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 case like this lawsuit was so bad was so fake
on the surface that Trump's lawyers, including Alina Haba, who was on this case might end
up if, if they go that route losing their legal licenses, which of course would leave
Donald Trump with an even weaker legal team than what he already has.
Actually, I don't even know, right?
If Alina Haba were to lose her law license, that might actually help Donald Trump.
So I guess we should hope that she doesn't, because right now she's doing more damage
to him than the DOJ or the FBI could have ever hoped for.