The surprising request came on Monday when lawyers for the former first lady-turned-2016 presidential candidate filed a motion in federal court demanding sanctions be imposed upon ex-President Trump.
Clinton’s lawyers also called the racketeering lawsuit, which was thrown out of court in September, nothing more than a “political stunt.”
“A reasonable attorney would never have filed this suit, let alone continued to prosecute it after multiple Defendants’ motions to dismiss highlighted its fundamental and incurable defects,” Clinton’s lawyers wrote, according to the Post.
Her legal team requested Trump pay a whopping $1.06 million to cover all the legal fees accrued by the numerous defendants named in the failed lawsuit.
As RadarOnline.com previously reported, Trump filed a civil lawsuit in March and accused Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and numerous others of conspiring to undermine his 2016 presidential campaign with accusations Trump’s team colluded with Russia.
British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who made headlines in 2016 over claims he had a “dirty dossier” proving Russia had blackmail against then-candidate Trump, was also named as a defendant in the civil suit.
Trump claimed he lost $24 million as a result of the Russian collusion rumors – although US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997 and oversaw the lawsuit, threw the suit out of court in September due to “deficiencies in the plaintiff’s argument.”
Trump’s legal team, led by his lawyer Alina Habba, have since appealed the dismissal of the $24 million civil suit. Habba has also accused Clinton of having “political reasons” for Monday’s motion demanding sanctions against Trump.
“This motion, conveniently filed one week prior to election day, is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to score political points,” Habba said on Monday after Clinton’s team demanded $1.06 million from Trump.
“This motion is particularly inappropriate, given that our client’s case will soon be reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit,” Habba continued. “We will oppose this motion and trust that the Court will see through this ruse.”