Transcription
This is a breaking news alert. Donald Trump's $15 billion dollar lawsuit against the New York Times for purported defamation has just been thrown out by a federal judge in the middle district of Florida, a Republican judge as well. A judge appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, Judge Mary Day.
He dismissed this case instantly, basically saying, "On its face, it is frivolous. This looks more like a vexatious press release than an actual complaint." He says, "Look, if you want to go back and bring a real lawsuit before my court, you can go and decide to do that, but you filed this 85-page slop, which barely even references what your actual grievance is with the New York Times. So, get the hell out of my court and don't come back unless you're going to actually bring a legitimate lawsuit."
I'm going to read for you the exact words of this George H.W. Bush appointed judge, Judge Mary Day. We need to see more of this from federal judges. We previously did also in another case in Florida. And I'm glad that these Florida judges, federal judges are no-nonsense because Trump is making a mockery of our legal system. And also his incredibly weak ego having him file these lawsuits to coerce companies from the Oval Office need to be called out by the judiciary.
But do you remember back in 2023 when another federal judge in Florida, Judge Middlebrooks, called Donald Trump out and Alina Haba out and sanctioned them a million dollars? Good. That's more of what we need to see. So, the federal judge said that the lawsuit lacked any legitimate legal claims and said, "I'll give you 28 days if you want to come back and file an actual lawsuit, but this ain't it."
Let's take a look at what, uh, the, uh, judge wrote. Again, it's Judge Steven Day, a George H.W. Bush Republican appointee from 1991. I want to read you every word so you hear it yourself. It's not all that long, so stay with me.
It says, "As every member of the bar, the bar that licenses lawyers, as every member of the bar of every federal court knows or is presumed to know, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8(e)(1) helpfully adds that each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. Some pleadings are necessarily longer than others. The difference likely depends on the number of parties and claims, the complexity of the governing facts, and the duration and scope of pertinent events. But both a shorter pleading and a longer pleading must comprise simple, concise, and direct allegations that offer a short and plain statement of the claim. Rule 8 governs every pleading in federal court regardless of the amount in controversy, the identity of the parties, the skill or reputation of the counsel, the urgency or importance, real or imagined, of the dispute or any public interest at issue in the dispute. In this action, a prominent American citizen."
Pause there. Notice how they refer to Trump as citizen, not as president of the United States. Do you remember when I did the video saying Trump brought this in his individual capacity and thus would waive any immunity or would waive any claim of privilege to not have to behave as any ordinary citizen would? Remember how I said, well, that means the floodgates are open in this litigation. Well, the judge is acknowledging what I was telling you a few days, well, a day or so ago.
"In this action, a prominent American citizen, perhaps the most prominent American citizen, alleges defamation by a prominent American newspaper publisher, perhaps the most prominent American newspaper publisher, and by several other corporate and natural persons, alleging only two simple counts of defamation. The complaint consumes 85 pages. Count one appears on page 80, and count two appears on page 83. Pages 1 through 79, plus part of page 80, present allegations common to both counts and to all defendants. Each count alleges a claim against each defendant, and apparently each claim seeks the same remedy against each defendant. Even under the most generous and lenient applications of Rule 8, the complaint is decidedly improper and impermissible."
"The pleader initially alleges an electoral victory by President Trump in historic fashion by trouncing the opponent and alludes to 'persistent election interference from the legacy media led most notoriously by the New York Times.' The pleader alludes to another day of the newspaper, but complains that the newspaper has become a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat party, which allegedly resulted in the deranged endorsement of President Trump's principal opponent in the most recent presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations such as 'a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished gray lady.' The reader must endure an allegation of the 'desperate need to defame with partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass,' and an allegation that 'the false narrative about the apprentice was just the tip of defendants' melting iceberg of falsehoods.' Similarly, in one of many often repetitive and laudatory toward President Trump, but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, 'The apprentice represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance which captured the zeitgeist of our time.'"
"The complaint continues with allegations in defense of President Trump's father and the acquisition of the Trump's wealth with a protracted list of the many properties owned, developed, or managed by the Trump Organization and a list of Trump's many books with a long account of the history of the apprentice with an extensive list of Trump's media appearances with a detailed account of other legal actions both by and against President Trump, including including an account of the Russia collusion hoax and incidents of alleged 'lawfare' against President Trump and with much more persistently alleged in abundant florid and innervating detail."
"Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true. Of course, that is for a jury to decide and is not pertinent here. This order suggests nothing about the truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims, but addresses only the manner of the presentation of the allegations in the complaint. Even assuming that at trial, the plaintiff offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and that the evidence is accepted by the jury as fact. And even assuming that after finally melting the defendant's alleged iceberg of falsehoods, the plaintiff prevails for each reason alleged in the complaint. Even assuming all of that, a complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader's claim for relief."
"Every lawyer knows or is presumed to know a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective. Not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park speaker's corner. A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants in a professionally constrained manner consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact."
And it goes on to say, "A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading a claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude. The complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably a thwart of the requirements of Rule 8(a). This action will begin, will continue and will end in accord with the rules of procedure in a professional and a dignified manner. The complaint is struck with leave to amend within 28 days. The amended complaint must not exceed 40 pages excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment. Ordered in Tampa, Florida, September 19th, 2025."
And right there, Judge Mary Day, again, a Republican appointee, gave a very good recitation of how ridiculous Trump's lawsuit was. And you'll recall my review of that lawsuit when it was filed. And I said how it's completely inappropriate, how I couldn't even understand it until I got to page 80. I predicted a judge was going to strike it if the judge was, you know, actually a judge who cared about the rule of law. Judge Mary Day is a no-nonsense jurist and he did the right thing by striking it.
Now we're going to hear what radical leftist liberal George H.W. Bush judge. I do want to remind you as well another federal judge, Judge Middlebrooks' warning in 2020 in 2023 and we covered this a lot here on the Midas Touch Network when Donald Trump brought that frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and like 30 other Democrats for RICO violations or something like just absolutely that did not make sense. And it was it was pled in a very similar way. Judge Middlebrooks warned the judiciary, frankly, warned the country. Not a lot of people covered it. Remember, we covered it here in detail. I want to remind you back in 2023 what Judge Middlebrooks said, "A pattern of abuse of the courts. I have explained why the totality of the problems with the complaint, amended complaint and the arguments and statements of plaintiff's counsel at that time it was Alina Haba show that this lawsuit was filed, served and prosecuted in bad faith. But this case is part of Mr. Trump's pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes. Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligations to protect their jurisdiction from conduct that impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. Article III of the Constitution. It's the article that defines the role of the judiciary. Thus, while a litigant's conduct in other cases would normally not be relevant, when the court is faced with a sanctions motion against a repeat offender undeterred by admonitions, it has the authority to consider the litigant's outside conduct."
And then it goes on to say that, uh, in this case, uh, it is part of this totality. "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. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the court 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. He knew full well the impact of his actions. As such, I find sanctions should be imposed."
This was the 2023, uh, case. A million dollars in sanctions against Trump and lead counsel Alina Haba at the time. And then on page 46 of that order, Judge Middlebrooks threw in this footnote right here. "Sanctions must never be a hollow gesture. Their bite must be real. But for the bite to be real, it must be an amount a person can pay. I believe that monetary sanctions imposed here are well within plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyer's ability to pay and therefore I have not thought it necessary to conduct an intrusive inquiry into their finances. However, should plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer believe that the amount would seriously jeopardize their financial status, that individual or firm should file within 10 days of this order a verified statement of net worth, which includes the assets. In the event of such a filing, the obligation of the individual law firm will be told until further order of the court."
There you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. We need to see more of this from the judiciary. Bang. Standing up. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Ad-free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.