protected by the First Amendment."
  • "At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," Middlebrooks wrote.

Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."
Middlebrooks said Trump’s suit is "not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," but instead is "seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."
“Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner,” Middlebrooks wrote as he began picking Trump’s allegations apart. “It was certainly not presented that way.”
Middlebrooks derides the sloppiness of the Trump team’s presentation, the obvious challenges with the statute of limitations for any such suit and the quality of the evidence offered. At one point, he notes that Trump’s lawyers misunderstood an allegation centered on computer hacking. (“What must be ‘off limits,’ ” he explains, “is the area of the computer from which the information was obtained, not the information itself.”) At another, he reflects on the circuitousness of Trump’s assertions about the FBI probe into interference, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”

“Perplexingly, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Defendants obstructed investigation Crossfire Hurricane by contributing to the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane,” he writes. “That Defendants could have obstructed a proceeding by initiating it defies logic.”
Funny that Clinton's campaign manager under oath the other day said Hillary signed off on going forward with the Russian collusion narrative. Imagine that.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
@Fred's Myth
I need a little help,

Do you see anything wrong with this sentence, it is a direct quote. Gramatically, can this be correct.


“Perplexingly, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Defendants obstructed investigation Crossfire Hurricane by contributing to the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane,” he writes. “That Defendants could have obstructed a proceeding by initiating it defies logic.”

I think I may see a flaw which could actually render Trumps pleading plausible and valid.

You understand how I mangle the language, it's the precise reason I am asking you.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
Funny that Clinton's campaign manager under oath the other day said Hillary signed off on going forward with the Russian collusion narrative. Imagine that.
you should have told trump's lawyers that ! they need all the help they can get.This is yet ANOTHER Trump case thats been laughed out of court
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
you should have told trump's lawyers that ! they need all the help they can get.This is yet ANOTHER Trump case thats been laughed out of court
I agree Trump shouldn't have used the suit to air his grievances. Just go after her for what was known and provable.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I agree Trump shouldn't have used the suit to air his grievances. Just go after her for what was known and provable.
In my time here I have given 45 disagrees. You just got one buddy.
They wanted to get to the discovery phase in a civil trial. The man will not quit, he did the right thing when the machine is corrupt.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
In my time here I have given 45 disagrees. You just got one buddy.
They wanted to get to the discovery phase in a civil trial. The man will not quit, he did the right thing when the machine is corrupt.
he sure cant prove anything he alleges in his lawsuits that he's bought up in the past couple of years.
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
@Fred's Myth
I need a little help,

Do you see anything wrong with this sentence, it is a direct quote. Gramatically, can this be correct.




I think I may see a flaw which could actually render Trumps pleading plausible and valid.

You understand how I mangle the language, it's the precise reason I am asking you.
I don’t see a grammatical error, but it is a confusing construction.

Simplified by eliminating extraneous words: “Plaintiff argues that defendant obstructed investigation by contributing to its initiation “

Please share the potential flaw, though.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I don’t see a grammatical error, but it is a confusing construction.

Simplified by eliminating extraneous words: “Plaintiff argues that defendant obstructed investigation by contributing to its initiation “

Please share the potential flaw, though.
I seem to want a "the" or "of" or a combination. There are two distinct Crossfire Hurricane investigations, one concluded one current. ith that wording I'm not sure which one or both that is referring to.
It would be fairly easy to initiate and obstruct when there are two separate investigations.
I guess I am looking for an identifer, more clarity.

I think it was worded like that because the judge knows there is information that Trump was privy to, seeing the original documents, that would see the light of day in discovery and information from Durham's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Just my though, do you follow my disjointed thought?
 
Top