A federal appeals court unanimously upheld a nearly $1 million penalty against Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba for a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, citing “sanctionable conduct” in filing the suit. The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleged a conspiracy to falsely portray Trump’s campaign as colluding with Russia, but was dismissed by a lower court judge who stated that “no reasonable lawyer would have filed it.” This ruling represents another setback in Trump’s attempts to pursue legal action against his political adversaries.
Read More
A federal appeals court has upheld nearly $1 million in penalties against Donald Trump and his attorneys for their racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. The court agreed with the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, deeming many of its legal arguments frivolous. The suit alleged Clinton conspired to create a false narrative about Trump and Russia. The presiding judge found the suit to be filled with frivolous claims intended to harass and serve a political purpose, and that Trump knew of the suit’s shortcomings.
Read More
In a recent decision, a federal appeals court upheld a nearly $1 million penalty against Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others. The court, comprised of judges from different political backgrounds, found that Trump and Habba engaged in “sanctionable conduct” when they brought the suit three years prior. The lawsuit, alleging a conspiracy to fabricate claims of collusion with Russia, was dismissed by a lower court, which stated that “no reasonable lawyer would have filed” the case in the first place. The ruling is the latest setback for Trump in his attempts to punish political adversaries.
Read More
During a recent interview, Stephen Miller alluded to the possibility of the Trump administration ignoring a federal judge’s order, hinting at the president’s supposed “plenary authority” under Title 10 of the US Code, a claim swiftly removed from the aired broadcast. The author disputes Miller’s assertion, emphasizing that plenary power, which Miller seemed to be suggesting, is synonymous with absolute and unchecked power, and such authority is not granted to the President under US law. Miller’s rhetoric, as exemplified in a speech, frames those opposed to the administration as enemies, setting the stage for a potential conflict. The piece concludes with a warning that Miller, as a key figure and ideologue, may pose a greater threat to democracy than Trump himself.
Read More
‘Your poll made Trump mad’ is not a valid basis for a lawsuit. That’s the simple truth, no matter how much the former president might wish otherwise. The core issue isn’t about hurt feelings; it’s about establishing legal harm. A lawsuit requires demonstrating actual damage, and simply upsetting a powerful figure, even one known for thin skin, doesn’t meet that threshold. The legal system exists to address tangible harms, not bruised egos.
The fact that Trump won the election further underscores the pointlessness of such a lawsuit. If his victory wasn’t affected by a particular poll, there’s no demonstrable harm to claim.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood