Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Yes, Hillary Clinton Will Play an Off-Stage Role in a Theater Production – Snopes.com

Hillary Clinton has held many high-profile roles, including first lady, a U.S. senator representing New York, and U.S. secretary of state. Most recently, of course, Clinton was the Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election.

In April and May 2022, theater audiences in Arkansas can hear Clintons latest venture, where she will voice the role of The Giant in the musical Into the Woods, staged by the Arkansas Repertory Theater.

According to the theatrical news publication Playbill, its most likely that the theater company will use a recording of Clintons voice for the role instead of having her backstage for every performance during the plays run, from April 19 May 15.

Clinton is no stranger to Arkansas, having served as the states first lady when Bill Clinton was Arkansas governor from 1979 to 1981, and again from 1983 to 1992.

The Stephen Sondheim musical Into the Woods is a play on several Brothers Grimm fairytale characters and plots, including Cinderella and Little Red Ridinghood, which imagines the consequences of their wishes coming true.

Sources:

Hall, Margaret. Hillary Clinton Joins Into The Woods at Arkansas Repertory Theatre. Playbill, 26 March 2022, https://playbill.com/article/hillary-clinton-joins-into-the-woods-at-arkansas-repertory-theatre.

The rest is here:
Yes, Hillary Clinton Will Play an Off-Stage Role in a Theater Production - Snopes.com

The lunacy is getting more intense: how Birds Arent Real took on the conspiracy theorists – The Guardian

In early 2017, Peter McIndoe, now 23, was studying psychology at the University of Arkansas, and visiting friends in Memphis, Tennessee. He tells me this over Zoom from the US west coast, and has the most arresting face wide-eyed, curious and intense, like the lead singer of an indie band, or a young monk. This was right after the Donald Trump election, and things were really tense. I remember people walking around saying they felt as if they were in a movie. Things felt so unstable.

It was the weekend of simultaneous Womens Marches across the US (indeed, the world), and McIndoe looked out of the window and noticed counterprotesters, who were older, bigger white men. They were clear aggravators. They were encroaching on something that was not their event, they had no business being there. Added to that, it felt like chaos, because the world felt like chaos.

McIndoe made a placard, and went out to join the march. Its not like I sat down and thought Im going to make a satire. I just thought: I should write a sign that has nothing to do with what is going on. An absurdist statement to bring to the equation.

That statement was birds arent real. As he stood with the counterprotesters, and they asked what his sign meant, he improvised. He said he was part of a movement that had been around for 50 years, and was originally started to save American birds, but had failed. The deep state had destroyed them all, and replaced them with surveillance drones. Every bird you see is actually a tiny feathered robot watching you.

Someone was filming him and put it on Facebook; it went viral, and Memphis is still the centre of the Birds Arent Real movement. Or is it a movement? You could call it a situationist spectacle, a piece of rolling performance art or a collective satire. MSNBC called it a mass coping mechanism for generation Z, and as it has hundreds of thousands of followers on social media, mass, at least, is on the money.

Its the most perfect, playful distillation of where we are in relation to the media landscape weve built but cant control, and which only half of us can find our way around. Its a made-up conspiracy theory that is just realistic enough, as conspiracies go, to convince QAnon supporters that birds arent real, but has just enough satirical flags that generation Z recognises immediately what is going on. Its a conspiracy-within-a-conspiracy, a little aneurysm of reality and mockery in the bloodstream of the mad pizzagate-style theories that animate the alt-right.

Birds Arent Real didnt stay in Memphis in a sequence reminiscent of the Winklevoss scene in The Social Network, when they realise just how big Facebook has become, McIndoe recalls being back at college, five hours away from Memphis. I remember seeing videos of people chanting: Birds arent real, at high-school football games; and seeing graffiti of birds arent real. At first, I thought: This is crazy, but then I wondered: What is making this resonate with people?

Its no surprise that it first gained popularity among high schoolers. The younger you are, the quicker you get it. Teenagers understand it, they dont need footnotes, McIndoe says. I asked my own two teenagers if they were aware of Birds Arent Real. They went off on some crazy extemporising, where pigeon was pronounced piggin and doves had the greatest surveillance accuracy, and it seemed that they really did have a good working knowledge of how a fake conspiracy theory functioned, with its need for jargon and taxonomy. Then I asked again the next day, and it turned out that theyd never heard of it, they were just taking the piss. Teenagers do just seem to get it. I still need quite a lot of footnotes.

