Trump Sues Hillary, Others for Falsely Accusing Him of Colluding With Russia
“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.”
President Donald Trump has sued failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and others for falsely accusing him of colluding with Russia during the 2016 presidential election:
“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 former president alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida.
Trump, who beat Democratic nominee Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, alleges “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood,” among other claims.
The other RICO defendants include names you will recognize: James Comey, Christopher Steele, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe.
Trump wants damages awarded to him:
In the lawsuit, Trump is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Trump said he was “forced to incur expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, but known to be in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses.”
The counts include:
- RICO
- RICO Conspiracy
- Injurious Falsehood
- Conspiracy to Commit Injurious Falsehood
- Malicious Prosecution
- Conspiracy to Commit Malicious Prosecution
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Theft of Trade Secrets
- Stored Communications Act
- Agency
- Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability
The lawsuit alleges the RICO defendants “conspired with each other” and they “knowingly agreed, conspired and acted in concert for the express purpose of injuring the Plaintiff’s political career and/or impeding his ability to effectively govern through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
Trump also accuses defendants Clinton, Jake Sullivan (Clinton campaign staffer), Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Igor Danchenko (source for the Steele dossier), Michael Sussmann (former partner at Perkins Coie), and Steele of Injurious Falsehood because they “made, disseminated and/or published false and damaging statements concerning the Plaintiff, specifically that he was colluding with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.”
“At all relevant times, the Defendants acted with actual malice, as they knew that the Plaintiff was not colluding with Russia or, at a minimum, acted with reckless abandon as to the truth whether the Plaintiff had colluded with Russia; despite said knowledge, the Defendants conspired to disseminate false information and spread a false narrative in an attempt to ruin the Plaintiff,” states the lawsuit.
The lawsuit points out that the media ran with the allegations coughed up by the defendants.
It also published a press release from Sullivan on behalf of Hillary and her campaign filled with the accusations against Trump.
Trump v Clinton by Liberty Nation
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Expect to see new evidence never before made public. Should be good.
This lawsuit is a public service by Pres. Trump.
This makes me feel very good but also sad. The chances that this will be allowed to go to trial – as opposed to being thrown out of court by a judge who doesn’t want to suddenly not hang himself – are pretty slim.
“a judge who doesn’t want to suddenly not hang himself”
Thanks for the laugh-out-loud moment, irv.
I understand your pessimism but all may not be lost. Obviously these Ds will take the usual route and test the complaint on a R.12b6 motion (failure to state a claim upon which judicial relief can be granted). From a perusal of the complaint and the statutes cited, Trump should prevail on this motion, meaning discovery can begin.
But I’d like to hear the thoughts of others.
This was a well thought out and worded action.
Just look at line 345:
The Plaintiff does not claim nor seek any compensation for damage to his reputation, but rather, he seeks damages for the cost of dealing with the legal issues and political issues, which he was required to spend to redress the injurious falsities which were propounded by the Defendants, and all other losses incurred due to the tortious conduct of the Defendants.
That’s a whole different animal and not the textbook “defamation” case the Danny’s and other trolls are trying to make people believe.
Trump will almost certainly prevail on a motion to dismiss.
Who ( or what) is Ryssia?
I suspect it’s Russia for people who don’t want to get kicked off Twitter.
Well… if you don’t know…. you don’t know.
Russia pronounced with a Galitzianer Yiddish accent. Hamayvin yavin.
“Hey, laaaaaaaaaaady…!”
This may well be significant due to the passage of time
But the degree of significance will only be revealed with the passage of time.
Big Beautiful Amazing move…HRC should be worried, as others that may get drawn into the suit.
Sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perfect Alinsky-inspired tactic often used by the left.
Go get ’em, #45!!!!!!!!
Yes, and as a certain community organizer once advised, “punch back twice as hard”.
Predicting that this goes nowhere.
Disagree. While it may never get to trial, so much can be aired by way of depositions, document production, motion practice – and Trump has the deep pockets to move it forward in the face of intense opposition. For starters, how many defendants will claim 5th amendment privilege?
There’s almost no chance of stopping this from eventually being heard but thats not the reason or timing for this action.
You pointed out many that will come via discovery plus this will fuel political reprisals as well right before the elections.
