Hillary Clinton wants Donald Trump to pay legal fees after conspiracy lawsuit dismissed

The former secretary of state argues that Mr Trump and his attorneys should be forced to pay $1.06m

Hillary Clinton has asked a federal judge to order former President Donald Trump and his attorneys to pay more than $1m in legal fees and costs to cover expenses she and several other defendants accrued defending themselves against a dismissed lawsuit claiming that they conspired to sink Mr Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by accusing it of colluding with Russia.

According to filing in federal court in Florida, Ms Clinton is seeking to personally recover $176,412. Members of her 2016 presidential campaign, including campaign manager Robby Mook and chairman John Podesta, are also seeking to recover various legal expenses. Mr Trump’s suit also accused the Democratic National Committee and the then-White House national security adviser.

“We vehemently deny the inflammatory allegations contained in the sanctions motion filed by the Clinton team,” Alina Habba wrote in a statement to Bloomberg. “This motion, conveniently filed one week prior to Election Day, is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to score political points.”

Mr Trump filed the suit in March under a civil version of a racketeering law, claiming that Ms Clinton and several other Democratic Party-aligned organisations conspired to undermine his campaign. The suit was dismissed in September by US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, who wrote that it amount only to a “manifesto.” Mr Trump is appealing the decision.

In addition to his failure to prove the conspiracy claims in the 193-page complaint, Mr Middlebrooks also noted that the suit was filed too late. Ms Clinton, in her filing, noted that the conduct presented as evidence of conspiracy in the suit was known to Mr Trump by October of 2017, meaning that the four year statute of limitations had expired by the time he filed his suit.

Ms Clinton also quotes Ms Habba’s appearances on conservative television outlets in the filing to support her claim that the suit was filed for political purposes and not to right a legal wrong.

“Plaintiff’s suit was unwarranted on the facts, unsupported by the law and imposed substantial burdens both on Defendants and this Court,” Ms Clinton’s attorneys argue in the filing. “Despite being alerted to the many deficiencies in the initial Complaint by one round of motions to dismiss, Plaintiff and his counsel pressed forward on an Amended Complaint that fixed none of the problems.”

Mr Trump’s decision to file the under the civil racketeering law, often used to pursue organised crime, is just one of the unusual aspects of the case. Mr Trump ultimately won the election against Ms Clinton despite her campaign’s claims that he was recieving the support from Russia-linked actors, and didn’t file the case until well after the conclusion of a losing re-election campaign against a different opponent.

Ms Clinton has consistently spoken out in opposition to Mr Trump since the two clashed in the 2016 presidential election, with the former secretary of state recently claiming that far right extremists have a plan to “steal” the 2024 presidential election.