Like other presidents before and after, Bill Clinton appointed several federal court judges during his time in the White House. One of them is Donald Middelbrooks, who has worked for more than two decades in the U.S. District Court in the South Florida district.
This fact is not reason enough for Middelbrooks to avoid hearing Trump’s lawsuit against the enemy of his 2016 president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the judge said Wednesday.
Middelbrooks rejected a motion filed by Trump on Monday, in which he argued that his role as a judge in the case was “essential to a superstition that generates bias against the party.”
The judge also noted Trump’s apparent attempt to file a civil lawsuit in the court of law that served as one of his appointments: Eileen Cannon, the actor’s nominee in 2020. Despite the possibilities, this case came to me. “And when the actor is tried before a judge he has appointed, he will not bring up such bias issues.”
Trump filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton last month, alleging she was involved in a fraud scheme for Trump’s 2016 presidential election. Clinton was guilty of “racketeering”. The lawsuit was debated as part of the plot that made Watergate “pretty pale”.
“Defendant, blinded by political ambition, conspired against Donald J. Spreading clearly false and damaging information about Trump and his campaign in the hopes of messing up his life, his political career and the election in the presidency in 2016. ” Hillary Clinton, ”Trump said in the lawsuit.
Middelbrooks said the appearance of impartiality is very important for the judiciary, but set out all the reasons why it failed to comply with the disqualification bill in a five-page briefing citing a “well-regulated” law. Federal law requires judges to be disqualified “during any proceedings where his or her impartiality can reasonably be discussed.”
“I have never met or talked to Bill or Hillary Clinton,” Middelbrooks wrote in his response. “Other than my Bill Clinton appointment, I have never had or had a relationship with the Clinton.”
Furthermore, the previous cases Trump cited to motivate his motion “do not appear to be consistent with his arguments,” the judge said.
“When I became a federal judge, I swore that ‘I will perform and perform all my duties honestly and impartially.’ . . In accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. ‘ “I’ve been doing this for the past twenty -five years and this case is no different,” he wrote.
Although the judiciary is centered on the idea of impartiality, Trump liked the assumption that the president, who appointed the judge, had a special influence on that judge’s decisions. He is the Chief Justice John Roberts deserves reprimand In 2018, for the lawsuit against “Judge Obama”, who made the decision against his administration.
“We don’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said at the time. “We have an exceptional group of dedicated judges who are doing their best to guarantee equal rights to their predecessors.
Source: Huffpost
