Trump seeks to revive suit accusing Hillary Clinton of Russia conspiracy

The suit alleged that Clinton violated the federal racketeering law by conspiring to taint Trump's 2016 campaign with false claims that he was "colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty

By Erik Larson

 

President Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared before an appeals court in Alabama to try to revive a civil suit accusing Hillary Clinton of leading a conspiracy to bog down his 2016 presidential campaign with bogus allegations tying him to Russia.

 

The packed hearing Tuesday at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Birmingham came more than three years after the suit was dismissed by a judge in Florida who called the case an improper political “manifesto.” 

 

The suit alleged that Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and an array of political operatives violated the federal racketeering law by conspiring to taint Trump’s 2016 campaign with false claims that he was “colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” Trump defeated Clinton in the election and sued her five and a half years later.

 

 

The president “is the victim in this case of a continuous pattern of misconduct,” Trump attorney’s Richard Klugh, told the court, adding that the collusion theories damaged Trump’s brand and forced him to spend millions of dollars defending himself on multiple fronts.

 

“What could be a bigger stain,” Klugh said.

 

The appeal also seeks to void nearly $1 million in penalties levied against Trump and his lawyer at the time, Alina Habba, for filing a “frivolous” suit.

 

Trump’s attempt to revive the lawsuit comes as his personal attorneys have been filing an array of lawsuits against news organizations that he says are covering him unfairly, and the US Justice Department has brought charges against or is investigation several of his perceived political enemies.

 

The appellate panel, consisting of two Republican appointees and one Democratic, appeared skeptical of Trump’s arguments, particularly the president’s contention that the lawsuit wasn’t filed too late under the civil racketeering law.

 

The chief judge, William Pryor, also said he agreed with the lower court judge who blasted Trump’s lawsuit for failing to support many of its claims in sufficient detail.

 

“I can read the complaint,” said Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee. “It’s a classic shotgun pleading.” 

 

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, arguing on behalf of all the defendants, told the judges that the lower court was correct to find that Trump’s lawsuit was filed too late and therefore fell outside the so-called statute of limitations. He also said Trump repeatedly failed to show how any of the alleged conduct led to specific financial harm.

 

“The damages alleged here are political in nature,” he said.

 

Trump attorney Alejandro Brito, who has emerged as one of the president’s lead personal attorneys, was also at the hearing though he did not present arguments. Brito, who is based in Florida, declined to comment.

 

The suit was tossed out by US District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks in Palm Beach, Florida. The judge, appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, said in his decision that the case was fundamentally flawed.

 

“At its core, the problem with plaintiff’s amended complaint is that plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this court is not the appropriate forum,” Middlebrooks said.