Eventually the evidence can be used to bring criminal charges as well.
This case isn’t going away.
Aired by who? 98% of the media is owned by the cartel
I’ll bet the Clinton Family International Crime Syndicate doesn’t feel that way. As others are pointing out here, there is no way to make this go away. The public has been red-pilled and their curiosity piqued about this issue. The process will be the punishment and this will make an excellent backdrop for whatever additional information Durham has planned as the case moves ahead.
Durham better be careful, lest he find himself getting the Vince Foster treatment.
Doesn’t matter. Ties ’em up. Makes ’em bleed money.
Trump is leading from his strength here, which is his wallet.
Maybe this is his perfect function, as opposed to re-running for office.
If he shops for a judge that is willing to give him standing on more stuff, even better.
Also creates a big honkin’ problem for those intent on erasing this important chapter of history. Hillary is a failure of epic historical proportions. Her support will snap when they realize she is an even bigger liability than Brandon. Someone has to write a book titled “Yes! There ARE Conspiracies! (How Civilization Itself Almost Came To An End”.
Hillary may be the reason why the left is trying to eliminate women entirely.
The following problems with this lawsuit
1. Damages-You need to prove those exist
2. When she actually said it was it damaging? Forbes listed Trump as 1 billion dollar net worth at one point, wouldn’t that mean he is worth what he was at the start?
3. Collusion isn’t actually a crime, it is a secret agreement https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collusion our government is actually colluding with Russia for the Iran deal right now. Governments collude with one another around the clock. We should have colluded with Russia because I think nobody is benefitting from our relationship getting so bad Russia felt nothing to lose from us by invading Ukraine.
4. Even if the above was all untrue which location will the trial be held in?
Well, they have the legal costs of defending against the scam at $72 million. Legal invoices should be easy to show. The value of reputational damage is less certain, but projects that were refused or canceled following the hoax would seem to be at least partially demonstrable as damages.
And it contributed to his not winning reelection. Well, that and the voting dead.
$400,000 a year Presidents’ wages.
That 72 million was defense against everything, of which Mueller spent very little on things involved with Russia. Most of what he did was try to create process crimes.
Suing for defamation (which frankly is what this is) will be very difficult, our system is designed for defamation to be extremely difficult for anyone.
The New York Times accused Sarah Palin of causing the shooting of a congresswoman, and won the defamation suit that followed. That should set off alarms about how difficult defamation is.
Danny, you’re making the argument here, on the Website that basically said Ms. Palin’s lawsuit was personally screwed by a Judge with the intention of screwing it.
You might want to go into hiding.
no, she didn’t lose. The judge blew it up. She’s appealing.
That’s the New York Times, though, receiving the benefit of clergy so they’re not subject to secular courts.
The RICO Act specifies triple damages. I think that $72M quoted is for the $24M Trump has had to spend in legal fees so far.
The complaint specifically rules out seeking any other damages.
Danny the troll is wrong again.
This isn’t a textbook defamation suit. That’s just a Politico strawman argument used hoping to convince people.
Wow Danny,
You know even less about the Court system than you know about elections and i didn’t think a negative whole number was possible.
You are in a part of my world now so I will give you a real education if you have the capacity to absorb the information.
If you have the capacity, tell me specifically and exactly is a “problem” and I’ll straighten you out again.
1- Be specific with a detailed statement relative to the claims in the suit. What do you think will be difficult about establishing damages and collecting and i will show you how.
2- Yes, it is damaging – go back and look at the allegations and that word “malice”
3- This is a civil court ( not criminal) and collusion is a part of the act proper in the claim.
4- Its federal so it can be held at whichever one its assigned
Ad hominem should if you have a brain be accompanied by something actually intelligent to say.
1 .https://www.minclaw.com/defamation-lawsuit-requirements/
“Even though harm is “presumed” in defamation per se cases, that does not mean the plaintiff is not responsible for proving that suffering occurred. To receive damages, the plaintiff must still provide evidence of harm.”
Looks like what actual legal professionals say is I am right and you have no basis to your first claim.
2. In what way? Trump went on to win the presidency after Hillary lowered the Russia Collusion bs. From the same source “It is also the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that the damages they suffered were a direct result of the defendant’s statements or conduct.”
