Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Why Trump is suing Hillary Clinton: Weaponizing the law is his favorite tactic – Salon

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on March 24 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida charging Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and various other people with attempting to rig the 2016 election by tying his campaign to Russian meddling.

Among multiple grandiose claims, the suit alleges both "racketeering" and "conspiracy" to commit injurious untruths: "Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty." Trump seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, and claims he incurred expenses of at least $24 million "in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses."

This comes straight out of the Trump playbook of suing and countersuing, and references a long list of grievances that Trump has been repeatedly airing since he was elected in 2016, not to mention his continued false claims that his 2020 defeat was the product of widespread fraud and conspiracy.

RELATED:Trump stole the Watergate playbook

Ordinary people who get caught up in lengthy legal battles, on whatever side of the conflict, generally find the experience to be costly to their pocketbooks, reputations and mental wellness. As someone who has been involved in more than 4,000 legal battles since 1973, Trump is clearly an exception to the rule.

He loves litigation as much as his cans of Diet Coke or boxes of fast food burgers or 36 holes of golf twice weekly. As a real estate tycoon, entrepreneur, entertainer and politician, Trump boasts: "I've taken advantage of the laws. And frankly, so has everybody else in my position."

Trump's modus operandi, whether in politics or litigation, has always been about "the pot calling the kettle black" or perhaps, in psychological terms, about projection. Here we have a situation where the actual racketeer and conspirator who has escaped two impeachments, the latter for having unsuccessfully conspired to steal the 2020 election, is predictably alleging racketeering, conspiracy and victimization by his opponents.

For Trump, litigation as a weapon has always been about attracting attention, exercising economic pressure, wearing down opponents and letting everyone know not to mess with the Donald. It's rarely about the facts or the law.

As litigator in chief, Donald Trump has been in a league of his own. In some 60 percent of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump has been the suing plaintiff rather than the sued defendant. His win-loss record is undeniably impressive: He has won 451 times and lost only 38.

As a defendant, Trump has persuaded judges to dismiss some 500 plaintiffs' cases against him. Hundreds of other cases have ended with unclear legal resolutions, according to available public records.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Trump has sued and been sued by personal assistants, celebrities, mental patients, prisoners, unions, rival businesspeople and his own family members.

Since the 1970s, he has been sued for race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, fraud, breaches of trust, money laundering, defamation, stiffing creditors and defaulting on loans.

In turn, plaintiff Trump has sued people for fraud, breach of trust, breach of contract, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, for government favoritism, and for misappropriation or adulteration of the Trump name.

Once again, it seems that Trump's weaponization of the law ispaying off. It now appears almost certain that neither the district attorney in Manhattan nor the U.S. attorney general will ever criminally charge Trump for his crimes of racketeering or insurrection.

Roy Cohn, who was the first of Trump's personal attorneys and "fixers" to be disbarred or suspended for lawless conduct followed by Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani taught Trump the art of the linguistic lie as a way of moving through life, business, politics and the law.

Trump's primer on the law included Cohn's three rules of litigation: Never settle, never surrender; counterattack immediately; no matter the outcome, always claim victory. Over the course of his litigious life, Trump was better at adhering to the latter two rules than the first, because the social reality of legal facts often dictates settling.

Cohn also taught Trump other related lessons, including but not limited to focusing on short-term victories, employing any unscrupulous means necessary to achieve them, doing end-runs around the judicial system, fixing disputed outcomes and the value of always defending yourself by going on the offensive.

As Cohn's apprentice, Trump would eventually take the art of his the lie to an even higher (or lower) level than Cohn himself or Trump's father, Fred Trump Sr., who was also a serial fabricator of the truth, could possibly have imagined.

Read more from Salon on the previous president:

More:
Why Trump is suing Hillary Clinton: Weaponizing the law is his favorite tactic - Salon

Fact check: False claim that Hillary Clinton was fired during Watergate resurfaces online – USA TODAY

Hillary Clinton: US 'dangerously divided'

While speaking at the New York State Democratic Convention in New York on Thursday, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked about former president Donald Trump and said the country is "deeply and dangerously divided." (Feb. 17)

AP

On June 17, 1972, five burglars were arrested at the Democratic National Committee headquartersin the Watergate complexfor attempting to wiretap office communications. The scandal resulted in the resignation of former President Richard Nixon after a series of investigations found he was involved in the operation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the impeachment inquiry staff. But decades later, some social media users are spreading false claims about her involvement.

