Trump sues Hillary Clinton, DNC over ‘unthinkable’ Russia ‘plot’ in 2016 election

[Dashinka 24,724]

We shall see.

 

Trump sues Hillary Clinton, DNC over ‘unthinkable’ Russia ‘plot’ in 2016 election

 

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday filed a $24 million federal lawsuit alleging that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee launched a wide-ranging “unthinkable plot” in 2016 to smear him and his campaign as colluding with Russian officials.
 

In the suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, Trump claims the goal was to fabricate a scandal in an effort to “cripple” his bid for the presidency.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/trump-sues-hillary-clinton-dnc-over-unthinkable-russia-plot-in-2016-election/

[Mike E 11,742]

The venue, Southern Florida, is so so for Trump.  If it gets moved to DC or NYC it won’t succeed   
 

Appeal is different though. If he draws appellate judges he appointed he stands a better chance.  
 

However if a judge grants a trial, the best part about this is that it will bleed the Clintons dry of millions of dollars.  

[Dashinka 24,724]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

The venue, Southern Florida, is so so for Trump.  If it gets moved to DC or NYC it won’t succeed   
 

Appeal is different though. If he draws appellate judges he appointed he stands a better chance.  
 

However if a judge grants a trial, the best part about this is that it will bleed the Clintons dry of millions of dollars.  

I agree.  I also wonder how this will dovetail with the investigation that is still ongoing into the origin of the Russian hoax.

[Mike E 11,742]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I agree.  I also wonder how this will dovetail with the investigation that is still ongoing into the origin of the Russian hoax.

I think he knows more about the Durham investigation than most (with the exception of Garland who seems petrified of defunding the investigation).  Recall that while in office he tweeted that Obama spied on his 2016 campaign.  He could have produced the evidence but was advised lawyers (personal, White House, DofJustice) that he should not.   
 

Given how long these cases take, his timing could not be better. 
 

Whether he or someone else is the nominee in 2024, coloring certain Obama and Clinton  Democrats with scandal, some of whom I assume don’t work in the Biden administration,  could do to Biden in 2024 what watergate did to Ford  in 1976.  

[millefleur 5,047]

I'm not getting this. What exactly is the legal stuff being sued over? Defamation? Conspiracy? We all know that you can't sue people over "collusion" - that doesn't exist as a legal concept. "Vilify" is not a legal concept either.

 

I'm also confused as to where free speech laws come into this. At what point does a newspaper or other media have a right to publish stuff they think is real? You have to show that there was malicious intent to smear/attack someone, proving the intent is the hard part. If there's a claim that stories were fabricated, then it's on Trump's legal team to prove that it was fabricated. You can't just make a claim and not show evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

Unless they have very solid evidence of this, I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere.

[Mike E 11,742]

2 minutes ago, millefleur said:

I'm not getting this. What exactly is the legal stuff being sued over? Defamation? Conspiracy? We all know that you can't sue people over "collusion" - that doesn't exist as a legal concept. "Vilify" is not a legal concept either.

 

I'm also confused as to where free speech laws come into this. At what point does a newspaper or other media have a right to publish stuff they think is real? You have to show that there was malicious intent to smear/attack someone, proving the intent is the hard part. If there's a claim that stories were fabricated, then it's on Trump's legal team to prove that it was fabricated. You can't just make a claim and not show evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

Unless they have very solid evidence of this, I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere.

He is suing because her campaign allegedly created false evidence that forced him to spend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend himself against.  
 

If she created false evidence, he has damages.  

[millefleur 5,047]

Just now, Mike E said:

He is suing because her campaign allegedly created false evidence that forced him to spend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend himself against.  
 

If she created false evidence, he has damages.  

Right but how can they prove that she created false evidence? You'd need extremely hard proof of that. I'm just curious how they plan to prove it.

[Mike E 11,742]

4 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Right but how can they prove that she created false evidence? You'd need extremely hard proof of that. I'm just curious how they plan to prove it.

Step 1: show that the evidence was false.  I think we are already there considering progress to date from Durham.  
 

Step 2: put the Clintons (yes both of them … recall the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Bubba) on the stand and ask them where the fake evidence came from.  
 

The standard of proof in a civil trial is less than that of a criminal trial. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Mike E

[millefleur 5,047]

7 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Step 1: shown that the evidence was false.  I think we are already there considering progress to date from Durham.  

That case seems more solid to me. Allegations of spying/hacking are easier to prove if you have evidence for that. Proving malicious intent is much harder.

 

Just now, Mike E said:

Step 2: put the Clintons (yes both of them … recall the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Bubba) on the stand and ask them where the fake evidence came from.  

They can easily pass the blame off onto someone else and claim ignorance or innocence. For example, they can say the Steele Dossier came from MI6 and when they were handed this info, they believed it to be 100% truth because they were told so. So, then what happens, now the court has to call in MI6 and try to go after that to show that it's fake? It's hard to prove that the Clintons "knew it was false" is my point. You'd have to have something in writing or recording where they say "Hah we know this is fake but let's leak it anyway." If that have that solid evidence, great! If not, extremely hard to prove.

 

Then if it gets into upper echelons of intelligence, to what degree will those agencies not get some free pass from the court due to "national security"? Is MI6 really going to be called in as witness and have to admit to the whole world that they lied? Lol. I mean, it would be great, but I'm not holding my breath this will happen.

[Dashinka 24,724]

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

That case seems more solid to me. Allegations of spying/hacking are easier to prove if you have evidence for that. Proving malicious intent is much harder.