3. I never mentioned the actual malice standard although that is a bar Trump will have to clear. What I mentioned was the collusion is not actually a crime, and I mentioned the actual definition of collusion, and that our government colludes with Russia regular (it is even colluding with Russia right now as Russian tanks roll into Ukraine). When claiming collusion is such a horrible accusation it warrants a major set of damages….sorry the actual definition of collusion is relevant.
4. It is Southern District of Florida you idiot.
I have actual sources for how our court system works, you don’t seem to think proving damages is relevant???
Oh ye of little knowledge. How is my favorite troll today?
First, I don’t need “sources” as I am a “source” as a profession which is why I can go into detail and not be impressed by the “link showing” game trolls play.
Let me decompile your latest collection of irrelevant garbage and false claims.
1. Go actually read the filing ( this is how I know you haven’t)- this isn’t about “defamation” and these “legal professionals’ are presenting the wrong side of the playing card to entice the ignorant audience such as you in order to create a false narrative so trolls like you have something to reference.
I will test my own statement just to further prove you wrong. Go READ the counts in the filing and tell us what he is actually claiming. (it aint defamation). When you fail- you will have proven my point.
2. This is nothing more than a fruit of the #1 vine above- everything applies. ( also when one minimizes damages from an act or avoids them entirely- that doesn’t automatically release liability for a malicious act designed to knowingly inflict injury but you don’t understand that concept do you?)
3. That entire monolog is non sequitur and you might want to investigate mens rea and actus rea and collusion isn’t a point here.
4. I know where its filed at. You obviously didn’t understand the statement but that’s no real surprise either.
Run back to Politico and tell then you need more help.
Everyone commenting here should have a reality check. Danny is basically correct.
Powerlineblog has a very good rational assessment of the case.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/trump-sues-the-russia-hoaxers.php
This is going to be a very difficult case for Trump to win for the reasons Powerlineblog stated, the reasons Danny stated and the reasons I previously stated.
Trump was clearly wronged. – but dont let your biases override a rational reality based assessment of the legal issues in the case.
Are you serious? Powerline blog didn’t say much of anything except (a) they only quickly scanned the 108 page filing; (b) There are lots of charges and they think defamation is the easiest to sustain; and (c) Trump uses a small law firm in NJ and if all those defendants get lawyers, they will be overwhelmed, so they will be outgunned. That’s it. Their whole analysis was about 2 paragraphs.
Windy – I am absolutely being serious.
the vast majority of comments here are so far removed from a reality based assessment of the issues in the case and the hurdles. As much as you may like trump, which I do, dont let your biases override a rational assessment of the case.
Quite frankly, Danny is the only person showing some rational take on the case. Taurus is completely off base. All the comments with the exception of Danny show very little comprehension of the legal issues.
I’m curious
Are you a Politico tag partner for our troll or just severely misinformed?
Just your statement alone shows clearly you lack an in-depth subject matter knowledge and are just parroting talking points.
Quoting that blog weakened your credibility to zero. Nobody who actually read and understands that suit filed would even reference that idiotic article since it isn’t accurate.
Taurus – no I am not a troll , though I have been involved in quite a bit of litigation, primarily as an expert witness (accounting, valuation and financial tracing issues, bankruptcy, etc ) in both federal, state and tax court. So I have a pretty good sense of civil litigation.
As I said, almost of the comments , with the exception of Danny, reflect those people who have never been a court room except for their divorce case or a speeding ticket. That is pretty much the knowledge your comments reflect.
Volohk conspiracy ( a libeterian slanted legal blog) will likely have a good write up of the merits of the case in the next couple of days. Spend some discussing the issues before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Ha, ha, danny-the-dope claims he voted for Trump. LOL.
Call the supervisor danny, you’ll need some help responding.
1. He paid big bux to defend himself.
2. “Who steals my purse steals trash, but…”
3. Depends on the law. RICO says it’s a crime. Sherman Act says its a crime. Any law punishing “conspiracy” says it’s a crime.
4. Thunderdome, if I have my way.
1. You are right, to an extent. The Mueller investigation was an investigation of anything whatsoever. Most of it was spent on unrelated matters in order to try to intimidate people into lying and claiming some kind of criminal act involving Russia. Look defamation lawsuits are not easy. If all Trump was investigated for was “collusion with Russia”, unfortunately it really wasn’t.
