(FreedomBeacon.com)- On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton from 2016 in Florida. He claimed that Clinton attempted to “rig” the election.
Trump claimed that Clinton and others had “orchestrated a malevolent conspiracy” to spread false material about him to “destroy his life, his political career, and rig the 2016 Election” in Clinton’s favor. He sought $24 million in damages. On September 8, the civil case was dismissed by Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Trump’s 14 counts of relief requests focused on torts of malicious prosecution and harmful falsehoods. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), frequently used to prosecute organized crime, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act were among the criminal acts for which he also sued the defendants.
Trump made several assertions concerning the Clinton campaign’s employment of the research company Fusion GPS, which had employed former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to look into and potentially leak damaging information about Trump throughout the campaign. The Steele Dossier, which featured obscene allegations about Trump, including deviant conduct, and was extensively refuted by media experts, was the culmination of Steele’s research.
A Bill Clinton appointee named Judge Middlebrooks dismissed the complaint with prejudice after calling it “a two hundred page political manifesto of grievances.”
Middlebrooks added that Trump’s objections had “glaring flaws,” “obviously contravened” Supreme Court decisions, and were “not warranted under existing law.”
The “audacity of the plaintiff’s legal arguments” was another criticism he leveled.
Middlebrooks concluded his analysis by stating that the Amended Complaint “seeks to substitute length, exaggeration, and the settling of scores and grievances for what the Amended Complaint lacks in content and legal merit.”
Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba said, “We vehemently disagree with today’s verdict.” It contains inaccurate legal interpretations and ignores several official investigations supporting our claim that the defendants planned to accuse our client and sabotage the 2016 presidential election falsely. Now we’ll appeal.