Rep. Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for alleged 'Russian asset' smear
Source: CNBC
Clintons false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsis campaign, says the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
The suit claims that Gabbard has suffered actual damages of $50 million and counting from Clintons comments.
Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, in October said in an interview that an unnamed Democratic presidential candidate was the favorite of the Russians.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-for-alleged-russian-smear.html
catrose
(5,071 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)liberal/progressive
the caller was very lucid and erudite (while bullshitting about gabbard with lmbaaugh agreeing) proving the caller had to be a troll, and probably not American!
just find out where the call came from! aaltho just getting lmbaugh's endorsement means she's a russian tool too.
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)samnsara
(17,634 posts)Odoreida
(1,549 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Sorry, but in the context of a national political figure commenting about other national political figures, the courts are not going to weigh in heavily on the entire point of the First Amendment - i.e. the maximum possible protection of political speech - nor are the courts going to become arbiters of political disputes.
The case is a turkey.
lastlib
(23,268 posts)Gabbard holds a public office. So the bar is higher than that for a "public figure" (e.g. an actor or other person generally known to the public). On that basis alone, Gabbard has virtually no case.
Plus, there is the truth defense, which makes Gabbard a loser. But discovery would be interesting!
Squinch
(50,992 posts)So how, exactly, is what Hillary said "slander?"
Or was that meant to be just a baseless dig at the other poster?
MontanaMama
(23,337 posts)having a big sad. Po widdle Tulski...
Me.
(35,454 posts)50 Shades Of Blue
(10,035 posts)hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)Puttie sure hates Hillary, doesn't he?
Good grief. Ridiculous waste of everyone's time and being done only to get Gabbard some attention.
Javaman
(62,532 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)vlad is mad and one of his minions sues HILLARY
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)Poor little wannabe princess. I hope she ends up with a defamation suit against her for all the truly nasty shit she's accused HRC of doing.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)If you don't even mention the person's name?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)rsdsharp
(9,195 posts)currently in the Democratic primary race to be a third party candidate. She did say that person was a favorite of the Russians who would support her with bots, etc. if Jill Stein was willing to give up the position.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This suit will go nowhere.
paleotn
(17,939 posts)also, do us all a favor switch to the R's in a huff over this.
Better yet, just go away please.
chowder66
(9,074 posts)aggiesal
(8,922 posts)She implied, but of course Tulsi knew it was about herself.
Hillary's actual quote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html
Gabbard is going to have a hard time claiming injury since her name was not actually mentioned.
The only public that really know are those of us that follow politics very closely.
The rest of the voting public only understand 3 word bumper stickers.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)This is just a half-assed way for her to stay in the news cycle...
Raster
(20,998 posts)And that is EXACTLY what Tulsi* wants... to stay in the news cycle and appear relevant.
at140
(6,110 posts)either Amy or Elizabeth or Tulsi or Kamala. So no specific name.
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)I have some ideas...
anticipatorially,
Bright
Wuddles440
(1,125 posts)upset about being called a "Russian asset"??!! Hell, it worked for the vermin currently infesting our White House! She should embrace it because the Republican (aka Trump) party just loves those who worship at the alter of Putin and authoritarians of his ilk. Plus her "courageous" votes on impeachment really establishes her street creed with the deplorables. Time for her to come clean and switch parties.
solara
(3,836 posts)What would trumpy do?
christx30
(6,241 posts)from the same cloth. If you cant beat em, sue em.
Response to brooklynite (Original post)
BannonsLiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)What a pair of litigious crybabies...
still_one
(92,366 posts)Gabbard by name, Gabbard appears to be outing herself
I wonder which campaigns will come out supporting this bullshit
DinahMoeHum
(21,806 posts). . .have the opportunity to put a real Democrat in office this November:
https://www.kaikahele.com/
https://www.facebook.com/KaiKahele/
https://twitter.com/kaikahele
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...is an asshole.
RESIST!
delisen
(6,044 posts)The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)when you never were.
Rorey
(8,445 posts)In more ways than one.
calguy
(5,324 posts)Suing anyone who tells the truth about her
Gothmog
(145,487 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)What a freaking joke Tulski is (great nickname, whoever came up with that one).
Stryst
(714 posts)A) How exactly was she going to make $50M that Sec. Clinton prevented her from making?
B) Is she actually insane enough to sue over money that, at best, would be suspect? Call the cops and tell them someone stole your drugs and see how that goes.
C) Does she understand that she basically has NO public credit left, and that this might be putting the last nail in the coffin of her political career?
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)That means, like, you crashed into my car worth $50K on the open market, it was paid for already, therefore I suffered $50K in 'actual damages'.
