Crooked Hillary Tries to Have Trump Lawsuit Against Her Dismissed

Attorneys for Hillary Clinton are engaging in legal gymnastics in their attempts to have a U.S. District Judge toss the lawsuit against her filed by Donald Trump. They are going with the tried and true approach of saying she did nothing wrong but even if she did she can’t be sued for it.

The lawsuit, which focused on the Russiagate hoax that Clinton and her cronies disseminated before and after the 2016 election, seeks millions of dollars in damages for personal and business harm caused by the claims. It’s noteworthy that even though there are others included in the lawsuit, including the DNC, only the Clinton team have filed to dismiss.

According to Washington Examiner:

Attorneys for the failed presidential candidate say the suit, which alleges Clinton engaged in “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood” about the former president’s 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, lacks legal merit in a motion to dismiss filed Wednesday.

Clinton’s attorneys used their filing to offer bits of fodder for any press who may choose to cover it. They claimed that the lawsuit would be used as a fundraising tool, a practice most often employed by Democrats who use court filings to virtue signal to their base that they’re fighting for the cause. But there is no evidence Trump or any of the organizations associated with him have mentioned the lawsuit in fundraising communications.

“Whatever the utility of Plaintiff’s Complaint as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit, and should be dismissed with prejudice,” the filing says. “By the complaint’s own telling, these alleged events occurred long ago, and Plaintiff has been aware of his purported injuries for years.”

As is often the case with leftists, Clinton’s attorneys are trying to hide behind the First Amendment. It’s one of the most disingenuous strategies they like to use because they are very selective with when they feel free speech is important. When it comes to stifling others, they act like the First Amendment doesn’t exist but when it behooves them, they scream demands for their rights to be upheld.

Clinton’s lawyers contend that she disputes the allegations in the lawsuit but emphasize that even if they were true, Trump’s suit fails to identify a “cognizablelegal causes of action.” Clinton’s lawyers maintain that “the statute of limitations on his claims expired long ago” and that the First Amendment protects her campaign’s activities during the election.

“At most, Plaintiff alleges that other entities sought to further Clinton’s candidacy and, after the election, politically opposed Plaintiff’s administration,” the motion argues. “This is conduct plainly protected by the First Amendment, and there is nothing unlawful about engagement in political activity.

If U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who is presiding over the case, dismisses the claim with prejudice, Trump would not be able to refile a similar suit. The motion to dismiss was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Trump filed the lawsuit late last month against Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and others. He alleged the defendants pushed false claims that he colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election by “[crippling] his bid for presidency” and then shifted “their focus to undermining his presidential administration.” His lawsuit seeks damages for the Russiagate attacks.

“As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ actions, Trump has sustained significant injuries and damages including, but not limited to, expenses in the form of defense costs, legal fees and related expenses … in an amount no less than twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, as well as the loss of existing and future business opportunities,” Trump’s 108-pagelawsuit contends.

As is often the case, this really comes down to the disposition of the judge. On its merits, the motion to dismiss should be rejected. But one never knows in today’s politicized judiciary with activist judges abound.