Hillary Clinton Pushes to Make Trump Pay, Asks Court to Put Him on the Hook for Years of Unpaid Interest

Hillary Clinton’s attorneys John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) told a federal appellate court that President Donald Trump and his lawyers must pay nearly $1 million in penalties for pursuing a frivolous Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawsuit, along with interest accrued over more than three years.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2022, alleged Clinton and the DNC conspired with senior Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials and others before the 2016 election to fabricate ties between the Trump campaign and Russia to damage Trump's political career.

U.S. District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page order that the lawsuit should never have been filed, calling it “completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose”. He imposed sanctions of $937,989.39 against Trump and attorney Alina Habba.

The lesser punishment also applied to Habba and her firm, as well as attorneys Michael T. Madaio, Peter Ticktin, Jamie Alan Sasson, and the Ticktin Law Group for errors and falsehoods in claims against Charles Dolan, according to a report by Law and Crime.

At the time, Middlebrooks noted that when suing someone “it helps to know where they live”. Trump and his lawyers did not manage to identify the correct state of residence for the person they were suing.

When sanctions are involved, both sides must know the exact amount that must be paid. Clinton and the other defendants are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to state whether interest should be added when it issues its final order.

Trump and his lawyers argued the payment of the sanctions was paused while the case was on appeal after they posted required bonds. Because of that pause, they said they should not have to pay interest that accumulated after Judge Middlebrooks issued his orders, calling such interest an “unfair financial windfall” for the other side.

“In light of these stays, there is no basis for this Court to include in its mandate an instruction to the district court to impose post-judgment interest as of the original date of the sanctions orders,” a recent filing said.

Whether interest is owed pending payment after the stay is lifted by the district court is a separate matter not at issue, the filing said. “Appellants failed to even mention the stay order in their motion, nor do they cite any precedential authority on the timing or merits of their motion in the procedural posture of this case that would warrant granting the relief requested.”

The filing said Clinton and her legal team never sought post-judgment interest in the district court, nor did they brief the issue on appeal. “They did not raise it at oral argument. They consented to stays of both sanctions orders without reserving any claim to interest and without requesting any interest reservation as a condition of that consent. Only after the Court issued its opinion did Appellees raise the issue for the first time, by motion. This course of conduct constitutes a waiver,” the filing said.

Clinton attorneys countered that the Eleventh Circuit should state that “post-judgment interest runs from the dates of the underlying sanctions orders” — issued more than three years ago — and accrues until payment, not impacted by the posting of bonds or the issuances of stays from having to immediately pay, according to Law and Crime.

“Sanctions Appellees are ‘entitled’ to post-judgment interest for the entire period from the date of the district court judgment through the date of payment — they are not asking for anything other than what they get under the law,” Clinton’s lawyers said. “That Appellants have posted a bond on deposit with the court does nothing to change the fact that Sanctions Appellees do not have the money in hand, and continue to suffer the loss of use of the funds.”

“The posting of the supersedeas bond does not constitute payment and therefore has no impact whatsoever on the calculation of post-judgment interest, which by statute continues to run,” the filing added.