Staff Reports
Former President Donald Trump initiated legal action against Hillary Clinton in March, accusing her of conspiring with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to concoct accusations of Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election and use them to harm Trump's campaign for the presidency.
According to Just the News, a judge in Florida dismissed Trump's lawsuit on Friday on the basis that it lack substance and had no value as a complaint. The judge's decision was claimed to have been made in Florida.
According to a statement made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is not short nor straightforward, and it certainly does not prove that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who was appointed to his position by former President Bill Clinton.
But Middlebrooks didn't stop there. A blistering condemnation of Trump and his lawsuit was included in the piece that he penned.
In his ruling, he stated that more disturbing is the fact that the claims contained in the Amended Complaint are not supported under existing law. In point of fact, they cannot be pursued because there is already established precedent, which includes rulings made by the Supreme Court.
To demonstrate, I will emphasize here only two major issues that are present in the Amended Complaint. There are a great number of others. However, these are illustrative of the chutzpah of the Plaintiff's legal theories and the manner in which they blatantly defy binding case law.
Then, he escalated the situation by making threats toward Trump's legal team.
I reserve control over sanctions, he wrote. It's possible that this will result in fines being placed against Trump's legal team.
Middlebrooks has demonstrated her bias in her rulings in the past, so this is not the first time it has happened. In the year 2000, he also submitted a ruling against George W. Bush over the election issue in Florida. In the end, the judgement that he made was overturned by the Supreme Court.
His partiality was also made clear by the persistent criticism he leveled against Trump's legal action. It defies logic to think that the defendants could have impeded a hearing by being the ones to start it, he added.
Several cybersecurity experts working for the Department of Justice (DOJ) have been the subject of an investigation into their possible involvement in Operation Crossfire. This operation is the name given to the purported attempt to frame President Trump for collaborating with Russia during the 2016 election.
They were also accused of abusing the advantages afforded to them by the government in order to discover (or maybe invent) nonpublic information that could be used against Trump on behalf of Clinton.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Headline USA.