A Facebook post shared over three years agoshows a black-and-white photoof Clinton next to other politicians.

"As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman," reads text above the image.

The post claims Zeifman said inan interview that he fired Clintonbecause she was "an unethetical, dishonest lawyer."

Follow us on Facebook!Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

The post generated close to 1,000 shares after being published in February2019, and it has recently regained traction on Facebook. Similar posts have spread widely on the platform.

But the claim is wrong on multiple fronts, as independent fact-checking organizations have reported.Zeifman was not Clinton's direct supervisor, and Judiciary Committeerecords indicate Clinton was not fired from the inquiry, since she was paid even after Nixon resigned.

USA TODAY reached out tosocial media users who shared the claim for comment.

The timeline is key to this claim.

The House Judiciary Committee adoptedthree articlesof impeachment against Nixon on July 27, 1974. However, Nixonavoided impeachmentin the Houseafter heresigned from office Aug. 9of that year.The case ended Aug. 22 when the final impeachment report was published.

In 2016, Washington Post librarianAlice Crites unearthed JudiciaryCommittee records that showClinton was paid$3,377.77 from July 1, 1974, to Sept. 4, 1974, whichindicates she was active throughout the investigation. Clinton's 2008 presidential campaignsaid on its websitethat shewas not fired.

Zeifman, who died in 2010, did claimhe terminated Clinton in an interview, as the post says.

But there are significant problems with his story.

Zeifman contradicted this claim himself in a 1999interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, saying, "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," according to PolitiFact. In other words, he's saying he didn't fire Clinton.

And several sources say Zeifman wasn't in a place to make a firing decision on Clinton.

The quote in the post stems froma 2008columnby Dan Calabrese, which waslater published by the Canada Free Press in 2013. But John R.Labovitz, a lawyer on the impeachment staff, told Calabrese in the same column that Zeifman did not work "on the impeachment inquiry staff directly."

John Doar, a former Justice Department lawyer, was given the responsibility to direct the impeachment inquiry staff in December of 1973, during which time he assembled a staff, according to the Congressional Quarterly Almanac.

In a2018 interview with American historian Timothy Naftali, Clinton said Doar invited her over the phone to work on the impeachment inquiry staff, and she accepted.

An impeachment inquiry staff list compiled by Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler showsClinton listed as counsel under Doar while Zeifman was listed as general counsel under committee staff, which indicates Doar was Clinton'ssupervisor.

Fact check roundup: What's true and what's false about the Russian invasion of Ukraine

USA TODAY reached out to Clinton's office for comment.

'Here, right matters': Alexander Vindman and Trump's first impeachment

In "Here, right matters," retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman talks about reporting Trump's infamous Ukraine call, and the cost to him and his family.

Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY

Fact check: False claim about Ukraine, Clinton Foundation resurfaces amid Russian invasion

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that Zeifman fired Clinton during the Watergate scandal. Zeifman was not Clinton's direct supervisor, and Judiciary Committee pay records indicate she was active throughout the investigation. Zeifmanhasalso contradicted his own claim, saying at other times that he did not fire Clinton.

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

View original post here:
Fact check: False claim that Hillary Clinton was fired during Watergate resurfaces online - USA TODAY

Hillary Clinton to voice ‘Into The Woods’ role in Arkansas – The Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) Hillary Clinton will play the offstage role of the Giant in a production of Stephen Sondheims Into The Woods in her onetime home state of Arkansas, the Arkansas Repertory Theatre announced on Monday.

Real news, and Im really excited! Check out the production if youre in Little Rock, Clinton tweeted and her spokesperson confirmed to The Associated Press. Clinton was the first lady of Arkansas before she was the first lady of the United States, a senator representing New York, secretary of state and then presidential candidate.

The Into The Woods Giant is the vengeful widow of the giant who Jack killed after climbing the beanstalk. The Giant does not appear on stage, and the voice part is usually prerecorded.

The show runs April 19 to May 15.

Clinton has previously had cameo roles in the television shows Madam Secretary and Murphy Brown.

Read the rest here:
Hillary Clinton to voice 'Into The Woods' role in Arkansas - The Associated Press

Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton is part of longtime legal strategy – Bangor Daily News

NEW YORK When a Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic panned Donald Trumps plans for a new Manhattan skyscraper, Trump responded by suing. When the tenants of a building he was trying to clear sued to halt their evictions, Trump slapped back by filing suit against the law firm representing the tenants. And when an author said the former president was worth far less than hed claimed, Trump again took legal action.

