WASHINGTON (CN) – A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against former special counsel Robert Mueller, rejecting a conspiracy theorist’s claim that Mueller pressured him to commit perjury during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Jerome Corsi, who brought the complaint against Mueller, claimed the special counsel wanted him to admit that he had served as a point of contact between Roger Stone, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump, and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
The opinion issued Thursday by Senior U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle in Washington, D.C., shot down Corsi’s claims and noted that his attorneys failed to properly serve Mueller with the lawsuit. While a federal statute requires a party to serve a complaint within 90 days of filing, Corsi’s attorneys served Mueller nearly a month after that deadline, according to the ruling.
Citing two news articles, Corsi alleged that Mueller violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by leaking grand jury information about him to the media to pressure him into giving false testimony, but Huvelle was not convinced.
“The ABC News article merely suggests a reason for Mueller’s interest in Corsi and asserts that he has evidence that may prove a fact but does not reveal what that evidence is,” the Bill Clinton appointee wrote. “The article explicitly references Mueller’s ‘case,’ indicating that the information relates to his investigation and not to the grand jury’s investigation. Moreover, the article does not attribute any information to Mueller or anyone else associated with the grand jury investigation.”
Huvelle continued, “Corsi alleges that the Daily Caller Article contains information on matters occurring before the grand jury because it ‘report[s] . . . that a physician known as Dr. Mendelsohn and others who received cancer treatment by him . . . were subpoenaed to appear before the Mueller grand jury.’ But this allegation is flatly contradicted by the article, which names only Corsi, and no one else, as having been subpoenaed by the grand jury. And the article identifies Corsi, not Mueller or his staff, as the source of that information.”
Huvelle also wrote that Corsi lacked standing to sue over claims that Mueller violated his Fourth Amendment rights by monitoring his phone calls.
The ruling cites the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, in which the justices ruled that plaintiffs cannot sue over warrantless surveillance without establishing “actual knowledge of the government’s…targeting practice.”
“Corsi’s Fourth Amendment claim fares no better. His assertion that the government discovered the identity of his stepson by intercepting his electronic communications relies on nothing but speculation,” Huvelle wrote. “As Corsi cannot show that the government actually intercepted his communications, as opposed to using other investigative methods that would not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights, he has no basis to support an inference of standing.”
Corsi’s attorney Larry Klayman said his client intends to appeal the court’s “erroneous” decision.
“Judge Huvelle’s ruling reflects a political mindset, which regrettably is often exhibited on the federal bench,” Klayman said in a phone interview. “This in effect protects the political elite, particularly in Washington D.C., for both political parties, who are charter ‘members of the club.’”
Elizabeth Tulis, a Justice Department attorney representing Mueller, declined to comment.