Many and I mean many years ago I may have tweeted the following:
..Donald Trump is the epitome of a vexatious litigant and Roy Cohn taught him every judicial trick in the book…
If at any point you doubted my stance —allow me to walk you through the most laughable lawsuit (of which there are literally hundreds of that I could point to involving Donald Trump) —yet today, Donald Trump filed yet another lawsuit in the SDFL (see ECF) and I’m current under my desk snort laughing at the mendaciousness of his recently filed federal lawsuit…and to those who hilariously said I was wrong about Durham, Sussmann and Danchenko I now refer you to pages 1 & 2 of Trump’s lawsuit…
…I am going to try and power through Trump’s filing because I spent a solid 2 minutes snort laughing uncontrollably at Trump’s lawsuit —adjectives used to describe his lawsuit: frivolous, hilarious, weak, pathetic, “you said what now”, no basis in actual case law and BAWHAHAHHAHA. Generally speaking federal lawsuits must be filed “in good faith” and even reading the first two introductory paragraphs— Trump’s attorneys should be ashamed of themselves…
Incidentally you’ll want to bookmark the December 2019 DOJ-OIG Report, which I’ve embedded below;
December 2019 DOJ OIG Releases Review of Four FISA Applications …
DOJ-OIG (full) Crossfire Hurricane Report
Robert S Mueller, II; (Volume 2) Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference
Because the DOJ-OIG Report -below are the “bottom line conclusions” contained herein:
In July 2016, 3 weeks after then FBI Director James Comey announced the conclusion of the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” investigation into presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of government emails during her tenure as Secretary of State, the FBI received reporting from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) that, in a May 2016 meeting with the FFG, Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of a suggestion” from Russia that it could assist in the election process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama. Days later, on July 31, the FBI initiated the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that is the subject of this report.
As we noted last year in our review of the Midyear investigation, the FBI has developed and earned a reputation as one of the world’s premier law enforcement agencies in significant part because of its tradition of professionalism, impartiality, non-political enforcement of the law, and adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms. It was precisely these qualities that were required as the FBI initiated and conducted Crossfire Hurricane. However, as we describe in this report, our review identified significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised, particularly the FBI’s failure to adhere to its own standards of accuracy and completeness when filing applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority to surveil Carter Page, a U.S. person who was connected to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign. We also identified what we believe is an absence of sufficient policies to ensure appropriate Department oversight of significant investigative decisions that could affect constitutionally protected activity.
DOJ-OIG: The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the Use of Confidential Human Sources:
The decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was made by the FBI’s then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD), E.W. “Bill” Priestap, and reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials. We concluded that AD Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. While the information in the FBI’s possession at the time was limited, in light of the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.
However, we also determined that, under Department and FBI policy, the decision whether to open the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation, which involved the activities of individuals associated with a national major party campaign for president, was a discretionary judgment call left to the FBI. There was no requirement that Department officials be consulted, or even notified, prior to the FBI making that decision. We further found that, consistent with this policy, the FBI advised supervisors in the Department’s National Security Division (NSD) of the investigation only after it had been initiated. As we detail in Chapter Two, high- level Department notice and approval is required in other circumstances where investigative activity could substantially impact certain civil liberties, and that notice allows senior Department officials to consider the potential constitutional and prudential implications in advance of these activities. We concluded that similar advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those that were present here.
Shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the FBI conducted several consensually monitored meetings between FBI confidential human sources (CHS) and individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, including a high-level campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. We found that the CHS operations received the necessary approvals under FBI policy; that an Assistant Director knew about and approved of each operation, even in circumstances where a first-level supervisory special agent could have approved the operations; and that the operations were permitted under Department and FBI policy because their use was not for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.
However, we are concerned that, under applicable Department and FBI policy, it would have been sufficient for a first-level FBI supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic CHS operations undertaken in Crossfire Hurricane, and that there is no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of a decision to task CHSs to consensually monitor conversations with members of a presidential campaign. Specifically, in Crossfire Hurricane, where one of the CHS operations involved consensually monitoring a high-level official on the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation, and all of the operations had the potential to gather sensitive information of the campaign about protected First Amendment activity, we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any Department officials before conducting the CHS operations-and no policy requiring the FBI to do so. We therefore believe that current Department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that requiring Department consultation, at a minimum, would be appropriate.
Now let’s drill down on Trump’s lawsuit -because as you’ll note the DOJ-OIG conclusions did not confirm or even corroborate the insane conspiracy theories that Trump and his cohorts have continued to amplify. The bottom line is; it doesn’t matter how many times Trump et al repeat their “narrative” aka lies —it doesn’t make them true or even factually accurate… for example on page 4 Trump neglects to acknowledge that the origins of Clinton’s Opposition Research was originally paid for by certain mega RNC donors…
And I now refer you to paragraph 5 - to be clear (and I apologize for yelling)
THERE -WAS- NO- HACKING -of Trump Tower Server, that’s a QANON theory that has been repeatedly debunked because DNS is public information and congrats Mr Blue QANON you’ve successfully morphed into a straight QANON. This is me slow clapping at your ignorance and recent full on embrace of your insane thread. If you do not understand DNS then you have zero business giving your hundreds of thousands of followers actual Trump Disinformation and Misinformation.
And moving on to paragraph 7 which reads in part:
Defendants seized on theopportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on a “mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through press releases, social media, and other public statements.
Paragraph 8 -on its face is factually incorrect and it’s meant to stir up anger among Trump’s cult like supporters —and my educated guess is Trump and the RNC will continue with their massive fund raising —of which this lawsuit is almost assured to play a central role in a forthcoming fundraising grift …grievances one grift at a time;
And now the moment you have been waiting for (to be clear it took longer than I had expected but months ago I stated that Trump would use the Durham indictments as the foundation for his future lawsuit) HERE. WE. ARE… exactly where some of us correctly predicated months ago:
The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date, he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others, for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are forthcoming.
…the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016
Again you can pull Trump’s newly filed lawsuit down from the SDFL-ECF or via my Scribd Account but I don’t think Trump’s lawsuit will survive the Motion to Dismiss -partly because he cited a the Defendants engaged in a criminal enterprise yet he didn’t even think to argue R-I-C-O —I mean come on —Trump’s lawsuit is weak and frankly it reads like the rantings of an unhinged mentally unwell asshole, who refuses to admit he lost the 2020 election
Also I’m taking tomorrow off because I’m eyeballs deep in rogs that need to be completed by 2PM tomorrow or I might not have a job ←I’m kidding my bosses recently renewed my contract (for the 9th year) but my jury duty resulted in literally thousands of unread emails and I’ve spent the better part of the last 48 hours putting out little fires… and of course your daily saltwater therapy
Be Well -Filey
PS read paragraphs 207 et seq —because I pretty familiar with both the Sussman and Danchenko’s criminal cases and I’m almost 100% certain that some of the (purported) facts stated in Trump’s complaint have yet be publicly disclosed by either Durham, Sussman and/or Danchenko. So naturally the follow up questions should be in the realm of: “Respectfully Mr Trump how did you become aware of the purported (and previously undisclosed) meetings with the CIA and FBI —as the current record does not reflect those as publicly available facts. For Example:
Share this post