redfish
5 hours ago
Fake news. He's not suing me or my mother. //

houdini1984 David B
4 hours ago
I believe that it is fairly well settled law that there is an implied exception to the statute of limitations when bad actors fraudulently conceal their misdeeds. In this case, the defendants, federal law enforcement, and other bad actors all did their utmost to prevent any discovery of the truth.

Given that many of these facts have only recently been confirmed by Durham, I would think that the statute of limitations would have been tolled during that cover-up period. //

PubliusCryptus
4 hours ago
Why not sue? The criminal part of our justice system is now thoroughly criminal, it isn't going to help. It is run by criminals to protect certain criminals instead of protecting common people from criminals. //

Rockhound267
4 hours ago
Yes, there is a strong likelihood that Trump will lose this case. (I hope he doesn’t. I hope he wins and takes all of these people to the cleaners.). However, even if he does lose, he is still extracting a measure of justice from these charlatans. He is forcing them all to hire lawyers to defend themselves. That’s going to cost them a lot of money. So, even if Trump loses the suit, he is still getting some justice. //

Taylor Lake
3 hours ago
I have studied RICO law, including its private cause of action provisions. I think The Donald has a decent shot at winning.

The key to a successful RICO case is to establish the existence of a criminal enterprise. For a private cause of action, the plaintiff needs to show quantifiable harm as a result of the enterprise activity.

A criminal enterprise could be something like Person A authorizing the payment to Person B to pay Person C to offer false information to the FBI about an American citizen and a political opponent, with the purpose of causing a criminal investigation of that person. That's a federal crime right there. It can involve others who knowingly act in furtherance of the enterprise, including the "foot soldiers" who run the sham criminal investigations, get surveillance warrants based on lies, and leak their existence to the media.

You know, people like Evita Clinton, and Mark Elias, and Steele, and Comey, and the FBI adulterers... the list goes on.

If you are ever going to get the Clintons - and the Bidens, for that matter - you have to be able to punch through their veil of "plausible deniability" in getting their minions to do their dirty work for them. RICO was the antidote to Mafia crime family leaders like Al Capone who could run massive criminal enterprises but never themselves do anything chargeable.

In a RICO cause of action, all Trump needs to do is to tie Evita to the criminal enterprise that acted on her behalf. Once that's done, the beauty of RICO is that everyone in the organization becomes collectively liable for every criminal act committed by every other member, even ones they personally had nothing to do with.

When Al Capone was told of the Valentine's Day Massacre, he said, "I'll send flowers." When Evita Clinton was confronted with questions about wiping computer drives that likely contained evidence against her and her enterprise, she said, "What, with a cloth?" Both of these people let their arrogance and hubris shine through in moments like these. The difference is, RICO didn't exist in Capone's day.