2. If Trump is worth the same as he was prior to the accusation that would mean his only loss was what he spent on defending himself, and even that would be debatable in a court of law.
3. Colluding to do something illegal is a crime. All collusion means is a secret agreement. Being accussed of collusion isn’t automatically actionable. Lets say I shout “_________ killed an 8 year old girl”. That is obviously a lawsuit in the making. Now lets say “You Henrybowman colluded with J.K. Rowling”-Sorry you have nothing. The lie you are suing on is relevant when suing for defamation. Hillary saying “collusion”, collusion not being a crime and what it actually does mean (I provided the definition available in 2016)….The law doesn’t change to what you want it.
4. But in reality what is the location? I think I read SD of Florida.
#2 is not an accurate statement of law. Reputational damage, not to mention loss of future opportunities.
“Perhaps the most common negative consequence of a defamatory statement is harm to your professional reputation. If you’re a local businessperson and someone makes a false statement about you to others, indicating that you did something dishonest, that might cause your customers to take their business elsewhere. In another example, perhaps an untrue statement in a company email caused your employer to doubt whether you should remain employed.”
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-lawsuit-proving-harm.html
If that isn’t enough source for you how about actual cases?
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/1240/1558948/
“Defendants argue that there was no proof of any actual injury to plaintiff, such as would justify an award of substantial compensatory damages. Plaintiff’s evidence during the damages phase of the trial consisted of the following:”
(it actually does provide evidence afterwards but lets get to the judges reaction)
“In almost any other kind of case, the court’s response would be clear: direct or set aside the compensatory damage verdict or order a new trial on damages. Douglass v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 769 F.2d 1128, 1144 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 1489, 89 L. Ed. 2d 892 (1986); Taliferro v. Augle, 757 F.2d 157, 162 (7th Cir.1985). As the Seventh Circuit so tersely put it, “if [plaintiffs] want damages they must prove them.” Douglass, 769 F.2d at 1144. Plaintiff clearly did not prove any actual damages, let alone three million dollars’ worth.”
That was a reputation law suit and the lack of damages resulted in
“[16] If it should be found, on appeal, that it is improper to set damages by granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict, then, alternatively, the court finds that the award of three million dollars in compensatory damages was excessive and orders a remittitur of $2,999,999.00, reducing the award to $1.00, with the condition that if plaintiff chooses to reject the remittitur there be a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages. McKinnon, 750 F.2d at 1391-92. Fed.R. Civ.P. 50(c) (1).”
Needing to show damages is very serious, I just provided an actual case showing it.
Danny, you need to get a refund from the Brooklyn School of Law because your JD has been revoked.
1. Contrary to what the media says, this isn’t a defamation lawsuit but you don’t comprehend that because you didn’t actually read the document and wouldn’t understand it if you did.
2. That’s not even close as to how damage is assessed and calculated.
3. You are hung on a point the filing doesn’t shore on so the commentary is non-sequitur.
I know you are here trolling and trying to sound like you actually know what you are talking about but you don’t and its obvious.
You sir are an idiot.
1. People misfile defamation suits all the time, it is why we have judges to correct. Trump is suing over his being defamed, he isn’t going to be allowed to misuse our legal system.
2. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/1240/1558948/ actual case law doesn’t see eye to eye with you ya moron.
3. The nature of the accusation is essential in any defamation case you idiot.
I know you are an asshole without a brain. That doesn’t change American law. You are a cultist with no ability to think for yourself and exactly the kind of asshole who turned the 20th century into a graveyard because if they be named Hirohito, Stalin, Lenin or Mao you followed the leader. The fact that you can’t even agree defamation requires damages (despite American precedent saying it does) says it all about you.
From Danny the Politico Troll
>>>You sir are an idiot.
1. People misfile defamation suits all the time, it is why we have judges to correct. Trump is suing over his being defamed, he isn’t going to be allowed to misuse our legal system.
2. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/1240/1558948/ actual case law doesn’t see eye to eye with you ya moron.
