Judge rejects Trump's recusal request in lawsuit against Hillary Clinton | The Hill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks rejected former President Trump's request that he recuse himself from a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.
Trump's lawyers asked Middlebrooks to exit the case due to the fact he was appointed to the bench by former President Clinton around 25 years ago.
Trump's lawsuit accuses Hillary Clinton of taking part in a conspiracy to paint Trump's campaign as working with Russia in 2016.
Middlebrooks said he has never met former President Clinton or Hillary Clinton. "Nor have I ever had any relationship with the Clintons," he added in his Wednesday motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
"I am not disqualified from presiding, nor should I recuse on the basis of any appearance of partiality," he wrote.
"To warrant recusal, something more must be involved than solely my appointment to the bench twenty-five years ago by the spouse of a litigant now before me," the judge added.
Trump said in the lawsuit that he suffered at least $24 million in damages from lost business opportunities due to the allegations of collusion with Russia.
The lawsuit says Hillary Clinton and others engaged in criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
A judge appointed by Bill Clinton is going to judge Hillary Clinton ???????
Not even Hillary can believe her luck.
It's just not right.
A better case to recuse ones self has rarely been seen
You're looking at it the wrong way. Now when the ruling goes against Trump you can blame it on the judge. Otherwise you would have to come up with more and more outlandish excuses when a republican appointed judge rules against him.
When was the last time a democrat judge recused his/herself from a case over conflict of interest?
A better case to recuse ones self has rarely been seen
Ginni Thomas?
Nope .... fail, on several levels
Lol. I guess we should just take your word for it then? No need to back that up, huh?
Lol .... the reasons are quite obvious to the most casual of observers. No point in even bringing them up though to people who are clearly smart to see them but refuse to acknowledge it.
Square peg, square hole for you.
So no need to back it up then. Gotcha. Sure is refreshing to such an omnipotent source of truth here. /s
When was the last time, say a republican Supreme Court Justice, did?
See 1.1.8 ...... apply liberally, rinse and repeat as necessary.
We all recall when AG Sessions recused himself from all things Trump. In the meantime Garland is presiding over the Hunter Biden case?
Are you trying to say that Sessions was a Supreme Court Justice? Because that is what we are talking about. Or have you nothing to rebut with, so are trying to deflect to a different subject?
We are talking about democrats not recusing themselves.
Oh. So you are now claiming that Sessions is a democrat?
Yeah, there's no problems here. But if this judge does rule against the former POTUS, there would be justified reasons for it to be overturned during appeal.
Ahhh!
You earned the A+ today.
Would a judge appointed by Trump be acceptable to you?
Nope.
How about Obama?
If you’ve ever known a judge, had one in my family for about 30 years, the are rarely wrong.
Just ask them.
Doesn't matter. Any judge will throw Trump's case out!
Yep, that comment says it all ......
Trump case is a joke. He's sueing for him winning.
The real joke here is how Trump has dug in hard into the liberal psyche. Like a Virginia tick on a Alabama hound.
Dug in deep!
Dude, this is a gopper's article about Trump!
Trump demands we continue to ridicule him!
Dude ... I was commenting to you ..... dude!
Then, in context, your comments seem silly...
Only to the contextually challenged ...
My favorite is: "Trump's lawsuit accuses Hillary Clinton of taking part in a conspiracy to paint Trump's campaign as working with Russia in 2016". Does this mean Trump is going to blame Hillary for the Trump tower meeting with the Russians?
And my favorite is:
"The civil suit alleges that Clinton and top Democrats hired lawyers and researchers to fabricate information tying Trump to Russia, and then peddled those lies to the media and to the US government, in hopes of hobbling his chances of winning in 2016. Trump claims they were assisted by "Clinton loyalists" at the FBI, who abused their powers to investigate him out of political animus."
Or, about how Trump was secretly negotiating with Vlad Putin to build Trump Tower Moscow while he was running for President?
Was he holding office at the time? Do you have undeniable proof of these "secret negotiations"? Apparently none of it was enough to indict when Bobbie Meuller was investigating.
Any other bullshit you want to throw against the wall?
LOCK HER UP!
LOL!
"Any other bullshit you want to throw against the wall?"
You should ask Vic that question what with the never ending pointless Durham investigation and what not. And this? LOL!
More made up bullshit. And even if true...so what?
It's funny how the talking heads on the left seem to forget all that. And here we are, still hearing about the "smoking gun" (I think we are up to 15 or 20 of them by now) and "this will be the end of Trump".
Ooooo, don't forget the back channel to Putin. That was obviously Hillary's doing.
Donald Trump campaign repeatedly met with Russia to set up secret communications channel, report reveals
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that a secret meeting in the Seychelles just before U.S. President Donald Trump took office was an effort by his campaign to establish a back channel with the Kremlin
Nothing suspicious with that...........<sarc>
Make up your mind!!! In the same line of text you are saying it is both "bullshit" and "true".
And "so what?", that means Putin was holding millions and even billions of dollars of profit over Trump's head. And if there was one thing Trump's 4 years showed everybody, it is that $$$ is his number 1 priority.
Lol... you notice how all the conspiracy bullshit ignores the Mueller report ? No surprise that the person who peddled the bs Cohen was in Prague to meet Russians lie long after it was debunked would do that.
They go out of their way to avoid facts.
I suppose it's a step up from "known clandestine agents." They were so secret that everyone knew!
Like the fact that the "Mueller Report" outlined multiple instances of the Trump campaign making contact with Russian agents?