Donald Trump’s civil RICO suit was always destined to be thrown out on a rule 12(b)(6) motion (a lawsuit based on facts that a court cannot even address) or by summary judgment (Facts don’t establish any way to win). He would never compile sufficient facts to even get a suit against Hillary to trial, never mind one for civil RICO. Federal District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks found no evidence at all to get anywhere near a civil RICO case that requires:

A civil plaintiff will still have to prove the basic elements required in the RICO statute to prove a claim, including a person, an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, pattern of racketeering activity, the operation and management test, and the through requirement.

Although the standard of proof in a civil action is based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the civil RICO plaintiff must additionally prove “causation,” injury to business or property, and that he or she is subject to a more complicated statute of limitations. Also, in a civil racketeering action alleging fraud, the claim must be pleaded with particularity.

So that was never going to be an issue. What is surprising is the shockingly blunt language that Judge Donald Middlebrooks used in dismissing a case that clearly infuriated him. According to NBC News:

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s sprawling racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other perceived political enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., blasting it as a 200-page “political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him.”

What the suit “lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” Judge Donald Middlebrooks said in a scathing 65-page ruling released Thursday night.

Trump filed the suit charging a massive conspiracy involving Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, the Democratic National Committee, and numerous others who it alleged conspired against him to orchestrate what he’s referred to as the “Russia hoax” — an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and the Russian government’s efforts to aid his campaign.

The judge went on to write:

Trump’s complaint “is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that plaintiff is entitled to any relief. More troubling, the claims presented in the amended complaint are not warranted under existing law. In fact, they are foreclosed by existing precedent, including decisions of the Supreme Court.”

Stunning. Rarely do judges weigh in on the political and emotional elements of a case. This judge apparently really wanted to send a message.

****

[email protected], @JasonMiciak, with Nicole Hickman