This is the fourth interview McIndoe has given as himself, not his conspiracist character. If you go looking for interviews with him on Spotify, you will find him explaining to sub-Rush Limbaugh local radio shock-jocks, in total seriousness, how the CIA was explicitly founded to spy on the American public these robot birds were their crowning achievement, listening to and watching everyone all the time.

He describes sombrely but matter-of-factly the genocide of the real birds, which Birds Arent Real was tragically unable to prevent. The shock-jock will typically say something noncommittal, such as: Huh. Thats bad. (In fairness, if it were true, it would be quite bad.)

Its a vivid dramatisation of how divisive conspiracy theories are; people who believe them live in another world, where any wild theory flies and even the most fleeting attempt to fact check it or test it against logic (if birds have been destroyed, whos eating all the worms?) marks you out as a brainwashed liberal. People who dont believe them cannot think themselves into the headspace of those who do. Then along comes a guy with a sign, and maybe hes not bridging this implacable divide, but hes certainly disrupting it.

That day of the Womens March, as McIndoe ad-libbed his conspiracy to whoever would listen, he had no plan. He was talking about robot birds one minute and Killary Clinton (a trope used by conspiracists about Hillary Clinton) the next: I was just saying things that were the funniest thing to me at the time.

It was a character based on the people I grew up around, he says. I grew up in rural, deeply conservative Arkansas, in a home-school environment. I had these intensely negative experiences of it. Im not a conservative person. At a very young age, I became more of an observer than a participant, which created a real loneliness, from an ideological standpoint.

Until he could drive, McIndoes entire life was home, home-school co-operatives run by the church, and church. He knew no one who didnt believe exactly the same thing, and Even though everything is [an] echo chamber, he says, the ideas in these home-schooled communities are bad echoes. Im sure that there are beautiful Christian communities that are doing good things somewhere. Im not trying to bash spirituality. But from my experience, the deep fundamentalist communities that I was in have caused way more harm. And Ive seen pure evil coming from them.

As his movement grows, though, hes started to think that maybe that kind of schooling made him more independent-minded, even though it emphatically didnt intend to. It creates a different relationship with the world. I wasnt involved in normal cultural settings, I was barred from a lot of traditional media. I didnt go to school. It definitely creates a different type of thinking, which can be in some ways more free and exploratory.

He also draws a tentative line between faith and conspiracy theory: The Christian worldview is really just about how youre determining truth. Where are you getting truth from? What is your relationship with truth? For the Christian, your foundational relationship with the truth is determined by faith, its definition is that you cant argue with it or interrogate it.

That mindset, plus the religious yearning for one single theory that explains everything, really softens up the brain these are my words, not his for conspiracy theories, which meet the same need. I think there is an actual concrete example of this journey, from fundamentalist Christianity to QAnon (again, this is definitely me not him, he is much less strident than I am). The paedophile element of QAnon, where Hillary Clinton and a huge global web of powerful liberals, are abusing children and keeping them in tunnels, sounds completely unhinged. But if youve been vehemently anti-abortion on faith grounds for years, then to your mind, feminists and other liberals are already in favour of murdering children.

So the leap isnt as great as it looks. McIndoe is more interested in tribal language and how conspiracy theory language echoes, in many ways, what I saw in a religious community. From QAnon, one of the main tag lines was the storm is coming. I hear many Christians talking about that right now, about coronavirus and the end times.

One more thing happened on the first day of Birds Arent Real. I met someone, her name is Madeleine. She has been my girlfriend for four years, shes the love of my life. So before long, he decided to drop out of college, and move to Memphis. I lived with people I didnt know, and worked at the richest country club in the south, as a waiter. It gave me a real window into how the 1% of Memphis talks about other races, since the entire staff are minorities. It was a very interesting time to start an idea about American polarisation.

Although birds arent real was very quickly picked up as a chant, getting the movement to snowball did take some work, McIndoe says. We set up the Bird Brigade, our boots-on-the-ground activism network, led by Claire Chronis. That was the first step to building a structured movement, getting it from Memphis to the rest of the US, getting people to put up flyers that I designed very poorly on Photoshop, which works for the conspiracy theory aesthetic.

They made up facts, faked secretly leaked CIA documents and made videos we created a world with laws and evidence and took out billboard adverts, which people posted on Instagram as selfie backdrops. If you put something absurd into the world, people are trying to present themselves as irreverent or funny, so that really spread.

Meanwhile, real conspiracy theorists, he says, will approach me like Im their brother, like Im part of their team. They will start spouting hateful rhetoric and racist ideas, because they feel as if Im safe.