3. The nature of the accusation is essential in any defamation case you idiot.
I know you are an asshole without a brain. That doesn’t change American law. You are a cultist with no ability to think for yourself and exactly the kind of asshole who turned the 20th century into a graveyard because if they be named Hirohito, Stalin, Lenin or Mao you followed the leader. The fact that you can’t even agree defamation requires damages (despite American precedent saying it does) says it all about you.
All that non sequitur word salad to still be WRONG in the fact this isn’t a textbook defamation case and still say nothing whatsoever of value.
I think Politico may wind up replacing you Danny, you really don’t understand the subject enough to have a viable counterpoint.
“If Trump is worth the same as he was prior to the accusation that would mean his only loss was what he spent on defending himself,”
This is just stunning economic illiteracy. One’s net worth is dependent on hundreds of considerations, including market moves, business successes and failures, natural disasters, supplier bankruptcies and price increases, inflation, supply chain issues, futures predictions, litigation risks, and many more common factors. You cannot possibly hope to compare a person’s net worth now to his net worth six years ago and conclude that the only possible reason for a variation (or no variation) depends on how badly he was screwed by one particular antagonist.
I have to agree with Danny on the difficulting prevaling in this suit for numerous reasons
1) the first hurdle is to demonstrate that the stated claims are valid and not a disquised libel /slander suit – Ie are the claims such as RICO really just a ruse to get around Sullivan v NYT .
2) A large number of the defendents in the suit are/were govt employees at the time of the tort, they will have the benefit of qualified immunity.
3) Its going to be impossible to get an impartial jury. the suit was filed in the SD of Florida, which is a least 30% solid progressives in the potential jury pool (same reason that Hillary will never get convicted)
Time for a reality check
There is no qualified immunity for things that were not part of the person of the past official duties, or that were known at the time to be illegal.
ahad haamoratsim in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 24, 2022 at 11:55 pm
There is no qualified immunity for things that were not part of the person of the past official duties, or that were known at the time to be illegal”
While you are correct, QI only has to sure ” not clearly established” . The guilty government employee only has to show a ” belief that ‘alleged allegations ” were possibly true. It doesnt take much to overcome that falsehood.
Here is the reality check part 1 for you.
1. Read the claims starting in the “counts”- they are very easy to establish even from general public knowledge. ( meeting the threshold of 51% wont be difficult)
2. That’s actually false. Qualified immunity does not protect against knowingly wrong or criminal acts as alleged.
3. Irrelevant
Clinton et al bray truth through projection.
I’m not a lawyer. It would seem to me that getting to deposition is the motive here. Doesn’t matter if it goes beyond that point. Just getting all these aholes taking the 5th during video depositions is worth the price of admission. Absolutely destroying anyone with a reputation. Lawyers, Professors, College administrators, Opo research companies, etc, etc.
You do not win a lawsuit with a deposition, but you sure as hell can lose one that way. I am certain that we will get much more than the 5th out of this.
I’m did not say anything about winning a lawsuit. My observation was that the video depositions will be designed to inflict maximum reputational
damage on these aholes.
Wouldn’t the possibility of criminal charges from the forever-ongoing durham investigation give them a legal way to avoid a civil deposition? That was key in the Bill Cosby case, motivating the prosecutor to promise not to use anything from the deposition in criminal proceedings (before they broke that promise).
That’s a possibility yes but a very remote one. It would hinge on the details and specifics of what exactly the charge and claim actually is.
Even then it wouldn’t avoid a deposition but severely limit the scope of questions and answers,
I’ll be interested to read what actual litigators think of the chances that any of this survives defendant’s motion-to-dismiss. On one hand, I’m HUGELY skeptical it even sniffs discovery because it’s virtually impossible to defame a presidential nominee, as a practical matter.
OTOH, this is a wide-ranging lawsuit that covers a host of issues that have nothing to do (directly) with defamation.
At this point, just keeping it in a Florida federal court would take a small miracle. Discovery would be lit AF he can pull it off.
It will survive and I’ll explain how and why.
First this “suit” is a set of claims made under a civil claim where the intent is for inevitable uncover the criminal acts ( a whole new ballgame)
These “statute of limitations” claims are bogus and designed to make people “believe” there’s no real hope but to toll that statute Trump can certainly prove wrongful concealment which obfuscates/chills actual discovery and he has been diligent in looking so that false claim is off the table.
