(ThePatriotWire)- Last week a federal judge rejected several motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and a bunch of others for their roles in pushing the phony Russia Collusion narrative.
The decision means that Trump’s lawsuit can continue making its way through the court.
This move came after Trump filed an amended complaint that corrected some issues with the initial lawsuit. The judge did note that the defendants could file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint but added if the complaints are similar, the motions could be consolidated.
In late March, Trump filed a lawsuit against Hillary, the DNC, and other high-profile figures involved in the Russiagate hoax. In the 108-page lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida, Trump accuses the defendants of orchestrating “an unthinkable plot” to create the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
The lawsuit accuses Hillary Clinton and her cohorts of actions that constitute criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit alleges that the defendants “maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative” that Donald Trump colluded “with a hostile foreign sovereignty.”
The suit is also claiming that their actions caused Trump to suffer at least $24 million in damages as well as present and future business losses.
In April, the judge overseeing the lawsuit rejected Trump’s motion that he recuse himself from the case because he was appointed by Hillary’s husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Judge Middlebrooks rejected the motion, arguing that his only connection to Bill Clinton was being appointed to the bench. He also suggested that the motion to recuse was Donald Trump’s attempt at “judge shopping.”
Middlebrooks pointed out that every federal judge is appointed by a sitting president. And if he was to recuse himself, then theoretically, every federal judge could be viewed as “beholden” to the president who appointed him simply by virtue of their appointments. He said without any firm evidence of bias, he should be considered impartial.