In describing the movement, he gets towards perhaps the closest definition of what is happening: It is a collective role-playing experiment. There is true community found through this, it breaks down political barriers. We have taken pictures of a car park at a Birds Arent Real rally. There are people who will show up with a US flag on their car, Republican, patriotic, and a car right next to them with Bernie Sanders stickers. I was a Bernie guy myself. You see these people marching together, unified.

Theyre unified on the prank, right? There arent people there who think birds genuinely arent real? (I still need a lot of footnotes.) Yeah, theyre role-playing together. Theyre role-playing the collective understanding of the conspiracy theory.

The response of real-life conspiracists to Birds Arent Real has shifted now: They think Birds Arent Real is a CIA psy-op. They think that we are the CIA, were put out there as a weapon against conspiracy theorists.

McIndoe has a long game with Birds Arent Real: I think it has the potential to be a creative collective for a long time. I would love Birds Arent Real to continue to be a space to process the badness. I dont think the madness is going to necessarily end. I think the lunacy is going to become more intense.

He ends with an image that is poetic, freighted and incredibly neat. We talk about it like an igloo. Making a shelter out of the same thing thats posing the threat. Take the materials of what is around us, build something with them, be safe in there together, and laugh.

Excerpt from:
The lunacy is getting more intense: how Birds Arent Real took on the conspiracy theorists - The Guardian

Guests on Sunday Talk Shows Hillary Clinton Meet the Press – Los Angeles Times

CBS News Sunday Morning Jon Batiste and Suleika Jaouad. (N) 6 a.m. KCBS; 10 a.m. KCAL

Good Morning America (N) 6 a.m. KABC

State of the Union Secretary of State Antony Blinken; NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg; Gov. Larry Hogan (R-Md.). Panel: David Urban; Jane Harman; Amanda Carpenter; Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont). (N) 6 and 9 a.m. CNN

Fareed Zakaria GPS Sanctions against Russia: Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Russias invasion of Ukraine: Author Adm. James Stavridis (U.S. Navy, retired) (To Risk It All: Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision). The Grammys: Musician Jon Batiste. (N) 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. CNN

Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo Petro Poroshenko, former president of Ukraine; Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.); Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.); Atty. Gen. Patrick Morrisey (R-W.Va.). (N) 7 a.m. and noon Fox News

The Sunday Show With Jonathan Capehart Former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command Lt. Gen. Stephen Twitty (U.S. Army, retired); Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.); Jonathan Capeharts aunt Gloria Avent-Kindred; Nina Totenberg, NPR; Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank); Ned Price, Department of State. (N) 7 a.m. MSNBC

Face the Nation Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. New York City Mayor Eric Adams; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.); Fiona Hill. (N) 7:30 a.m. and Monday, 3:05 a.m. KCBS

Meet the Press Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Panel: Cornell Belcher; Leigh Ann Caldwell; Brad Todd; Amy Walter. (N) 8 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. KNBC

This Week With George Stephanopoulos White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain; Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Panel: Chris Christie; Donna Brazile; Astead Herndon, New York Times; Ruth Marcus, Washington Post. (N) 8 a.m. and 2 a.m. KABC

Fox News Sunday Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas); Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby. Panel: Ben Domenech; Susan Page; Juan Williams. Martha MacCallum hosts. (N) 8 a.m. KTTV; 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. Fox News

Reliable Sources With Brian Stelter Journalists ambushed while covering war in Ukraine: Stuart Ramsay and Dominique van Heerden, Sky News. Coverage of the war in Ukraine: Julia Ioffe, Puck; Ivan Kolpakov, Meduza. Media stories: Natasha Alford; David Zurawik. (N) 8 a.m. CNN

MediaBuzz Jason Chaffetz; Harold Ford Jr.; Griff Jenkins; Kat Timpf; Susan Ferrechio, Washington Times; Laura Fink, Rebelle Communications. (N) 8 a.m. Fox News

60 Minutes The International Medical Corps delivers supplies, training and resources into Ukraine; Russian billionaires and Great Britain; artist Laurie Anderson. (N) 4 p.m. KCBS

Frank Buckley Interviews Author Peter S. Goodman (Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World). 4:30 p.m. and 12:35 a.m. KTLA

The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth The Home Front. The Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation: Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.); Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). President Trumps Jan. 6 phone logs: Bob Woodward, Washington Post; Robert Costa, CBS. The evolution of the Jan. 6 investigations: Conservative attorney George Conway. (N) 8 p.m. Showtime

The rest is here:
Guests on Sunday Talk Shows Hillary Clinton Meet the Press - Los Angeles Times

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