comment: >
  
  Walking in lifts
context: (1)
  “This case should never have been brought. It’s inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. … Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative.”  
  (2) 
  “Here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose. Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a 
  lawyer.”
  Middlebrooks’s point is that Trump deserves to have harsh treatment meted out to him because — in the judge’s view — the former president has a long record of trying to weaponize or clog up the legal system to besmirch or intimidate opponents, or for publicity purposes. 
  (3)
  “The 819 paragraphs of the 186-page Amended Complaint are filled with immaterial, conclusory facts not connected to any particular cause of action. Consider the incendiary charge that Mr. Comey, the Director of the FBI, conspired with Ms. Clinton to maliciously prosecute him. Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Trump was never prosecuted, examine the allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to Mr. Comey. … 
  [They] do not allege that Mr. Comey initiated an investigation of Mr. Trump, much less a prosecution. And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.” 
  (4)
  “The plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry-picked portions of public reports and filings to support a false factual narrative. Often the report or filing actually contradicted his allegations. It happened too often to be accidental; its purpose was political, not legal. Factual allegations were made without any evidentiary support in circumstances where falsity is evident.”   
  (5) 
  “Despite an affidavit from Mr. Dolan saying he lived in Virginia, and the fact that service upon him occurred there, the Amended Complaint claimed he lived in New York. The Plaintiff’s lawyers’ excuse: There are a lot of Dolans—some of them live in New York.” 
  This passage refers to Charles Dolan, a Democratic strategist who was also in the Trump team’s sights. 
  But the judge’s point is emblematic of a kind of weary exasperation that permeates his ruling. 
  In another section, he draws casual attention to a typo in one Trump team filing, which laments false allegations of “Russian collision.” >
  
  
  In another section, he draws casual attention to a typo in one Trump team filing
  
  I was going to point out that Muphry's law strikes again with ...
  
  It’s inadequacy as a legal claim 
  
  But it appears that typo was added by the journo who failed to copy and paste the text competently. >
  
  Cringey >
  
  LMAO, I didn't realise the Letitia James case was in front of the same judge, no wonder he was so quick to run away. >
  
  TIL. I’m not sure dismissing the lawsuit is going to help him then. James is still entitled to costs and sanctions if she filed any kind of response. >
  
  I never realized this till this last year. If you respond to a lawsuit that has been filed the person who filed it can't just say 'oh well, I withdraw, have a good day' without the judge or other party agreeing to it. I'm not sure if this is something everywhere, but does make sense. >
  
  That, my friends, is what you call a tongue lashing. >
  
  “Oh daddy, please tongue lash some me more, yes daddy right there .... “ >
  
  Trump uses due process as a weapon nothing new move along, and put him the cell he belongs in