Trump Appeals Dismissal Of RICO Trollsuit Against Hillary Clinton On Grounds Of MEAN JUDGE

// Hosannah! Donald Trump has finally briefed his appeal in the Clinton RICO LOLsuit. After multiple delays, it’s here and it is fan-tab-u-lous!

In March of 2022, Trump sued Clinton, the DNC, James Comey, Chris Steele, Jake Sullivan, and many more for DOING THE RICO to make it look like his campaign was in bed with the Russians.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Russia, if you’re listening …

Sponsored Integrating Generative AI Into A Lawyer’s Workflow Legal AI is transforming law practice by enabling faster drafting, said panelists at a recent WSJ event for law firm managing partners. Firms adopting these… From LexisNexis  

Later he added Rod Rosenstein, the man he himself appointed as deputy AG, because YOLO!

The theory of the case was that Hillary and her BFF James Comey colluded to gin up the FBI investigation of Trump’s ties with Russia, and, because they sometimes sent emails (albeit not to each other), this was wire fraud, a predicate crime for civil RICO. Or maybe theft of trade secrets was the predicate, since the Clinton campaign pointed to publicly available DNS traffic between Trump tower and a Russian bank, and that’s … not a trade secret or a theft, but, again YOLO!

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

Every single count of the complaint was outside the statute of limitations, with most of the alleged RICOs taking place in 2016. There were also serious personal jurisdiction issues, since it was filed in the Southern District of Florida where none of the defendants reside. But Trump claims that he was entitled to equitable tolling, since he was too busy being president to file until 14 months after leaving the White House. Also venue is proper because the defendants “knew that Florida is a state in the United States which was an important one.”

“At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm,” Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote in his dismissal order, “[I]nstead, he 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.”

Sponsored Sponsored Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace How to best leverage generative AI as an early adopter with ethical use. From LexisNexis   Sponsored 5 Things To Consider Before Hiring A Legal Marketing Partner Not all digital marketing providers have the know-how or skillset needed to help your firm. From THOMSON REUTERS   Sponsored Integrating Generative AI Into A Lawyer’s Workflow Legal AI is transforming law practice by enabling faster drafting, said panelists at a recent WSJ event for law firm managing partners. Firms adopting these… From LexisNexis   Sponsored Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace How to best leverage generative AI as an early adopter with ethical use. From LexisNexis  

Then he sanctioned Trump and his sparklemagic lawyer Alina Habba $1 million for dragging half of DC into court in Palm Beach and making them hire lawyers to respond to this dumb exercise in trollery.

The appeal is every bit as bonkers as the original pleading. Here’s the first issue presented:

1. Whether the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice must be reversed because the district court misconstrued, and adopted an unduly narrow reading of, federal obstruction of justice and other federal criminal statutory predicates for RICO violations; erroneously concluded the claims failed to satisfy Twombley/Iqbal proofplausibility standards, despite pinpoint-documented factual support and relevant governmental findings; prejudicially relied, sua sponte, on partisan political views and unwarranted assumptions about President Trump, his lawyers, and the Defendants, prematurely reaching the merits of complaint allegations, including regarding Plaintiff’s financial injuries and need for judicial relief; misapplied the “shotgun pleading” doctrine procedurally and substantively; and erroneously denied Plaintiff leave to amend.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Oh, is that all?

Actually, no, there are four more issues, including whether Judge Middlebrooks abused his discretion by failing to recuse himself despite “deep-seated antagonism toward and disdain for President Trump, his political activity, and his counsel.”

Sponsored Sponsored How AI Is Transforming The Legal Profession A survey of professionals reveals their expectations and challenges for the future of work. From Thomson Reuters   Sponsored From Hype To Reality: What Businesses Need To Know About Generative AI Leveraging this powerful technology will impact industries far and wide in the very near future, and for years to come. From Thomson Reuters  

Look, if you’re going to go disqualifying every judge who has antagonism toward Alina Habba …

The document is a rich vein of crazy, chock full of bizarre assertions like, “Here, Plaintiff pleaded the RICO Defendants planned and executed an ongoing scheme to falsely allege harmful, reputation-damaging assertions of near-treason. This is public knowledge, and will likely continue beyond the present.”

It relies heavily on the Durham Report, treating it as if it blew the lid off a giant conspiracy, “establishing the complaint’s merits.” In reality, the only two prosecutions brought by Special Counsel John Durham led to acquittals, and his report oozed out like a wet fart seeking to stink up the FBI by implying without evidence that it jumped the gun on investigating Trump.

The entire briefing doggedly treats every inconvenient precedent as if it stands for the exact opposite of the plain meaning. Sure, the Supreme Court made Bill Clinton testify in Paula Jones’s civil case while in office. But if you look closely, the Court was highly deferential of the presidency, and thus Trump couldn’t have filed this Hillary Clinton suit before it was hopelessly time barred.

And, yes, okay, Trump did find time in his busy schedule of live tweeting Fox and Friends from the Oval Office to sue his accountants to stop them turning his financial documents over to the House Ways and Means Committee. But, see, that was litigation to protect the presidency, not his own personal interests. And that’s why the statute is tolled and Trump still has time to sue for the RICO!

Also, Judge Middlebrooks illegally noticed that James Comey’s late mention of Hillary’s emails probably tanked her campaign, and thus it’s ridiculous to say that they were in a conspiracy together:

The district court also went outside the record on this point, claiming that Comey’s “announcement on [Clinton’s] 2016 campaign” precludes any possibility that he conspired with Defendant Clinton to damage Trump. That announcement was entirely outside the record and not argued by any of the parties; the order improperly injected speculations about that statement into the facts of the case. Regardless, it is not “categorically absurd” to interpret James Comey’s actions in closing the Clinton email investigation as calculated to do minimal damage to Clinton’s presidential campaign, while preserving a façade of impartiality and providing cover to Attorney General Loretta Lynch (remembered for the infamous 2016 Clinton tarmac meeting that suggested access to and influence over DOJ investigations). Nor is it “categorically absurd” to believe that James Comey’s investigation of Trump based on “salacious and unverified” allegations of collusion with Russia, while ignoring intelligence of a Clinton plan to falsely link Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin, was part of a scheme to do maximum damage to the Trump Campaign, and later his presidency.

Well, it’s a lot. 

Anyway, we can’t think of a single reason that Donald Trump should think twice about arguing for a wildly expansive definition of the RICO statute in the Eleventh Circuit. Godspeed, fella.

Trump v. Clinton [Circuit Docket via Court Listener]

Trump v. Clinton [District Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.

Topics

Alina Habba, Courts, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, RICO