According to Plaintiffs, a Florida judge has set a trial date for a civil RICO lawsuit1 by Larry Klayman against Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The January 25, 2016, court date is of course at an inconvenient time as it relates to the 2016 US presidential campaign. Klayman is asking for over a quarter of a billion dollars.
I haven’t found much recent news about the lawsuit. It was filed this past March 25. I found it on Birther Report where a copyrighted article from WorldNetDaily written by Bob Unruh was dumped in a comment.
I think the crux of the matter is that Klayman alleges Hillary Clinton granted favors and special access through a private email address given to Clinton Foundation donors. The email account, which was also used for some official business, was not hosted by State Department. (Clinton subsequently turned over some 30,000 emails to the government that were potentially work related.) That’s the ongoing criminal enterprise Klayman sees. Klayman weighs in because his public interest organization Freedom Watch didn’t get access to some Clinton emails through FOIA directed to the State Department. Those two FOIA cases are still in litigation. Klayman demands seizure of Hillary Clinton’s email server.
Now where it gets slightly more interesting for this blog is that Klayman is seeking to get copies of the emails from CIA and NSA intercepts. Klayman is also suing over the intercepts, and is representing someone who claims to have made such intercepts for the CIA (is there a conflict of interest here?). While I can understand Klayman suing to get the emails under FOIA, I do not understand what is his interest in the alleged RICO.
Not yet reported at BR is that the Clintons made two motions (ECF 43 and 44) June 5 to dismiss (one from the Clintons individually and one from the Foundation). Together they cover the history of the case, and the grounds for dismissal.
It seems to me that among the myriad grounds for dismissal in the two motions, the most important is the fact that Klayman failed to allege that the “criminal activity” is the cause of an economic loss to him.
Also, since we’ve been discussing default in comments on the blog, I note that Clinton says that Klayman is in default for failing to respond to the court’s order to file an amended complaint, and says the case should be dismissed on that ground too (in a footnote to ECF 43 on page 5).
Update: The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on August 11, 2015. A notice of appeal was filed.