Hillary Clinton Suggests Trump Wants To ‘Kill His Opposition’

Hillary Clinton suggested her onetime political rival, former President Donald Trump, wants to “kill his opposition” because of his purported affinity for “strongmen” leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We haven’t talked much about the international arena, but, you know, his bromance with Putin,” said Clinton, who served as U.S. secretary of state and U.S. senator, during a podcast released last week.

“And it was actually called that I think by the former prime minister of Australia, who said he saw Trump with Putin and Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin because Putin does what he would like to do: kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive, you know, journalists and others into exile, rule without any check or balance.”

“That’s what Trump really wants,” Clinton added. “And so we have to be very conscious of how he sees the world because, in that world, he only sees strongmen leaders. He sees Putin, he sees [Chinese leader Xi Jinping], he sees Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Those are the people he is modeling himself after, and we’ve been down this road in our world history. We sure don’t want to go down that again.”

The interview took place on the “Defending Democracy” podcast hosted by Marc Elias, who served as the lawyer who directed funding from Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee that went toward British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s now-discredited dossier that contained allegations of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Running with the “Russiagate” narrative, which allegedly was the opposite of what some U.S. intelligence information showed, Clinton said one of the reasons Putin “went after” her is “because he knew I would deal with him in an appropriate way and Trump would basically do whatever he wanted.” She added, “It’s really important to think about what could happen to our world with Trump back in the White House,” adding later that it was a “very scary prospect.”

Trump is running for re-election as the presumptive GOP nominee after his major primary rivals dropped out and he garnered enough delegates to clinch the party’s nomination. He is poised for a 2020 rematch against President Joe Biden in the general election. However, this year’s contest has a wild card with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running as an independent.

It's in the Constitution ...

Yes, Congress was given some immunity relative to speech in the Constitution. Until 1988, Congressmen were protected from defamation/slander/libel charges so long as they we in their seat in Congress. I.e., They had to be speaking in Congress.

This changed in 1988, when the were give broad immunity including speech outside of Congress. Re: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46597/can-us-congress-members-be-successfully-sued-for-defamation

After Hutchinson [v. Proxmire (1979)], a Member of Congress was entitled to immunity for statements made “in his seat,” i.e., on the floor or in committee proceedings, but was liable as other citizens for defamatory remarks in the press or elsewhere outside of the legislative body. This state of affairs changed, however, in 198[8] when Congress passed the Westfall Act, which among other things extended existing tort protection for executive branch officials to “officers and employees” of the “the judicial and legislative branches.” As a result of this legislative change (apparently made without much notice or discussion), Members of Congress were made immune from liability for torts committed within the scope of their office or employment. The key question becomes whether an alleged tort was within the scope. The initial decision on this question is made by the Attorney General (which presents some interesting separation of powers questions). The Attorney General’s certification that the Member was acting within the scope constitutes prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence in a judicial proceeding. If the court finds in accordance with the certification, the Member is dismissed as a defendant and the United States is substituted. For defamation and similar torts, this is fatal to the plaintiff’s case because such torts cannot be prosecuted against the United States. One might think [...] that a Member of Congress is not acting within the scope of his or her office when making “false charges” or “defamatory imputations” to the press. The courts, however, have found otherwise, finding that a Member’s communications with the press are generally within the scope of employment. See, e.g. Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States, 147 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1998) (Senator’s remarks to a group of reporters following a campaign fundraiser); Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 1995) (Representative’s interview on a local television station); Chapman v. Rahall, 399 F.Supp.2d 711 (W.D. Va. 2005) (same).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.