So when Trump last week filed a sprawling suit accusing his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party of conspiring to sink his winning presidential campaign by alleging ties to Russia renewing one of his longest-standing perceived affronts it wasnt a surprise.

Trump has spent decades repurposing political and personal grievances into causes of legal action. Throughout his business and political career, he has used the courts as a venue to air his complaints and as a tool to intimidate adversaries, sully their reputations and try to garner media attention.

Its part of his pattern of using the law to punish his enemies, as a weapon, as something it was never intended to be, said James D. Zirin, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the author of the book Plaintiff in Chief, which details Trumps legal history. For him, litigation was a way of life.

Trumps latest lawsuit revisits a familiar grievance: that Democrats in 2016 concocted fictitious claims that his campaign was colluding with Russia and that the FBI as a result pursued an unfounded investigation.

The 108-page suit, as much a political screed as a legal document, names as defendants longstanding targets of his ire from both the political realm Clinton and her aides and the law enforcement community, including former FBI Director James Comey and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two FBI officials who exchanged critical text messages about Trump during the 2016 campaign.

It also piggybacks off the work of special counsel John Durham, listing as defendants the three people a cybersecurity attorney, an ex-FBI lawyer and a Russia analyst who have been charged in that criminal probe.

Trump, in the suit, paints himself as the victim of a vast, racketeering conspiracy in which FBI officials who led the investigation knew that it was based on a false and contrived premise.

Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty, his lawyers wrote, describing the alleged scheme as so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.

Its well-established through a Justice Department inspector general investigation that the FBI made errors and missteps during the Russia probe that Trump could look to seize on if his lawsuit advances. But Russia did meddle in the 2016 election.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January 2017 that Russia mounted a far-ranging influence campaign aimed at helping Trump beat Clinton. And the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, after three years of investigation, affirmed those conclusions, saying intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had approved and directed aspects of the Kremlins influence campaign. It also found clear ties between Trumps campaign and Russia, concluding that Trumps campaign chairman had had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlins aid.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller, who was charged with further investigating the links between Trump and Russia, did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but concluded that Russian interference was sweeping and systematic. His investigation resulted in criminal charges against 34 people and three entities, including 26 Russians, Trumps former campaign chair and national security adviser.

Representatives for Trump did not respond to requests for comment. But Trump attorney Alina Habba defended his approach on Newsmax, telling the network more suits were coming soon.

We have another suit being filed shortly, she said. And anybody thats going to try and make up malicious stories about him while he was sitting as president, prior to his presidency or now is going to be sued.

Trump, meanwhile, was already using the filing to rile up his crowds at a rally in Georgia Saturday night.

To fight back against this corrupt establishments relentless hoaxes and lies, this week I filed a historic lawsuit to hold them accountable for the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, Trump said to cheers. His mention of Clinton prompted especially loud applause and a revival of the Lock her up! chant that was a defining feature of his 2016 campaign.

In addition to serving as a useful political cudgel, Trumps effort, which comes as he is mulling another run for the White House, could lend the imprimatur of credibility to campaign trail grievances, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University professor of legal ethics.

To the unaware public, the fact that grievances are repackaged as legal claims adds credibility to the force of those grievances, Gillers said. Anyone who pays attention to what goes on in the courts will be able to see through these claims as claims of political victimization in another form. But the public by and large does not pay attention to the validity of the claims.

Last year, Trump took similar action, filing suits against three of the countrys biggest tech companies, claiming he and other conservatives had been wrongfully censored after his accounts were suspended.

Its a tactic Trump has used again and again.

In the real estate, casino and other industries where the former president made fortunes and lost them, Trumps use of lawsuits as a business weapon was legendary. He sued or threatened to sue contractors, business partners, tax authorities and the media.

Trump loved to sue, especially parties that could not afford a legal defense, said Barbara Res, a former longtime Trump Organization executive turned critic. She said one legal tactic he turned to often was the preventive strike suit to weaken rivals and create the impression he was the aggrieved party before they acted.

Trumps perception and that of many people is that the first person to sue has a legitimate complaint, Res said.

Indeed, when Trump defaulted on a giant Deutsche Bank loan for his Chicago hotel and condo tower during the 2008 financial crisis, he didnt wait to be sued. Instead, he filed a complaint accusing the lender of predatory lending practices that hurt his reputation and helped trigger the global depression.

Instead of paying the bank, he argued, the bank should be paying him.

It was a novel argument and one that ultimately succeeded. Deutsche Bank ended up forgiving some of his loan, then extending him hundreds of millions of dollars in new loans in the coming years.

As a New York Times columnist was preparing to write about the effort, he received a note from one of Trumps lawyers: Please be assured that if your article is not factually correct, we will have no choice but to sue you.

To many journalists, its a familiar threat, delivered with a raised voice and repeated for emphasis.

Well sue you! Well sue you! yelled a Trump lawyer to Associated Press journalists in a phone interview about Trump University and other defunct Trump ventures in 2016.

Trump learned his attack dog legal tactics from one his early legal advisers, the late Roy Cohn, the disbarred lawyer who made his name as a prosecutor in the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg communist spying case that sent the husband and wife to the electric chair, then as aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare hearings.

Under Cohn, Trump countersued the Justice Department after it brought a case against the Trump Organization in the early 1970s for housing discrimination. The Trump Organization eventually settled, admitting no guilt.

In the years that followed, the casework never let up.

A USA Today investigation found Trump had been involved in at least 3,500 court cases over the course of three decades more than five other top U.S. real estate owners combined. In more than half of the cases, Trump was the one who had sued.

The litigation continued while Trump was in the White House. In a desperate and futile attempt to remain in power, Trump and his allies filed dozens of baseless lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. Again and again, judges said the plaintiffs had failed to prove fraud or misconduct.

Trump had made clear his intentions even before all the votes had been counted.

Well be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said during a 2:30 a.m. appearance hours after polls had closed.

Hes exceptionally litigious, much of which is instituted not to win but rather to frustrate the opposing party by causing financial hardship, said Trumps former fixer-turned adversary Michael Cohen, who went to jail for making hush money payments to a porn star who alleged an affair with Trump, as well as lying to Congress about a proposed Trump skyscraper in Moscow.

When Trump wins as he did last week in a case involving the porn star Stormy Daniels Cohen said, It emboldens him to continue this rampage of litigation for alternative purposes.

The suits have proven beneficial in other ways. Trump spent more than a year and a half fighting efforts by then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. to obtain copies of his tax returns, taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court. While Trump ultimately failed, his stall tactics dragged the case out so long that Vance, who had appeared on the cusp of seeking an indictment, was replaced by a successor who has allegedly all but closed the case.

Even family is not immune.

In September, Trump sued his estranged niece, Mary Trump, and The New York Times over a 2018 story that challenged Trumps claims of self-made wealth by documenting how his father, Fred, had given him at least $413 million over the decades, including through tax avoidance schemes. Trumps lawsuit, filed in state court in New York, accused Mary Trump of breaching a settlement agreement by disclosing the records to the newspapers reporters.

Mary Trumps lawyer, Ted Boutrous, wrote in a March 11 letter to the court that Trumps lawsuit was brought to punish Mary Trump and to chill speech in the public interest about the former President.

Story by Jill Colvin, Eric Tucker and Bernard Condon. Associated Press writer Michael Sisak contributed to this report.

More articles from the BDN

More:
Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton is part of longtime legal strategy - Bangor Daily News

Hillary Clinton joins Arkansas production of Into the Woods – The Week

'unique new york, unique new york'

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

For Hillary Clinton, the politics-to-theater pipeline is alive and well.

The former first lady and U.S. secretary of state has accepted an off-stage role in an Arkansas production of the musical Into the Woods, Deadline reports Monday.

Clinton will be voicing the role of The Giant, "a small, off-stage speaking role that's traditionally pre-recorded for inclusion in the musical,"per Deadline.

"Real news, and I'm really excited!" Clinton tweeted Monday."Check out the production if you're in Little Rock."

The show will run April 19 through May 15 at the Arkansas Repertory Theatre in Little Rock. The character of The Giant is traditionally billed as The Giant's Wife, and has previously been voiced by acting legends like Glenn Close, Judi Dench, and Whoopi Goldberg, Deadline writes.

Clinton was Arkansas' first lady when her husband former President Bill Clinton served as governor.

Link:
Hillary Clinton joins Arkansas production of Into the Woods - The Week