 

They can easily pass the blame off onto someone else and claim ignorance or innocence. For example, they can say the Steele Dossier came from MI6 and when they were handed this info, they believed it to be 100% truth because they were told so. So, then what happens, now the court has to call in MI6 and try to go after that to show that it's fake? It's hard to prove that the Clintons "knew it was false" is my point. You'd have to have something in writing or recording where they say "Hah we know this is fake but let's leak it anyway." If that have that solid evidence, great! If not, extremely hard to prove.

 

Then if it gets into upper echelons of intelligence, to what degree will those agencies not get some free pass from the court due to "national security"? Is MI6 really going to be called in as witness and have to admit to the whole world that they lied? Lol. I mean, it would be great, but I'm not holding my breath this will happen.

Except the Hillary campaign actually paid for it.  Does MI6 usually charge money for their information?

[millefleur 5,047]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Except the Hillary campaign actually paid for it.  Does MI6 usually charge money for their information?

Ah, so they have evidence of that? Great if so. I'm just saying in our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system you need a lot of evidence to convict people. This is both a blessing and a curse. It means the innocent can be protected but it also means sneaky people who know how to hide their tracks can get away with stuff. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so let's hope they have that.

[Mike E 11,742]

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

That case seems more solid to me. Allegations of spying/hacking are easier to prove if you have evidence for that. Proving malicious intent is much harder.

 

They can easily pass the blame off onto someone else and claim ignorance or innocence. For example, they can say the Steele Dossier came from MI6 and when they were handed this info, they believed it to be 100% truth because they were told so.

Prior to a trial there are depositions. So each lawyer knows what the witnesses will say. If they say something different from deposition then it is perjury.  
 

 

Trump lawyer: “Secretary Clinton: who in MI-6 gave you this information”

 

Clinton: “Agent Angus Farquhar”

 

Trump lawyer: “And when did Mr Farquhar give you this information”

 

Clinton: “mm/dd/2016l

 

Trump lawyer:  “We contacted Mr Farquhar and he denied every speaking to you”. Also we have his phone records, his travel records, and your travel records and it is clear you did not speak or meet him on that date.”

 

and so on

 

Anyway, I doubt credibility a Clinton has with a jury and I doubt there is anyone willing to fall on their swords for a Clinton these days.  Hillary Clinton is a defense lawyer’s worse nightmare. 
 

Won’t surprise me if settles out of court. 

 

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

So, then what happens, now the court has to call in MI6 and try to go after that to show that it's fake?

 

It's hard to prove that the Clintons "knew it was false" is my point. You'd have to have something in writing or recording where they say "Hah we know this is fake but let's leak it anyway." If that have that solid evidence, great! If not, extremely hard to prove.

Huh? You aren’t permitted to put words on a piece of paper and claim they have provenance without showing they have provenance 

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

 

Then if it gets into upper echelons of intelligence, to what degree will those agencies not get some free pass from the court due to "national security"? Is MI6 really going to be called in as witness and have to admit to the whole world that they lied? Lol. I mean, it would be great, but I'm not holding my breath this will happen.

MI-6 doesn’t give people fake stuff.  People on Mi-6 give people fake stuff.  And those people can either refuse to cooperate with an officer of a USA federal court or not. And if they don’t they risk contempt of court. 
 

The  British government might have to decide whether to cut an intelligence officer loose or be seen as actively trying to manipulate a presidential election. Easy choice for Bobo.  

[Mike E 11,742]

10 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Ah, so they have evidence of that? Great if so. I'm just saying in our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system you need a lot of evidence to convict people. 
.

This isn’t a criminal trial. It is a civil trial.  No one is getting convicted.  Someone is paying cash.  
 

The standard is preponderance of evidence.  
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence

 

”

Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

“

 

Meanwhile using the more stringent standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, Durham has obtained criminal convictions already. 
 

 

[millefleur 5,047]

14 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Won’t surprise me if settles out of court. 

That's what I suspect. So basically there will be an out of court settlement and Trump will get some money back. Woohoo. I just don't feel this is relevant to me as a US citizen nor is it any kind of "justice" and that's why stories like this are so tiresome. Rich corrupt people sue rich corrupt people and then they settle out of court for money. Rinse and repeat.

 

It's not like even if the Trump team wins elections will become less corrupt. Good for him if he gets money back, it means nothing for us as a society.

 

[Dashinka 24,724]

18 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Prior to a trial there are depositions. So each lawyer knows what the witnesses will say. If they say something different from deposition then it is perjury.  
 

 

Trump lawyer: “Secretary Clinton: who in MI-6 gave you this information”

 

Clinton: “Agent Angus Farquhar”

 

Trump lawyer: “And when did Mr Farquhar give you this information”

 

Clinton: “mm/dd/2016l

 

Trump lawyer:  “We contacted Mr Farquhar and he denied every speaking to you”. Also we have his phone records, his travel records, and your travel records and it is clear you did not speak or meet him on that date.”

 

and so on

 

Anyway, I doubt credibility a Clinton has with a jury and I doubt there is anyone willing to fall on their swords for a Clinton these days.  Hillary Clinton is a defense lawyer’s worse nightmare. 
 

Won’t surprise me if settles out of court. 

 

Huh? You aren’t permitted to put words on a piece of paper and claim they have provenance without showing they have provenance 

MI-6 doesn’t give people fake stuff.  People on Mi-6 give people fake stuff.  And those people can either refuse to cooperate with an officer of a USA federal court or not. And if they don’t they risk contempt of court. 
 

The  British government might have to decide whether to cut an intelligence officer loose or be seen as actively trying to manipulate a presidential election. Easy choice for Bobo.  

I expect the Hillary campaign and the other actors to do everything they can to get this suit thrown out before it ever gets to the deposition phase.