Contrary to the commentators ( who have both an agenda and possibly a vested interest in promoting a specific belief), the “counts” (What is being alleged as actionable that damages are based on) are where the meat is.
Its not “bulletproof’ but very strong (more than many civil cases) and on the motion to dismiss- that cant really be addressed until we see the “reasons” the motion is based on. (it cant be because they don’t like it)
Under the False claims act. A citizen can file a claim against a business for charging false claims to the US Government. The US Attourney for that district can take over that claim but has to reward the original citizen plaintiff if case is won.
Can the US Attourney in this district do the same under the Rico Act. I thought it had a similar provision.
Case will probably be dismissed as non justiciable under the political question doctrine.
Not a lawyer, but the racketeering claims are of more interest to me. Would the “political question doctrine” affect those?
I don’t see that as applicable based on my read of the claim, How do you feel it applies?
Whatever happens, this will certainly be interesting.
Keep in mind that if there is a person who is expert on RICO, Rudy Gulliani is it.
This is worth a thorough read for those not unclear on the potential RICO implications of what Trump filed:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
There is a long list of possibly applicable racketeering activity listed there to include fraud, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, witness tampering, money laundering, etc..
“Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person or enterprise may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary materials relevant to a racketeering investigation, he may, prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person to produce such material for examination.”
Ah, sweet discovery.
I wish people would read the complaint before giving us their expert opinions.
The complaint alleges criminal behaviour by the conspirators, aimed at disadvantaging Trump. He spent $24 million defending himself. The criminal behaviour is ongoing and the criminal organisation involved has in no way reduced its associations with. The RICO Act specifies that injured parties are entitled to triple damages. He is not seeking any other remedy.
The Plaintiff and several of the defendants live in Florida and all of the companies and other entities being sued are active in Florida.
Something to think seriously about today:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/victor-davis-hanson-real-reset-coming
Not recommended reading for those of you who can never seem to visualize a path to victory.
Could be that this lawsuit and the Durham reports will play a major part of a major global reset. There may be forces coming into play here that will topple the Fourth Reich just as they think they have won.
At a minimum, most should go bankrupt from defense attorney fees.
To what extent do you think this action by Trump will deter the opposition from employing similar 2016 tactics if Trump runs in 2024?
As a result, the USA was awarded with Biden’s Obama misfits administration leftovers, leading to all the completely unnecessary BS (i.e. our southern border catastrophe, a loss of our national energy independence, household budget-busting inflation, economic uncertainty, 200% increases in motor fuel and home fuel costs, deadly increases in urban crime being excused for the sake of fairness, increased censorship, CRT infiltration into our schools and universities, multiple adversarial muscle-flexing – see China, Iran, NoKo, and Putin’s Russia, along with the recent national and humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan witnessed by the entire world, etc., etc.) that we are now being made to endure. Now, add ‘food shortages’ to his list of accomplishments which will result in even more human suffering.
Vladimir Putin, and I quote: “Let’s go Brandon!”
I want to know what Milhouse has to say about all this… 😉
I think he’s been replying as “danny boy”!! Obviously a TROLL and a PAID ONE to TRY to counter the LOGIC and SUPPORT for PRESIDENT TRUMP’S suit! This shows the level of concern for the dems/deep state to employ all the legal mumbo jumbo this early in the game!! THEY ARE SCARED!!!
I hope Pasadena Phil’s comment is comes true. I hate knowing a highly placed cia,FBI person can put me in jail for Political reasons
If you read the complaint carefully ,many of the allegations are based on what we now know from the Durham investigation
I am BOTHERED by this LAWSUIT!! Not that PRESIDENT TRUMP was TRULY a VICTIM of a CONSPIRACY, but that all the allegations and REVELATIONS in the lawsuit are NOT in the FORM of AN INDICTMENT!! It has LONG been proven that all the LIES and SCHEMES were coordinated and if TWO – just TWO do that it’s a RICO Violation! And RICO is applicable at the STATE or Federal Level. Since PRESIDENT TRUMP is a RESIDENT of FLORIDA maybe Governor DeSantis’s DA will have a look!!