Clinton-appointed judge tosses out Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary, immediate appeal in the works

A Clinton judge has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit that was filed by former President Donald Trump last spring against the figures responsible for the Russian collusion delusion hoax and conspiracy theory, most notably former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In his ruling Friday, Clinton appointee Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks tore the lawsuit apart piece by piece, arguing that it was an “inadequate” collection of “scores and grievances” versus a fine-tuned legal document.

“At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, 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,” the judge wrote.

In other words, the lawsuit allegedly came off as a rant versus a real lawsuit.

As evidence, Middlebrooks argued that many of the suit’s claims are “implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached.”

“What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” the judge wrote.

Middlebrooks also slammed Trump’s attorneys, implicitly suggesting that they’d violated their oaths as attorneys by filing claims that weren’t “warranted under the law.”

“In presenting a pleading, an 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,” he wrote.

“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 a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,’ and that ‘the factual contentions have evidentiary support.'”

He then ominously added, “I have serious doubts about whether that standard is met here.”

As previously reported, Trump filed the suit in March against a myriad of his political enemies, including but not limited to Clinton, disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, disgraced former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, disgraced former FBI special Agent Peter Strzok, disgraced former FBI attorney Lisa Page, etc.

In the suit, the former president accused the defendants of having concocted a plot to effectively rig the 2016 election with the Russian collusion hoax.

“In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the suit read.

Middlebrooks pushed back on this theory in his ruling Friday, writing, “Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that any supposed falsehoods actually damaged his political career: as Plaintiff knows, he—not Defendant Clinton—won the 2016 presidential election.”

Four months after Trump filed his suit, Clinton and her allies filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss it on the basis that it wasn’t legitimate.

In the motion, Clinton and crew called the suit a “swollen” political manifesto that “alleges a series of disconnected political disputes” that Trump has “alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy” by his political enemies.

In other words, just like Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee, would do months later, Clinton and crew accused the lawsuit of being nothing but a rant.

Middlebrooks ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice Friday, meaning Trump may not re-file it, though he still has the option to file an appeal.

Before signing off on the ruling, the judge also left one final note that read, “I reserve jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions.”

The judge basically threw out the entire case except for the issue of sanctions. Sanctions against whom? Most likely Trump’s attorneys.

In a statement issued to Newsweek following the judge’s ruling Friday, one of Trump’s attorneys, Alina Habba, pushed back hard on Middlebrooks’ very Clinton-esque conclusions.

“We vehemently disagree with the opinion issued by the Court today. Not only is it rife with erroneous applications of the law, it disregards the numerous independent governmental investigations which substantiate our claim that the defendants conspired to falsely implicate our client and undermine the 2016 Presidential election. We will immediately move to appeal this decision,” she said.


If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to American Wire News to help us fight them.

Thank you for your donation!
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles