Date: September 10, 2022
“A federal judge has thrown out Donald Trump’s conspiracy lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the FBI, and several other defendants this week, and hinted that his own lawyers could be in trouble for even filing the suit in the first place. The judge absolutely humiliated Trump and his legal team in a 193-page ruling that left no doubt that Trump has no clue what he’s doing. Farron Cousins discusses this.
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.
Donald Trump suffered even more humiliation at the end of this week when a federal judge down in south Florida, completely dismissed in a 193 page ruling his conspiracy lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the, the FBI, and several other groups and individuals that he alleged had conspired together in 2016 to spread the Russian collusion story, to prevent him from becoming president, which he eventually became president. So I would think on its face, like they were conspiring against me to do something that didn’t even happen. Okay. You, you already right there kind of have no standing cuz you’re like, they did a thing to me that didn’t work. Mm. First of all, they didn’t. Second of all, as you said, it didn’t work. So you really have no recourse for any kind of, uh, judgment. And that’s basically one of the things that the judge said in this ruling, but I have to read parts of this ruling because it’s absolutely hilarious.
This judge didn’t just dismiss the suit. He obliterated Donald Trump and his legal team and suggested that Donald Trump’s legal team might have legal actions against them for filing such a BS lawsuit. So let me read some of this. Many of the amended complaints, characterizations of events are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached for instance, the contention that the former D uh, FBI director, James Comey, senior FBI officials, and deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein over zealously 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 Al what the amended complaint lacks in substance and legal support. It seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole and settling of scores. And grievances. Plaintiff has annotated the amended complaint with 293 footnotes containing references to various public reports and findings. He’s not required to annotate his complaint. In fact, it is inconsistent with rule eight’s requirement of a short and plain statement of 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. Um, that’s pretty blistering by the way. I, I know it may seem a little bit technical to some people that aren’t used to reading legal proceedings, but let me tell you that judge was absolutely out to embarrass
These people, not just to dismiss this ridiculous lawsuit, but to embarrass them. And as I mentioned, the judge also hinted that Donald Trump, your lawyers for filing such a bogus lawsuit, they could be in trouble. Here’s what he said about that in presenting a pleading and 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. So before I continue, let’s just break that down real quick. When a lawyer files a lawsuit, they’re basically making a legal argument and they’re swearing to a court. These things happen to the best of our knowledge, and we can prove that these things happened. That’s one of the reasons, by the way, that we’re seeing all these lawyers out there getting punished for filing the knowingly fictitious election challenge lawsuits, because they don’t meet that standard. Right? And the lawyers by them are, are telling the court. We swear to you, this stuff is true. He continues 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 non frivolous argument for extending modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. And that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. I have serious doubts about whether that standard is met here.
So what he is telling us again, think back to those lawsuits, challenging the election, those lawyers getting in trouble, some of ’em having their licenses pulled that’s. What he’s suggesting could happen in this”