A lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign should be dismissed and those who filed it sanctioned and ordered to pay the costs, contends a new court filing.
The arguments were outlined in a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.
It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
It came in the case titled Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation et al.
The filing states that the DNC “brings six claims against the campaign, all based on the theory that the campaign agreed with Russia to steal and disseminate DNC materials.”
But it points out that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “refutes the notion.”
In fact, the DNC doubled down, the brief states.
“After being served with the campaign’s Rule 11 motion the DNC still refuses to withdraw its claims against the campaign,” the court filing says.
That’s even though the Mueller report “makes clear that the DNC will never be able to prove the key allegations underlying all of its claims against the campaign.”
The problem is that the DNC “has refused to accept this reality.”
“In fact, just hours after the report’s public release, the DNC filed its Omnibus Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, in which it emphatically doubled down on its now demonstrably false insistence that the campaign joined in Russia’s election-interference activities.”
The result, the filing says, is that the DNC insists on proceeding with “a politically motivated sham case … all in a doomed effort to prove a falsehood.”
The filing contends the Democrats have been following “frivolous legal theories” that now have been exposed “as resting on frivolous factual fantasies.” And it asserts they are violating their obligations under court rules and “should be sanctioned by having all of their claims dismissed with prejudice and being ordered to reimburse the campaign for all fees and costs it incurs as a result of the DNC’s disregard for the truth.”
Rule 11 provides “that, when filing any ‘pleading, written motion, or other paper,’ or ‘later advocating’ positions contained in such submissions, a party’s counsel ‘certifies,’ among other things, that ‘to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,’ the ‘factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.'”
Courts therefore generally have ruled that when a party learns its allegations are “utterly lacking” in support, they are obligated to dismiss.
The filing argues “the special counsel’s report completely discredits the DNC’s efforts to infer an agreement between the campaign and Russia based on the March 2016 Papadopoulos-Mifsud interactions and the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. As a result, the DNC cannot even allege when the supposed conspiracy came into existence.”
“First, the court should dismiss all of the DNC’s claims against the campaign with prejudiced, as this is the only way to end the DNC’s violation of its Rule 11 obligations. Second, the court should require the DNC to reimburse the attorneys’ fees and costs the campiagn has incurred”
BizPacReview reported the Democrats refused to drop their case.
In a letter sent to the Trump campaign just days ago, DNC lawyer Joseph Sellers claimed Muller’s report “does not ‘refute’ the DNC’s claim that the Trump Campaign conspired with Russia.”
“Rather, the Report methodically compiles evidence that the Trump Campaign participated in Russia’s plan to interfere in the 2016 election.”