I believe there are other slightly more tenuous examples that can be called 'actual' like if you were hurt in the accident and lost money cause you couldn't work.
I doubt Tulski can show 'actual damages' to the tune of even $500 due to what Clinton said, let alone $50M.
underpants
(182,868 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,786 posts)Grokenstein
(5,727 posts)could join the suit? /snark
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Gabbard 2020.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)public figures.
Tulsi's just looking for some free publicity.
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)Public figures have a much different standard than your average person when it comes to libel, slander, or defamation because "They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity."
"If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known. "
So, unlike other areas of law, the onus is on the Plaintiff must prove that the statement was false, not on the defendant to prove that it was true.
See: https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/defamation-public-official-vs-private-person/?fbclid=IwAR0w3gh0Cw3vzse7A0-YYIF8Kg6_gUsX3AYOE5kUsLeUAyVcdL1XoPbd87o
So unlike many areas of law, there would need to be proof that the statement was false, but that there was a reckless disregard for the fact that it was false. Since nothing in the statement identified Gabbard by name, it was not made as a statement of fact, but rather as an opinion (thus the "I think" portion of the statement), there is little to support a claim for defamation or slander. This will likely be thrown out on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Aside from the public figure and political speech issues, it is clearly a statement of opinion, and not an assertion of fact in the first place.
At a minimum this suit will be tossed on preliminary motions.
What I would want to research is whether Gabbard's status as an applicant for the ballot makes her a suitable party for NY's Anti-SLAPP law.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Hillary didn't say this unnamed person was being groomed by the Russians; she said the candidate was being groomed by the REPUBLICANS. And there's no question of what she said, because the reporter had the tape.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)14.Motivated by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Tulsi made the decision to dedicate her life to protect the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. She enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard.In 2004, as Tulsi was campaigning for reelection to the State House, the Hawaii National Guards 29th Brigade Combat Teamwas called up to deploy to Iraq. Tulsisname was not on the mandatory deployment roster, but she knew there was no way she could stay behind as her brothers and sisters-in-arms were sent off to war, possibly to never return.So Tulsi left an easy reelection campaign and volunteered to deploythe first of two deployments to the Middle East as a soldier.
----------------
I know that there is a contingent on DU that doesn't seem to believe me on stuff like this, but that's not the kind of bullshit nonsense one puts in a civil complaint if one is doing it for purposes other than using the filing itself as a grandstanding opportunity.
Civil complaints are simply a short and plain statement of facts which, if true, entitle the plaintiff to relief. They are not works of literature. Narrative complaints with lots of adjectives and adverbs are simply silly and childish.
When it reads like a cheap novel or a PR blurb, I usually quit reading them, since complaints in this style are nearly always bullshit in the first place.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)onenote
(42,745 posts)Even weirder that this multi-city firm that actually has some real clients (even if they also happen to have some serious issues being raised about their practices) would do that.
I've been practicing for more than 40 years and I cannot imagine filing a complaint with a federal court that contained such crap.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Hillary Clinton wasn't that clever.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)That is why she will have a hard time in this case.
onenote
(42,745 posts)Someone might know more, but it didn't look like it would be very helpful.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The didn't mention her by name is a weak copout because anyone with a half a brain including her lawyers can tie the statement to her because her spokesperson said if the nesting doll fits.
I don't care who wins or loses the lawsuit as I can't stand either of them but Tulsi Gabbard also isn't President so therefore she can be indicted if she was really a Russian asset.
I wish people would STFU and let law enforcement do its job. Clinton should have gone to the FBI if she was serious.
Hekate
(90,773 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Hekate
(90,773 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,609 posts)I don't see any name mentioned
iluvtennis
(19,868 posts)Hekate
(90,773 posts)3rd Rec
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Where is it? Who supports it?
Asking for millions of voters all across the country.
Wawannabe
(5,676 posts)Supports Gabbard.
See post 41.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But there is a difference between someone declaring a candidacy, and significant numbers of people supporting that candidacy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)what BS!
mahina
(17,693 posts)Jesus Tulsi.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Eugene
(61,938 posts)Of course, Republicans vs Russians is increasingly becoming a distinction without difference.
orangecrush
(19,608 posts)mdbl
(4,973 posts)and shut up and march in lock step with them with no guilt, just like they do.
enid602
(8,643 posts)Which one of Trump's lawyers will be representing Tulsi?
truthisfreedom
(23,152 posts)Who cares? She was a useless candidate. Hillary was right. Case closed.
Response to brooklynite (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)News about them detracts from the presidential contest and the impeachment. We have enough side shows.
Wawannabe
(5,676 posts)Anyone say Noooooones? Moo!
Yeehah
(4,589 posts)with this idiotic lawsuit.